ii. 15); but, if so, the omission must date from the earliest age, since

no existing authorities exhibit any traces of such a reading; see the note on ver. 18 ἃ ἑόρακεν, and comp. Phil. ii. 1 εἴ τις σπλάγχνα.

A wholly different interpretation however prevails universally among Greek commentators both here and in Ephes. ii. 15. They take τοῖς δόγμασιν, ἐν δόγμασιν, to mean the ‘doctrines or precepts of the Gospel’, and so to describe the instrument by which the abrogation of the law was effected. So Chrysostom, Severianus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret, followed by the later commentators [OE]cumenius and Theophylact. Strangely enough they do not allude to the correct interpretation; nor (with the exception of the passage ascribed to Irenæus which is quoted above) have I found any distinct traces of it in any Greek father. The grammatical difficulty would be taken to favour this interpretation, which moreover was characteristic of the age when the battle of creeds was fought. But it has been universally abandoned by modern interpreters, as plainly inappropriate to the context and also as severing the substantive δόγμα here from the verb δογματίζειν in ver. 20. The Latin fathers, who had either _decretis_ or _sententiis_ in their version, were saved from this false interpretation; e.g. Hilar. _de Trin._ i. 12 (II. p. 10), ix. 10 (II. p. 265 sq.), Ambros. _Apol. Dav._ 13 (I. p. 698), _de Fid._ iii. 2 (II. p. 499), August. _de Pecc. Mer._ i. 47 (X. p. 26): though they very commonly took τοῖς δόγμασιν, ἐν δόγμασιν, to refer to the decree of condemnation. Jerome however on Ephes. ii. 15 (VII. p. 581) follows the Greeks. The later Christian sense of δόγμα, meaning ‘doctrine’, came from its secondary classical use, where it was applied to the authoritative and categorical ‘sentences’ of the philosophers: comp. Just. Mart. _Apol._ i. 7 (p. 56 D) οἱ ἐν Ἕλλησι τὰ αὐτοῖς ἀρεστὰ δογματίσαντες ἐκ παντὸς τῷ ἑνὶ ὀνόματι φιλοσοφίας προσαγορεύονται, καίπερ τῶν δογμάτων ἐναντίων ὄντων, Cic. _Acad._ ii. 9 ‘de suis decretis quæ philosophi vocant δόγματα’, Senec. _Epist._ xcv. 10 ‘Nulla ars contemplativa sine decretis suis est, quæ Græci vocant _dogmata_, nobis vel _decreta_ licet adpellare vel _scita_ vel _placita_’. See the indices to Plutarch, Epictetus, etc., for illustrations of the use of the term. There is an approach towards the ecclesiastical meaning in Ignat. _Magn._ 13 βεβαιωθῆναι ἐν τοῖς δόγμασιν τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων, Barnab. § 1 τρία οὖν δόγματά ἐστιν Κυρίου (comp. § 9, 10).

II. 14]

δόγμασιν, ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν· καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ

ὃ ἦν κ.τ.λ.] ‘_which was directly opposed to us_’. The former expression, τὸ καθ’ ἡμῶν, referred to the _validity_ of the bond; the present, ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν, describes its _active hostility_. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the first preposition in ὑπεναντίος mitigates its force, as in ὑποδήλωσις, ὑπόλευκος, ὑπομαίνομαι, ὑποσημαίνειν, etc. Neither in classical writers nor in the LXX has the word any shade of this meaning. It is very commonly used for instance, of things which are directly antagonistic and mutually exclusive: e.g. Aristot. _de Gen. et Corr._ i. 7 (p. 323) Δημόκριτος ... φησὶ ... τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ ὅμοιον εἶναι τό τε ποιοῦν καὶ τὸ πάσχον ... ἐοίκασι δὲ οἱ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον λέγοντες ὑπεναντία (i.e. self-contradictory) φαίνεσθαι λέγειν· αἴτιον δὲ τῆς ἐναντιολογίας κ.τ.λ., [Plato] _Alcib. Sec._ 138 C ΣΩ. Τὸ μαίνεσθαι ἆρα ὑπεναντίον σοι δοκεῖ τῷ φρονεῖν; ΑΛ. Πάνυ μὲν οὖν.... 139 B ΣΩ. Καὶ μὴν δύο γε ὑπεναντία ἑνὶ πράγματι πῶς ἂν εἴη; (i.e. how can one thing have two direct opposites?), where the whole argument depends on this sense of ὑπεναντίος. In compounds with ὑπὸ the force of the preposition will generally be determined by the meaning of the other element in the compound; and, as ἐναντίος (ἔναντι) implies locality, a local sense is communicated to ὑπό. Thus ὑπεναντίος may be compared with ὑπαλλάσσειν, ὑπαντᾶν, ὑπαντιάζειν, ὑποτρέχειν (Xen. _Cyrop._ i. 2. 12 ληστὰς ὑποδραμεῖν, ‘to hunt down’), ὑπελάυνειν (Xen. _Anab._ i. 8. 15 ὑπελάσας ὡς συναντῆσαι, ‘riding up’), ὑφιστάναι (Polyb. i. 50. 6 ὑπέστησε τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ναῦν ἀντίπρωρον τοῖς πολεμίοις, ‘he brought up’ his own ship). With this meaning, ‘over against,’ ‘close in upon,’ the preposition does not weaken but enhance the force of ἐναντίος, so that the compound will denote ‘direct,’ ‘close,’ or ‘persistent opposition.’

καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν κ.τ.λ.] ‘_and He_, i.e. Christ, _hath taken it away_’. There is a double change in this clause: (1) The participles (χαρισάμενος, ἐξαλέιψας) are replaced by a finite verb. (2) The aorists (συνεζωοποίησεν, χαρισάμενος, ἐξαλέιψας) are replaced by a perfect. The substitution of ᾖρεν for ἦρκεν in some copies betrays a consciousness on the part of the scribes of the dislocation produced by the new tense. As a new subject, ὁ Χριστός, must be introduced somewhere (see the note on ver. 13), the severance thus created suggests this as the best point of transition. The perfect ἦρκεν, ‘He hath removed it’, is suggested by the feeling of relief and thanksgiving, which rises up in the Apostle’s mind at this point. For the strong expression ἄιρειν ἐκ [τοῦ] μέσου, ‘to remove and put out of sight’, comp. LXX Is. lvii. 2, Epictet. iii. 3. 15, Plut. _Mor._ p. 519 D; so 2 Thess. ii. 7 ἐκ μέσου γένηται.

II. 15]

τοῦ μέσου, προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ· ^{15}ἀπεκδυσάμενος

προσηλώσας κ.τ.λ.] ‘The abrogation was even more emphatic. Not only was the writing erased, but the document itself was torn up and cast aside.’ By προσηλώσας is meant that the law of ordinances was nailed to the cross, rent with Christ’s body, and destroyed with His death: see the notes on Gal. vi. 14 δι’ οὗ [τοῦ] σταυροῦ ἑμοὶ κόσμος (the world, the sphere of material ordinances) ἐσταύρωται κἀγὼ κόσμῳ, where the idea is the same. It has been supposed that in some cities the abrogation of a decree was signified by running a nail through it and hanging it up in public. The image would thus gain force, but there is no distinct evidence of such a custom.

15. ἀπεκδυσάμενος κ.τ.λ.] This word appears not to occur at all before St Paul, and rarely if ever after his time, except in writers who may be supposed to have his language before them; e.g. Hippol. _Hær._ i. 24 ἀπεκδυσάμενον τὸ σῶμα ὃ περικεῖται. In Joseph. _Ant._ vi. 14. 2 ἀπεκδὺς is only a variation for μετεκδὺς which seems to be the correct reading. The word also appears in some texts of Babrius _Fab._ xviii. 3, but it is merely a conjectural emendation. Thus the occurrence of ἀπεκδύεσθαι here and in iii. 9, and of ἀπέκδυσις above in ver. 11, is remarkable; and the choice of an unusual, if not a wholly new, word must have been prompted by the desire to emphasize the _completeness_ of the action. The force of the double compound may be inferred from a passage of Lysias, where the two words ἀποδύεσθαι and ἐκδύεσθαι occur together; _c. Theomn._ i. 10 (p. 117) φάσκων θοιμάτιον ἀποδεδύσθαι ἢ τὸν χιτωνίσκον ἐκδεδύσθαι. Here however the sense of ἀπεκδυσάμενος is difficult. The meaning generally assigned to it, ‘having spoiled, stripped of their arms’, disregards the middle voice. St Jerome is chiefly responsible for this common error of interpretation: for in place of the Old Latin ‘exuens se’, which was grammatically correct, he substituted ‘exspolians’ in his revised version. In his interpretation however he was anticipated by the commentator Hilary, who read ‘exuens’ for ‘exuens se’ in his text. Discarding this sense, as inconsistent with the voice, we have the choice of two interpretations.

(1) The common interpretation of the Latin fathers, ‘_putting off_ the body’, thus separating ἀπεκδυσάμενος from τὰς ἀρχὰς κ.τ.λ. and understanding τὴν σάρκα or τὸ σῶμα with it; comp. 2 Cor. v. 3 ἐνδυσάμενοι. So Novat. _de Trin._ 16 ‘exutus carnem’; Ambros. _Expos. Luc._ v. § 107 (I. p. 1381) ‘exuens se carnem’, comp. _de Fid._ iii. 2 (II. p. 499); Hilar. _de Trin._ i. 13 (II. p. 10) ‘exutus carnem’ (comp. ix. 10, p. 265), x. 48 (p. 355) ‘spolians se carne’ (comp. ix. 11, p. 266); Augustin. _Epist._ 149 (II. p. 513) ‘exuens se carne’, etc. This appears to have been the sense adopted much earlier in a Docetic work quoted by Hippol. _Hær._ viii. 10 ψυχὴ ἐκέινη ἐν τῷ σώματι τραφεῖσα, ἀπεκδυσαμένη τὸ σῶμα καὶ προσηλώσασα πρὸς τὸ ξύλον καὶ θριαμβεύσασα κ.τ.λ. It is so paraphrased likewise in the Peshito Syriac and the Gothic. The reading ἀπεκδυσάμενος τὴν σάρκα καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας (omitting τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ), found in some ancient authorities, must be a corruption from an earlier text, which had inserted the gloss τὴν σάρκα after ἀπεκδυσάμενος, while retaining τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ, and which seems to have been in the hands of some of the Latin fathers already quoted. This interpretation has been connected with a common metaphorical use of ἀποδύεσθαι, signifying ‘to strip’ and so ‘to prepare for a contest’; e.g. Plut. _Mor._ 811 E πρὸς πᾶσαν ἀποδύομενοι τὴν πολιτικὴν πρᾶξιν, Diod. Sic. ii. 29 ἐπὶ φιλοσοφίαν ἀποδύντες. The serious objection to this rendering is, that it introduces an isolated metaphor which is not explained or suggested by anything in the context.

(2) The common interpretation of the Greek fathers; ‘_having stripped off and put away the powers_ of evil’, making ἀπεκδυσάμενος govern τὰς ἀρχὰς κ.τ.λ. So Chrysostom, Severianus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret. This also appears to have been the interpretation of Origen, _in Matt._ xii. § 25 (III. p. 544), _ib._ § 40 (p. 560), _in Ioann._ vi. § 37 (IV. p. 155), _ib._ xx. § 29 (p. 356), though his language is not explicit, and though his translators, e.g. _in Libr. Ies. Hom._ vii. § 3 (II. p. 413), make him say otherwise. The meaning then will be as follows. Christ took upon Himself our human nature with all its temptations (Heb. iv. 15). The powers of evil gathered about Him. Again and again they assailed Him; but each fresh assault ended in a new defeat. In the wilderness He was tempted by Satan; but Satan retired for the time baffled and defeated (Luke iv. 13 ἀπέστη ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ἄχρι καιροῦ). Through the voice of His chief disciple the temptation was renewed, and He was entreated to decline His appointed sufferings and death. Satan was again driven off (Matt. xvi. 23 ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾶ, σκάνδαλον εἶ ἐμοῦ: comp. Matt. viii. 31). Then the last hour came. This was the great crisis of all, when ‘the power of darkness’ made itself felt (Luke xxii. 53 _ἡ ἐξουσία_ τοῦ σκότους; see above i. 13), when the prince of the world asserted his tyranny (Joh. xii. 30 _ὁ ἄρχων_ τοῦ κόσμου). The final act in the conflict began with the agony of Gethsemane; it ended with the cross of Calvary. The victory was complete. The enemy of man was defeated. The powers of evil, which had clung like a Nessus robe about His humanity, were torn off and cast aside for ever. And the victory of mankind is involved in the victory of Christ. In His cross we too are divested of the poisonous clinging garments of temptation and sin and death; τῷ ἀποθέσθαι τὴν θνητότητα, says Theodore, ἣν ὑπὲρ τῆς κοινῆς ἀφεῖλεν εὐεργεσίας, ἀπεδύσατο κἀκείνων (i.e. τῶν ἀντικειμένων δυνάμεων) τὴν αὐθεντείαν ᾗπερ ἐκέχρηντο καθ’ ἡμῶν. For the image of the garments comp. Is. lxiv. 6, but especially Zech. iii. 1 sq., ‘And he showed me Joshua the high-priest standing before the angel of the Lord and _Satan standing at his right hand to resist him_. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan.... Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments.... And He answered and spake unto those that stood before Him saying _Take away the filthy garments_ from him. And unto him He said Behold, _I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee_’. In this prophetic passage the image is used of His type and namesake, the Jesus of the Restoration, not in his own person, but as the high-priest and representative of a guilty but cleansed and forgiven people, with whom he is identified. For the metaphor of ἀπεκδυσάμενος more especially, see Philo _Quod det. pot. ins._ 13 (I. p. 199) ἐξαναστάντες δὲ καὶ διερεισάμενοι τὰς ἐντέχνους αὐτῶν περιπλοκὰς εὐμαρῶς _ἐκδυσόμεθα_, where the image in the context is that of a wrestling bout.

This interpretation is grammatical; it accords with St Paul’s teaching; and it is commended by the parallel uses of the substantive in ver. 11 ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκός, and of the verb in iii. 9 ἀπεκδυσάμενοι τὸν πάλαιον ἄνθρωπον κ.τ.λ. The ἀπέκδυσις accomplished in us when we are baptized into His death is a counterpart to the ἀπέκδυσις which He accomplished by His death. With Him indeed it was only the temptation, with us it is the sin as well as temptation; but otherwise the parallel is complete. In both cases it is a divestiture of the powers of evil, a liberation from the dominion of the flesh. On the other hand the common explanation ‘spoiling’ is not less a violation of St Paul’s usage (iii. 9) than of grammatical rule.

II. 15]

τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας ἐδειγμάτισεν

τὰς ἀρχὰς κ.τ.λ.] What powers are especially meant here will appear from Ephes. vi. 12 πρὸς τὰς ἀρχάς, πρὸς τὰς ἐξουσίας, πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ σκότους τούτου, πρὸς τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας κ.τ.λ. See the note on i. 16.

ἐδειγμάτισεν] ‘_displayed_’, as a victor displays his captives or trophies in a triumphal procession: Hor. _Epist._ i. 17. 33 ‘captos ostendere civibus hostes’. The word is extremely rare; Matt. i. 19 μὴ θέλων αὐτὴν δειγματίσαι (where it ought probably to be read for the more common word παραδειγματίσαι), _Act. Paul. et Petr._ 33 ἔλεγε πρὸς τὸν λαὸν ἵνα μὴ μόνον ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ Σίμωνος ἀπάτης φύγωσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ δειγματίσουσιν αὐτόν. Nowhere does the word convey the idea of ‘making an example’ (παραδειγματίσαι) but signifies simply ‘to display, publish, proclaim’. In the context of the last passage we have as the consequence, ὥστε πάντας τοὺς εὐλαβεῖς ἄνδρας βδελύττεσθαι Σίμωνα τὸν μάγον καὶ ἀνόσιον αὐτὸν _καταγγέλλειν_, i.e. to _proclaim_ his impieties. The substantive occurs on the Rosetta stone l. 30 (Boeckh, _C. I._ 4697) τῶν συντετελεσμένων τὰ πρὸς τὸν δειγματισμὸν διάφορα.

II. 15]

ἐν παρρησίᾳ, θριαμβεύσας αὐτοὺς ἐν αὐτῷ.

ἐν παρρησίᾳ] ‘_boldly_’, not ‘_publicly_’. As παρρησία is ‘unreservedness, plainness of speech’ (παν-ρησία, its opposite being ἀρρησία ‘silence’), so while applied still to language, it may be opposed either (1) to ‘fear’, as John vii. 13, Acts iv. 29, or (2) to ‘ambiguity, reserve’, Joh. xi. 14, xvi. 25, 29; but ‘misgiving, apprehension’ in some form or other seems to be always the correlative idea. Hence, when it is transferred from words to actions, it appears always to retain the idea of ‘confidence, boldness’; e.g. 1 Macc. iv. 18 λήψετε τὰ σκ^υλα μετὰ παρῥησίας, _Test. xii. Patr._ Rub. 4 οὐκ εἶχον παρῥησίαν ἀτενίσαι εἰς πρόσωπον Ἰακώβ, Jos. _Ant._ ix. 1O. 4 ὑπ’ αἰσχύνης τε τοῦ συμβεβηκότος δεινοῦ καὶ τοῦ μηκέτ’ αὐτῷ παρῥησίαν εἶναι. The idea of publicity may sometimes be connected with the word as a secondary notion, e.g. in Joh. vii. 4, where ἐν παρρησίᾳ εἶναι ‘to assume a bold attitude’ is opposed to ἐν κρυπτῷ ποιεῖν (comp. xviii. 20); but it does not displace the primary sense.

II. 16]

^{16}Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει καὶ ἐν πόσει ἢ >

16. ἢ ἐν πόσει.

θριαμβεύσας] ‘_leading them in triumph_’, the same metaphor as in 2 Cor. ii. 14 τῷ πάντοτε θριαμβεύοντι ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ κ.τ.λ., where it is wrongly translated in the A. V. ‘causeth us to triumph’. Here however it is the defeated powers of evil, there the subjugated persons of men, who are led in public, chained to the triumphal car of Christ. This is the proper meaning and construction of θριαμβεύειν, as found elsewhere. This verb takes an accusative (1) of the person over whom the triumph is celebrated, e.g. Plut. _Vit. Arat._ 54 τοῦτον Αἰμίλιος ἐθριάμβευσε, _Thes. et Rom. Comp._ 4 βασιλεῖς ἐθριάμβευσε: (2) of the spoils exhibited in the triumph, e.g. Tatian _c. Græc._ 26 παύσασθε λόγους ἀλλοτρίους θριαμβεύοντες καί, ὥσπερ ὁ κολοιός, οὐκ ἰδίοις ἐπικοσμούμενοι πτεροῖς: (3) more rarely of the substance of the triumph, e.g. _Vit. Camill._ 30 ὁ δὲ Κάμιλλος ἐθριάμβευσε ... τὸν ἀπολωλυίας σωτῆρα πατρίδος γενόμενον, i.e. ‘in the character of his country’s saviour’. The passive θριαμβεύεσθαι is ‘to be led in triumph’, ‘to be triumphed over’, e.g. _Vit. C. Marc._ 35. So the Latins say ‘triumphare aliquem’ and ‘triumphari’.

ἐν αὐτῷ] i.e. τῷ σταυρῷ: comp. Ephes. ii. 16 ἀποκαταλλάξῃ τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους ... διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ. The violence of the metaphor is its justification. The paradox of the crucifixion is thus placed in the strongest light—triumph in helplessness and glory in shame. The convict’s gibbet is the victor’s car.

16–19. ‘Seeing then that the bond is cancelled, that the law of ordinances is repealed, beware of subjecting yourselves to its tyranny again. Suffer no man to call you to account in the matter of eating or drinking, or again of the observance of a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are only shadows thrown in advance, only types of things to come. The substance, the reality, in every case belongs to the Gospel of Christ. The prize is now fairly within your reach. Do not suffer yourselves to be robbed of it by any stratagem of the false teachers. Their religion is an officious humility which displays itself in the worship of angels. They make a parade of their visions, but they are following an empty phantom. They profess humility, but they are puffed up with their vaunted wisdom, which is after all only the mind of the flesh. Meanwhile they have substituted inferior spiritual agencies for the One true Mediator, the Eternal Word. Clinging to these lower intelligences, they have lost their hold of the Head; they have severed their connexion with Him, on whom the whole body depends; from whom it derives its vitality, and to whom it owes its unity, being supplied with nourishment and knit together in one by means of the several joints and attachments, so that it grows with a growth which comes from God Himself.’

16 sq. The two main tendencies of the Colossian heresy are discernible in this warning (vv. 16–19), as they were in the previous statement (vv. 9–15). Here however the order is reversed. The practical error, an excessive ritualism and ascetic rigour, is first dealt with (vv. 16, 17); the theological error, the interposition of angelic mediators, follows after (vv. 18, 19). The first is the substitution of a shadow for the substance; the second is the preference of an inferior member to the head. The reversal of order is owing to the connexion of the paragraphs; the opening subject in the second paragraph being a continuation of the concluding subject in the first, by the figure called chiasm: comp. Gal. iv. 5.

κρινέτω] not ‘_condemn you_’, but ‘_take you to task_’; as e.g. Rom. xiv. 3 sq. The judgment may or may not end in an acquittal; but in any case it is wrong, since these matters ought not to be taken as the basis of a judgment.

ἐν βρώσει κ.τ.λ.] ‘_in eating and in drinking_’; Rom. xiv. 17 οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ βρῶσις καὶ πόσις, ἀλλὰ δικαιοσύνη κ.τ.λ., Heb.