Colossians 2:18

Let noman] Another parallel but distinct caution after that of Colossians 2:16.

beguile you of your reward Rob you of your prize, R.V. The verb is compounded with the noun brabeion(used Philippians 3:14), an athletic prize. Here, as in Philippians, it means the life eternal, "the crown of life" (James 1:12; Revelation 2:10). The Colossians were tempted to forsake their position and privilege in Christ, found and retained by faith; and, so far, they were tempted to lose their "hold on the eternal life" (1 Timothy 6:12; 1 Timothy 6:19) which is in Him alone (1 John 5:12). Cp. Revelation 3:11. What their Lord would do to save them from the fatal step was altogether another matter; their one duty was not to take the step.

The alien teachers are represented here (having regard to the classical usage of the verb) "not as umpires, nor as successful rivals, but simply as persons frustrating those who otherwise would have won the prize" (Lightfoot).

Tyndale and Cranmer curiously render, "Let no man make you shote at a wronge marke," probably influenced by Luther, who has Lasset euch Niemand das Ziel verrücken; an untenable paraphrase. Geneva, "Let no man … beare rule over you."

in a voluntary humility The Greek means, quite literally, "willing in humility" ;and some questions arise about the construction. These may be reduced to two main alternatives, (a) Is "willing" to be connected with the verb just previous, and to be rendered, "let no one rob you of your prize willingly," "meaningly," "of malice prepense"? (b) Is "willing" to be connected with the words just following, and explained, "taking pleasure inhumility"? Of these (a) is easier grammatically, but Ellicott urges the grave objection that it attributes a Satanic and almost incredible malice to the teachers in question. It may be answered that St Paul need not be charging them with "meaning" to rob their followers of heaven, but with "meaning" to rob them of a faith with which as a fact the hope of heaven was bound up. Lightfoot advocates (b), and proves that it is a construction supported by the LXX., where it is not used "only with personal pronouns" (as Ellicott says), but with ordinary nouns; see Psalms 110. (Heb. and Eng. 111.) 1, 146. (Heb. and Eng. 147.) 10. The strong Hebraism, without any N.T. parallel, is certainly startling, however; and we recommend (a), though doubtfully, with the explanation given above. The rendering would be somewhat thus, in paraphrase: Let no man have his own way in robbing you &c.

humility "Humility is a vice with heathen moralists but a virtue with Christian Apostles.… In this passage which (with Colossians 2:23) forms the sole exception to the general language of the Apostles, the divergence is rather apparent than real" (Lightfoot). An artificial, gratuitous, humility is not humility but its parody. And such was the thing in question; an abasement of man before unlawful objects (see next words) of worship; a prostration self-chosen, and also self-conscious.

worshipping of angels A practice highly developed in later Judaism, while entirely absent from the apostolic teaching, and indeed clearly condemned here, and Revelation 19:10; Revelation 22:9, and implicitly in Hebrews 1 It is noticeable that the Council of Laodicea (a.d. 394), so near Colossæ, forbids (c. 35) Christians to leave the Church and go away "to name angels" in secret assemblies, calling this a "secret idolatry," and apparently connecting it with Jewish influences. Theodoret in his Commentary here speaks of the existence in his time (cent. 5) of Oratories (euctêria) to the Archangel Michael in the region of Laodicea and Colossæ, and of their popularity, apparently as rivals to the regular Churches. At this day in Abyssinia Michael has his holyday every month. See further Introd., pp. 15, 31, 33.

"Angels," says the saintly Jansenist Quesnel here, "will always win the day over Jesus Christ despised (anéanti) and crucified, if the choice of a mediator between us and God is left to the vanity of the human mind."

For a (doubtful) early sanction of angel-worship see a difficult sentence in Justin, Apology, 1. c. 6. Irenæus, Justin's contemporary, says (ii. 57) that the Church "does nothing by the invocation of angels."

Whatever its origin and details, such a worship inevitably beclouds the Christian's view both of the majesty and of the nearness and tenderness of Christ his living Head.

" Worshipping": thrêskeia;a word akin perhaps in etymology to "tremble," and denoting religious devotion mainly in its external aspect; a cultus. The word or its cognate occurs elsewhere in N.T. Acts 26:5; James 1:26-27. Lightfoot quotes a sentence from Philo, the Jewish contemporary of the Apostles, where it is expressly distinguished from piety (hosiotês); and he says that "generally the usage of the word exhibits a tendency to a bad sense." Such a sense is quite in point here; an unauthorized and abject cultuswas the natural expression of a counterfeit "humility."

intruding intothose things which he hath not seen Quœ vidit ambulans(Old Latin) ;Quœ non vidit ambulans(Vulgate) ;" Dwelling in the things which he hath seen" (R.V.). Here are serious differences of reading and translation, which must be briefly discussed.

(a) Shall we render "Intruding into," or, "Dwelling in"? Classical usage of the Greek verb favours the latter rendering; the word is used e.g. of a god's hauntin a region or a spot. The usage in LXX. and Apocrypha slightly favours the former rendering; the word is used there of the invasion or new occupation of a country (Joshua 19:51; 1Ma 12:25; 1Ma 14:31). The balance must be struck by our conclusions on the rest of the phrase.

(b) "Things which hehath not seen" :" Things which hehath seen." Is the negative to be omitted or not? "Many authorities, some ancient, insert - not" " (margin, R.V.). Ellicott approves the insertion of "not"; Lightfoot advocates the omission. It is difficult to discuss the evidence in a note, and we have attempted to state it in outline in Appendix J. Here it must suffice to say that we venture to recommend the reading which he hath not seen. It seems to us more likely, on a view of the facts, that the negative should have dropped out early than that it should have been deliberately inserted.

If we reject "not," the meaning will most probably be that the erring teacher "dwells in, or dwells on, what he has seen," his alleged visions and revelations, the "manifestations" which he says, and perhaps thinks, he has witnessed, and which he prefers to the apostolic Gospel. If we retain "not," the meaning will be that he invadesthe region of the Unseen with a presumptuous confidence of assertion, as if he hadseen it. In either case he might asserthis enjoyment of angelic or other visions; but in the latter case the Apostle denies such a claim if made. Cp. Ezekiel 13:3; "Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing."

vainly The Greek word means "at random," without reason or cause. Cp. Rom 13:4; 1 Corinthians 15:2. (This meaning in some passages glides into that of "without result"; Galatians 3:4; Galatians 4:11.) The true Gospel is not so; its loftiest assertion springs from deepest fact and truth.

puft up A present participle, indicating habit and development. For the word in a similar connexion cp. 1 Corinthians 8:1.

by his fleshly mind Lit., "by the mind of his flesh." "The mind" (nous) here is the merely reasoning faculty as distinguished from spiritual intuition. "The flesh" is, as often in St Paul, the unregenerate state, in which the sinful principle dominates. See Ephesians 2:3 and note there in this Series. In that verse "flesh" and "mind" are somewhat similarly collocated; but the word rendered (in A.V.) "mind" is lit. "thoughts"; "the mind" in particular action. He is "puffed up" by an exercise of thought characteristic of the unregenerate state.

L. THE VARIOUS READINGS OF Colossians 2:18

Must we read (a) "The things which he hath not seen," or (b) "The things which he hath seen?"

The documentary evidence may be briefly stated thus:

i. For the omission of "not":

Uncial MSS.: א ABD, the first three of which are, with C, the oldest copies we possess. א B were probably written cent. 4, A cent. 5. D probably belongs to cent. 6.

Cursive MSS.: those numbered 17, 28, 67 in the list of cursive copies of St Paul's Epistles. These belong to centt. 10 and 12. MS. 67 omits "not" by correction only;the correction is perhaps as late as cent. 15.

Versions: the Old Latin (perhaps cent. 2) in three of its texts out of the five which contain the Epistle; the Coptic Version called the Memphitic (perhaps cent. 2); and two others.

Fathers: Tertullian (cent. 2, 3); Origen (cent. 3), but somewhat doubtfully [119]; the commentator Hilary (cent. 4), quoted as Ambrosiaster, as his work is included with the works of Ambrose. Jerome and Augustine (cent. 4, 5) both notice both readings.

[119] He cites the text three times. Two of these occur where his Greek is known only through a Latin Version, and one of these two gives "not." In the third, we have the Greek. Μὴ is inserted by the (last) critical Editor, De la Rue.

ii. For the retention of "not":

Uncial MSS.: C K L P, the first of cent. 5, the others of cent. 9. Besides, the reading οὐ (not μὴ) is given by a corrector of א, who dates perhaps cent. 7, and by correctors of D, who date perhaps cent. 8.

Cursive MSS.: allwith the three exceptions given above; i.e. more than 290 known copies, ranging from cent. 9 to cent. 15 or 16.

Versions: the Syriac Versions (the earliest is probably of cent. 2); one text of the Old Latin; the Vulgate (Jerome's revision of the Latin); the Gothic, Æthiopic, and others.

Fathers: Origen (in one place; see further above); Chrysostom; Jerome (with deliberate preference); Augustine (likewise); Theodore of Mopsuestia; Theodoret, "and others" (Lightfoot).

The late Dean Burgon (The Revision Revised, p. 356, note), thus summarizes the evidence, and remarks upon it:

"We have to set off the whole mass of the copies against some 6 or 7: Irenæus (i. 847), Theodorus Mops. (in loc.), Chrys. (xi. 372), Theodoret (iii. 489, 490), John Damascene (ii. 211) against no Fathers at all (for Origen once has μὴ [iv. 655] [120]; once has it not [iii. 63]; and once is doubtful [i. 583]). Jerome and Augustine both take notice of the diversity of reading, but only to reject it. The Syriac versions, the Vulgate, Gothic, Georgian, Sclavonic, Æthiopic, Arabic, and Armenian (we owe the information, as usual, to Dr Malan) are to be set against the suspicious Coptic. All these then are with the Traditional Text: which cannot seriously be suspected of error."

[120] See just above on this point, in our statement of the evidence for "not". (Editor.)

It must be added that Lightfoot (in loco), and Westcott and Hort (N.T. in Greek, ii. 127), suspect the Greek text of Colossians 2:18 of corruption, and suggest or adopt ingenious emendations. The rendering of the clause in question thus altered would be, "treading the void in airy suspension," or, "treading an airy void." We venture to think the reasons for suspicion inadequate.