Colossians 2:15

having spoiled "Having put off from Himself" (R.V.). The Greek verb is apparently unknown before St Paul; classical illustration is impossible. Its literal meaning is "to strip off"; and its voice is middle. This voice, it is alleged, compels us to explain it of the Lord's stripping off something from Himself, divesting Himself. And explanations vary between (a) that given in margin R.V., ("having put off from Himself His body"), supported by the Peshito Syriac version and (among other Fathers) by Ambrose, Hilary, and Augustine (see Lightfoot); and (b) that given in text R.V., advocated by Lightfoot, and supported by Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and other Fathers. In this last, the thought would be that the powers of evil swarmed, so to speak, around Him who had taken our place under "the curse of the Law," and that He in His triumph, stripped or cast them off.

The objection to (a) is that it brings in an alien and isolated idea, and in obscure terms. The objection to (b) seems to us to be that it presents to us an image very peculiar in itself, and not obviously proper to the next words. To cast offenemies and then at once to exhibitthem are not quite congruous ideas.

And why should we reject the A.V. rendering as if ungrammatical? The lawful force of the middle voice would be as well represented by "stripping for Himself" as "stripping from Himself"; it makes the subject of the verb to be also in some degree the object of the action. And the Lord did "strip His foes for Himself" :"He taketh from himthe armour, and divideth the spoils" (Luke 11:22). The imagery is then congruous; the disarmed and despoiled foes are then appropriately, as captives, "shewn" in triumph. We recommend accordingly the A.V. [83]

[83] It is objected that below, Colossians 3:9, we have the same verb in the same voice used where the meaning clearly is "to strip from oneself." But classical parallels exist to such a varying use of the middle in neighbouring contexts. See Sophocles, Ajax, 245, 647 (Dindorf). (Note by the Bishop of Worcester.)

The Old Latin Version has exuens se, following explanation (b). The Vulgate renders the verb exspoliansthe immediate original of the A.V.

principalities and powers Lit., the governments and the authorities, the recognizedenemies of Redemption and the Redeemer. These made their dire hostility supremely felt in that "hour" which He Himself called "the authority of the Darkness" (Luke 22:53). The personal adversaries (under their Chief; see the intimations of Luke 4:13; John 13:2; John 14:30), who had crossed His path so often as the "demons" of possession, now directly assailed Himself, as they are still permitted in measure to assail (Ephesians 6:12) His followers, who meet them in Him the Conqueror. See further above on Colossians 1:16.

made a shew ofthem] Nearly the same Greek verb as that used Matthew 1:19; "make her a public example." The Latin Versions have traduxit, "led them along," as the captives in a Roman triumph.

openly Rather, boldly (Lightfoot). The "openness" indicated by the Greek phrase (quite literally, "in, or with, outspokenness") is the openness of confidence. It is used John 7:4 (where Lightfoot explains it to mean "to assume a bold attitude"); Ephesians 6:19; Philippians 1:20.

triumphing over them The Greek verb (thriambeuein) occurs elsewhere (in N.T.) only 2 Corinthians 2:14; where it is variously explained "to make to triumph" or "to lead in triumph." Here it is of course the latter. Philologically it is probably akin to the Latin triumphus.

in it The Cross. The margin A.V., "in Himself" is quite untenable, though it is countenanced by the Latin, (in semetipso), and by Wyclif, Tyndale (" in his awne persone"), Cranmer, and Rheims. The Genevan version has "in the samecrosse."

The Lord's atoning Death, the apparent triumph of His foes over Him, was His absolute and eternal triumph over them, when it was seen, in His Resurrection, to be the mysterious Ransom of His Church from the curse and from sin, and so His own glorification as its Head. Vicit qui passus est; cui gloria in œternum.

This whole passage while pregnant with primary and universal truth has doubtless a special reference all the while to the "Colossian heresy" with its angelology and angelolatry. He who is King of all orders of good Angels is here presented as Conqueror of their evil counterpart; he, from both points of view, fills the field.