EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Colossians 2:8.
Be upon your guard, lest there shall be some one carrying you, away as a prey. In that case, how grievously would what I have just been impressing upon your hearts, in
Colossians 2:6-7, be rendered fruitless!
The
futureἔσται after
μή (comp.
Hebrews 3:12) has arisen from the apprehension that the case may yet actually occur. See Stallbaum,
ad Plat. Rep. p. 451 A; Hartung,
Partikell. II. p. 139 f.; Ellendt·,
Lex. Soph. II. p. 104. Comp. also on
Galatians 4:11.
As to the
participle with the article, comp. on
Galatians 1:7 :
τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες.
Respecting
συλαγωγεῖν, belonging to the later Greek, see Eustath.
ad Il. v. p. 393, 52. Very inaccurately rendered by the Vulgate:
decipiat. In Aristaen. ii. 22, joined with
οἶκον, it means
to rob; and is so taken here by Hilary, Chrysostom, Theodoret (
ἀποσυλᾶν τὴν πίστιν), Theophylact (
τὸν νοῦν), Luther, Wolf, and many others, including Baumgarten-Crusius. But the stronger sense of the word
praedam abigere (Heliod. x. 35; Nicet.
Ann. 5, p. 96 D) is in keeping with the verb of the previous exhortation,
περιπατεῖτε, as well as with the purposely chosen peculiar expression in itself, which is more significant than the classical
συλᾶν or
συλεύειν, and serves vividly to illustrate the idea of the
seduction, through which one falls under extraneous power, as respects its
disgracefulness.
διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας κ.
κενῆς ἀπάτης]
through philosophy and empty deceit. It is to be observed that neither the preposition nor the article is repeated before
κενῆς (see Kühner, II. 1, pp. 476, 528; Buttmann,
Neut. Gr. p. 86 [E. T. 100]), because with
καὶ κεν.
ἀπατ. there is added no further element different from
τῆς φιλοσοφ. (in opposition to Hofmann), but only
that which the philosophy in its essence is; it is
empty deception, that is, having no real contents; the
πιθανολογία (
Colossians 2:4), with which it is presented, is a
κενεαγορία (Plat.
Rep. p. 607 B), and
κενολογία (Plut.
Mor. p. 1069 C). On the idea of
κενός (
1 Corinthians 15:14;
Ephesians 5:6), comp. Dem. 821. 11.:
κενώτατον πάντων λόγων λέγουσι, and on
ἀπάτη, Plat.
Soph. p. 260 C:
ὄντος δέ γε ψεύδους ἔστιν ἀπάτη …,
καὶ μὴν ἀπάτης οὔσης εἰδώλων τε καὶ εἰκόνων ἤδη καὶ φαντασίας πάντα ἀνάγκη μεστὰ εἶναι. The
φιλοσοφία, however, against which Paul utters his warning, is not
philosophy generally and in itself,—a view at variance with the addition
κ.
κενῆς ἀπατ. closely pertaining to it, however much the wisdom of the world in its degeneracy (comp. Herm.
gottesd. Alterth. § 12; and
Culturgesch. d. Griech. u. Röm. I. p. 236 ff., II. p. 132), as experience was conversant with its phenomena in that age,[87] may have manifested itself to the apostle as foolishness when compared with the wisdom of the gospel (
1 Corinthians 1:18 ff;
1 Corinthians 2:6). Rather, he has in view (comp.
Colossians 2:18) the characteristic speculation,
well known to his readers, which engaged attention in Colossae and the surrounding district,[88] and consisted of a Gnostic theosophy mixed up with Judaism (Essenism). This is, on account of its nature directed to the supersensuous and its ontological character, correctly designated by the term philosophy in general, apart from its relation to the truth, which is signalized by the
κ.
κενῆς ἀπάτης appended.[89] (Plat.
Def. p. 414 C:
τῆς τῶνὌΝΤΕΝ ἈΕῚ ἘΠΙΣΤΉΜΗς ὌΡΕΞΙς·ἝΞΙς ΘΕΩΡΗΤΙΚῊ ΤΟῦ ἈΛΗΘΟῦς,Πῶς ἈΛΗΘΈς). Possibly it was also put forward by the false teachers themselves expressly under this designation (comp. the Sophists as the
ΦΆΣΚΟΝΤΕς ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΕῖΝ, Xen.
Mem. i. 2. 19; and
οἰόμενοι πάντʼ εἰδέναι, in i. 4. 1). The latter is the more probable, since Paul uses the word only in this passage. Comp. Bengel: “quod adversarii jactabant esse philosophiam et sapientiam (
Colossians 2:23), id Paulus
inanem fraudem esse dicit.” The nature of this philosophy is consequently to be regarded as
Judaistic-Oriental;[90] we are under no necessity to infer from the word
φιλοσοφία a reference to
Greek wisdom, as Grotius did, suggesting the
Pythagorean (Clemens Alexandrinus thought of the
Epicureans, and Tertullian of such philosophers as Paul had to do with at
Athens). The idea that the “
sacrarum literarum earumque recte interpretandarum
scientia” (Tittmann,
de vestigiis Gnosticor. in N. T. frustra quaesitis, p. 86 ff.) is meant, is opposed, not to the word in itself, but to the marks of heretical doctrine in our Epistle, and to the usage of the apostle, who never so designates the O. T. teaching and exposition, however frequently he speaks of it; although Philo gives it this name (see Loesner,
Obss. p. 364), and Josephus (see Krebs, p. 236) applies it to the systems of Jewish sects, and indeed the Fathers themselves apply it to the Christian doctrine (Suicer,
Thes. s.v.); see Grimm on
2Ma 1:1, p. 298 f.
κατὰ τ.
παράδ.
τ.
ἀνθρ.] might be—and this is the common view—closely joined with
ἈΠΆΤΗς (Winer, p. 128 f. [E. T. 169]). But the
Οὐ ΚΑΤᾺ ΧΡΙΣΤΌΝ would not suit this connection, since
ἈΠΆΤΗ is already in itself a definite and proper idea, in association with which a
ΚΑΤᾺ ΧΡΙΣΤΌΝ would be inconceivable; whereas the
figurativeσυλαγωγεῖν still admits also the negative modal statement (
Οὐ ΚΑΤᾺ Χ.) for greater definiteness. Accordingly
ΚΑΤᾺ Τ.ΠΑΡΆΔ.Κ.Τ.Λ. (comp. Steiger, Ellicott) is to be taken as definition of mode to
ΣΥΛΑΓΩΓῶΝ. Paul, namely, having previously announced
whereby the
συλαγωγεῖν takes place, now adds for the still more precise description of that procedure, in order the more effectively to warn his readers against it,
that in accordance with which it takes place,
i.e. what is the objective
regulative standard by which they permit themselves to be guided. He does this
positively (
κατὰ τὴν …
κόσμου) and
negatively (
κ.
οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν). The genitive
ΤῶΝ ἈΝΘΡ. is to be explained:
ἫΝ ΠΑΡΈΛΑΒΕ ΠΑΡᾺ ΤῶΝ ἈΝΘΡ. (comp.
2 Thessalonians 3:6), and
ΤῶΝ denotes the
category, the traditio
humana as such, opposed to the divine revelation. Comp.
Mark 7:8. What is
meant, doubtless, is the ritual
Jewish tradition outside of the Mosaic law (comp. on
Matthew 15:2), the latter being excluded by
τῶν ἀνθρ.; but Paul
designates the thing quite generally, according to the
genus to which it belongs, as
human.
κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου] Parallel of the foregoing:
according to the elements of the world, i.e.
according to the religious rudiments, with which non-Christian humanity occupies itself. The expression in itself embraces the ritual observances[91] both of
Judaism and heathenism, which, in comparison with the perfect religion of Christianity, are only “puerilia
rudimenta” (Calvin), as it were the A B C of religion, so that Paul therefore in this case also, where he warns his readers against
Judaistic enticing, characterizes the matter according to its
category. As to the designation itself and its various interpretations, see on
Galatians 4:3. Among the latest expositors, Bleek agrees with our view, while Hofmann explains: “because it (the philosophy which is described as deceit) permits
the material things, of which the created world consists, to form its standard.” See in opposition to this on Gal.
l.c. Both expressions,
τὴν παράδ.
τ.
ἀνθρ. and
ΤᾺ ΣΤΟΙΧ.Τ.ΚΌΣΜΟΥ, have it as their aim to render apparent the worthlessness and unsuitableness for the Christian standpoint (comp.
Galatians 4:9). Hence, also, the contrast which, though obvious of itself, is nevertheless emphatic:
ΚΑῚ Οὐ ΚΑΤᾺ ΧΡΙΣΤΌΝ. The activity of that
ΣΥΛΑΓΩΓΕῖΝhas not Christ for its objective standard; He, in accordance with His divine dignity exalted above everything (see
Colossians 2:9), was to be the sole regulative for all activity in Christian teaching, so that the standard guiding their work should be found in the relation of dependence upon Him; but instead of this the procedure of the
συλαγωγῶν allows human tradition, and those non-Christian rudiments which the Christian is supposed to have long since left behind, to serve as his rule of conduct! How unworthy it is, therefore, to follow such seduction!
[87] Comp. Luther’s frequent denunciations of philosophy, under which he had present to his mind its degeneracy in the Aristotelian scholasticism.
[88] Comp. also Calovius. The latter rightly remarks how
ἀφιλοσόφως and
ἀθεολόγως men would proceed, who should regard philosophical and theological truth as opposites; and points out that if Greek philosophy do not teach the doctrine of eternal life and its attainment, it is not a
κενὴ ἀπάτη, but an
imperfectio. Fathers of the Church also, as
e.g. Clemens Al. (comp. Spiess,
Logos spermat. p. 341), aptly distinguish philosophy itself from the phenomena of its abuse. The latter are philosophy also, but not in accordance with the truth of the conception.
[89] These words
κ.
κεν.
ἀπ., characterizing the philosophy meant, are therefore all the less to be regarded, with Holtzmann, as a tautological insertion; and it is mere arbitrariness to claim the words
κατὰ τ.
παράδ.
τῶν ἀνθρώπ. for the Synoptical Gospels (
Matthew 15:2 f.); as if
παράδοσις (comp. especially
Galatians 1:14) were not sufficiently current in the apostle’s writings.
[90] The speculations of Essenism are also designated as philosophy in Philo. Comp. Keim,
Gesch. Jesu, I. p. 292.
[91] Calvin well says: “Quid, vocat
elementa mundi? Non dubium quin
ceremonias; nam continuo post exempli loco speciem unam adducit, circumcisionem scilicet.”
Colossians 2:8. Paul once more (previously in
Colossians 2:4) begins to attack the false teachers, but turns aside in
Colossians 2:9 from the direct attack to lay the basis for the decisive attack in
Colossians 2:16-23.—
τις. It is not clear that we can infer from the singular that only one false teacher had appeared in the Colossian Church.—
ὑμᾶς is placed in an emphatic position, and its force is “you whose Christian course has been so fair, and who have received such exhortations to remain steadfast”.—
ἔσται: the future indicative after
μή implies a more serious estimate of the danger than the subjunctive. For the construction,
τις followed by a participle with the article,
cf.Galatians 1:7,
Luke 18:9.—
συλαγωγῶν. The sense is disputed. Several of the Fathers and some modern writers think it means “to rob”. It is used in this sense with
οἶκον (Aristaen., 2, 22), and Field (
Notes on the Translation of the N.T., p. 195) says “there can be no better rendering than ‘lest any man
rob you’ ”. But, as Soden points out, that of which they were robbed should have been expressed. It is better to take it with most commentators in the more obvious sense “lead you away as prey”. The verb is so used in Heliod., Æth., x., 35 (with
θυγατέρα), Nicet., Hist., 5, 96 (with
παρθένον), and it may be chosen with the special sense of seduction in mind.—
διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης. The second noun is explanatory of the first, as is shown by the absence of the article and preposition before it and the lack of any indication that Paul had two evils to attack. The meaning is “his philosophy, which is vain deceit”. The word has, of course, no reference to Greek philosophy, and probably none to the allegorical method of Scripture exegesis that the false teachers may have employed. Philo uses it of the law of Judaism, and Josephus of the three Jewish sects. Here, no doubt, it means just the false teaching that threatened to undermine the faith of the Church. There is no condemnation of philosophy in itself, but simply of the empty, but plausible, sham that went by that name at Colossæ. Hort thinks that the sense is akin to the later usage of the word to denote the ascetic life.—
κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων: “according to human tradition” as opposed to Divine revelation. Meyer, Ellicott and Findlay connect with
συλαγ. It is more usual to connect with
ἀπ. or
τ.
φιλ.
κ.
κεν.
ἀπ. The last is perhaps best. It indicates the source from which their teaching was drawn.—
κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου. [On this phrase the following authorities may be referred to: Hilgenfeld,
Galaterbrief, pp. 66
sq.; Lipsius,
Paul. Rechtf., p. 83; Ritschl,
Rechtf. u. Vers,3 ii., 252; Klöpper,
ad loc.; Spitta, 2
Pet. u. Jud., 263
sq.; Everling,
Paul. Angel. u. Däm., pp. 65
sq.; Haupt,
ad loc.; Abbott,
ad loc. The best and fullest account in English is Massie’s article “Elements” in Hastings’
Dictionary of the Bible. To these may now be added St. John Thackeray,
The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, pp. 163–170, and Deissmann’s article “Elements” in the
Encyclopædia Biblica.] Originally
στ. meant the letters of the alphabet, then in Plato and later writers the physical elements, and lastly (but only from the first century A.D.) the rudiments of knowledge. It has been frequently taken in this sense as the A B C of religious knowledge (so recently Mey., Lightf., Ol., Cremer and many others). This explanation had, however, been attacked by Neander with powerful arguments in his discussion of the parallel passage
Galatians 4:3. (
Planting and Training, i., 465, 466,
cf. 323 [Bohn’s ed.].) He pointed out that if
στ. meant first principles we should have had a genitive of the object, as in
Hebrews 5:12,
στ.
τ.
ἀρχῆς τ.
λογίων. Such an omission of the leading idea is inadmissible. Further, Paul regarded the heathen as enslaved under
στ.
τ.
κός. and their falling away to Jewish rites as a return to this slavery. Therefore the expression must apply to something both had in common, and something condemned by Paul, which cannot be the first principles of religion (to which also
ἀσθενῆ would be inappropriate), but the ceremonial observances, which were so called as earthly and material. It has been further pointed out by Klöpper that following
κατὰ τ.
παρ.
τ.
ἀνθρ. this term introduced by
κατὰ and not connected by
καὶ must express the content of the teaching, which is not very suitable if “religious rudiments” is the meaning. Nor is it true that the false teachers gave elementary instruction. If this view be set aside, as suiting neither the expression in itself nor the context in which it occurs, the question arises whether we should return to the interpretation of several Fathers, that the heavenly bodies are referred to. These were called
στοιχεῖα (examples are given in Valesius on
Eus. H. E., v., 24, Hilg.
l.c.). This is favoured by the reference to “days, and months, and seasons, and years” in
Galatians 4:11, immediately following the mention of
στ. in
Colossians 2:10, for these were regulated by the heavenly bodies. But it is unsatisfactory, for the context in which the expression occurs, especially in Galatians, points to personal beings. In this passage the contrast of
στ.
τ.
κ. with
Χριστόν is fully satisfied only if the former are personal. In
Galatians 4:3 Paul applies the illustration of the heir under “guardians and stewards” to the pre-Christian world under the
στ.
τ.
κ., and here again a personal reference is forcibly suggested. Still more is this the case with
Galatians 4:8-9. In
Colossians 2:8 Paul says
ἐδουλεύσατε τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσι θεοῖς. In the next verse he asks “how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly
στ., to which you wish to be in bondage (
δουλεῦσαι) over again?” This clearly identifies
τ.
στ. with
τ.
φύς.
μὴ οὖσι θεοῖς, and therefore proves their personality, which is suggested also by
ἐδουλ.; accordingly they cannot be the heavenly bodies or the physical elements of the world. Hilgenfeld, followed by Lipsius, Holsten and Klöpper, regards them as the astral spirits, the angels of the heavenly bodies. That the latter were regarded as animated by angels is certain, for we find this belief in Philo and Enoch (
cf.Job 38:7,
Jam 1:17). But it is strange that the spirits of the stars should be called
στ.
τ.
κόσμου. And while they determine the seasons and festivals, they have nothing to do with many ceremonial observances, such as abstinence from meats and drinks. Spitta (followed by Everling, Sod., Haupt, and apparently Abb.) has the merit of giving the true interpretation. According to the later Jewish theology, not only the stars but all things had their special angels. The proof of this belongs to a discussion of angelology, and must be assumed here.
στ.
τ.
κός. are therefore the elemental spirits which animate all material things. They are so called from the elements which they animate, and are identical with the
ἀρχαὶ κ.
ἐξουσίαι, who receive this name from their sphere of authority. Thus all the abstinence from material things, submission to material ordinances and so forth, involve a return to their service. We need not, with Ritschl, limit the reference to the angels of the law, though they are included. Thus interpreted the passage gains its full relevance to the context, and to the angel worship of the false teachers which Paul is attacking. The chief objection to this explanation is that we have no parallel for this usage of the word, except in the
Test. Sol.,
ἡμεῖς ἐσμὲν τὰ λεγόμενα στοιχεῖα,
οἱ κοσμοκράτορες τοῦ κόσμου τούτου. But this is late. The term is used in this sense in modern Greek. In spite of this the exegetical proof that personal beings are meant is too strong to be set aside. So we must explain, “philosophy having for its subject-matter the elemental spirits”.—
καὶ οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν must be taken similarly, not having Christ for its subject-matter.
Χ. means the person of Christ, not teaching about Christ, and is opposed simply to
στ., not to
παρ.
τ.
ἀνθρ. The false teachers put these angels in the place of Christ.
8–15. Warning against alien teachings: Christ is all for peace and life
8.
Beware &c.] Quite lit., “
See lest any one shall be your spoiler”
; the positive and imminent risk being indicated by the future tense (“
shall be”), quite anomalous in such constructions.
any man] “This indefinite [expression] is frequently used by St Paul, when speaking of opponents whom he knows well enough but does not care to name” (Lightfoot). Cp.
Romans 3:8;
1 Corinthians 11:16;
1 Corinthians 14:37;
1 Corinthians 15:12;
2 Corinthians 3:1;
2 Corinthians 10:2;
2 Corinthians 10:12;
2 Corinthians 11:20-21;
Galatians 1:7;
Galatians 1:9; above,
Colossians 2:4, below
Colossians 2:16;
2 Thessalonians 2:3;
2 Thessalonians 3:10-11;
1 Timothy 1:3;
1 Timothy 1:6;
1 Timothy 6:3;
1 Timothy 6:21.
spoil you] Better, with R.V.,
maketh spoil of you. The Greek word is not known in earlier Greek literature, but its form leaves no doubt of its meaning.—The false teachers would not merely “despoil” the Colossians of certain spiritual convictions and blessings, but would lead
them away captives, as their deluded adherents and devotees. Lightfoot compares
2 Timothy 3:6.
through philosophy … deceit] We may fairly represent the Greek, sacrificing precise literality, thus:
through his empty deceit of a philosophy. No doubt the false teachers posed as great intellectualists, and took care to present their “gospel” as something congruous in kind with existing speculations, Greek or Eastern, about knowing and being. They would say little or nothing like “
Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise … and that repentance and remission … should be preached in His name” (
Luke 24:46-47); but rather “Thus the finite stands related to the Infinite; thus spirit is eternally differenced from matter, and thus it secures its emancipation from its material chain.”
Lightfoot in an interesting note traces the word “
Philosophy” from its alleged origin in the modesty of Pythagoras (cent. 6 b.c.), who declined the title of “
wise” (
sophos), preferring that of “
wisdom-lover” (
philosophos), to its later association with “subtle dialectics and profitless speculation,” as in St Paul’s age. And he remarks on two different views about pagan Philosophy represented among the Fathers; that of e.g. Clement of Alexandria (cent. 2–3), who regarded it as “not only a preliminary training … for the Gospel, but even as in some sense a covenant … given by God to the Greeks”; and that of e.g. Tertullian (at the same date) who saw a positive antithesis between “the philosopher” and “the Christian.” Lightfoot remarks that St Paul’s speech at Athens “shows that his sympathies would have been at least as strong” with Clement as with Tertullian. Can we go quite so far? Surely the
main drift of his teaching emphasizes the tendency of independent speculation—not to discover facts destructive of the Gospel; no such timid misgivings beset him; but—to foster mental habits hostile to a submissive welcome to the Gospel. Cp. esp.
1 Corinthians 1:17 to
1 Corinthians 3:23.
“Folly indeed it is,” says Quesnel, “to seek to establish a science wholly Divine on foundations wholly human. And this is what they do who seek to judge of the things of faith by the principles of philosophy.”
tradition]
Paradosis. Cp.
1 Corinthians 11:2;
2 Thessalonians 2:15;
2 Thessalonians 3:6; for this word used in a good sense, that of apostolic teaching and precept. Strictly, it means what is “
handed on,” and so may mean, by connexion, either (as here) an esoteric “
deposit,” passed down as it were along the line of the initiated, or simply “
teaching,” the conveyance of opinion or knowledge in any way from one mind to another.—It is remarkable that in this latter sense, very commonly, the word “tradition” is used by the Fathers to mean simply Scripture; “
evangelic” or “
apostolic tradition” denoting respectively
the teaching of
the Gospels and
the Epistles.—Here, however, obviously the word inclines to its worse reference; the more or less esoteric teaching about things unseen, “handed on” in the heretical circles, not published in the daylight.
of men] Whereas the Apostle’s mission and Gospel was “not of men, neither by man” (
Galatians 1:1) nor “according to man” (
ibid., 11). He “neither received it of man, nor was taught it, but by revelation from Jesus Christ” (
ibid., 12). Nothing is more emphatic in St Paul than this assertion of the strictly and directly superhuman, Divine, origin of the Gospel as a message.
rudiments] Cp.
Galatians 4:3.—The Greek word means a first beginning, or principle (see Liddell and Scott’s
Greek Lexicon, under
στοιχεῖον), for instance, as a simple vocal
sound (that e.g. of the letter
r) is a first element in speech. Hence it comes to mean “
an element” in knowledge, or instruction; and hence, elementary instruction. The same word also denoted the
heavenly bodies, regarded as the
first grounds of measurement of time; and many ancient expositors saw this meaning here, as if the Apostle had in view the observance of “days, and months, and seasons, and years” (
Galatians 4:10). But Lightfoot points out that (
a) the reference here is to some
mode of teaching, (
b) the observance of “times” was too subordinate a factor in the errors in question to be thus named as a part for the whole. See his note here and also on
Galatians 4:3.—The Apostle has in view the pre-Christian ordinances of e.g. sacrifice and circumcision, regarded as temporary, introductory to the Gospel, and now therefore to be laid aside.
In their place, they were Divine;
out of their place, they are “of the world.”
On the word
στοιχεῖον see further Grimm’s
N.T. Lexicon, ed. Thayer.
of the world] Belonging to an order not spiritual but only mechanical, material. See the last words of the previous note. For such a reference of the word
cosmos cp.
1 Corinthians 1:20.
not after Christ] “Christ is neither the author nor the substance of [this] teaching” (Lightfoot). The holy and necessary exclusiveness of the Gospel cannot admit such “traditions” and “elements” even as subordinate allies. They must absolutely give way before it.
Colossians 2:8.
Μὴ τις ἔσται) So,
ἵνα ἔσται,
Revelation 22:14.—
συλαγωγῶν) who not only
makes spoil out of you, but
makes yourselves a
spoil. Both to this word
συλαγωγῶν, and to the word
κενῆς,
vain, are opposed
fulness, riches, treasures [
Colossians 2:2-3;
Colossians 2:9].—
διὰ,
by) This expresses the instrument.—
φιλοσοφίας καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης,
philosophy and vain deceit) a Hendiadys, as
Colossians 2:18. Philosophy is in itself a kind of thing
indifferent (midway between good and bad); but its abuse, however, tending to deceit, is more easy [than its use for good], especially in that Jewish philosophy of which they at that time boasted, and which they endeavoured to accommodate to the purity of the faith; for Paul does not say, that we are brought to Christ
by philosophy. Paul maintains that what his opponents boasted to be philosophy and ‘wisdom,’
Colossians 2:23, was
vain deceit.—
κατὰ,
according to) This definitely points out what philosophy is intended, and restricts the general appellation to the Jewish philosophy. This is indicated in the discussion,
Colossians 2:11;
Colossians 2:16;
Colossians 2:20; wherefore the proposition in
Colossians 2:8 ought not to be more widely extended, as if also applying to the Gentile philosophy, although the Jews had taken their philosophy from the Gentiles; and, by parity of reasoning, this remark applies to all philosophy.—
τῶν ἀνθρώπων,
of men) The antithesis is,
of the Godhead,
Colossians 2:9.—
τὰ στοιχεῖα,
the elements [rudiments]) The antithesis is,
bodily,
Colossians 2:9;
Colossians 2:17 : comp.
elements,
Galatians 4:3, note.—
καὶ οὐ κατὰ Χριστὸν,
and not according to Christ) He ought therefore peculiarly and solely to approve of the dectrine that is
according to Christ.
Verses 8-15. - SECTION V. THE CHRISTIAN'S COMPLETENESS IN CHRIST. The apostle has first defined his own doctrinal position in the theological deliverance of
Colossians 1:15-20, and has then skilfully brought himself into suitable personal relations with his readers by the statements and appeals of
Colossians 1:23-2:7. And now, after a general indication in ver. 4 of the direction in which he is about to strike, he unmasks the battery he has been all the while preparing, and delivers his
attack on the Colossian error, occupying the rest of this second chapter, he denounces
(1) its false philosophy of religion (vers. 8-15);
(2) its arbitrary and obsolete ceremonialism (vers. 16, 17);
(3) its visionary angel worship (vers. 18, 19);
(4) its ascetic rules (vers. 20-22; ver. 23)
reviewing the whole system in a brief characterization of its most prominent and dangerous features. It will be convenient to treat separately the first of these topics, under the heading already given, which indicates the positive truth developed by St. Paul in antagonism to the error against which he contends - a truth which is the practical application of the theological teaching of the first chapter.
Verse 8. -
Beware lest there shall be some one who maketh you his spoil through his philosophy and empty deceit (vers. 4, 18, 23;
Ephesians 4:14;
1 Timothy 6:20;
1 Corinthians 2:1, 4;
Galatians 1:7;
Acts 20:30). "Beware;" literally,
see (
to it), a common form of warning (
Colossians 4:17). The future indicative" shall be," used instead of the more regular subjunctive "should be," implies that what is feared is too likely to prove the case (comp.
Hebrews 3:12 and (with another tense)
Galatians 4:11). "Some one who maketh (you) his spoil (
ὁ συλαγωγῶν)" is an expression so distinct and individualizing that it appears to single out a definite, well known person. The denunciations of this Epistle are throughout in the
singular number (vers. 4, 16, 18), in marked contrast with the
plural of
Galatians 1:17, and that prevails in the apostle's earlier polemical references. It is in harmony with the philosophical, Gnosticizing character of the Colossian heresy that it should rest on the authority of some single teacher, rather than on Scripture or tradition, as did the conservative legalistic Judaism.
Συλαγωγῶν, a very rare word,
hapax legomenon in the New Testament, bears its meaning on its face. It indicates the selfish, partisan spirit, and the overbearing conduct of the false teacher. Against such men St. Paul had forewarned the Ephesian elders (
Acts 20:29, 30). "And empty deceit" stands in a qualifying apposition to "philosophy:" "His philosophy, indeed! "It is no better than a vain deceit." This kind of irony we shall find the writer using with still greater effect in ver. 18.
Deceit is empty (
κενός: comp.
Ephesians 5:6;
1 Thessalonians 2:1;
1 Corinthians 15:14; distinguish from
μάταιος,
fruitless, vain), which deceives by being a show of what it is not,
a hollow pretence. From the prominence given to this aspect of the new teaching, we infer that it claimed to be a
philosophy, and made this its special distinction and ground of superiority. And this consideration points (comp. Introduction, § 4), to some connection between the system of the Colossian errorists and the Alexandrine Judaism, of which Philo, an elder contemporary of St. Paul, is our chief exponent. The aim of this school, which had now existed for two centuries at least, and had diffused its ideas far and wide, was to transform and sublimate Judaism by interpreting it under philosophical principles. Its teachers endeavoured, in fact, to put the "new wine" of Plato into the old bottles" of Moses, persuading themselves that it was originally there (comp. note on "mystery,"
Colossians 1:27). In Philo,
philosophy is the name for true religion, whose essence consists in the pursuit and contemplation of pure spiritual truth. Moses and the patriarchs are, with him, all "philosophers;" the writers of the Old Testament" philosophize;" it is" the philosophical man" who holds converse with God. This is the only place where
philosophy is expressly mentioned in the New Testament; in
1 Corinthians 1:21 and context it is, however, only verbally wanting. According to the tradition of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ (vers. 17, 20, 22;
Galatians 1:11, 12;
Galatians 4:3, 9;
1 Corinthians 1:20, 21;
1 Corinthians 3:19-21;
Matthew 15:2;
Mark 7:8;
1 John 4:5;
1 Peter 1:18). This clause qualifies "making spoil" (Meyer, Ellicott) rather than "deceit;" human authority and natural reason furnish the principles and the method
according to which the false teacher proceeds. "Tradition" does not necessarily imply antiquity (comp.
1 Corinthians 11:2;
2 Thessalonians 2:15;
2 Thessalonians 3:6); "of men" is the emphatic part of the phrase. These words are characteristic of St. Paul, who was so profoundly conscious of the supernatural origin of his own doctrine (see
Galatians 1:11-17;
1 Corinthians 11:23;
1 Thessalonians 4:15: comp.
John 3:31-35;
John 8:23;
1 John 4:5). Similarly, "the rudiments of the world" are the crude beginnings of truth, the childishly faulty and imperfect religious conceptions and usages to which the world had attained apart from the revelation of Christ (comp.
Galatians 4:3, 9; also
Hebrews 5:12, for this use of
στοιχεῖα). It is not either Jewish or non-Jewish
elements specifically that are intended. Jew and Greek are one in so far as their religious ideas are "not according to Christ." Greek thought had also contributed its
rudiments to the world's education for Christ: hence, comprehensively, "the rudiments of
the world "(comp.
1 Corinthians 1:21). The blending of Greek and Jewish elements in the Colossian theosophy would of itself suggest this generalization, already shadowed forth in
Galatians 4:3. Neander, Hofmann, and Klopper (the latest German commentator), have returned to the view that prevailed amongst the Fathers, from Origen downwards, reading this phrase, both here and in Galatians, in a physical sense, as in
2 Peter 3:10, 12; the
elementa mundi, "the powers of nature," "heavenly bodies," etc., worshipped by the Gentiles as gods, and which the Jews identified with the angels (ver. 18;
Hebrews 1:7) as God's agents in the direction of the world. This interproration has much to recommend it, but it scarcely harmonizes with the parallel "tradition of men," still less with the context of ver. 20, and is absolutely at variance, as it seems to us, with the argument involved in
Galatians 4:3. Not the doctrine of Christ, but
Christ himself is the substitute for these discarded
rudiments (vers. 17, 20). His Person is the norm and test of truth (
1 Corinthians 12:3;
1 John 4:1-3). The views combatted were "not according to Christ," for they made him something less and lower than that which he is. Colossians 2:8
Beware (βλέπετε)
Lit., see to it.
Lest any man spoil you (μὴ τὶς ἔσται ὑμᾶς ὁ συλαγωγῶν)
The Greek is more precise and personal: lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil. So Rev. Συλαγωγέω to carry off booty, only here in the New Testament. A very strong expression for the work of the false teachers; make you yourselves a booty. The A.V. is ambiguous, and might be taken to mean corrupt or damage you.
Philosophy and vain deceit (τῆς φιλοσοφίας καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης)
Rev. gives the force of the article, his philosophy: καὶ and is explanatory, philosophy which is also vain deceit. Hence the warning is not against all philosophy. Φιλοσοφία, philosophy, only here in the New Testament. It had originally a good meaning, the love of wisdom, but is used by Paul in the sense of vain speculation and with special reference to its being the name by which the false teachers at Colossae designated not only their speculative system, but also their practical system, so that it covered their ascetic practices no less than their mysticism. Bishop Lightfoot remarks upon the fact that philosophy, by which the Greeks expressed the highest effort of the intellect, and virtue (ἀρετή), their expression for the highest moral excellence, are each used but once by Paul, showing "that the Gospel had deposed the terms as inadequate to the higher standard, whether of knowledge or practice, which it had introduced."
After the tradition
Connect with the whole phrase philosophy and vain deceit, as descriptive of its source and subject matter. Others connect with make spoil. The term is especially appropriate to the Judaeo-Gnostic teachings in Colossae, which depended for their authority, not on ancient writings, but on tradition. The later mystical theology or metaphysic of the Jews was called Kabbala, literally meaning reception or received doctrines, tradition.
Rudiments (στοιχεῖα)
See on2 Peter 3:10. Rudimentary teachings, as inHebrews 5:12; applicable alike to Jewish and to Gentile teaching. Ceremonialism - meats, drinks, washings, Essenic asceticism, pagan symbolic mysteries and initiatory rites - all belonged to a rudimentary moral stage. CompareColossians 2:11,Colossians 2:21, andGalatians 4:9.
Of the world
Material as contrasted with spiritual.
Links
Colossians 2:8 InterlinearColossians 2:8 Parallel Texts
Colossians 2:8 NIVColossians 2:8 NLTColossians 2:8 ESVColossians 2:8 NASBColossians 2:8 KJV
Colossians 2:8 Bible AppsColossians 2:8 ParallelColossians 2:8 Biblia ParalelaColossians 2:8 Chinese BibleColossians 2:8 French BibleColossians 2:8 German Bible
Bible Hub
