awkwardness of addressing to the heretics the admonition which should, under the scope of the passage, be addressed to the exposed and tempted Colossians. Just as little is there to favour the interpretation which takes 062wv in its usual meaning, so that the sense is this: "as he (the misleader) will designedly deprive you of your crown in false humility and angel-worship." For how the angelworship of others is to contribute to deprive the Christians in Colossæ of their prize, is not to be seen. The only correct method is, certainly, according to Hesychius and Phavorinus, whom most of the interpreters have followed, especially, among the latest, Bähr, Böhmer, and others, to take éλav here = evdokov: "who takes a εὐδοκῶν delight in humility and angel-worship." Oéλev is often found so in Hellenistic usage, with v following, after the analogy of the Hebrew

Y. (See the LXX. at 1 Sam. xviii. 22; 2 Sam. xv. 26; 1 Chron. xxviii. 4; Ps. cxvi 2.) It is clear from the nature of the case that Tamεvoppoσúvn here is a pretended humility; elsewhere the term is used of true humility, as Eph. iv. 2; Phil. ii. 3; 1 Pet. v. 5; and also Col. iii. 12. Here, and at ver. 23, it denotes that simulated humility which appeared in those heretics coupled with conceit and pride. But as to the second phrase, Opn-· okɛía twv dyyéhwv, the more ancient interpretations, which take the genitive subjectively, may be viewed as sufficiently refuted. (See Bähr on this passage, p. 209, seq.) The translation, "worship, which is taught by angels," or "which the angels practise," i. e., worship in angel-like holiness, plainly does not suit the context. Bähr rightly observes that the defenders of this interpretation seem to be compelled to it only by the circumstance that they had interpreted the names ¿žovoíaι, ȧpxaì, K. T. 2., in what precedes, not of angels, but of human powers. The où кратwv tǹv kepaλýv, i. e., Christ (ver. 19), leaves no doubt that the discourse is here of a worship dedicated to the angels, which many of the Gnostic sects practised, and for that purpose clothed themselves with secret names of angels. (See Iren. adv. hær. i. 31, 2, ii. 32, 5; Tertull. de præscr. c. 33. Josephus also relates similar things of the Essenes [B. J. ii. 8, 7.]) This interpretation clears up the union of "false humility' and "angel-worship;" that is to say, the false teachers in the worshipping of angels strove after a false humility in that they thought they dared not venture to approach the supreme God himself; in like manner as the adoration of angels and saints in the Romish church is usually justified. Thus Chrysostom had already observed of this false humility: εἰσί τινες οἱ λέγοντες· οὐ δεῖ διὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ προσάγεσθαι, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων, ἐκεῖνο γὰρ μεῖζον ἢ καθ' ἡμᾶς. (See Böhmer's second excursus after his isagoge.) This self-chosen and invented worship is called afterwards in ver. 23 ¿0ɛ200pŋokɛía, which term also there again appears in conjunction with ταπεινοφροσύνη.

In the words following, ἃ μὴ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύων, the critical authorities vary exceedingly. First of all, F.G. read ouk instead of un, but A.B.D. omit the negative altogether. This latter reading Lachmann has adopted, and it seems, in fact, to deserve the preference; for it is easily understood how people thought they were obliged to add a negative to a έúpakev, which was afterwards expressed at one time by ouk, at another by un, but scarcely how one could strike out the existing un. For, without a negative, a ¿pakev is ironical; it refers to the pretended knowledge of the heavenly world on the part of the heretics which they gave out that they possessed through visions and intuitions. The readings Ewpákauer and é pákaтe have but inconsiderable authorities for them, and their origin is also explained by the assumption that a ¿úpakev was the original reading, which some copyists endeavoured to make intelligible to themselves by referring the contemplation to the apostle or to the readers. The word ¿μßatevev is not found again in the New Testament, but is often found elsewhere in the sense, “to go, intrude, into something," and that, too, both of God, inasmuch as he penetrates the world and the hearts of men, and of men in relation to God and Divine things. (Compare the citations in Bähr on this passage, p. 212, seq.) The meaning, "to go in state, incedere,” which Erasmus ascribes to the word, is founded on a false etymology. In meaning εμβατεύειν here answers to the term κενεμβατεύειν, which, however, is read here only by conjecture. It means eiç Tà kevà ßaívɛiv, i. e., to strive to find out empty things. The words blame, therefore, the pretended possession of profound wisdom of which these false teachers boasted. For the relative å refers to the angels, and to all which is taught concerning them. They thought they had penetrated into the depths of the spiritual world by means of spiritual contemplation, εἰκῇ φυσιούμενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκὸς avrov. Their conceit had not, considering the absurdity of their pretended secrets as to the realm of spirits, even a show of truth; they were so conceited, eikñ, “without ground or reason." (See on pvoιovolaι, 1 Cor. iv. 6, v. 2, viii. 1, and passim.) The combination vous TIS σaρkóç is found only here. The apparently contradictory form of the combination is chosen purposely in order to mark the unnaturalness of their condition of mind. That which should govern the flesh, the vous, is itself in those false teachers sunk under the power of the flesh, their vous is become σарKIкóç. (See my Opusc. Theol., p. 157, note.) For the rest the oaps here is not to be understood of gross fleshliness, for the Colossian false teachers were actually given to a rigorous asceticism (see ver. 23). The term rather marks the entire ungodly tendency of the natural man, even when it exhibits itself in more spiritual forms.

Ver. 19.-Finally, Paul closes the description with the words,

=

" and not holding the head” (καὶ οὐ κρατῶν τὴν κεφαλήν, i. e., Χριστ Tóv). It has already been remarked in the Introduction to this epistle, that où кpaтεiv cannot be understood as implying that the false teachers had not known of Christ at all, nor wished to know of him. Had that been the case, Paul might have spared all his polemics. The parεiv is to be taken here as Karéxev, the metaphor, as is shewn by what follows, being derived from the members of the body, which remain members of the organism only by preserving their living connexion with the head. Those false teachers, therefore, if they do not adhere to Christ, are by that very circumstance separated from his church, and by that from his spirit and life. The heretics in Colossæ wished, it is true, to be Christians; but they placed the angels on a par with the Redeemer, did not consider him as the only way and the truth, and by that course had already pronounced their own sentence-they were apostate members. The succeeding words describe the relation of the whole body, i. e., of the church, to Christ, more in detail. (Paul writes où with reference & to the person of Christ, which is the head.) As to the rest the passage exactly answers to the one already explained at Eph. iv. 16, on which see the Comm.

Vers. 20, 21. To this warning description of the perverseness of those heretics, the fundamental features of whose character fit the sects of all ages, so far as they pursue a similar direction as to knowledge, Paul now annexes an apostrophe which sounds as if the heretics themselves were members of the church, or as if the Christians in Colossæ had already lapsed to the false doctrine altogether. But the remaining contents of the epistle accord with neither of these suppositions. The defenders of that false philosophy (ii. 8) cannot possibly be conceived as to be found in communion with the church; they rather wish to draw the Christians in Colossæ out of that, into their circle. But, again, the laudatory description (ii. 5), and the continuous exhortation (ii. 8, 16, 18) not to let themselves be led astray, do not suit the supposition that the Colossian Christians were led astray. We can therefore in ver. 20 see only a form of representation; "Ye who are dead with Christ to the worldly elements, why do ye again set up worldly ordinances ?" means simply, "ye incline that way; ye are on the point of again setting up worldly ordinances." In order to bring the inconsistency of this proceeding more home to them, Paul represents their apostacy as already accomplished. With reference to the description ii. 11, 12, he assumes that the Colossians, as true believers, are with Christ dead to the world in general, and therefore to the worldly elements also, i. e., to the law in its outward literal mode of conception. (Cf. on ii. 8.) It must therefore appear incongruous if those dead to the world, like those who still live in the world, wish again to set

ap ordinances which are in accordance with the elements of the world. (Ver. 20, on drо0výokεv dró see at Rom. vii. 6; Gal. ii. 19. Ζῶντες ἐν κόσμῳ forms the antithesis to ἀποθανόντες. The discourse, therefore, is not of physical life in the world, but of life in the element of worldliness which forms the antithesis to the element of Christ.-Aoyuario is not found again in the New Testament. It means "to set up an ordinance;" in the middle, "to let an ordinance be imposed on one." But the allowing it to be imposed involves an acknowledgment of the righteousness of the ordinance; consequently, the giving one's self up to error. The choice of the word contains a clear reference to the doyuara in ver. 14. The imperative form μǹ an, K. T. 2., unmistakably expresses the character of the dóyuara.) In ver. 21 the undè yɛvoŋ points back to the laws as to meats, which were spoken of in ver. 16, but the two expressions un avn and undè Oiyns present a difficulty as being synonymous. One of these two expressions might be referred to the touching of corpses and other things which the Mosaical law pronounces unclean, but how then is the other to be taken? It is somewhat plausible to refer (as particularly Böhmer still does), un an to the prohibition of marriage. For aлTEσ0α is used per euphemismum for matrimonial cohabitation. It is so in 1 Cor. vii. 1, and according to 1 Tim. iv. 3 the false teachers in Ephesus, who were akin to those at Colossæ, decidedly forbade marriage. The ascetic tendency of the Colossian false teachers (see ver. 23) also well suits the assumption that they abstained from marriage. But as any certain intimation on that point fails us in this epistle, just as with regard to the docetic tendency, it may be too bold to found on the word an alone a fresh and so important a feature of the heretics in Colossæ. In the passage 1 Tim. iv. 3 Paul designates the opposition to marriage as a devilish doctrine. From this it is scarcely probable that he would have here touched thus merely incidentally on that error. To me it is most probable, as Bähr, too, supposes, that the three synonymous words express together the formal tendency of the false teachers, and their reception of the law in the letter only, looking for holiness in the outward instead of the inward, while the individual prohibitions have not, and were not to have, a definite separate reference to different objects.

Ver. 22. The succeeding words admit of being interpreted in two ways, either as giving the reasons of the false teachers for their ordinances, or as containing condemnatory words of Paul in respect to those worldly ordinances. In either case by a návra are to be understood, not the prohibitions themselves, but the different objects to which the prohibitions of the heretics un an, K. T. 2., refer; but o0opá, in the case of the reference to the false teachers and their defence of their ordinances, is to be interpreted of eternal perdition ;

in the case of the reference to Paul and his argument against the false teachers, of the physical destruction of the prohibited substances. In the former case the meaning of the words would be this, "all which, by the use which is made of them after the commandments and doctrines of men, lead to everlasting perdition, and therefore must be avoided." This interpretation is defended by Storr and Böhmer. With the other interpretations, they must be translated thus: "all which through use are destined to destruction, i. e., which according to God's design are meant to be used," whence it follows, that God's will cannot possibly be that we should avoid them, and that the avoiding these objects is not capable of producing holiness. In this acceptation the words ἅ ἐστι—ἀποχρήσει have a parenthetical character; the words following, viz., katà tà évtáλμaта kaì didaokaλíaç Tŵv ȧvůрúñшv, allow, according to it, of no direct connexion with what immediately precedes, but determine more accurately δογματίζεσθε· μὴ ἅψῃ, κ. τ. λ., in that they designate the δόγ para of the heretics as mere human inventions. For this interpretation Chrysostom, Theodoret, and other fathers of the church, had already declared themselves, afterwards Luther, Grotius, Bähr, Steiger, and others. The decision between these two interpretations is difficult, as many things are in favour of both, and no other is assuredly admissible. For against the explanation of Ambrose, Augustine, and some later interpreters, who refer the a to the dóyμata themselves, with the sense," which commandments, if they are followed, all lead to man's destruction," it is a decisive objection, that dróxpηoiç cannot be taken as fulfilment of the commandments. Or, if in dróxpηos we insist on the meaning "abuse," in opposition to the right use, in the sense, "all these things tend, through the abuse of them, to the destruction of men, but not through the right use of them," we are led into an entirely irrelevant circle of thought. For Paul is not occupied with the question as to where the limit between use and abuse of meats and other outward things passes, but is combating the whole principle of the heretics again to enslave under a new law the faithful released from the old law. There remain to us, therefore, only the two above-given interpretations, which, grammatically viewed, are equally admissible. Still, the context would seem to favour that which finds here confutatory words of Paul, and not defensive utterances of the heretics. For, first, the whole passage is not such as to intimate that Paul wished here to draw attention to the way in which the false teachers defend their opinions. And, secondly, it is unsuitable to consider the words, κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων, according to the commandments and teachings of men, as utterances of the heretics, for then, according to that, the apostles themselves, and all true believers, would be the avoρwñоt here. From the phrase in ii. 8,