Beveiv see 2 Cor. ii. 14, where, however, it stands, as in the hiphil signification for triumphare facere. Here it is TоμTEÚεv, triπομπεύειν, umphum agere.)

=

Ver. 16.-After this long discussion on the person and work of Christ (vers. 9-15), Paul, connecting his discourse again with ver. 8, returns to the direct combating of the Colossian false teachers. Their Judaizing character stands out here quite unmistakably, inasmuch as Paul calls on his readers not to allow themselves to be intimidated by their demand of a strict fulfilment of the ceremonial ordinances of the Mosaical law. It is questionable, however, whether the Judaists preserved the ordinances of the Old Testament pure, or mixed them with the Rabbino-Talmudical additions. The latter is rendered probable by their entire character. As they practised a rigorous asceticism (ii. 23), they cannot have confined their decisions as to meat and drink to the law of Moses (in which, besides, no ordinance was given in regard to drinks); we may rather suppose that they (like the Roman ascetics), avoided all indulgence in meat and strong drinks (Rom. xiv.) At the root of this ascetic tendency there lay, probably obscurely, the opinion that matter is the cause of evil, which must have led, as a natural consequence, to Docetism. But in the commencement of heresies we do not find the perverted fundamental ideas developed as yet in all their consequences we have, therefore, no right on that account, viz., because they lived ascetically, to suppose Docetism in the Colossian false teachers. The Roman ascetics were no Docetes either. The feasts finally denote here the well-known three great feasts of the Jews, the Passover, Pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles. The new moons were, according to Numb. xxviii. 11-15, solemnized as great and joyful festivals. See details in Winer's Encyclopædia, vol. ii. p. 176, seq. (Kpivav has here, as at Rom. ii. 1, the meaning of a rejecting, condemnatory, judging.-The & v μép εɩ εoprns, instead of the simple v, is difficult. The reading év épa is plainly a mere refuge for the difficult reading uépet, and can make no pretension to recognition. The attempts of earlier interpreters to get its special meaning from that which takes pépoç as segregatio or participatio, are recognized in recent times as untenable. 'Ev pépet is also, in profane writers, used adverbially in the sense, "with respect, with regard to," a sense here perfectly suitable. [Compare the passages in Wetstein and Lösner belonging to this subject.]-The plural oaßBárov is not to be referred to the sabbatical years and the years of jubilee; it is, on the contrary, only a plural form used along with the singular, as Matth. xii. 1; Luke iv. 16, shew. Compare, in the LXX., Ex. xx. 10; Levit. xxiii. 32; Numb. xxviii. 9, 10. Also 1 Macc. ii. 38; Josephus Arch. i. 1, 1.)

Ver. 17.-Those institutions of the Old Testament (a refers to

all that precedes, not to σáßßara merely) are designated as a shadow of things to come (σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, μενόντων is a totally needless conjecture). The antithesis to oká is formed by oua; shadow and substance are opposed to each other; this substance is in Christ and the New Testament which he established. For this, therefore, the shadowy images serve no longer. To imagine in the oua the spiritual body of Christ, the church, was possible only through a total misapprehension of the passage. Still the genitive Xploro has some difficulty in it (the article before the word is, according to the best MSS., to be expunged); we expect the nominative ¿ Xploтós, a reading which is, however, found only in authorities of no importance. But the genitive here denotes property: "the substance is Christ's, i. e., it comes from him, is derived from him." Of course, Christ and his influence on the human race are precisely "the things to come” (tà μÉλλovra), of which the Old Testament, with its symbolical-typical character, forms the shadow. That Christ was already come, and the church already established, at the time that Paul wrote this, can cause no difficulty as regards the choice of the term μéλhovтa, for that is chosen from the point of view of the Old Testament, as seen from which the New Testament was the future. But, as to the more exact import of oxiá, it of course, as antithesis to oua, implies first the idea of the nothingness, unsubstantiality of the shadow, compared with the body which forms it; but, further, also the analogy between shadow and body. The latter, the body, portrays itself accurately in the shadow, which presents an image of the body; thus, too, the Old Testament is a shadow (image) of the New, a μópowols Tñs àλnocías (see at Rom. ii. 20), as symbol and type of Christ, of his works, and of his church. Thus, Heb. viii. 5, the tabernacle is called okià Tv Eпоvрavíшv, and, x. 1, the law is called σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν, with which εἰκὼν τῶν πραγμάτων is contrasted. According to this, it is clear that it cannot possibly have been Paul's meaning that the institution of the Sabbath by Moses is to hold good also in its outward character for the Christian church; this is, like all the rest in the Old Testament, to be reckoned among the okiaì t☎v μeλhóvтwv. According to Rom. xiv. 5, 6, there seems to have been absolutely no particular festival-time in the ancient church; their entire life was one feast in the joy of the Holy Spirit. True, inasmuch as in the outward church of the present the ideal of the church of Christ is only approximately realized, certain regulations and ordinances become a necessity; but a Christian celebration of Sunday is still ever to be distinguished from the slavish service of the Old Covenant. This is well shewn by Rückert, in the essay "Of the Lord's Day," Erlangen, 1839, 8, in opposition to Liebetrut's work, "The Lord's Day and its Celebration."

Ver. 18.-The Colossian false teachers had, however, other considerable errors also, besides their outward adherence to the ordinances of Moses; they pretended to a deeper knowledge of Divine things, which, with an apparent humility, was accompanied by an excessive pride. Against this tendency, which may easily infect nobler minds thirsting after truth and knowledge, Paul gives the most emphatic warning. The word ka¬аßpaßɛve, which the apostle here employs, is not found in the New Testament except here. Jerome thinks he discovers in it a Cilicism peculiar to Paul, but without reason, as Demosthenes, Polybius, and others, use it. BoaBeve is to adjudge the prize of combat (3paßior), therefore, in general, "to determine, decide;" accordingly, karaẞpaßɛver is used KaTakρívεv in the sense of, "to decide against any one," properly, "to deprive him of the prize of victory." The meaning suits here perfectly well, as the μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω here answers to the μÝ TIS Vμãs KρIVéro in ver. 16. Hesychius and Suidas had already μή τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω explained the expression thus with reference to our passage. Since Paul makes use elsewhere too of the figure of the Spaßciov (Phil. iii. 14), after the comparison of the Christian life with the running on the race course, we can here keep to the proper meaning of the word KATаẞρаẞEÚεIV, so that the sense of the words is this: "let no one (by leading you astray to his false doctrines) rob you of your prize," that is, draw you away from Christ, and consequently from your eternal happiness, which rests on him. The four participles which follow describe more accurately the nature of these heretics, and depend therefore, one and all, on undeìç kaтaßрaßeverw. This construction then refutes at once the interpretation which Steiger, among others, has once more defended, in which 06λov is taken adverbially here, in conformity with the well-known Greek use of the word "willingly." For Bähr justly observes that each of the four participles must clearly have its independent meaning, as each has its particular appendage. Besides, no construction gives a natural sense, if 0év is taken adverbially. Connected with what follows, the words would necessarily mean, "willingly walking solemnly in humility and angel-worship." But Steiger himself confesses that it is unsuitable to take ußarevev in the sense "to walk in state," and besides, then the junction of a un Eópakev is but harsh. But neither will 0λov give a suitable sense when connected adverbially with what precedes: "let no one willingly rob you of your prize," gives an incongruous idea. For, even if we turn the words so, "let no one have a pleasure in robbing you of your prize," they involve the

*It has already been observed in the Introduction to this epistle (§ 2, T 2), that these words might be taken as if these false teachers here designated were different from those described in ver. 16; their identity is not expressly asserted, but the analogy of the heretics in the Pastoral Epistles makes their identity still in the highest degree probable.

=

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 062v 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 02wv here Evdokov: "who takes a delight in humility and angel-worship." Oéλev is often found so in Hellenistic usage, with ev following, after the analogy of the Hebrew (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 Tamεoppoσúvn 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, Opŋσκεία τῶν ἀγγέλων, 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 éžovoiai, apxaì, K. T. λ., in what precedes, not of angels, but of human powers. The où кpаTv 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 ¿0ɛ200pŋokeía, 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 our instead of μý, 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 εúpakɛv, which was afterwards expressed at one time by ouk, at another by μn, but scarcely how one could strike out the existing un. For, without a negative, ¿ ¿wpakɛv 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 Ewpákaμev and ¿wpákaтe have but inconsiderable authorities for them, and their origin is also explained by the assumption that & Eúpakev 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 uẞarevev 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 ἐμβατεύειν here answers to the term κενεμβατεύειν, which, however, is read here only by conjecture. It means eiç Tà kɛvà Baívɛiv, 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 a 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, εἰκῆ φυσιούμενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκὸς avrov. Their conceit had not, considering the absurdity of their αὐτῶν. pretended secrets as to the realm of spirits, even a show of truth; they were so conceited, elk, "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 vouç, is itself in those false teachers sunk under the power of the flesh, their vous is become σaрkikóç. (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,