Colossians 2:8

βλέπετε μή … ἔσται. A classical author would have written ὁρᾶτε μή, and so St Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:15; cf. Matthew 8:4 (|| Mark 1:44), Matthew 9:30; Matthew 18:10, [Matthew 24:6]; Revelation 19:10; Revelation 22:9†.

The abruptness gives force; cf. Hebrews 12:25, also Colossians 2:20. For the future indicative cf. Hebrews 3:12; Mark 14:2. It regards the contingency as of greater certainty than the subjunctive, Matthew 24:4. See further Moulton, Gram. Proleg. 1906, pp. 178, 193, who translates ‘take heed! perhaps there will be someone who.…’

μή τις ὑμᾶς ἔσται ὁ συλαγωγῶν, “lest there be any who.” The strange juxtaposition of τίς and ὑμᾶς is for emphasis on both words.

συλαγωγῶν. Here only in the Greek Bible, and once or twice independently in very late Greek, besides in writings influenced by this passage. Its proper meaning seems to be “carry (you) off as booty,” and this suits the context well (cf. Tatian, ad Graec. 22, ὑμεῖς δὲ ὑπὸ τούτων συλαγωγεῖσθε) as in the classical synonym λαφυραγωγεῖν; cf. also δουλαγωγεῖν (1 Corinthians 9:27), σκευαγωγεῖν. So in Heliod. Aeth. X. 35, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τὴν ἐμὴν θυγατέρα συλαγωγήσας (Lidd. and Scott); cf. συλάω in LXX., Ep. Jeremiah 17 (18), ὅπως ὑπὸ τῶν λῃστῶν μὴ συληθῶσι.

A secondary meaning is to despoil a house (cf. συλάω in 2 Corinthians 11:8). And so Field (Otium Norv. III.) here, translating “rob you” (of your treasures); cf. Chrysostom in Field.

St Paul warns the Colossians against becoming the booty of an enemy of Christ. For the figure cf. ἀπαρθῇ in Matthew 9:15, also αἰχμαλωτίζοντες γυναικάρια, 2 Timothy 3:6.

διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας, “through his philosophy.” The article is probably possessive, or perhaps (see Hort, Judaistic Christianity, p. 119) it has “the normal individualising force of the article ‘that philosophy,’ which we may fill up either as ‘that philosophy of his’ or ‘that philosophy which you know of,’ or best as both together ‘that philosophy of his which you know of’.”

φιλοσοφία here only in the N.T. and only in 4 Mac. (four times) of the LXX. φιλόσοφος is used in the Greek Bible of (1) the professional Epicureans and Stoics (Acts 17:18), and (2) the Babylonian enchanters (ashshaphim, Daniel 1:20, LXX.), also in 4 Mac. (three times); φιλοσοφεῖν only in 4 Mac. (five times). Thus the words obtained no real footing in Biblical Greek, and in every case (save in 4 Mac.) have some connotation of contempt.

Here the context shows that it would be a grievous mistake to imagine St Paul to be thinking of Greek philosophy strictly so called. Just as Philo could legitimately use the term of the Mosaic Law, ἡ πάτριος φιλοσοφία, de Somn. II. 18 § 127, Wendland, I. 675 (cf. οἱ κατὰ Μωϋσῆν φιλοσοφοῦντες, de Mut. Nom. 39, § 223, Wendland, I. p. 612), and Josephus with less right of the three Jewish sects, Ἰουδαίοις φιλοσοφίαι τρεῖς ἦσαν ἐκ τοῦ πάνυ�, ἤ τε τῶν Ἐσσηνῶν καὶ ἡ τῶν Σαδδουκαίων, τρίτην δὲ ἐφιλοσόφουν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι λεγόμενοι, Antt. XVIII. i. 2, so doubtless every thinker and pseudo-thinker claimed the word for his own system. Perhaps even “system” suggests too much, for this φιλοσοφία may well have been not theosophic speculation at all but only ethical considerations (cf. Hort, op. cit. pp. 120 sq.).

καὶ κενῆς�. The absence of the article shows that the term is closely connected with the man’s φιλοσοφία; the two are to all intents and purposes inseparable.

κενῆς, i.e. lacking anything solid however specious it may be. Cf.

ADDITIONAL NOTE ON CHAPTER Colossians 2:8

κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου.

I. The word στοιχεῖον has a remarkable history, as may be seen from the following summary of its meanings, with the addition of the earliest undisputed authority in each case. Starting from the root idea of στοῖχος, a row, it means besides the line, i.e. shadow, of a sundial (Aristoph.):

(a) A letter of the alphabet (τὸ ῥῶ τὸ στοιχεῖον, Plato), the alphabet, τὰ στοιχεῖα.

(b) The A, B, C, i.e. the rudiments, or elements of a science.

(c) The material elements of the universe (Plato; cf. Wis 7:17; Wis 19:18; 4Ma 12:13).

(d) The stars and heavenly bodies; the signs of the Zodiac, Diog. Laert. 6. 102, τὰ δώδεκα στοιχεῖα.

(e) The spiritual powers at the back of these elements, e.g. in the great Paris magic-papyrus the moon-goddess is στοιχεῖον ἄφθαρτον, and in the Κόρη κόσμου of “Hermes Trismegistus” the στοιχεῖα come as gods before the supreme God and make their complaint of the arrogance of men.

(f) In particular the demons or genii in nature. The Test. of Solomon (see Introd. p. xxvii.) speaks of “the 36 στοιχεῖα, the world-rulers (κοσμοκράτορες) of this darkness” (cf. Ephesians 6:12) who address Solomon (§ 72).

(g) Tutelary spirits (Byzantine writers). This usage is frequent in modern Greece, where στοιχειό is used of the local spirit of the threshing-floor, the rock, etc. Observe also that στοιχειόω and στοιχείωσις are used of magic at least as early as the Byzantine writers.

II. In the N.T. (b) is undoubtedly the meaning in Hebrews 5:12, for στοιχεῖα is defined by the following genitives; and (c) is almost necessary for 2 Peter 3:10; 2 Peter 3:12; but much discussion has arisen over the other passages, Galatians 4:3; Galatians 4:9 and our Colossians 2:8; Colossians 2:20.

(1) It is urged[101] that St Paul, either in his own person or by way of adopting the terminology of his opponents, uses it in the sense of (f) or at least (e); that he is contrasting these genii or spiritual powers with Christ; that in Colossians (with which alone we are concerned) he says that the false teachers teach in accordance with these inferior powers (cf. also Colossians 2:15) and not in accordance with Christ. If this be right he is also perhaps contrasting the magical use of elements with the true Mystery (Colossians 1:26 sq.).

[101] P. Ewald (in loco) adduces this as a striking example of the way in which Fashion leads even clear-sighted commentators astray.

The date, however, of the Test. of Solomon is most uncertain, and failing that we have no clear evidence that στοιχεῖον possessed this meaning at all as early as 1st cent. A.D.

(2) The Fathers generally explain the passages in the sense of (d), thinking either of Gentile adoration of the stars, etc., cf. Augustine, dicunt omnia sidera partes Jovis esse et omnia vivere atque rationales animas habere, De Civ. IV. 11, or of the Jewish observance of new moons, feasts, and Sabbaths regulated by the moon, etc. So Chrysostom.

But to both (1) and (2) there is the serious objection referred to in the notes.