ix. 10 ἐπὶ βρώμασιν καὶ πόμασιν καὶ διαφόροις βαπτισμοῖς, δικαίωματα

σαρκός, comp. 1 Cor. viii. 8 βρῶμα δὲ ἡμᾶς οὐ παραστήσει τῷ Θεῷ κ.τ.λ. The first indication that the Mosaic distinctions of things clean and unclean should be abolished is given by our Lord Himself: Mark vii. 14 sq. (the correct reading in ver. 19 being καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα). They were afterwards formally annulled by the vision which appeared to St Peter: Acts x. 11 sq. The ordinances of the Mosaic law applied almost exclusively to meats. It contained no prohibitions respecting drinks except in a very few cases; e.g. of the priests ministering in the tabernacle (Lev. x. 9), of liquids contained in unclean vessels etc. (Lev. xi. 34, 36), and of Nazarite vows (Num. vi. 3). These directions, taken in connexion with the rigid observances which the later Jews had grafted on them (Matt. xxiii. 24), would be sufficient to explain the expression, when applied to the Mosaic law by itself, as in Heb. _l.c._ The rigour of the Colossian false teachers however, like that of their Jewish prototypes the Essenes, doubtless went far beyond the injunctions of the law. It is probable that they forbad wine and animal food altogether: see the introduction pp. 86, 104 sq. For allusions in St Paul to similar observances not required by the law, see Rom. xiv. 2 ὁ δὲ ἀσθενῶν λάχανα ἐσθίει, ver. 21 καλὸν τὸ μὴ φαγεῖν κρέα μηδὲ πιεῖν οἶνον κ.τ.λ., 1 Tim. iv. 2, 3 κωλυόντων ... ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων ἃ ὁ Θεὸς ἔκτισεν κ.τ.λ., Tit. i. 14 μὴ προσέχοντες ... ἐντολαῖς ἀνθρώπων ... πάντα καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς. The correct reading seems to be _καὶ_ ἐν πόσει, thus connecting together the words between which there is a natural affinity. Comp. Philo _Vit. Moys._ i. § 33 (II. p. 110) δεσποίναις χαλεπαῖς συνεζευγμένου βρώσει καὶ πόσει, Ign. _Trall._ 2 οὐ γὰρ βρωμάτων καὶ ποτῶν εἰσὶν διάκονοι.

II. 17]

ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νεομηνίας ἢ σαββάτων, ^{17}ἅ ἐστιν σκὶα

17 ὅ ἐστιν σκιὰ.

ἐν μέρει] ‘_in the matter of_,’ etc.; comp. 2 Cor. iii. 10, ix. 3 ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ. The expression seems originally to mean ‘in the division or category’, and in classical writers most commonly occurs in connexion with such words as τιθέναι, ποιεῖσθαι, ἀριθμεῖν, etc.: comp. Demosth. _c. Aristocr._ § 148 ὅσα ... στρατίωτης ὢν ἐν σφενδονήτου καὶ ψιλοῦ μέρει ... ἐστράτευται, i.e. ‘in the capacity of.’ Hence it gets to signify more widely, as here, ‘with respect to’, ‘by reason of’: comp. Philo _Quod det. pot. ins._ § 2 (I. p. 192) ἐν μέρει λόγου τοῦ προκόπτοντος κατὰ τὸν πάτερα κοσμοῦνται, _in Flacc._ 20 (II. p. 542) ὅσα ἐν μέρει χάριτος καὶ δωρεᾶς ἔλαβον. But Ælian _V. H._ viii. 3 κρίνοντες ἕκαστον ἐν τῷ μέρει φόνου, quoted by the commentators, is a false parallel: for φόνου is there governed by κρίνοντες and ἐν τῷ μέρει means ‘in his turn’.

ἑορτῆς κ.τ.λ.] The same three words occur together, as an exhaustive enumeration of the sacred times among the Jews, in 1 Chron. xxiii. 31, 2 Chron. ii. 4, xxxi. 3, Ezek. xlv. 17, Hos. ii. 11, Justin _Dial._ 8, p. 226; comp. Is. i. 13, 14. See also Gal. iv. 10 ἡμέρας παρατηρεῖσθε καὶ μῆνας καὶ καιροὺς καὶ ἐνιαυτούς, where the first three words correspond to the three words used here, though the order is reversed. The ἑορτή here, like the καιροί there, refers chiefly to the _annual_ festivals, the passover, pentecost, etc. The νεομηνία here describes more precisely the _monthly_ festival, which is there designated more vaguely as μῆνες. The σάββατα here gives by name the _weekly_ holy-day, which is there indicated more generally by ἡμέραι.

νεομηνίας] See Num. xxviii. 11 sq. The forms νεομηνία and νουμηνία seem to be used indifferently in the common dialect, though the latter is more common. In the Attic νουμηνία alone was held to be correct; see Lobeck _Phryn._ p. 148. On the whole the preference should perhaps be given to νεομηνίας here, as supported by some authorities which are generally trustworthy in matters of orthography, and as being the less usual form in itself.

σαββάτων] ‘_a sabbath-day_’, not, as the A.V., ‘_sabbath days_’; for the coordinated words ἑορτῆς, νεομηνίας, are in the singular. The word σάββατα is derived from the Aramaic (as distinguished from the Hebrew) form שבתא, and accordingly preserves the Aramaic termination in α. Hence it was naturally declined as a plural noun, σάββατα, σαββάτων. The general use of σάββατα, when a single sabbath-day was meant, will appear from such passages as Jos. _Ant._ i. 1. 1 ἄγομεν τὴν ἡμέραν, προσαγορεύοντες αὐτὴν σάββατα, _ib._ iii. 10. 1 ἑβδόμην ἡμέραν ἥτις σάββατα καλεῖται, Plut. _Mor._ 169 C Ἰουδαῖοι σαββάτων ὄντων ἐν ἀγνάμπτοις καθεζόμενοι, _ib._ 671 F οἶμαι δὲ καὶ τὴν τῶν σαββάτων ἑορτὴν μὴ παντάπασιν ἀπροσδίονυσον εἶναι, Hor. _Sat._ i. 9. 69 ‘hodie tricesima sabbata’. In the New Testament σάββατα is only once used distinctly of more than a single day, and there the plurality of meaning is brought out by the attached numeral; Acts xvii. 2 ἐπὶ σάββατα τρία.

On the observance of days and seasons see again Gal. iv. 10, Rom. xiv. 5, 6. A strong anti-Judaic view on the subject is expressed in the _Epist. ad Diogn._ § 4. Origen _c. Cels._ viii. 21, 22, after referring to Thucyd. i. 70 μήτε ἑορτὴν ἄλλο τι ἡγεῖσθαι ἢ τὸ τὰ δέοντα πρᾶξαι, says ὁ τέλειος, ἀεὶ ἐν τοῖς λόγοις ὢν καὶ τοῖς ἔργοις καὶ τοῖς διανοήμασι τοῦ τῇ φύσει κυρίου λόγου Θεοῦ, ἀεί ἐστιν αὐτοῦ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις καὶ ἀεὶ ἄγει κυριακὰς ἡμέρας, and he then goes on to explain what is the παρασκευή, the πάσχα, the πεντεκοστή, of such a man. The observance of sacred times was an integral part of the old dispensation. Under the new they have ceased to have any value, except as a means to an end. The great principle that ‘the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath’, though underlying the Mosaic ordinances, was first distinctly pronounced by our Lord. The setting apart of special days for the service of God is a confession of our imperfect state, an avowal that we cannot or do not devote our whole time to Him. Sabbaths will then ultimately be superseded, when our life becomes one eternal sabbath. Meanwhile the Apostle’s rebuke warns us against attributing to any holy days whatever a meaning and an importance which is alien to the spirit of the New Covenant. Bengel on the text writes, ‘Sabbatum non laudatur, non imperatur; dominica memoratur, non præcipitur. Qui profundius in mundi negotiis hærent, his utilis et necessarius est dies definitus: qui semper sabbatizant, majori libertate gaudent’. Yes: but these last are just they who will most scrupulously restrict their liberty, so as ἀπρόσκοποι γίνεσθαι.

17. Two ideas are prominent in this image. (1) The contrast between the ordinances of the Law and the teaching of the Gospel, as the shadow and the substance respectively; Philo _de Conf. ling._ 37 (I. p. 434) νομίσαντας τὰ μὲν ῤητὰ τῶν χρησμῶν σκιάς τινας ὡσανεὶ _σωμάτων_ εἶναι, Joseph. _B.J._ ii. 2. 5 σκιὰν αἰτησόμενος βασιλείας ἧς ἥρπασεν ἑαυτῷ τὸ σῶμα; comp. Philo _in Flacc._ 19 (II. p. 541) σκιὰ πραγμάτων ἄρ’ ἦσαν, οὐ πράγματα. (2) The conception of the shadow as thrown before the substance (ἡ δὲ σκιὰ προτρέχει τοῦ σώματος, says a Greek commentator), so that the Law was a type and presage of the Gospel; Heb. x. 1 σκιὰν ἔχων ὁ νόμος τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν (comp. viii. 5). Thus it implies both the _unsubstantiality_ and the _supersession_ of the Mosaic ritual.

ἅ] ‘_which things_’, whether distinctions of meats or observances of times. If the other reading ὅ be taken, it will refer to the preceding sentence generally, as if the antecedent were ‘the whole system of ordinances’.

II. 18]

τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ. ^{18}μηδεὶς

τὸ δὲ σῶμα κ.τ.λ.] As the shadow belonged to Moses, so ‘_the substance belongs to Christ_’; i.e. the reality, the antitype, in each case is found in the Christian dispensation. Thus the passover typifies the atoning sacrifice; the unleavened bread, the purity and sincerity of the true believer; the pentecostal feast, the ingathering of the first fruits; the sabbath, the rest of God’s people; etc.

18. The Christian’s career is the contest of the stadium (δρόμος, Acts xx. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 7); Christ is the umpire, the dispenser of the rewards (2 Tim. iv. 8); life eternal is the bay wreath, the victor’s prize (βραβεῖον, 1 Cor. ix. 24, Phil. iii. 14). The Colossians were in a fair way to win this prize; they had entered the lists duly; they were running bravely: but the false teachers, thrusting themselves in the way, attempted to trip them up or otherwise impede them in the race, and thus to rob them of their just reward. For the idea of καταβραβεύετω compare especially Gal. v. 7 ἐτρέχετε καλῶς· τίς ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψεν κ.τ.λ.

II. 18]

ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ καὶ

καταβραβευέτω] ‘_rob of the prize, the_ βραβεῖον’; comp. Demosth. _Mid._ p. 544 (one of the documents) ἐπιστάμεθα Στράτωνα ὑπὸ Μειδίου _καταβραβευθέντα_ καὶ παρὰ πάντα τὰ δίκαια ἀτιμωθέντα, which presents a close parallel to the use of καταβραβεύειν here. See also Eustath. _in Il._ i. 403 sq. (p. 43) καταβραβεύει αὐτόν, ὥς φασιν οἱ πάλαιοι, ib. _Opusc._ 277, etc. The false teachers at Colossæ are not regarded as umpires nor as successful rivals, but simply as persons frustrating those who otherwise would have won the prize. The word καταβραβεύειν is wide enough to include such. The two compounds καταβραβεύειν and παραβραβεύειν (Plut. _Mor._ p. 535 C οἱ παραβραβεύοντες ἐν τοῖς ἀγῶσι) only differ in this respect, that _deprivation_ is the prominent idea in the former word and _trickery_ in the latter. Jerome, _Epist._ cxxi. _ad Algas._ (I. p. 879), sets down this word, which he wrongly interprets ‘bravium accipiat adversum vos’, as one of St Paul’s Cilicisms. The passages quoted (whether the document in the Midias be authentic or not) are sufficient to show that this statement is groundless.

θέλων ἐν] ‘_taking delight in_’, ‘_devoting himself to_’. The expression is common in the LXX, most frequently as a translation of חפץ ב״, 1 Sam.חפץ xviii. 22, 2 Sam. xv. 26, 1 Kings x. 9, 2 Chron. ix. 8, Ps. cxi. 1, cxlvi. 10, but in one passage of רצה ב״, 1 Chron. xxviii. 4. So too _Test. xii. Patr._ Asher 1 ἐὰν οὖν ἡ ψυχὴ θέλῃ ἐν καλῷ. Comp. also 1 Macc. iv. 42 θελητὰς νόμου, and see ἐθελοθρησκεία below. Against this construction no valid objection has been urged. Otherwise θέλων is taken absolutely, and various senses have been assigned to it, such as ‘imperiously’ or ‘designedly’ or ‘wilfully’ or ‘gladly, readily’; but these are either unsupported by usage or inappropriate to the context. Leclerc (_ad loc._) and Bentley (_Crit. Sacr._ p. 59) conjectured θέλγων; Toup (_Emend. in Suid._ II. p. 63) more plausibly ἐλθών; but the passages quoted show that no correction is needed.

ταπεινοφροσύνῃ] Humility is a vice with heathen moralists, but a virtue with Christian Apostles; see the note on Phil. ii. 3. In this passage, which (with ver. 23) forms the sole exception to the general language of the Apostles, the divergence is rather apparent than real. The disparagement is in the accompaniments and not in the word itself. Humility, when it becomes self-conscious, ceases to have any value; and self-consciousness at least, if not affectation, is implied by θέλων ἐν. Moreover the character of the ταπεινοφροσύνη in this case is further defined as θρησκεία τῶν ἀγγέλων, which was altogether a perversion of the truth.

II. 18]

θρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀγγέλων, ἃ ἑόρακεν ἐμβατεύων, εἰκῇ φυσιούμενος

θρησκείᾳ] This word is closely connected with the preceding by the vinculum of the same preposition. There was an officious parade of humility in selecting these lower beings as intercessors, rather than appealing directly to the throne of grace. The word refers properly to the external rites of religion, and so gets to signify an over-scrupulous devotion to external forms; as in Philo _Quod det. pot. ins._ 7 (i. p. 195) θρησκείαν ἀντὶ ὁσίοτητος ἡγούμενος, Plut. _Vit. Alex._ 2 δοκεῖ καὶ τὸ θρησκεύειν ὄνομα ταῖς _κατακόροις_ γενέσθαι καὶ _περιέργοις_ ἱερουργίαις: comp. Acts xxvi. 5, and see the well-known remarks of Coleridge on James i. 26, 27, in _Aids to Reflection_ p. 14. In the LXX θρησκεύειν, θρησκεία, together occur four times (Wisd. xi. 16, xiv. 16, 18, 27), and in all these examples the reference is to idolatrous or false worship. Indeed generally the usage of the word exhibits a tendency to a bad sense.

τῶν ἀγγέλων] For the angelology and angelolatry of these Colossian false teachers, more especially in its connexion with Essene teaching, see the introduction, pp. 89 sq., 101 sq., 110, 181 sq. For the prominence which was given to angelology in the speculations of the Jews generally, see the _Preaching of Peter_ quoted in Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vi. 5 (p. 760) μηδὲ κατὰ Ἰουδαίους σέβεσθε, καὶ γὰρ εκεῖνοι ... οὐκ ἐπίστανται λατρεύοντες ἀγγέλοις καὶ ἀρχαγγέλοις, Celsus in Orig. _c. Cels._ v. 6 (i. p. 580) πρῶτον οὖν τῶν Ἰουδαίων θαυμάζειν ἄξιον, εἰ τὸν μὲν οὐρανὸν καὶ τοὺς ἐν τῷδε ἀγγέλους σέβουσι κ.τ.λ., comp. _ib._ i. 26 (p. 344). From Jews it naturally spread to Judaizing Christians; e.g. _Clem. Hom._ iii. 36 ἀγγέλων ὀνόματα γνωρίζειν, viii. 12 sq., _Test. xii. Patr._ Levi 3 (quoted above on i. 16). The interest however extended to more orthodox circles, as appears from the strange passage in Ignat. _Trall._ 5 μὴ οὐ δύναμαι τὰ ἐπουράνια γράψαι; ... δύναμαι νοεῖν τὰ ἐπουράνια καὶ τὰς τοποθεσίας τὰς ἀγγελικὰς καὶ τὰς συστάσεις τὰς ἀρχοντικάς κ.τ.λ. Of angelology among Gnostic sects see Iren. ii. 30. 6, ii. 32. 5, Orig. _c. Cels._ vi. 30 sq. (I. p. 653), Clem. Alex. _Exc. Theod._ p. 970 sq., _Pistis Sophia_ pp. 2, 19, 23, etc.

ἃ ἑόρακεν κ.τ.λ.] literally ‘_invading what he has seen,_’ which is generally explained to mean ‘parading’ or ‘poring over his visions’. For this sense of ἐμβατεύειν, which takes either a genitive or a dative or an accusative, comp. Philo _de Plant. Noe_ ii. 19 (i. p. 341) οἱ προσωτέρω χωροῦντες τῶν ἐπιστημῶν καὶ ἐπὶ πλέον ἐμβατεύοντες αὐταῖς, 2 Macc. ii. 30 τὸ μὲν ἐμβατεύειν καί περὶ πάντων ποιεῖσθαι λόγον καὶ πολυπραγμονεῖν ἐν τοῖς κατὰ μέρος. At a later date this sense becomes common, e.g. Nemesius _de Nat. Hom._ p. 64 (ed. Matthæi) οὐρανὸν ἐμβατεύει τῇ θεωρίᾳ. In Xen. _Symp._ iv. 27 ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ βιβλίῷ ἀμφότεροι ἐμβατεύετέ τι, the reading may be doubtful. But though ἃ ἑόρακεν singly might mean ‘his visions’, and ἐμβατεύων ‘busying himself with’, the combination ‘invading what he has seen’, thus interpreted, is so harsh and incongruous as to be hardly possible; and there was perhaps some corruption in the text prior to all existing authorities (see the note on Phil. ii. 1 for a parallel case). Did the Apostle write )έωρᾳ (or αἴωρᾳ) κενεμβατεύων? In this case the existing text ==αεωρακενεμ βατευων== might be explained partly by an attempt to correct the form )εώρᾳ into αἰώρᾳ or conversely, and partly by the perplexity of transcribers when confronted with such unusual words. This reading had suggested itself to me independently without the knowledge that, so far as regards the latter word, it had been anticipated by others in the conjecture ἃ ἑώρα (or ἃ ἑώρακεν) κενεμβατεύων. The word κενεμβατεῖν ‘to walk on emptiness’, ‘to tread the air’, and so metaphorically (like αἐροβατεῖν, αἰθεροβατεῖν, αἰθερεμβατεῖν, etc.) ‘to indulge in vain speculations’, is not an uncommon word. For its metaphorical sense especially see Plut. _Mor._ p. 336 F οὕτως ἐρέμβετο κενεμβατοῦν καὶ σφαλλόμενον ὑπ’ ἀναρχίας τὸ μέγεθος αὐτῆς, Basil. _Op._ I. p. 135 τὸν νοῦν ... μυρία πλανηθέντα καὶ πολλὰ κενεμβατήσαντα κ.τ.λ., _ib._ I. p. 596 σοῦ δὲ μὴ κενεμβατέιτω ὁ νοῦς, Synes. _de Insomn._ p. 156 οὔτε γὰρ κενεμβατοῦντας τοὺς λόγους ἐξήνεγκαν. Though the precise form κενεμβατεύειν does not occur, yet it is unobjectionable in itself. For the other word which I have ventured to suggest, ἐώρᾳ or αἰώρᾳ, see Philo _de Somn._ ii. 6 (I. p. 665) _ὑποτυφούμενος_ ὑπ’ αἰώρας φρενῶν καὶ _κενοῦ_ φυσήματος, _ib._ § 9 (p. 667) τὴν ἐπ’ _αἰώρας_ φορουμένην _κενὴν_ δόξαν, _Quod Deus immut._ § 36 (I. p. 298) ὡσπερ ἐπ’ αἰώρας τινὸς ψευδοῦς καὶ ἀβεβαίου δόξης φορεῖσθαι _κατὰ κενοῦ βαίνοντα_. The first and last passages more especially present striking parallels, and show how germane to St Paul’s subject these ideas of ‘suspension or balancing in the air’ (ἐώρα or αἰώρα) and ‘treading the void’ (κενεμβατεύειν) would be, as expressing at once the spiritual pride and the emptiness of these speculative mystics; see also _de Somn._ ii. 2 (p. 661) ἐμφαίνεται καὶ τὸ τῆς _κενῆς_ δόξης, ἐφ’ ἣν, ὡς ἐφ’ ἅρμα, διὰ τὸ κοῦφον _ἀναβαίνει, φυσώμενος_ καὶ μετέωρον _ᾐωρηκὼς_ ἑαυτόν. The substantive, ἐώρα or αἰώρα, is used sometimes of the instrument for suspending, sometimes of the position of suspension. In this last sense it describes the poising of a bird, the floating of a boat on the waters, the balancing on a rope, and the like. Hence its expressiveness when used as a metaphor.

In the received text a negative is inserted, ἃ μὴ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύων. This gives a very adequate sense ‘_intruding into those things which he has not seen_’; οὐ γὰρ εἶδεν ἀγγέλους, says Chrysostom, καὶ οὕτω διάκειται ὡς ἰδών: comp. Ezek. xiii. 3 οὐὰι τοῖς προφητεύουσιν ἀπὸ καρδίας αὐτῶν καὶ τὸ καθόλου μὴ βλέπουσιν. But, though the difficulty is thus overcome, this cannot be regarded as the original reading of the text, the authorities showing that the negative was an after insertion. See the detached note on various readings.

For the form ἑόρακεν, which is better supported here than ἑώρακεν, see the note on ii. 1.

II. 19]

ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, ^{19}καὶ οὐ

εἰκῇ φυσιούμενος] ‘_vainly puffed up_.’ Their profession of humility was a cloke for excessive pride: for, as St Paul says elsewhere (1 Cor. viii. 1), ἡ γνῶσις φυσιοῖ. It may be questioned whether εἰκῇ should be connected with the preceding or the following words. Its usual position in St Paul, before the words which it qualifies (Rom. xiii. 4, 1 Cor. xv. 2, Gal. iv. 11; there is an exceptional reason for the exceptional position in Gal. iii. 4), points to the latter construction.

τοῦ νοὸς κ.τ.λ.] ‘_the mind of his flesh_’, i.e. unenlightened by the Spirit; comp. Rom. viii. 7 τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός. It would seem that the Apostle is here taking up some watchword of the false teachers. They doubtless boasted that they were directed ὑπὸ τοῦ νόος. Yes, he answers, but it is ὁ νοῦς τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν. Compare Rev. ii. 24, where the favourite Gnostic boast γινώσκειν τὰ βαθέα is characterized by the addition of τοῦ Σατανᾶ (see _Galatians_ p. 298 note 3). Comp. August. _Conf._ x. 67 ‘Quem invenirem qui me reconciliaret tibi? Ambiendum mihi fuit ad angelos? Qua prece? quibus sacramentis? Multi conantes ad te redire, neque per se ipsos valentes, sicut audio, tentaverunt hæc et inciderunt in desiderium curiosarum visionum et digni habiti sunt illusionibus. Elati enim te quærebant doctrinæ fastu, etc.’

19. οὐ κρατῶν] ‘_not holding fast_.’ This is the most common construction and meaning of κρατεῖν in the New Testament; e.g. Mark vii. 8 _ἀφέντες_ τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ _κρατεῖτε_ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων; comp. Cant. iii. 4 ἑῦρον ὃν ἠγάπησεν ἡ ψυχή μου, ἐκράτησα αὐτὸν καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκα αὐτόν.

II. 19]

κρατῶν τὴν κεφαλήν, ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν

τὴν κεφαλήν] ‘_the Head_’ regarded as a title, so that a person is at once suggested, and the relative which follows is masculine, ἐξ οὗ; comp. the parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 16 ὅς ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλή, Χριστὸς ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα κ.τ.λ. The supplication and worship of angels is a substitution of inferior members for the Head, which is the only source of spiritual life and energy. See the introduction pp. 34, 78, 101 sq., 181 sq.

διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν κ.τ.λ.] ‘_through the junctures and ligaments_.’ Galen, when describing the structure of the human frame, more than once specifies the elements of union as twofold: the body owes its compactness partly to the _articulation_, partly to the _attachment_; e.g. _Op._ II. p. 734 (ed. Kühn) ἔστι δὲ ὁ τρόπος τῆς συνθέσεως αὐτῶν διττὸς κατὰ γένος, ὁ μὲν ἕτερος κατὰ _ἄρθρον_, ὁ δὲ ἕτερος κατὰ _σύμφυσιν_. Similarly, though with a more general reference, Aristotle speaks of two kinds of union, which he describes as ἁφή ‘contact’ and σύμφυσις ‘cohesion’ respectively; _Metaph._ iv. 4 (p. 1014) διαφέρει δὲ _σύμφυσις ἁφῆς_· ἕνθα μὲν γὰρ οὐθὲν παρὰ τὴν ἁφὴν ἕτερον ἀνάγκη εἶναι, ἐν δὲ τοῖς συμπεφύκοσιν ἐστί τι ἓν τὸ αὐτὸ ἐν ἀμφοῖν ὃ ποιεῖ ἀντὶ τοῦ ἅπτεσθαι συμπεφυκέναι καὶ εἶναι ἓν κ.τ.λ., _Phys. Ausc._ iv. 6 (p. 213) τούτοις ἁφή ἐστιν· σύμφυσις δέ, ὅταν ἄμφω ἐνεργείᾳ ἓν γένωνται (comp. _ib._ v. 3, p. 227), _Metaph._ x. 3 (p. 1071) ὅσα ἐστιν ἁφῇ καὶ μὴ συμφύσει. The relation of contiguous surfaces and the connexion of different parts together effect structural unity. This same distinction appears in the Apostle’s language here. Contact and attachment are the primary ideas in ἁφαί and σύνδεσμοι respectively.

Of the function of ἁφή, ‘contact’, in physiology (περὶ ἁφῆς τῆς ἐν τοῖς φυσικοῖς) Aristotle speaks at some length in one passage, _de Gen. et Corr._ i. 6 (p. 322 sq.). It may be mentioned, as illustrating St Paul’s image, that Aristotle in this passage lays great stress on the mutual sympathy and influence of the parts in contact, describing them as παθητικὰ καὶ ποιητικά and as κινητικὰ καὶ κινητὰ ὑπ’ ἀλληλῶν. Elsewhere, like St Paul here, he uses the plural αἱ ἁφαί; _de Cælo_ i. 11 (p. 280) τὸ ἄνευ φθορᾶς ὁτὲ μὲν ὂν ὁτὲ δὲ μὴ ὄν, οἷον τὰς ἁφάς, ὅτι ἄνευ τοῦ φθείρεσθαι πρότερον οὖσαι ὕστερον οὐκ εἰσίν, _de Gen. et Corr._ i. 8 (p. 326) ὄυτε γὰρ _κατὰ τὰς ἁφὰς_ ἐνδέχεται διιέναι διὰ τῶν διαφανῶν ὄυτε διὰ τῶν _πόρων_, _ib._ § 9 (p. 327) εἰ γὰρ διακρίνεσθαι δύναται

II. 19]

καὶ συνδέσμων ἐπιχορηγούμενον καὶ συνβιβαζόμενον

κατὰ τὰς _ἁφάς_, ὥσπερ φασί τινες, κἂν μήπω ᾖ διηρημένον, ἔσται διηρημένον· δυνατὸν γὰρ διαιρεθῆναι: comp. [Plat.] _Axioch._ p. 365 A συνειλεγμένον τὰς ἁφὰς καὶ τῷ σώματι ῥωμαλέον. It is quite clear from these passages of Aristotle, more especially from the distinction of ἁφαί and πόροι, that αἱ ἁφαί are the joinings, the junctures. When applied to the human body they would be ‘joints,’ provided that we use the word accurately of the relations between contiguous limbs, and not loosely (as it is often used) of the parts of the limbs themselves in the neighbourhood of the contact. Hippocrates indeed used ἁφαί as a physiological term in a different sense, employing it as a synonyme for ἅμματα i.e. the fasciculi of muscles (see Galen _Op._ XIX. p. 87), but this use was quite exceptional and can have no place here. Thus αἱ ἁφαί will be almost a synonyme for τὰ ἄρθρα, differing however (1) as being more wide and comprehensive, and (2) as not emphasizing so strongly the _adaptation_ of the contiguous parts.

The considerations just urged seem decisive as to the meaning of the word. Some eminent modern critics however explain αἱ ἁφαί to be ‘the senses’, following Theodoret on Ephes. iv. 16 ἁφὴν δὲ τὴν ἄισθησιν προσηγόρευσεν, ἐπειδὴ καὶ αὕτη μία τῶν πέντε αἰσθήσεων, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ μέρους τὸ πᾶν ὠνόμασε. St Chrysostom had led the way to this interpretation, though his language is less explicit than Theodoret’s. To such a meaning however there are fatal objections. (1) This sense of ἁφή is wholly unsupported. It is true that touch lies at the root of all sensations, and that this fact was recognised by ancient physiologists: e.g. Aristot. _de Anim._ i. 13 (p. 435) ἄνευ μὲν γὰρ ἁφῆς οὐδεμίαν ἐνδέχεται ἄλλην ἄισθησιν ἔχειν. But here the connexion ends; and unless more cogent examples not hitherto adduced are forthcoming, we are justified in saying that αἱ ἁφαί could no more be used for αἱ αἰσθήσεις, than in English ‘the touches’ could be taken as a synonyme for ‘the senses.’ (2) The image would be seriously marred by such a meaning. The ἁφαί and σύνδεσμοι would no longer be an exhaustive description of the elements of union in the anatomical structure; the conjunction of things so incongruous under the vinculum of the same article and preposition, _διὰ τῶν_ ἁφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων, would be unnatural; and the intrusion of the ‘senses’ would be out of place, where the result specified is the supply of nourishment (ἐπιχορηγούμενον) and the compacting of the parts (συμβιβαζόμενον). (3) All the oldest versions, the Latin, the Syriac, and the Memphitic, explain it otherwise, so as to refer in some way to the connexion of the parts of the body; e.g. in the Old Latin it is rendered _nexus_ here and _junctura_ in Ephes. iv. 16.

συνδέσμων] ‘_bands_,’ ‘_ligaments_.’ The Greek σύνδεσμος, like the English ‘ligament,’ has a general and a special sense. In its general and comprehensive meaning it denotes any of the connecting bands which strap the body together, such as muscles or tendons or ligaments properly so called; in its special and restricted use it is a ‘ligament’ in the technical sense; comp. Galen _Op._ IV. p. 369 σύνδεσμος γάρ ἐστιν, ὁ γοῦν ἰδίως, οὐ κοινῶς ὀνομαζόμενος, σῶμα νευρῶδες ἐξ ὀστοῦ μὲν ὁρμώμενον πάντως διαπεφυκὸς δὲ ἢ εἰς ὀστοῦν ἢ εἰς μῦν. Of the σύνδεσμοι or ligaments properly so called Galen describes at length the several functions and uses, more especially as binding and holding together the διαρθρώσεις; _Op._ I. 236, II. 268, 739, III. 149, IV. 2, etc., comp. Tim. Locr. _de An. Mund._ p. 557 συνδέσμοις ποττὰν κίνασιν τοῖς νεύροις συνᾶψε τὰ ἄρθρα (_Opusc. Mythol._ etc. ed. Gale). In our text indeed σύνδεσμοι must be taken in its comprehensive sense; but the relation of the ἁφαί to the σύνδεσμοι in St Paul still remains the same as that of the διαρθρώσεις to the σύνδεσμοι in Galen.

ἐπιχορηγούμενον κ.τ.λ.] The two functions performed by the ἁφαί and σύνδεσμοι are _first_ the supply of nutriment etc. (ἐπιχορηγούμενον), and _secondly_ the compacting of the frame (συνβιβαζόμενον). In other words they are the communication of life and energy, and the preservation of unity and order. The _source_ of all (ἐξ οὗ) is Christ Himself the Head; but the _channels_ of communication (διὰ τῶν κ.τ.λ.) are the different members of His body, in their relation one to another. For ἐπιχορηγούμενον ‘bountifully furnished’ see the note on Gal. iii. 5. Somewhat similarly Aristotle speaks of σῶμα κάλλιστα πεφυκὸς καὶ κεχορηγημένον, _Pol._ iv. 1 (p. 1288). For examples of χορηγία applied to functions of the bodily organs, see Galen _Op._ III. p. 617 ἐν ταῖς εἰσπνοαῖς χορηγίᾳ ψυχρᾶς ποίοτητος, Alex. _Probl._ i. 81 τὸ πλεῖστον τῆς τροφῆς ἐξυδαρούμενον χορηγεῖται πρὸς γένεσιν τοῦ πάθους. For συνβιβαζόμενον, ‘joined together, compacted’, see the note on ii. 2. In the parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 16, this part of the image is more distinctly emphasized, συναρμολούμενον καὶ συνβιβαζόμενον. The difference corresponds to the different aims of the two epistles. In the Colossian letter the vital connexion with the Head is the main theme; in the Ephesian, the unity in diversity among the members.

II. 20]

αὔξει τὴν αὔυξησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. ^{20}εἰ ἀπεθάνετε σὺν Χριστῷ

αὔξει τὴν αὕξησιν κ.τ.λ.] By the two-fold means of contact and attachment nutriment has been diffused and structural unity has been attained, but these are not the ultimate result; they are only intermediate processes; the end is _growth_. Comp. Arist. _Metaph._ iv. 4 (p. 1014) _αὔξησιν ἔχειδ’_ ἑτέρου τῷ _ἅπτεσθαι_ καὶ _συμπεφυκέναι_ ... διαφέρει δὲ σύμφυσις ἁφῆς, where growth is attributed to the same two physiological conditions as here.

τοῦ Θεοῦ] i.e. ‘which partakes of God, which belongs to God, which has its abode in God.’ Thus the finite is truly united with the Infinite; the end which the false teachers strove in vain to compass is attained; the Gospel vindicates itself as the true theanthropism, after which the human heart is yearning and the human intellect is feeling. See above p. 183 sq. With this conclusion of the sentence contrast the parallel passage Ephes. iv. 16 τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ σώματος _ποιεῖται εἰς οἰκοδομὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἐν ἀγάπῃ_, where again the different endings are determined by the different motives of the two epistles.

The discoveries of modern physiology have invested the Apostle’s language with far greater distinctness and force than it can have worn to his own contemporaries. Any exposition of the nervous system more especially reads like a commentary on his image of the relations between the body and the head. At every turn we meet with some fresh illustration which kindles it with a flood of light. The volition communicated from the brain to the limbs, the sensations of the extremities telegraphed back to the brain, the absolute mutual sympathy between the head and the members, the instantaneous paralysis ensuing on the interruption of continuity, all these add to the completeness and life of the image. But the following passages will show how even ancient scientific speculation was feeling after those physiological truths which the image involves; Hippocr. _de Morb. Sacr._ p. 309 (ed Foese) κατὰ ταῦτα νομίζω τὸν ἐγκέφαλον δύναμιν πλείστην ἔχειν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ... οἱ δὲ ὀφθαλμοὶ καὶ τὰ οὔατα καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες καὶ οἱ πόδες, οἷα ἂν ὁ ἐγκέφαλος γινώσκῃ, τοιαῦτα ὑπηρετοῦσι ... ἐς δὲ τὴν σύνεσιν ὁ _ἐγκέφαλος_ ἐστὶν ὁ διαγγέλλων ... διότι φημὶ τὸν ἐγκέφαλον εἶναι τὸν ἑρμηνεύοντα τὴν σύνεσιν, αἱ δὲ _φρένες_ ἄλλως ὄνομα ἔχουσι τῇ τύχῃ κεκτημένον ... λέγουσι δέ τινες ὡς φρονέομεν τῇ _καρδίῃ_ καὶ τὸ ἀνίωμενον τοῦτο ἐστι καὶ τὸ φροντίζον· τὸ δὲ οὐχ οὕτως ἔχει ... τῆς ... φρονήσιος οὐδετέρῳ μέτεστιν ἀλλὰ πάντων τουτέων ὁ ἐγκέφαλος αἴτιός ἐστιν ... πρῶτος αἰσθάνεται ὁ ἐγκέφαλος τῶν ἐν τῷ σώματι ἐνεόντων (where the theory is mixed up with some curious physiological speculations), Galen _Op._ I. 235 αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ ἐγκέφαλος ὅτι μὲν ἀρχὴ τοῖς νεύροις ἅπασι τῆς δυνάμεώς ἐστιν, ἐναργῶς ἐμάθομεν ... πότερον δὲ ὡς αὐτὸς τοῖς νεύροις, οὕτω ἐκέινῳ πάλιν ἕτερόν τι μόριον ἐπιπέμπει, ἢ πηγή τις αὐτῶν ἐστίν, ἔτ’ ἄδηλον, _ib._ IV. p. 11 ἀρχὴ μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν (i.e. τῶν νεύρων) ὁ ἐγκέφαλός ἐστι, καὶ τὰ πάθη εἰς αὐτὸν φέρει, οἷον εἰς ἄρουράν τινα τῆς λογιστικῆς ψυχῆς· ἔκφυσις δ’ ἐντεῦθεν, οἷον πρέμνου τινὸς εἰς δένδρον ἀνήκοντος μέγα, ὁ νωτιαῖός ἐστι μυελὸς ... σύμπαν δ’ οὕτω τὸ σῶμα μεταλαμβάνει δι’ αὐτῶν πρώτης μὲν καὶ μάλιστα κινήσεως, ἐπὶ τάυτῃ δ’ αἰσθήσεως, XIV. p. 313 hάυτη γὰρ (i.e. ἡ κεφαλή) καθάπερ τις ἀκρόπολίς ἐστι τοῦ σώματος καὶ τῶν τιμιωτάτων καὶ ἀναγκαιοτάτων ἀνθρώποις αἰσθήσεων οἰκητήριον. Plato had made the head the central organ of the reason (_Tim._ 69 sq.: see Grote’s _Plato_ III. pp. 272, 287, _Aristotle_ II. p. 179 sq.), if indeed the speculations of the Timæus may be regarded as giving his serious physiological views; but he had postulated other centres of the emotions and appetites, the heart and the abdomen. Aristotle, while rightly refusing to localize the mind as mind, had taken a retrograde step physiologically, when he transferred the centre of sensation from the brain to the heart; e.g. _de Part. Anim._ ii. 10 (p. 656). Galen, criticizing his predecessors, says of Aristotle δῆλός ἐστι κατεγνωκὼς μὲν αὐτοῦ (i.e. τοῦ ἐγκεφάλοὐ τελέαν ἀχρηστίαν, φανερῶς δ’ ὁμολογεῖν αἰδούμενος (_Op._ III. p. 625). The Stoics however (Ζήνων καὶ Χρύσιππος ἅμα τῷ σφετέρῳ χορῷ παντί) were even worse offenders; and in reply to them more especially Galen elsewhere discusses the question πότερον ἐγκέφαλος ἢ καρδία τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔχει, _Op._ V. p. 213 sq. Bearing in mind all this diversity of opinion among ancient physiologists, we cannot fail to be struck in the text not only with the correctness of the image but also with the propriety of the terms; and we are forcibly reminded that among the Apostle’s most intimate companions at this time was one whom he calls ‘the beloved physician’ (iv. 14).

20–23. ‘You died with Christ to your old life. All mundane relations have ceased for you. Why then do you—you who have attained your spiritual manhood—submit still to the rudimentary discipline of children? Why do you—you who are citizens of heaven—bow your necks afresh to the tyranny of material ordinances, as though you were still living in the world? It is the same old story again; the same round of hard, meaningless, vexatious prohibitions, ‘Handle not,’ ‘Taste not,’ ‘Touch not.’ What folly! When all these things—these meats and drinks and the like—are earthly, perishable, wholly trivial and unimportant! They are used, and there is an end of them. What is this, but to draw down upon yourselves the denunciations uttered by the prophet of old? What is this but to abandon God’s word for precepts which are issued by human authority and inculcated by human teachers? All such things have a show of wisdom, I grant. There is an officious parade of religious devotion, an eager affectation of humility; there is a stern ascetic rigour, which ill-treats the body; but there is nothing of any real value to check indulgence of the flesh.’

20. From the theological tenets of the false teachers the Apostle turns to the ethical—from the objects of their worship to the principles of their conduct. The baptism into Christ, he argues, is death to the world. The Christian has passed away to another sphere of existence. Mundane ordinances have ceased to have any value for him, because his mundane life has ended. They belong to the category of the perishable; he has been translated to the region of the eternal. It is therefore a denial of his Christianity to subject himself again to their tyranny, to return once more to the dominion of the world. See again the note on iii. 1.

εἰ ἀπεθάνετε] ‘_if ye died_, when ye were baptized into Christ.’ For this connexion between baptism and death see the notes on ii. 11, iii. 3. This death has many aspects in St Paul’s teaching. It is not only a dying _with_ Christ, 2 Tim. ii. 11 εἰ γὰρ συναπεθάνομεν; but it is also a dying to or from something. This is sometimes represented as _sin_, Rom. vi. 2 ὁίτινες ἀπεθάνομεν τῇ _ἁμαρτίᾳ_ (comp. vv. 7, 8); sometimes as _self_, 2 Cor. v. 14, 15 ἄρα οἱ πάντες ἀπέθανον ... ἵνα οἱ ζῶντες μήκετι _ἑαυτοῖς_ ζῶσιν; sometimes as the _law_, Rom. vii. 6 κατηργήθημεν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου ἀποθανόντες, Gal. ii. 19 διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον; sometimes still more widely as the _world_, regarded as the sphere of all material rules and all mundane interests, so here and iii. 3 ἀπεθάνετε γάρ. In all cases St Paul uses the aorist ἀπέθανον, never the perfect τέθνηκα; for he wishes to emphasize the one absolute _crisis_, which was marked by the change of changes. When the aorist is wanted, the compound verb ἀποθνήσκειν is used; when the perfect, the simple verb θήσκειν; see Buttmann _Ausf. Gramm._ § 114. This rule holds universally in the Greek Testament.

II. 20]

ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχέιων τοῦ κόσμου, τί ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσμῳ

ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείων κ.τ.λ.] i.e. ‘from the rudimentary, disciplinary, ordinances, whose sphere is the mundane and sensuous’: see the note on ver. 8. For the pregnant expression ἀποθανεῖν ἀπὸ comp. Gal. v. 4 κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ (so too Rom. vii. 2, 6), 2 Cor. xi. 3 φθαρῇ ... ἀπὸ τῆς ἁπλότητος, and see A. Buttmann p. 277 note.

II. 21, 22]

δογματίζεσθε; ^{21}Μὴ ἅψῃ μηδὲ γεύσῃ μηδὲ θίγῃς ^{22}ἅ

δογματίζεσθε] ‘_are ye overridden with precepts, ordinances_.’ In the LXX the verb δογματίζειν is used several times, meaning ‘to issue a decree,’ Esth. iii. 9, 1 Esdr. vi. 33, 2 Macc. x. 8, xv. 36, 3 Macc. iv. 11. Elsewhere it is applied most commonly to the precepts of philosophers; e.g. Justin _Apol._ i. 7 οἱ ἐν Ἕλλησι τὰ αὐτοῖς ἀρεστὰ _δογματίσαντες_ ἐκ παντὸς τῷ ἑνὶ ὀνόματι _φιλοσοφίας_ προσαγορεύονται (comp. § 4), Epict. iii. 7. 17 sq. εἰ θέλεις εἶναι φιλόσοφος ... δογματίζων τὰ αἰσχρά. Here it would include alike the δόγματα of the Mosaic law (ver. 14) and the δόγματα of the ‘philosophy’ denounced above (ver. 8). Both are condemned; the one as superseded though once authoritative, the other as wholly vexatious and unwarrantable. Examples are given in the following verse, μὴ ἅψῃ κ.τ.λ. For the construction here, where the more remote object, which would stand in the dative with the active voice (2 Macc. x. 8 ἐδογμάτισαν ... τῷ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἔθνει), becomes the nominative of the passive, compare χρηματίζεσθαι Matt. ii. 12, 22, διακονεῖσθαι Mark x. 45, and see Winer § xxxix. p. 326, A. Buttmann p. 163, Kühner § 378, II. p. 109.

21. Μὴ ἅψῃ κ.τ.λ.] The Apostle disparagingly repeats the prohibitions of the false teachers in their own words, ‘Handle not, neither taste, neither touch.’ The rabbinical passages quoted in Schöttgen show how exactly St Paul’s language reproduces, not only the spirit, but even the form, of these injunctions. The Latin commentators, Hilary and Pelagius, suppose these prohibitions to be the Apostle’s own, thus making a complete shipwreck of the sense. So too St Ambrose _de Noe et Arca_ 25 (I. p. 267), _de Abr._ i. 6 (I. p. 300). We may infer from the language of St Augustine who argues against it, that this was the popular interpretation in his day: _Epist._ cxix. (II. p. 512) ‘tanquam præceptum putatur apostoli, nescio quid tangere, gustare, attaminare, prohibentis.’ The ascetic tendency of the age thus fastened upon a slight obscurity in the Greek and made the Apostle recommend the very practices which he disparaged. For a somewhat similar instance of a misinterpretation commonly received see the note on τοῖς δόγμασιν ver. 14. Jerome however (I. p. 878) had rightly interpreted the passage, illustrating it by the precepts of the Talmud. At a still earlier date Tertullian, _Adv. Marc._ v. 19, gives the correct interpretation.

These prohibitions relate to defilement contracted in divers ways by contact with impure objects. Some were doubtless reenactments of the Mosaic law; while others would be exaggerations or additions of a rigorous asceticism, such as we find among the Essene prototypes of these Colossian heretics, e.g. the avoidance of oil, of wine, or of flesh-meat, the shunning of contact with a stranger or a religious inferior, and the like; see pp. 85 sq. For the religious bearing of this asceticism, as springing from the _dualism_ of these heretical teachers, see above pp. 79, 104 sq.

II. 22]

ἐστιν πάντα εἰς φθορὰν τῇ ἀποχρήσεἰ, κατὰ τὰ

ἅψῃ] The difference between ἅπτεσθαι and θιγγάνειν is not great, and in some passages where they occur together, it is hard to distinguish them: e.g. Exod. xix. 12 προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς τοῦ ἀναβῆναι εἰς τὸ ὄρος καὶ _θιγεῖν_ τι αὐτοῦ· πᾶς ὁ _ἁψάμενος_ τοῦ ὄρους θανάτῳ τελευτήσει, Eur. _Bacch._ 617 οὔτ’ _ἔθιγεν_ οὔθ’ _ἣψαθ’_ ἡμῶν, Arist. _de Gen. et Corr._ i. 8 (p. 326) διὰ τί οὐ γίγνεται _ἁψάμενα_ ἕν, ὥσπερ ὕδωρ ὕδατος ὅταν _θίγη_|; Dion Chrys. _Or._ xxxiv. (II. p. 50) οἱ δ’ ἐκ παρέργου προσίασιν ἁπτόμενοι μόνον τοῦ πράγματος, ὥσπερ οἱ σπονδῆς θιγγάνοντες, Themist. _Paraphr. Arist._ 95 τὴν δὲ ἁφὴν αὐτῶν ἅπτεσθαι τῶν αἰσθητῶν _ἀναγκαῖον_· καὶ γὰρ τοὔνομα αὐτῆς ἐκ τοῦ _ἅπτεσθαι_ καὶ _θιγγάνειν_. But ἅπτεσθαι is the stronger word of the two. This arises from the fact that it frequently suggests, though it does not necessarily involve, the idea of a voluntary or conscious effort, ‘to take hold of’–a suggestion which is entirely wanting to the colourless word θιγγάνειν; comp. Themist. _Paraphr. Arist._ 94 ἡ τῶν ζώων _ἁφὴ_ κρίσις ἐστὶ καὶ ἀντίληψις τοῦ _θιγγάνοντος_. Hence in Xen. _Cyrop._ i. 3. 5 ὅτι σε, φάναι, ὁρῶ, ὅταν μὲν τοῦ ἄρτου ἅψῃ, εἰς οὐδὲν τὴν χεῖρα ἀποψώμενον, ὅταν δὲ τούτων τινὸς _θίγῃς_, εὐθὺς ἀποκαθαίρει τὴν χεῖρα εἰς τὰ χειρόμακτρα κ.τ.λ. Thus the words chosen in the Latin Versions, _tangere_ for ἅπτεσθαι and _attaminare_ or _contrectare_ for θιγεῖν, are unfortunate, and ought to be transposed. Our English Version, probably influenced by the Latin, has erred in the same direction, translating ἅπτεσθαι by ‘touch’ and θιγεῖν by ‘handle’. Here again they must be transposed. ‘Handle’ is too strong a word for either; though in default of a better it may stand for ἅπτεσθαι, which it more nearly represents. Thus the two words ἅψῃ and θίγῃς being separate in meaning, γεύσῃ may well interpose; and the three together will form a descending series, so that, as Beza (quoted in Trench _N. T. Syn._ § xvii. p. 57) well expresses it, ‘decrescente semper oratione, intelligatur crescere superstitio’.

On the other hand ἅψῃ has been interpreted here as referring to the relation of husband and wife, as e.g. in 1 Cor. vii. 1 γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι; and the prohibition would then be illustrated by the teaching of the heretics in 1 Tim. iv. 3 κωλύοντων γαμεῖν. But, whatever likelihood there may be that the Colossian false teachers also held this doctrine (see above p. 85 sq.), it nowhere appears in the context, and we should not expect so important a topic to be dismissed thus cursorily. Moreover θιγγάνειν is used as commonly in this meaning as ἅπτεσθαι (see Gataker _Op. Crit._ p. 79, and examples might be multiplied); so that all ground for assigning it to ἅπτεσθαι especially is removed. Both ἅπτεσθαι and θιγγάνειν refer to defilement incurred through the sense of touch, though in different degrees; ‘Handle not, nor yet taste, nor even touch.’

22. ‘Only consider what is the real import of this scrupulous avoidance. Why, you are attributing an inherent value to things which are fleeting; you yourselves are citizens of eternity, and yet your thoughts are absorbed in the perishable’.

ἅ] ‘_which things_’, i.e. the meats and drinks and other material objects, regarded as impure to the touch. The antecedent to ἅ is implicitly involved in the prohibitions μὴ ἅψῃ κ.τ.λ.

ἐστιν εἰς φθορὰν] ‘_are destined for corruption_’. For similar expressions see Acts viii. 20 ἔιη εἰς ἀπωλείαν (comp. ver. 23 εἰς χολὴν πικρίας καὶ σύνδεσμον ἀδικίας ... ὄντἀ, 2 Πετ. ιι. 12 [Γρεεκ: γεγεννημένα ... εἰς ἅλωσιν καὶ φθοράν. For the word φθορά, involving the idea of ‘decomposition’, see the note on Gal. vi. 8. The expression here corresponds to εἰς ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκβάλλεται (ἐκπορεύεταἰ, Matt. xv. 17, Mark vii. 19.

τῇ ἀποχρήσει] ‘_in the consuming_’. While the verb ἀποχρῶμαι is common, the substantive ἀπόχρησις is extremely rare: Plut. _Mor._ p. 267 F χαίρειν ταῖς τοιάυταις ἀποχρήσεσι καὶ συστολαῖς τῶν περιττῶν (i.e. ‘by such modes of consuming and abridging superfluities’), Dion. Hal. _A. R._ i. 58 ἐν ἀποχρήσει γῆς μοίρας. The unusual word was chosen for its expressiveness: the χρῆσις here was an ἀπόχρησις; the things could not be used without rendering them unfit for further use. The subtlety of the expression in the original cannot be reproduced in any translation.

On the other hand the clause is sometimes interpreted as a continuation of the language of the ascetic teachers; ‘Touch not things which all lead to ruin by their abuse’. This interpretation however has nothing to recommend it. It loses the point of the Apostle’s argument; while it puts upon εἶναι εἰς φθοράν a meaning which is at least not natural.

κατὰ κ.τ.λ.] connected directly with vv. 20, 21, so that the words ἅ ἐστιν ... τῇ ἀποχρήσει are a parenthetical comment.

II. 22]

ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων·

τὰ ἐντάλματα κ.τ.λ.] The absence of both preposition and article before διδασκαλίας shows that the two words are closely connected. They are placed here in their proper order; for ἐντάλματα describes the source of authority and διδασκαλίας the medium of communication. The expression is taken ultimately from Isaiah xxix. 13, where the words run in the LXX, μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με, διδάσκοντες ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ διδασκαλίας. The Evangelists (Matt. xv. 9, Mark vii. 7), quoting the passage, substitute in the latter clause διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων.

The coincidences in St Paul’s language here with our Lord’s words as related in the Gospels (Matt. xv. 1–20, Mark vii. 1–23) are striking, and suggest that the Apostle had this discourse in his mind. (1) Both alike argue against these vexatious ordinances from the _perishableness_ of meats. (2) Both insist upon the indifference of such things in themselves. In Mark vii. 19 the Evangelist emphasizes the importance of our Lord’s words on this occasion, as practically abolishing the Mosaic distinction of meats by declaring all alike to be clean (καθαρίζων; see the note on ver. 16). (3) Both alike connect such ordinances with the practices condemned in the prophetic denunciation of Isaiah.

II. 23]

^{23}ἅτινά ἐστιν λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ

23. ‘All such teaching is worthless. It may bear the semblance of wisdom; but it wants the reality. It may make an officious parade of religious service; it may vaunt its humility; it may treat the body with merciless rigour; but it entirely fails in its chief aim. It is powerless to check indulgence of the flesh.’

ἅτινα] ‘_which sort of things_’. Not only these particular precepts, μὴ ἅψῃ κ.τ.λ., but all precepts falling under the same category are condemned. For this force of ἅτινα as distinguished from ἅ, see the notes on Gal. iv. 24, v. 19, Phil. iv. 3. The antecedent here is not ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας κ.τ.λ., but the prohibitions given in ver. 21.

λόγον μὲν κ.τ.λ.] ‘_having a reputation for wisdom_’, but not the reality. The corresponding member, which should be introduced by δέ, is suppressed; the oppositive clause being postponed and appearing later in a new form, οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι κ.τ.λ. Such suppressions are common in classical writers, more especially in Plato; see Kühner § 531, II. p. 813 sq., Jelf § 766, and comp. Winer § lxiii. p. 719 sq. St Jerome therefore is not warranted in attributing St Paul’s language here to ‘imperitia artis grammaticæ’ (_Epist._ cxxi, _Op._ II. p. 884). On the contrary it is just the license which an adept in a language would be more likely to take than a novice.

In this sentence λόγον ἔχοντα σοφίας is best taken as a single predicate, so that ἐστιν is disconnected from ἔχοντα. Otherwise the construction ἐστιν ἔχοντα (for ἔχει) would be supported by many parallels in the Greek Testament; see Winer § xlv. p. 437.

The phrase λόγον ἔχειν τινος, so far as I have observed, has four meanings. (A) Two as applied to the _thinking subject_. (i) ‘To take account of, to hold in account, to pay respect to’: e.g. Æsch. _Prom._ 231 βροτῶν δὲ τῶν ταλαιπώρων λόγον οὐκ ἔσχεν οὐδένα, Demosth. _de Coron._ § 199 )έιπερ ἢ δόξης ἢ προγόνων ἢ τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος εἶχε λόγον, Plut. _Vit. Philop._ 18 πῶς ἄξιον ἐκέινου λόγον ἔχειν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς κ.τ.λ. (ii) ‘To possess the reason or account or definition of’, ‘to have a scientific knowledge of’; Plato _Gorg._ p. 465 A τέχνην δὲ αὐτὴν οὔ φημι εἶναι ἀλλ’ ἐμπειρίαν, ὅτι οὐκ ἔχει λόγον οὐδένα hῶν προσφέρει, ὁποῖα ἄττα τὴν φύσιν ἐστίν, and so frequently. These two senses are recognised by Aristotle, _Eth. Nic._ i. 13 (p. 1102), where he distinguishes the meaning of the expressions ἔχειν λόγον τοῦ πατρὸς ἢ τῶν φίλων and ἔχειν λόγον τῶν μαθητικῶν. (B) Two as applied to the _object of thought_. (iii) ‘To have the credit or reputation of’, as here. This sense of ἔχειν λόγον, ‘to be reputed’, is more commonly found with an infinitive: e.g. Plato _Epin._ 987 B αὑτὸς Ἀφροδίτης εἶναι σχέδον ἔχει λόγον. (iv) ‘To fulfil the definition of, to possess the characteristics, to have the nature of’; e.g. Philo _Vit. Cont._ 4 (II. p. 477) ἑκάτερον δὲ πηγῆς λόγον ἔχον, Plut. _Mor._ p. 637 D τὸ δὲ ὢον οὔτε ἀρχῆς ἔχει λόγον, οὐ γὰρ ὑφίσταται πρῶτον, οὔτε ὅλου φύσιν, ἀτελὲς γάρ ἐστιν, ib. 640 F δεῖ πρὸς τὸ ἐμφυτεύομενον χώρας λόγον ἔχειν τὸ δεξόμενον. The senses of λόγον ἔχειν with other constructions, or as used absolutely, are very various, e.g. ‘to be reasonable’, ‘to hold discourse’, ‘to bear a ratio’, etc., but do not come under consideration here. Nor again does such an expression as Plut. _Mor._ p. 550 C μήτε τὸν λόγον ἔχων τοῦ νομοθέτου, ‘not being in possession of, not knowing, the intention of the legislator’; for the definite article removes it from the category of the cases considered.

καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ [καὶ] ἀφειδείᾳ σώματος, οὐκ

ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ] ‘_in volunteered_, self-imposed, officious, supererogatory _service_’. One or both of these two ideas, (i) ‘excessive readiness, officious zeal,’ (ii) ‘affectation, unreality,’ are involved in this and similar compounds; e.g. ἐθελοδουλεία, ἐθελοκάκησις, ἐθελοκίνδυνος, ἐθελοκωφέιν, ἐθελορήτωρ, ἐθελοπρόξενος: these compounds being used most frequently, though not always (as this last word shows), in a bad sense. This mode of expression was naturalised in Latin, as appears from Augustine _Epist._ cxlix. 27 (II. p. 514) ‘Sic enim et vulgo dicitur qui divitem affectat thelodives, et qui sapientem thelosapiens, et cetera hujusmodi’. Epiphanius, when writing of the Pharisees, not content with the word here supplied by St Paul, coins a double compound ἐθελοπερισσοθρησκεία, _Hær._ i. 16 (p. 34).

ταπεινοφροσύνῃ] The word is here disparaged by its connexion, as in ver. 18 (see the note there). The force of ἐθελο- may be regarded as carried on to it. Real genuine ταπεινοφροσύνη is commended below; iii. 12.

ἀφειδείᾳ σώματος] ‘_hard treatment of the body_’. The expression ἀφειδεῖν τοῦ σώματος is not uncommon, being used most frequently, not as here of ascetic discipline, but rather of courageous exposure to hardship and danger in war, e.g. Lysias _Or. Fun._ 25, Joseph. _B.J._ iii. 7. 18, Lucian _Anach._ 24, Plut. _Vit. Pericl._ 10; in Plut. _Mor._ p. 137 C however of a student’s toil, and _ib._ p. 135 E, more generally of the rigorous demands made by the soul on the body. The substantive ἀφέιδεια or ἀφειδία does not often occur. On the forms in -εια and -ία derived from adjectives in -ης see Buttmann _Ausf. Gramm._ § 119, II. p. 416 sq. The great preponderance of manuscript authority favours the form ἀφειδείᾳ here: but in such questions of orthography the fact carries less weight than in other matters. The καὶ before ἀφειδείᾳ should probably be omitted; in which case ἀφειδείᾳ becomes an instrumental dative, explaining λόγον ἔχοντα σοφίας. While the insertion would naturally occur to scribes, the omission gives more point to the sentence. The ἐθελοθρησκεία καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνη as the religious elements are thus separated from the ἀφείδεια σώματος as the practical rule.

ἐν τιμῇ τινὶ πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός.

οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ κ.τ.λ.] ‘yet _not_ really _of any value to remedy indulgence of the flesh_.’ So interpreted the words supply the oppositive clause to λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας, as the presence of the negative οὐκ naturally suggests. If the sentence had been undisturbed, this oppositive clause would naturally have been introduced by δέ, but the interposition of ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ κ.τ.λ. has changed its form by a sort of attraction. For this sense of ἐν τιμῇ comp. Lucian _Merc. cond._ 17 τὰ καινὰ τῶν ὑποδημάτων ἐν τιμῇ τινι καὶ ἐπιμελείᾳ ἐστίν: similarly Hom. _Il._ ix. 319 ἐν δὲ ἰῇ τιμῇ κ.τ.λ. The preposition πρός, like our English ‘_for_’, when used after words denoting utility, value, sufficiency, etc., not uncommonly introduces the object to _check_ or _prevent_ or _cure_ which the thing is to be employed. And even though utility may not be directly expressed in words, yet if the idea of a something to be _remedied_ is present, this preposition is freely used notwithstanding. See Isocr. _Phil._ 16 (p. 85) πρὸς τοὺς βαρβάρους χρήσιμον, Arist. _H. A._ iii. 21 (p. 522) συμφέρει πρὸς τὰς διαρῥοίας ἡ τοιάυτη μάλιστα, _de Respir._ 8 (p. 474) ἀνάγκη γίνεσθαι κατάψυξιν, εἰ μέλλει τεύξεσθαι σωτηρίας· τοῦτο γὰρ βοηθεῖ πρὸς τάυτην τὴν φθοράν, Lucian _Pisc._ 27 χρήσιμον γοῦν καὶ πρὸς ἐκέινους τὸ τοιοῦτον, Galen _Op._ XII. p. 399 χρωμένῳ γε τίνι πρὸς τὸ πάθος ἀρκτέιῳ στέατι, π. 420 [Γρεεκ: τοῦ δόντος αὐτὰ πρὸς ἀλωπεκίας φαλακρώσεις κ.τ.λ., p. 430 συνέθηκαν ... φάρμακα πρὸς ῥεούσας τρίχας, p. 476 βραχυτάτην ἔχοντι δύναμιν ὡς πρὸς τὸ προκέιμενον σύμπτωμα, p. 482 τοῦτο δὲ καὶ πρὸς τὰ ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ σώματι ἐξανθήματα σφόδρα χρήσιμόν ἐστιν, p. 514 χρηστέον δὲ πᾶσι τοῖς ἀναγεγραμμένοις βοηθήμασι πρὸς τὰς γινομένας δι’ ἕγκαυσιν κεφαλαλγίας, p. 601 κάλλιστον πρὸς αὐτὴν φάρμακον ἐγχέομενον νάρδινον μύρον. These examples from Galen are only a few out of probably some hundreds, which might be collected from the treatise in which they occur, the _de Compositione Medicamentorum_.

The language, which the Colossian false teachers would use, may be inferred from the account given by Philo of a Judaic sect of mystic ascetics, who may be regarded, not indeed as their direct, but as their collateral ancestors (see p. 86, note 246, p. 94), the Therapeutes of Egypt; _de Vit. Cont._ § 4 (II. p. 476 sq.) τρυφῶσιν ὑπὸ _σοφίας_ ἑστίωμενοι πλουσίως καὶ ἀφθόνως _τὰ δόγματα_ χορηγούσης, ὡς καὶ ... _μόλις_ δι’ ἓξ ἡμερῶν _ἀπογεύεσθαι_ τροφῆς ἀναγκαίας ... σιτοῦνται δὲ ... ἄρτον εὐτελῆ, καὶ ὄψον ἅλες ... πότον ὕδωρ ναματιαῖον αὐτοῖς ἐστίν ... _πλησμονὴν_ ὡς ἐχθρόν τε καὶ ἐπίβουλον ἐκτρεπόμενοι ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος. St Paul apparently has before him some similar exposition of the views of the Colossian heretics, either in writing or (more probably) by report from Epaphras. In reply he altogether denies the claims of this system to the title of σοφία; he disputes the value of these δόγματα; he allows that this πλησμονή is the great evil to be checked, the fatal disease to be cured; but he will not admit that the remedies prescribed have any substantial and lasting efficacy.

The interpretation here offered is not new, but it has been strangely overlooked or despised. The passages adduced will I trust show the groundlessness of objections which have been brought against it owing to the use of the preposition; and in all other respects it seems to be far preferable to any rival explanation which has been suggested. The favourite interpretations in ancient or modern times divide themselves into two classes, according to the meaning assigned to πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός. (1) It is explained in a good sense: ‘to satisfy the reasonable wants of the body’. In this case οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινί is generally interpreted, ‘_not_ holding it (the body) _in any honour_’. So the majority of the fathers, Greek and Latin. This has the advantage of preserving the continuity of the words οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι πρὸς πλησμονὴν κ.τ.λ.: but it assigns an impossible sense to πλησμονὴ τῆς σαρκός. For πλησμονή always denotes ‘repletion’, ‘surfeiting’, ‘excessive indulgence’, and cannot be used of a reasonable attention to the physical cravings of nature; as Galen says, _Op._ XV. p. 113 πάντων εἰωθότων οὐ μόνον ἰατρῶν ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων Ἑλλήνων τὸ τῆς πλησμονῆς ὄνομα μᾶλλόν πως ἐπιφέρειν _ταῖς ὑπερβολαῖς τῆς συμμέτρου ποσότητος_: and certainly neither the Apostle nor the Colossian ascetics were likely to depart from this universal rule. To the long list of passages quoted in Wetstein may be added such references as Philo _Leg. ad. Cai._ § 1 (II. p. 546), _Clem. Hom._ viii. 15, Justin _Dial._ 126, Dion. Alex. in Euseb. _H.E._ vii. 25; but they might be increased to any extent. (2) A bad sense is attached to πλησμονή, as usage demands. And here two divergent interpretations have been put forward. (i) The proper continuity of the sentence is preserved, and the words οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινὶ πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός are regarded as an exposition of the doctrine of the false teachers from _their own point of view_. So Theodore of Mopsuestia, οὐ τίμιον νομίζοντας τὸ διὰ πάντων πληροῦν τὴν σάρκα, ἀλλὰ γὰρ μᾶλλον αἱρουμένους ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν πολλῶν διὰ τὴν τοῦ νόμου παράδοσιν. This able expositor however is evidently dissatisfied, for he introduces his explanation with the words ἀσαφὲς μέν ἐστι, βούλεται δὲ εἰπεῖν κ.τ.λ.; and his explanation has not been adopted by others. Either the sentence, so interpreted, becomes flat and unmeaning, though it is obviously intended to clinch the whole matter; or the Apostle is made to confirm the value of the very doctrines which he is combating. (ii) The sentence is regarded as discontinuous; and it is interpreted, ‘_not of any real value_’ (or ‘_not_ consisting _in anything commendable_’, or ‘_not_ holding the body _in any honour_’) but ‘_tending to gratify the carnal_ desires’ (or ‘mind’). This in some form or other is almost universally adopted by modern interpreters, and among the ancients is found in the commentator Hilary. The objections to it are serious. (α) The dislocation of the sentence is inexplicable. There is no indication either in the grammar or in the vocabulary that a separate and oppositive clause begins with πρὸς πλησμονὴν κ.τ.λ., but on the contrary everything points to an unbroken continuity. (β) The sense which it attaches to πλησμονὴ τῆς σαρκός is either forced and unnatural, or it makes the Apostle say what he could not have said. If πλησμονὴ τῆς σαρκός could have the sense which Hilary assigns to it, ‘sagina carnalis sensus traditio humana est’, or indeed if it could mean ‘the _mind_ of the flesh’ in any sense (as it is generally taken by modern commentators), this is what St Paul might well have said. But obviously πλησμονὴ τῆς σαρκός conveys a very different idea from such expressions as τὸ φυσιοῦσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκός (ver. 18) or τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός (Rom. viii. 6, 7), which include pride, self-sufficiency, strife, hatred, bigotry, and generally everything that is earth-bound and selfish. On the other hand, if πλησμονὴ τῆς σαρκός be taken in its natural meaning, as applying to coarse sensual indulgences, then St Paul could not have said without qualification, that this rigorous asceticism conduced πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός. Such language would defeat its own object by its extravagance.

III. 1]

III. ^1Εἰ οὖν συνηγέρθητε τῷ Χριστῷ, τὰ ἄνω ζητεῖτε, οὗ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ καθήμενος·

III. 1–4. ‘If this be so; if ye were raised with Christ, if ye were translated into heaven, what follows? Why you must realise the change. All your aims must centre in heaven, where reigns the Christ who has thus exalted you, enthroned on God’s right hand. All your thoughts must abide in heaven, not on the earth. For, I say it once again, you have nothing to do with mundane things: you _died_, died once for all to the world: you are living another life. This life indeed is hidden now: it has no outward splendour as men count splendour; for it is a life with Christ, a life in God. But the veil will not always shroud it. Christ, our life, shall be manifested hereafter; then ye also shall be manifested with Him and the world shall see your glory’.

1. εἰ οὖν συνηγέρθητε κ.τ.λ.] ‘_If then ye were raised_’, not ‘_have been raised_’. The aorist συνηγέρθητε, like ἀπεθάνετε (ii. 20), refers to their baptism; and the εἰ οὖν here is a resumption of the εἰ in ii. 20. The sacrament of baptism, as administered in the Apostolic age, involved a twofold symbolism, a death or burial and a resurrection: see the note on ii. 12. In the rite itself these were represented by two distinct acts, the disappearance beneath the water and the emergence from the water: but in the change typified by the rite they are two aspects of the same thing, ‘like the concave and convex in a circle’, to use an old simile. The negative side—the death and burial—implies the positive side—the resurrection. Hence the form of the Apostle’s resumption, εἰ ἀπεθάνετε, εἰ _οὖν_ συνηγέρθητε.

The change involved in baptism, if truly realised, must pervade a man’s whole nature. It affects not only his practical conduct, but his intellectual conceptions also. It is nothing less than a removal into a new sphere of being. He is translated from earth to heaven; and with this translation his point of view is altered, his standard of judgment is wholly changed. Matter is to him no longer the great enemy; his position towards it is one of absolute neutrality. Ascetic rules, ritual ordinances, have ceased to have any absolute value, irrespective of their effects. All these things are of the earth, earthy. The material, the transitory, the mundane, has given place to the moral, the eternal, the heavenly.

τὰ ἄνω ζητεῖτε κ.τ.λ.] ‘Cease to concentrate your energies, your thoughts, on mundane ordinances, and realise your new and heavenly life, of which Christ is the pole-star’.

ἐν δεξιᾷ κ.τ.λ.] ‘_being seated on the right hand of God_’, where καθήμενος must not be connected with ἐστιν; see the note on ἀπόκρυφοι, ii. 3. This participial clause is pertinent and emphatic, for the session of Christ implies the session of the believer also; Ephes. ii. 4–6 ὁ δὲ Θεός ... ἡμᾶς ... συνεζωοποίησεν ... καὶ συνήγειρεν καὶ _συνεκάθισεν_ ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ κ.τ.λ.; comp. Rev. iii. 21 ὁ νικῶν, δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ μου, ὡς κἀγὼ ἐνίκησα καὶ ἐκάθισα μετὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ, in the message addressed to the principal church of this district: see above p. 42. Βαβαί, says Chrysostom, ποῦ τὸν νοῦν ἀπήγαγε τὸν ἡμέτερον; πῶς φρονήματος αὐτοὺς ἐπλήρωσε μεγάλου; οὐκ ἤρκει Τὰ ἄνω εἰπεῖν, οὐδὲ, Οὗ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ τί; Ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ καθήμενος. ἐκεῖθεν λοιπὸν τὴν γῆν ὁρᾶν παρεσκεύαζε.

III. 2, 3]

^2τὰ ἄνω φρονεῖτε, μὴ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. ^3ἀπεθάνετε γάρ, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν κέκρυπται σὺν τῷ Χριστῷ ἐν τῷ Θεῷ·

2. τὰ ἄνω] The same expression repeated for emphasis; ‘You must not only _seek_ heaven; you must also _think_ heaven.’ For the opposition of τὰ ἄνω and τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς in connexion with φρονεῖν, comp. Phil. iii. 19, 20 οἱ τὰ _ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες_, ἡμῶν γὰρ τὸ πολίτευμα _ἐν οὐρανοῖς ὑπάρχει_; see also Theoph. _ad Autol._ ii. 17. Extremes meet. Here the Apostle points the antithesis to controvert a Gnostic asceticism: in the Philippian letter he uses the same contrast to denounce an Epicurean sensualism. Both alike are guilty of the same fundamental error; both alike concentrate their thoughts on material, mundane things.

3. ἀπεθάνετε] ‘_ye died_’ in baptism. The aorist ἀπεθάνετε denotes the past act; the perfect κέκρυπται the permanent effects. For ἀπεθάνετε see the notes on ii. 12, 20.

κέκρυπται] ‘_is hidden_, is buried out of sight, to the world’. The Apostle’s argument is this: ‘When you sank under the baptismal water, you disappeared for ever to the world. You rose again, it is true, but you rose only to God. The world henceforth knows nothing of your new life, and (as a consequence) your new life must know nothing of the world.’ ‘Neque Christum’, says Bengel, ‘neque Christianos novit mundus; ac ne Christiani quidem plane seipsos’; comp. Joh. xiv. 17–19 τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ ὁ κόσμος οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν, ὅτι _οὐ θεωρεῖ αὐτὸ οὐδὲ γινώσκει_ αὐτὸ, ὑμεῖς [δὲ] γινώσκετε αὐτό ... ὁ κόσμος με οὐκ ἔτι θεωρεῖ ὑμεῖς δὲ θεωρεῖτέ με· _ὅτι ἐγὼ ζῶ, καὶ ὑμεῖς ζήσετε_.

III. 4]

^4ὅταν ὁ Χριστὸς φανερωθῇ, ἡ ζειωὴ ἡμῶν, τότε καὶ ὑμεῖς σὺν αὐτῷ φανερωθήσεσθε ἐν δόξῃ.

4 ἡ ζωὴ _ὑμῶν_.

4. ὁ Χριστὸς] A fourth occurrence of the name of Christ in this context; comp. ver. 2 τῷ Χριστῷ, ὁ Χριστός, ver. 3 σὺν τῷ Χριστῷ. A pronoun would have been more natural, but less emphatic.

ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν] This is an advance on the previous statement, ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν κέκρυπται σὺν τῷ Χριστῷ, in two respects: (1) It is not enough to have said that the life is shared _with_ Christ. The Apostle declares that the life _is_ Christ. Comp. 1 Joh. v. 12 ὁ ἔχων τὸν ὑὶον ἔχει τὴν ζώην, Ign. _Ephes._ 7 ἐν θανάτῳ ζωὴ ἀληθινή (of Christ), _Smyrn._ 4 Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἡμῶν ζῆν, _Ephes._ 3 Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς τὸ ἀδιάκριτον ἡμῶν ζῆν, _Magn._ 1 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ διαπαντὸς ἡμῶν ζῆν. (2) For ὑμῶν is substituted ἡμῶν. The Apostle hastens to include himself among the recipients of the bounty. For this characteristic transition from the second person to the first see the note on ii. 13. The reading ὑμῶν here has very high support, and on this account I have given it as an alternative; but it is most probably a transcriber’s correction, for the sake of uniformity with the preceding.

τότε καὶ ὑμεῖς κ.τ.λ.] ‘The veil which now shrouds your higher life from others, and even partly from yourselves, will then be withdrawn. The world which persecutes, despises, ignores now, will then be blinded, with the dazzling glory of the revelation’. Comp. 1 Joh. iii. 1, 2 ὁ κόσμος οὐ γινώσκει ἡμᾶς, ὅτι οὐκ ἔγνω αὐτόν. ἀγαπητοί, νῦν τέκνα Θεοῦ ἐσμέν, καὶ οὔπω ἐφανερώθη τί ἐσομεθα· οἵδαμεν ὅτι ἐὰν φανερωθῇ, ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα κ.τ.λ., Clem. Rom. 50 οἳ φανερωθήσονται (or φανεροὶ ἔσονται) ἐν τῇ ἐπισκοπῇ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

ἐν δόξῃ] Joh. xvii. 22 τὴν δόξαν ἣν δέδωκάς μοι, δέδωκα αὐτοῖς, Rom. viii. 17 ἵνα καὶ συνδοξασθῶμεν.

III. 5]

^5Νεκρώσατε οὖν τὰ μέλη τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς· πορνείαν, ἀκαθαρσίαν, πάθος, ἐπιθυμίαν κακήν, καὶ τὴν πλεονεξίαν,

5–11. ‘So then realise this death to the world; kill all your earthly members. Is it fornication, impurity of whatever kind, passion, evil desire? Or again, is it that covetousness which makes a religion, an idolatry, of greed? Do not deceive yourselves. For all these things God’s wrath will surely come. In these sins ye, like other Gentiles, indulged in times past, when your life was spent amidst them. But now everything is changed. Now you also must put away not this or that desire, but all sins whatsoever. Anger, wrath, malice, slander, filthy abuse; banish it from your lips. Be not false one to another in word or deed; but cast off for ever the old man with his actions, and put on the new, who is renewed from day to day, growing unto perfect knowledge and refashioned after the image of his Creator. In this new life, in this regenerate man, there is not, there cannot be, any distinction of Greek or Jew, of circumcision or uncircumcision; there is no room for barbarian, for Scythian, for bond or free. Christ has displaced, has annihilated, all these; Christ is Himself all things and in all things’.

5. The false doctrine of the Gnostics had failed to check sensual indulgence (ii. 23). The true doctrine of the Apostle has power to kill the whole carnal man. The substitution of a comprehensive principle for special precepts—of the heavenly life in Christ for a code of minute ordinances—at length attains the end after which the Gnostic teachers have striven, and striven in vain.

νεκρώσατε οὖν] i.e. ‘Carry out this principle of _death_ to the world (ii. 20 ἀπεθάνετε, iii. 3 ἀπεθάνετε), and kill everything that is mundane and carnal in your being’.

τὰ μέλη κ.τ.λ.] Each person has a twofold moral personality. There is in him the ‘old man’, and there is in him also ‘the new’ (vv. 9, 10). The old man with all his members must be pitilessly slain. It is plain that τὰ μέλη here is used, like ἄνθρωπος in ver. 9, not physically, but morally. Our actual limbs may be either τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς or τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐράνοις, according as they are made instruments for the world or for Christ: just as we—our whole being—may identify ourselves with the παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος or with the νέος ἄνθρωπος of our twofold potentiality. For this use of the physical, as a symbol of the moral of which it is the potential instrument, compare Matt. v. 29 sq. εἰ δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου ὁ δεξιὸς σκανδαλίζει σε, ἔξελε αὐτὸν κ.τ.λ.

I have ventured to punctuate after τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Thus πορνείαν κ.τ.λ. are prospective accusatives, which should be governed directly by some such word as ἀπόθεσθε. But several dependent clauses interpose; the last of these incidentally suggests a contrast between the past and the present; and this contrast, predominating in the Apostle’s mind, leads to an abrupt recasting of the sentence, _νυνὶ δὲ_ ἀπόθεσθε καὶ ὑμεῖς _τὰ πάντα_ in disregard of the original construction. This opposition of ποτέ and νῦν has a tendency to dislocate the construction in St Paul, as in i. 22 νυνὶ δὲ ἀποκατηλλάγητε (or ἀποκατήλλαξεν), i. 26 νῦν δὲ ἐφανέρωθη: see the note on this latter passage. For the whole run of the sentence (the parenthetic relative clauses, the contrast of past and present, and the broken construction) compare Ephes. ii. 1–5 καὶ ὑμᾶς ... ἐν αἷς ποτέ ... ἐν οἷς καὶ ... ποτε ... ὁ δὲ Θεός ... καὶ ὄντας ἡμᾶς συνεζωοποίησεν.

With the common punctuation the interpretation is equally awkward, whether we treat τὰ μέλη and πορνείαν κ.τ.λ. as in direct apposition, or as double accusatives, or in any other way. The case is best put by Severianus, σάρκα καλεῖ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ἧς καὶ τὰ μέλη καταριθμεῖ ... ὁ παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν τὸ φρόνημα τὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, μέλη δὲ αὐτοῦ αἱ πράξεις τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων; but this is an evasion of the difficulty, which consists in the direct apposition of the instruments and the activities, from whatever point they are viewed.

πορνείαν κ.τ.λ.] The general order is from the less comprehensive to the more comprehensive. Thus πορνεία is a special kind of uncleanness, while ἀκαθαρσία is uncleanness in any form, Ephes. v. 3 πορνεία δὲ καὶ ἀκαθαρσία πᾶσα; comp. Gal. v. 19 πορνεία, ἀκαθαρσία, ἀσέλγεια, with the note there. Thus again πάθος, though frequently referring to this class of sins (Rom. i. 26, 1 Thess. iv. 5), would include other base passions which do not fall under the category of ἀκαθαρσία, as for instance gluttony and intemperance.

πάθος, ἐπιθυμίαν] The two words occur together in 1 Thess. iv. 5 μὴ ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας. So in a passage closely resembling the text, Gal. v. 24 οἱ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τὴν σάρκα ἐστάυρωσαν σὺν τοῖς παθήμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις. The same vice may be viewed as a πάθος from its passive and an ἐπιθυμία from its active side. The word ἐπιθυμία is not used here in the restricted sense which it has e.g. in Arist. _Eth. Nic._ ii. 4, where it ranges with anger, fear, etc., being related to πάθος as the species to the genus (see Gal. l.c. note). In the Greek Testament ἐπιθυμία has a much more comprehensive sense; e.g. Joh. viii. 44 τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν θέλετε ποιεῖν. Here, if anything, ἐπιθυμία is wider than πάθος. While πάθος includes all ungovernable affections, ἐπιθυμία κακή reaches to all evil longings. Ἰδού, says Chrysostom, γενικῶς τὸ πᾶν εἶπε· πάντα γὰρ ἐπιθυμία κακή, βασκανία, ὀργή, λύπη. The epithet is added because ἐπιθυμία is capable of a good sense: comp. 1 Cor. x. 6 ἐπιθυμητὰς κακῶν.

καὶ τὴν πλεονεξίαν] ‘_and_ especially _covetousness_’. Impurity and covetousness may be said to divide between them nearly the whole domain of human selfishness and vice; ‘Si avaritia prostrata est, exsurgit libido’ (Cypr. _de Mort._ 3). The one has been already dealt with; the other needs now to be specially denounced; comp. Ephes. v. 3 πορνεία δὲ καὶ ἀκαθαρσία πᾶσα ἢ πλεονεξία. ‘Homo extra Deum’, says Bengel (on Rom. i. 29), ‘quærit pabulum in creatura materiali vel per voluptatem vel per avaritiam.’ Comp. _Test. xii Patr._ Jud. 18 φυλάξασθε οὖν, τέκνα μου, ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας καὶ τῆς φιλαργυρίας ... ὅτι ταῦτα ἀφιστᾷ νόμου Θεοῦ. Similarly Lysis Pythag. 4 (_Epistol. Græc._ p. 602, ed. Hercher) ὀνομάξαιμι δ’ ἂν αὐτῶν [i.e. the vices] πρᾶτον ἐπελθὼν τὰς ματέρας, ἀκρασίαν τε καὶ πλεονεξίαν· ἄμφω δὲ πολύγονοι πεφύκαντι. It must be remembered that πλεονεξία is much wider than φιλαργυρία (see Trench _N. T. Syn._ § xxiv, p. 77 sq.), which itself is called ῥίζα πάντων τῶν κακῶν (1 Tim. vi. 10).

The attempt to give πλεονεξία here and in other passages the sense of ‘impurity’ (see e.g. Hammond on Rom. i. 29) is founded on a misconception. The words πλεονεκτεῖν, πλεονεξία, will sometimes be used in relation to sins of uncleanness, because such may be acts of injustice also. Thus adultery is not only impurity, but it is robbery also: hence 1 Thess. iv. 6 τὸ μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν ἐν τῷ πράγματι τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ (see the note there). In other passages again there will be an accidental connexion; e.g. Ephes. iv. 19 εἰς ἐργασίαν ἀκαθαρσίας πάσης ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ, i.e. ‘with greediness’, ‘with entire disregard for the rights of others’. But no where do the words in themselves suggest this meaning. Here the particles καὶ τὴν show that a new type of sin is introduced with πλεονεξίαν: and in the parallel passage Ephes. v. 3 (quoted above) the same distinction is indicated by the change from the conjunctive particle καί to the disjunctive ἤ. It is an error to suppose that this sense of πλεονεξία is supported by Clem. Alex. _Strom._ iii. 12 (p. 551 sq.) ὡς γὰρ ἡ πλεονεξία πορνεία λέγεται, τῇ αὐταρκείᾳ ἐναντιουμένη. On the converse error of explaining ἀκαθαρσία to mean ‘greediness’, ‘covetousness’, see the note on 1 Thess. ii. 3.

III. 6]

ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρεία, ^6δι’ ἃ ἐρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ

ἥτις κ.τ.λ.] ‘_for it is idolatry_’: comp. Ephes. v. 5 πλεονέκτης, ὅ (or ὅς) ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης, Polyc. _Phil._ 11 ‘Si quis non abstinuerit se ab avaritia, ab idololatria coinquinabitur’ (see _Philippians_ p. 63 on the misunderstanding of this passage). The covetous man sets up another object of worship besides God. There is a sort of religious purpose, a devotion of the soul, to greed, which makes the sin of the miser so hateful. The idea of avarice as a _religion_ may have been suggested to St Paul by our Lord’s words, Matt. vi. 24 οὐ δύνασθε Θεῷ δουλεύειν καὶ μαμωνᾷ, though it is a mistake to suppose that Mammon was the name of a Syrian deity. It appears however elsewhere in Jewish writers of this and later ages: e.g. Philo _de Mon._ i. 2 (II. p. 214 sq.) πανταχόθεν μὲν ἀργύριον καὶ χρυσίον ἐκπορίζουσι, τὸ δὲ πορισθὲν ὡς ἄγαλμα θεῖον ἐν ἀδύτοις θησαυροφυλακοῦσιν (with the whole context), and _Shemoth Rabba_ fol. 121. 3 ‘Qui opes suas multiplicat per fœnus, ille est idololatra’ (with other passages quoted by Wetstein and Schöttgen on Ephes. v. 5). St Chrysostom, _Hom. in Johann. lxv_ (VIII. p. 392 sq.), enlarges on the cult of wealth—the consecration of it, the worship paid to it, the sacrifices demanded by it: ἡ δὲ φιλαργυρία λέγει, Θῦσόν μοι τὴν σαυτοῦ ψυχήν, καὶ πείθει· ὁρᾷς ὅιους ἔχει βωμούς, οἷα δέχεται θύματα (p. 393). The passage in _Test. xii Patr._ Jud. 18 ἡ φιλαργυρία πρὸς ἔιδωλα ὁδηγεῖ is no real parallel to St Paul’s language, though at first sight it seems to resemble it. For ἥτις, ‘seeing that it’, see the note on Phil. iv. 3.

6, 7. δι’ ἅ κ.τ.λ.] The received text requires correction in two points. (1) It inserts the words ἐπὶ τοὺς ὑιοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας after τοῦ Θεοῦ. Though this insertion has preponderating support, yet the words are evidently interpolated from the parallel passage, Ephes. v. 6 διὰ ταῦτα γὰρ ἐρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς ὑιοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας. We are therefore justified in rejecting them with other authorities, few in number but excellent in character. See the detached note on various readings. When the sentence is thus corrected, the parallelism of δι’ ἅ ... εν οἷς καί ... may be compared with Ephes. i. 11 ἐν hῷ καὶ ἐκληρώθημεν ... ἐν hῷ καὶ ὑμεῖς ... ἐν hῷ καὶ πιστεύσαντες ἐσφραγίσθητε, and ii. 21, 22 ἐν hῷ πᾶσα [ἡ] οἰκοδομὴ ... ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς συνοικοδομεῖσθε. (2) The vast preponderance of authority obliges us to substitute τούτοις for αὐτοῖς.

6. ἐρχεται] This may refer either to the present and continuous dispensation, or to the future and final judgment. The present ἐρχεσθαι is frequently used to denote the _certainty_ of a future event, e.g. Matt. xvii. 11, Joh. iv. 21, xiv. 3, whence ὁ ἐρχόμενος is a designation of the Messiah: see Winer § xl. p. 332.

III. 7, 8]

τοῦ Θεοῦ· ^7ἐν οἷς καὶ ὑμεῖς περιεπατήσατέ ποτε, ὅτε ἐζῆτε ἐν τούτοις· ^8νυνὶ δὲ ἀπόθεσθε καὶ ὑμεῖς τὰ πάντα,

ἐν οἷς κ.τ.λ.] The clause ἐπὶ τοὺς ὑιοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας having been struck out, ἐν οἷς must necessarily be neuter and refer to the same as δι’ ἅ. Independently of the rejection of the clause, this neuter seems more probable in itself than the masculine: for (1) The expression περιπατεῖν ἐν is most commonly used of things, not of persons, especially in this and the companion epistle; iv. 5, Ephes. ii. 2, 10, iv. 17, v. 2; (2) The Apostle would hardly denounce it as a sin in his Colossian converts that they ‘walked _among_ the sons of disobedience’; for the Christian, though not of the world, is necessarily in the world: comp. 1 Cor. v. 10. The apparent parallel, Ephes. ii. 3 ἐν οἷς καὶ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἀνεστράφημέν ποτε ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν (where οἷς seems to be masculine), does not hold, because the addition ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις κ.τ.λ. makes all the difference. Thus the rejection of the clause, which was decided by textual considerations, is confirmed by exegetical reasons.

7. καὶ ὑμεῖς] ‘_ye_, like the other heathen’ (i. 6 καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν), but in the next verse καὶ ὑμεῖς is rather ‘ye yourselves’, ‘ye notwithstanding your former lives’.

ὅτε ἐζῆτε κ.τ.λ.] ‘When _ye_ lived in this atmosphere of sin, when ye had not yet died to the world’.

ἐν τούτοις] ‘_in these things_.’ We should have expected αὐτοῖς, but τούτοις is substituted as more emphatic and condemnatory: comp. Ephes. v. 6 διὰ ταῦτα γὰρ ἐρχεται κ.τ.λ. The two expressions ζῆν ἐν and περιπατεῖν ἐν involve two distinct ideas, denoting the condition of their life and the character of their practice respectively. Their conduct was conformable to their circumstances. Comp. Gal. v. 25 εἰ ζῶμεν πνεύματι, πνεύματι καὶ στοιχῶμεν.

8. The errors of the past suggest the obligations of the present. Thus the Apostle returns to the topic with which the sentence commenced. But the violence of the contrast has broken up the grammar of the sentence: see the note on ver. 5.

τὰ πάντα] ‘not only those vices which have been specially named before (ver. 5), but _all_ of whatever kind.’ The Apostle accordingly goes on to specify sins of a wholly different type from those already mentioned, sins of uncharitableness, such as anger, detraction, malice, and the like.

III. 9]

ὀργήν, θυμόν, κακίαν, βλασφημίαν, αἰσχρολογίαν ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμῶν· ^9μὴ ψεύδεσθε εἰς ἀλλήλους· ἀπεκδυσάμενοι

ὀργήν, θυμόν] ‘_anger_, _wrath_’. The one denotes a more or less settled feeling of hatred, the other a tumultuous outburst of passion. This distinction of the two words was fixed chiefly by the definitions of the Stoics: Diog. Laert. vii. 114 ὁ δὲ θυμός ἐστιν ὀργὴ ἀρχομένη. So Ammianus θὺμος μέν ἐστι πρόσκαιρος, ὀργὴ δὲ πολυχρόνιος μνησικακία, Greg. Naz. _Carm._ 34 (II. p. 612) θυμὸς μέν ἐστιν ἀθρόος ζέσις φρενός, ὀργὴ δὲ θυμὸς ἐμμένων. They may be represented in Latin by _ira_ and _furor_; Senec. _de Ira_ ii. 36 ‘Ajacem in mortem egit furor, in furorem ira’, and Jerome in Ephes. iv. 31 ‘Furor incipiens ira est’: see Trench _N. T. Syn._ § xxxvii, p. 123 sq. On other synonymes connected with θυμός and ὀργή see the note on Ephes. iv. 31.

κακίαν] ‘_malice_’, or ‘_malignity_’, as it may be translated in default of a better word. It is not (at least in the New Testament) vice generally, but the vicious nature which is bent on _doing harm to others_, and is well defined by Calvin (on Ephes. iv. 31) ‘animi pravitas, quæ _humanitati et æquitati_ est opposita’. This will be evident from the connexion in which it appears, e.g. Rom. i. 29, Eph. iv. 31, Tit. iii. 3. Thus κακία and πονηρία (which frequently occur together, e.g. 1 Cor. v. 8) only differ in so far as the one denotes rather the vicious disposition, the other the active exercise of it. The word is carefully investigated in Trench _N. T. Syn._ § xi. p. 35 sq.

βλασφημίαν] ‘_evil speaking_, _railing_, _slandering_’, as frequently, e.g. Rom. iii. 8, xiv. 16, 1 Cor. iv. 13 (v.l.), x. 30, Ephes. iv. 31, Tit. iii. 2. The word has the same twofold sense, ‘evil speaking’ and ‘blasphemy’, in classical writers, which it has in the New Testament.

αἰσχρολογίαν] ‘_foul-mouthed abuse_’. The word, as used elsewhere, has two meanings: (1) ‘_Filthy-talking_’, as defined in Clem. Alex. _Pæd._ ii. 6 (p. 189 sq.), where it is denounced at length: comp. Arist. _Pol._ vii. 17, Epict. _Man._ 33, Plut. _Mor._ 9, and so commonly; (2) ‘_Abusive language_’, as e.g. Polyb. viii. 13. 8, xii. 13. 3, xxxi. 10. 4. If the two senses of the word had been quite distinct, we might have had some difficulty in choosing between them here. The former sense is suggested by the parallel passage Ephes. v. 4 αἰσχρότης καὶ μωρολογία ἤ εὐτραπελία; the second by the connexion with βλασφημία here. But the second sense is derived from the first. The word can only mean ‘abuse’, when the abuse is ‘foul-mouthed’. And thus we may suppose that both ideas, ‘filthiness’ and ‘evil-speaking’, are included here.

9. ἀπεκδυσάμενοι κ.τ.λ.] ‘_putting off_’. Do these aorist participles describe an action coincident with or prior to the ψεύδεσθε? In other words are they part of the command, or do they assign the reason for the command? Must they be rendered ‘putting off’, or ‘seeing that ye did (at your baptism) put off’? The former seems the more probable interpretation: for (1) Though both ideas are found in St Paul, the imperative is the more usual; e.g. Rom. xiii. 12 sq. ἀποθώμεθα οὖν τὰ ἐργα τοῦ σκότους, ἐνδυσώμεθα δὲ τὰ ὅπλα τοῦ φωτός ... ἐνδύσασθε τὸν Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, Ephes. vi. 11 ἐνδύσασθε τὴν πανοπλίαν with ver. 14 στῆτε οὖν ... ἐνδυσάμενοι κ.τ.λ., 1 Thess. V. 8 νήφωμεν ἐνδυσάμενοι κ.τ.λ. The one exception is Gal. iii. 27 ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε. (2) The ‘putting on’ in the parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 24, is imperative, not affirmative, whether we read ἐνδύσασθαι or ἐνδύσασθε. (3) The participles here are followed immediately by an imperative in the context, ver. 12 ἐνδύσασθε οὖν, where the idea seems to be the same. For the synchronous aorist participle see Winer § xlv. p. 430. St Paul uses ἀπεκδυσάμενοι, ἐνδυσάμενοι (not ἀπεκδύομενοι, ἐνδύομενοι), for the same reason for which he uses ἐνδύσασθε (not ἐνδύεσθε), because it is a thing to be done _once for all_. For the double compound ἀπεκδύεσθαι see the notes on ii. 11, 15.

III. 10, 11]

τὸν παλαὶον ἄνθρωπον σὺν ταῖς πράξεσιν αὐτοῦ, ^{10}καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν νέον, τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ’ εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν· ^{11}ὅπου

παλαὶον ἄνθρωπον] as Rom. vi. 6, Ephes. iv. 22. With this expression compare ὁ ἔξω, ὁ ἔσω ἄνθρωπος, Rom. vii. 22, 2 Cor. iv. 16, Ephes. iii. 16; ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος, 1 Pet. iii. 4; ὁ μικρός μου ἄνθρωπος, ‘my insignificance’, Polycr. in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.

10. τὸν νέον κ.τ.λ.] In Ephes. iv. 24 it is ἐνδύσασθαι _τὸν καινὸν_ ἄνθρωπον. Of the two words νέος and καινός, the former refers solely to time, the other denotes quality also; the one is new as being _young_, the other new as being _fresh_: the one is opposed to long duration, the other to effeteness; see Trench _N. T. Syn._ § lx. p. 206. Here the idea which is wanting to νέος, and which καινὸς gives in the parallel passage, is more than supplied by the addition τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον κ.τ.λ.

The νέος or καινὸς ἄνθρωπος in these passages is not Christ Himself, as the parallel expression Χριστὸν ἐνδύσασθαι might suggest, and as it is actually used in Ign. _Ephes._ 20 εἰς τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, but the regenerate man formed after Christ. The idea here is the same as in καινὴ κτίσις, 2 Cor. v. 17, Gal. vi. 15: comp. Rom. vi. 4 καινότης ζωῆς, Barnab. 16 ἐγενόμεθα καινοί, πάλιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς κτιζόμενοι.

τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον] ‘_which is_ ever _being renewed_’. The force of the present tense is explained by 2 Cor. iv. 16 ὁ ἔσω ἡμῶν [ἄνθρωπος] ἀνακαινοῦται _ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἡμέρᾳ_. Compare also the use of the tenses in the parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 22 sq. ἀποθέσθαι, _ἀνανεοῦσθαι_, ἐνδύσασθαι. For the opposite see Ephes. iv. 22 τὸν παλαὶον ἄνθρωπον τὸν _φθειρόμενον_ κ.τ.λ.

εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν] ‘_unto perfect knowledge_’, the true knowledge in Christ, as opposed to the false knowledge of the heretical teachers. For the implied contrast see above pp. 44, 99 sq. (see the notes on i. 9, ii. 3), and for the word ἐπίγνωσις the note on i. 9. The words here are to be connected closely with ἀνακαινούμενον: comp. Heb. vi. 6 πάλιν _ἀνακαινίζειν_ εἰς μετάνοιαν.

κατ’ εἰκόνα κ.τ.λ.] The reference is to Gen. i. 26 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεός Ποίησωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατ’ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν κ.τ.λ.; comp. ver. 28 κατ’ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν. See also Ephes. iv. 24 τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν κατὰ Θὲον κτισθέντα. This reference however does not imply an identity of the creation here mentioned with the creation of Genesis, but only an analogy between

the two. The spiritual man in each believer’s heart, like the primal man in the beginning of the world, was created after God’s image. The καινὴ κτίσις in this respect resembles the ἀρχαία κτίσις. The pronoun αὐτὸν cannot be referred to anything else but the νέος ἄνθρωπος, the regenerate man; and the aorist κτίσαντος (compare κτισθέντα in the parallel passage Ephes. iv. 24) refers to the time of this ἀναγέννησις in Christ. See Barnab. 6 _ἀνακαινίσας_ ἡμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἀφέσει τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς ἄλλον τύπον ... ὡσὰν δὴ _ἀναπλάσσοντος_ αὐτοῦ ἡμᾶς, after which Gen. i. 26 is quoted. The new birth was a recreation in God’s image; the subsequent life must be a deepening of this image thus stamped upon the man.

The allusion to Genesis therefore requires us to understand τοῦ κτίσαντος of God, and not of Christ, as it is taken by St Chrysostom and others; and this seems to be demanded also by the common use of ὁ κτίσας. But if Christ is not ὁ κτίσας, may He not be intended by the εἰκῶν τοῦ κτίσαντος? In favour of this interpretation it may be urged (1) That Christ elsewhere is called the εἰκὼν of God, i. 15, 2 Cor. iv. 4; (2) That the Alexandrian school interpreted the term in Gen. i. 26 as denoting the Logos; thus Philo _de Mund._ Op. 6 (I. p. 5 M) τὸ ἀρχέτυπον παράδειγμα, ἰδέα τῶν ἰδεῶν ὁ Θεοῦ λόγος (comp. ib. §§ 7, 23, 24, 48), _Fragm._ II. p. 625 M θνητὸν γὰρ οὐδὲν ἀπεικονισθῆναι πρὸς τὸν ἀνωτάτω καὶ πατέρα τῶν ὅλων ἐδύνατο, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸν δεύτερον Θὲον ὅς ἐστιν ἐκέινου λόγος κ.τ.λ. _Leg. Alleg._ i. 31, 32 (I. p. 106 sq.). Hence Philo speaks of the first man as εἰκὼν εἰκόνος (_de Mund. Op._ 6), and as παγκάλου παραδέιγματος πάγκαλον μίμημα (ib. § 48). A pregnant meaning is thus given to κατὰ, and κατ’ εἰκόνα is rendered ‘after the fashion (or pattern) of the Image’. But this interpretation seems very improbable in St Paul; for (1) In the parallel passage Ephes. iv. 24 the expression is simply κατὰ Θεόν, which may be regarded as equivalent to κατ’ εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος here; (2) The Alexandrian explanation of Gen.