Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Colossians 2:8

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after 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. Rom 3:8 ; 1Co 11:16; 1Co 14:37; 1Co 15:12 ; 2Co 3:1; 2Co 10:2; 2Co 10:12 ; 2Co 11:20-21; Gal 1:7; Gal 1:9; above, Col 2:4, below Col 2:16 ; 2Th 2:3; 2Th 3:10-11; 1Ti 1:3; 1Ti 1:6; 1Ti 6:3; 1Ti 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 2Ti 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” (Luk 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. 1Co 1:17 to 1Co 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. 1Co 11:2; 2Th 2:15; 2Th 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” (Gal 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. Gal 4:3. The Greek word means a first beginning, or principle (see Liddell and Scott’s Greek Lexicon, under ), 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” (Gal 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 Gal 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 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. 1Co 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.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Beware lest any man spoil you – The word spoil now commonly means, to corrupt, to cause to decay and perish, as fruit is spoiled by keeping too long, or paper by wetting, or hay by a long rain, or crops by mildew. But the Greek word used here means to spoil in the sense of plunder, rob, as when plunder is taken in war. The meaning is, Take heed lest anyone plunder or rob you of your faith and hope by philosophy. These false teachers would strip them of their faith and hope, as an invading army would rob a country of all that was valuable.

Through philosophy – The Greek philosophy prevailed much in the regions around Colossae, and perhaps also the oriental or Gnostic philosophy. See the Introduction They were exposed to the influences of these plausible systems. They consisted much of speculations respecting the nature of the divine existence; and the danger of the Colossians was, that they would rely rather on the deductions of that specious reasoning, than on what they had been taught by their Christian teachers.

And vain deceit – Mere fallacy. The idea is, that the doctrines which were advanced in those systems were maintained by plausible, not by solid arguments; by considerations not fitted to lead to the truth, but to lead astray.

After the tradition of men – There appear to have been two sources of danger to which the Christians at Colesso were exposed, and to which the apostle in these cautions alludes, though he is not careful to distinguish them. The one was that arising from the Grecian philosophy; the other, from Jewish opinions. The latter is that to which he refers here. The Jews depended much on tradition (see the notes at Mat 15:2); and many of those traditions would have tended much to corrupt the gospel of Christ.

After the rudiments of the world – Margin, elements. See this explained in the Notes at Gal 4:3.

And not after Christ – Not such as Christ taught.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Col 2:8

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit.

The spoiler and his implement

See to it, says Paul, lest there be some one–I do not say more, you can guess my meaning–to carry you off as his spoil (not take spoil from you). The expression grasps powerfully the essence of the proselytizing spirit; the proselytizing spoil is the person proselytized. He aims at doing this through that which is at once in its arrogant claims a high philosophy, and in its miserable reality an empty deceit; a philosophy, artful, moulded in accordance with an esoteric system, pervaded by five fatal deficiencies.

I. It is merely traditional, and, therefore, of precarious truth.

II. It is human, and, therefore, deficient in authority.

III. It is elementary, belonging to the outworn creed, to the rudiments of religion, and, therefore, unfitted for Christian manhood.

IV. It is material, not connected with the souls true home and centre, but with the palpable and external, and is, therefore, deficient in spirituality.

V. And being all this, assuredly, and as matter of fact, it is not after christ. (Bp. Alexander.)

The false teachers aimed at making the Colossians their prey, carrying them off body and soul. They had been rescued from the bondage of darkness; they had been transferred to the kingdom of light; they had been settled there as free citizens (Col 1:12-13); and now there was a danger that they should fall into a state worse than their former slavery, that they should be carried off as so much booty (Comp. 2Ti 3:6). (Bp. Lightfoot.)

Philosophy discriminated

Philosophy, taken in its simplest acceptation, is only a higher degree of good sense, which, not pretending to know all things, desires to have a thorough knowledge of those objects, the knowledge of which has been placed within our reach. It sets no value on names and appearances; prejudice is not the basis of any of its judgments; neither number nor time has the effect of transforming error into truth. It believes not, denies not, affirms not, at hazard, or on slight grounds. Not trusting to a first look, it searches for differences under resemblances, and resemblances under differences; alternately uniting what the vulgar separate, and separating what they unite. While all facts are isolated to the inattentive eye, they are connected and linked together by the eye of philosophy, which does what it can to trace the chain which unites them. In every case fixing on what is essential, and throwing aside what is merely accidental, it comes at last to recognize a common nature, a common principle, a common origin, in objects which seemed at first to have nothing in common. It thus reduces the innumerable facts of the moral and physical world to a small number of ideas, and these to a smaller number still, always gravitating towards the unity which it will never reach, but to which a mysterious power constrains it always to aspire. To say all in one word, philosophy differs from vulgar reason, in applying itself to penetrate from the exterior of things or their envelope, to their principle, or at least to the idea which explains the greatest number of possible facts, and before which it is constrained to stop as if out of breath. When shall it stop? What is its legitimate sphere? This question is of more importance than any other. Philosophy does not gain more honour by extending its search, than by recognizing its limits. It reigns in this apparent dethronement. It is its glory to know how to restrict itself, just as in the domain of morality it is the glory of the will to stop in proper time and make an effort upon itself. But in order to know what it is able and what unable to do, it takes account of its processes and instruments, compares its means with its end, and not being able to place all its greatness in knowledge finds part of it in confessing its ignorance, and so to speak, in knowing certainly that it does net know. St. Paul did not repudiate this philosophy, and could have no intention to repudiate it. He knew as well as we, that in matters of religion, and even of revealed religion, there may be either a good or a bad philosophy, but that at all events there is philosophy. We cannot condemn philosophy without condemning ourselves to silence on the subject of religion which presupposes it, and guides it, and would create it if it did not previously exist. Accordingly St. Paul has not condemned it; and when he warns his disciples against a science falsely so called, his words imply the existence of a science that is true. Now philosophy is a part of science, or rather is itself the science of science. Nor, moreover, could he have condemned it, without condemning himself who has made such happy and frequent use of it. It were vain to deny that the writings of St. Paul and of St. John are full of the highest philosophy. Let us be understood. We do not say full of sublime truth, but of that philosophy which we have endeavoured to characterize, which rises from appearances to reality, from accident to essence, from the particular to the general, from variable facts to immutable principles. (A. Vinet, D. D.)

St. Pauls attitude towards philosophy

The apostle does not condemn philosophy absolutely: the philosophy and vain deceit of this passage corresponds to what he says in 1Ti 6:20. But though it is not condemned it is disparaged by the connection in which it is placed. The term was doubtless used by the false teachers to describe their system. Though essentially Greek as a name and an idea it had found its way into Jewish circles. Philo used it in speaking of the Hebrew religion and Mosaic law, and also of Essenism, which was probably the progenitor of the Colossian heresy. So, too, Josephus speaks of three Jewish sects as philosophies. It should be remembered also, that in this later age, owing to Roman influence, the term was used to describe practical not less than speculative systems, so that it would cover the ascetic life as well as the mystic theosophy of the Colossian heretics. Hence the apostle is here flinging back at these false teachers a favourite term of their own–their vaunted philosophy, which is hollow and misleading. The word, indeed, could claim a truly noble origin; for it is said to have arisen out of the humility of Pythagoras who called himself a lover of wisdom. In such a sense the term would entirely accord with the spirit and teaching of St. Paul; for it bore testimony to the insufficiency of the human intellect and the need of a revelation. But in his age it had come to be associated generally with the idea of subtle dialectics and profitless speculation; while in this particular instance it was combined with a mystic cosmogony and angelology which contributed a fresh element of danger. As contrasted with the power and fulness and certainty of revelation, all such philosophy was foolishness (1Co 1:20). It is worth observing that this word, which to the Greeks denoted the highest effort of the intellect, occurs here alone in St. Paul, just as he uses virtue, which was their term to express the highest moral excellence, in a single passage only (Php 4:8). The reason is much the same in both cases. The gospel had deposed the terms as inadequate to the higher standard, whether of knowledge or of practice, which it had introduced. The attitude of the fathers towards philosophy while it was a living thing was various. Clement, who was followed in the main by the earlier Alexandines, regards Greek philosophy not only as a preliminary training for the gospel, but even as in some sense a covenant given by God to the Greeks. Others, who were the great majority, and of whom Tertullian may be taken as an extreme type, set their forces directly against it, seeing in it only the parent of all heretical teaching. St. Pauls speech at Athens, on the only occasion when he is known to have been brought into direct personal contact with Greek philosophers (Act 17:18), shows that his sympathies would have been at least as much with Clements representations as with Tertullians. (Bp. Lightfoot.)

Philosophy true and false

I. True philosophy is not condemned by St. Paul. We cannot under stand this concerning any branch or the whole body, lest God be called into judgment. For philosophy is the offspring of right reason; and this light of reason is infused into the mind by God. We, therefore, judge not the discipline of the Platenists, etc., to be true philosophy, but the principles of every one which agree with truth and morals. The errors of theologians do not pertain to theology, nor do those of philosophers and philosophy. These we are free to condemn, but not truth discovered by natural reason.

II. What kind of philosophy is excluded by the apostle. That which is vain and deceitful, viz., the product of reason carried beyond its bounds. Philosophy is to be listened to when it pronounces about things subject to itself, but when it would determine concerning the worship of God and salvation, etc., which are beyond the grasp of reason and depend wholly on revelation, it brings nothing solid or true. St. Paul alleges the cause of this in 1Co 2:14. As animals can judge very well concerning things which relate to sense, yet cannot judge of human affairs, neither can men pronounce by natural light respecting heavenly doctrine, although they may determine by it what is good and right in human concerns. This was the error of the false teachers who, in speculating about the method of approach to God and of redemption, went beyond the declarations which God had made on these matters.

III. The abuse and use of philosophy.

1. Its abuse.

(1) When it attempts to deduce the fundamentals of religion from its own principles. These principles may be true, but there cannot be elicited from them what is to be determined respecting the Trinity, e.g., which is to be deduced from higher principles, viz., the will of God revealed in His Word.

(2) When it opposes its own principles which are true in the order of nature to theological principles which are above the order of nature. Thus it is true that out of nothing, nothing can be made; but philosophers err when they think they can hence conclude against creation which the Scriptures teach as done not by virtue of natural causes, but by the power of God.

(3) When it obtrudes for legitimate conclusions its errors drawn sometimes by false consequences from true premises.

2. Its uses.

(1) For the clear understanding of many passages of Scripture. Although the principles of our religion are derived from God, yet there are many examples and illustrations which cannot be understood without the aid of human literature. Its references to the heavenly bodies require the knowledge of astronomy; to animals, of natural history, etc.

(2) For discriminating between and treating religious controversies; for appreciating the coherence and mutual establishment of heavenly doctrine, and for determining what is consistent and inconsistent with them. Our faith ascends above reason, but not irrationally. I believe the resurrection, because reason proves the doctrine to be delivered in the Bible. I do not believe in purgatory because reason can collect it from no part of Scripture according to the rules of sound logic. This use of reason in sacred things God approves and requires (Eph 5:17; Eph 4:14; 1Th 5:21; Act 17:11).

(3) For the instruction of those who have not yet embraced Christ, and for resistance if they should oppose religion. He who has lived in darkness is not to be drawn directly into the sunlight lest he should be overpowered rather than enlightened; so they, who have been educated in paganism are first to be awakened by reasons drawn from natural light (Act 17:24). And then it is to be employed as a rampart and weapon against opponents. Julian the apostate said We are caught by our own wings when he saw the philosophers routed by the Christians through the advantages of philosophy.

(4) For Christian education, since the mind is prepared and rendered more acute by philosophical studies, and our discourses on sacred things are much enriched by the good sayings of philosophers.

(5) For the delight of hearers. As Clemens says, The truth which is sought from Scripture is as necessary to the life as bread; but that which is sought from other instruction is as sauce And sweetmeats. (Bp. Davenant.)

Philosophy and its counterfeit

I. The counterfeit of a good thing.

1. The good thing–philosophy. Etymologically it means love of wisdom, but in modern use it stands for a system of knowledge. When applied to any particular department of knowledge, it stands for the collection of general laws or principles under which all the subordinate phenomena of facts relating to that subject are comprehended. It is a good thing because–

(1) Christs spirit is good. Christs spirit is a love of truth, a desire to find out the first principles or reason of things; a desire to penetrate all phenomena and to enter in and study that invisible region where all the hidden forces of the universe are at work.

(2) Its process is good–observation, comparison, generalization. Such a process is soul-quickening, invigorating, and ennobling.

(3) Its results are good. All the arts that bless and adorn the civilized world are but ideas reached by philosophy.

2. The counterfeit. There is a false philosophy, a miserable imitation of the true.

(1) It is deceptive, vain deceit. It is mere fiction, guesses, castles in the air. Its light, such as it is, is a mere ignis fatuus rising out of the muddy marshes of a vain imagination.

(2) It is ill founded after the tradition, etc. It has its origin in mere human guesses, and the rough undigested elements of a mere worldly knowledge. It is built on crudities.

(3) It is anti-Christian–not after Christ. Not after the subject, style, and spirit of His teaching.

II. The counterfeit of a good thing is dangerous. What thousands in all ages have been made a prey of by counterfeit philosophy! They have been plundered and borne away into confusion and ruin by wrong ideas of God, the universe, and man and his nature, obligations, and destiny. Beware of it.

1. It has many forms. It appears–

(1) In natural sciences.

(2) In ontological theories.

(3) In theological creeds.

(4) In ethical enactments.

2. It has fascinating aspects. It often comes in the stateliness of the scholar, in the force of the reasoner, in the grandeur of the rhetorician, in the sublimity of the poet.

3. It works insidiously. It instils its errors quietly; and silently as the laws of nature they often work out their own ends. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

The marks of a false philosophy

It is known–

I. By its profitless speculations.

II. By its purely human origin. After the tradition of men.

1. The human mind is limited.

2. All human knowledge is imperfect. If any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

III. By its undue exaltation of elementary principles. After the rudiments of the world. A true philosophy, while starting necessarily with elementary principles, conducts to increasing knowledge and spiritual exaltation and liberty. A false philosophy fetters the mind by exaggerating the importance of first principles and insisting on their eternal obligation.

IV. By its Christlessness. And not after Christ.

V. By its destructive influence. Spoil you–not strip off, but carry away as spoil (Gen 14:12-16). Man is never so grievously despoiled as when his soul is robbed by error. The thief cometh not, etc. (Joh 10:10).

VI. Against a false philosophy the Church must be faithfully warned.

1. Because it is seductive in its pretensions.

2. Because it is baneful in its effect. (G. Barlow.)

The bane and the antidote

I. The poison. Take heed implies a real, not an hypothetical danger. Paul is not crying wolf. Any one, i.e., somebody; as if he had said, I name no names–it is not the persons, but the principles I fight against–but you know whom I mean. Maketh spoil of you. He sees the converts taken prisoners, and led away with a cord round their necks, like the strings of captives on the Assyrian monuments. He had spoken in chap. 1:13 of the conqueror who had translated them; now he fears lest a robber horde, making a raid upon the peaceful colonists in their happy new homes, may sweep them again into bondage. The cord whose fatal noose will be tightened round them if they do not take care is philosophy and vain deceit. If Paul had been writing in English he would have put philosophy in inverted commas, to show that he was quoting the heretical teachers own name for their system. For true love of wisdom neither Paul nor Pauls Master have anything but praise. The thing spoken of here has no resemblance, except in name, to what the Greeks in their better days called philosophy, and nothing warrants the representation that Christianity is antagonistic to it.

1. Empty deceit describes this system. It is like a bladder full of wind. Its lofty pretension is that it is a love of wisdom, but if we look at it closely it is a fraud.

2. It is after the traditions of men.

(1) It is significant that the expression is a word of Christs (Mar 7:8). The portentous and smothering under growth of such traditions is preserved in the Talmud, where for thousands of pages we get nothing but Rabbi So-and-so said this, but Rabbi So-and-so said that, until we feel stifled, and long for one Divine word to still all the babble. The oriental element in the heresy, on the other hand, prided itself on a hidden teaching too sacred to be entrusted to books, and was passed hem lip to lip in some close conclave. The fact that all this had no higher source than mans imaginings, seems to Paul the condemnation of the whole system. His theory is that in Christ every man has the full truth. What an absurd descent then to turn away from Him that speaketh from heaven to human voices and thoughts.

(2) These special forms of tradition trouble no man now. But the tendency to give heed to human teachers, and to suffer them to come between us and Christ is deep in us all. There is at one extreme the man who believes in no revelation, but pays his teacher a deference as absolute as that which he regards superstition when rendered to Christ. At the other are the Christians who will not let Christ and the Scripture speak unless the Church be present at the interview, like a jailer, with a bunch of man-made creeds jingling at its belt.

3. It is after the rudiments of the world.

(1) Rudiments means the letters of the alphabet, and hence elements, first principles, the A, B, C, of a science. They boasted of mysterious doctrines for the initiated, of which the plain truths Paul preached were but milk for babes. Paul retorts that the true mystery is the Word he preached, and that the poverty-stricken elements were in that swelling inanity which called itself wisdom and was not. He brands it as rudiments of the world, which is worse, as belonging to the outward and material, and not to the higher region of the spiritual, where Christian thought ought to dwell. Its use in Gal 4:3, points to a similar meaning here. He regards it as a retrogression to childish things, and as a pitiable descent to a lower sphere.

(2) The forms which were urged on the Colossians are long since antiquated, but the tendency to turn Christianity into ceremonial is running with a powerful current to-day. But enlisting the senses as allies of the spirit in worship is risky work. The theory that such aids make a ladder, by which the soul may ascend to God, is perilously apt to be confuted by experience, which finds that the soul is quite as likely to go down the ladder as up. Stained windows are lovely, and white windows are barnlike; but perhaps if the object is to get light these solemn purples and glowing yellows are rather in the way. A lesson for the day is Pauls principle here, that a Christianity making much of ceremonies is a retrogression.

4. Paul sums up his indictment in one damning clause–not after Christ. He is neither its origin, substance, rule, nor standard.

II. The antidote (verses 9-10).

1. These words may be a reason for the warning, take heed for; or they may be a reason for the exclusion of Christless teaching. Anything not after Christ is ipso facto wrong. In Him is placed with emphasis at the beginning, and implies nowhere else. Dwelleth, i.e., has its permanent abode. All the fulness of the Godhead, i.e., the whole unbounded attributes of Deity. Bodily points to the incarnation, and is an advance on Col 1:19. So we are pointed to the glorified humanity of Christ as the abode now and for ever of all the fulness of the Divine nature which is thereby brought very near to us. This truth shivers all the dreams about angel-mediators, and brands as folly every attempt to learn God anywhere but in Him.

2. If He be the sole temple of Deity why go anywhere else to see or possess God? In Him ye are full, which sets forth their living incorporation in Christ, and consequent participation in His fulness. Every one may enter into that union by continuous faith. All the fulness of God is in Him, that from Him it may pass to us. According to our need it will vary itself, being to each what the moment most requires–wisdom, or strength, or beauty, or patience.

3. The process of receiving all the Divine fulness is a continuous one. We can but be approximating to the possession of the infinite treasure, and since the treasure is infinite, and we can indefnitely grow in capacity of receiving God, there must be an eternal continuance of the filling, and an eternal increase of the measure of what fills us. The indwelling Christ will enlarge the place of His habitation, as the walls stretch and the roof soars. He will fill the greater house with the light of His presence and the fragrance of His name.

4. From such thoughts Paul would have us draw the conclusion–how foolish it must be to go to any other source for the supply of our needs. Christ is the Head of all princi pality, etc. Why then go to the ministers when we have access to the King? Why leave the fountain of living water for the broken cisterns? (A. Maclaren, D. D.)

The gospel to be preached in its purity

Astronomers tell us that the light of the sun is pure white light, but when it comes in contact with the atmosphere of our earth it becomes discoloured, simply because the medium through which it passes is impure. So it is with the light of heaven when it passes through the traditions of men. (S. H. Leary, D. C. L.)

The pure milk of Gods Word

is not to be adulterated with the chalk of human opinions. (S. H. Leary, D. C. L.)

The gospel to be preached simply

Of the works of a famous alchymist of the thirteenth century, it is said that, whoever would read his book to find out the secret would employ all his labour in vain. All the gold makers who have written upon their favourite mystery are in the like predicament, no one can comprehend what the secret is which they pretend to divulge. May we not shrewdly guess that if they had any secret to tell they would put it in intelligible language, and that their pompous and involved sentences are only a screen for their utter ignorance of the matter? When we hear preachers talking of Divine things in a style savouring more of metaphysical subtlety than of gospel plainness; when the seeking sinner cannot find out the way of salvation because of their philosophical jargon, may we not with justice suspect that the preacher does not know the gospel, and conceals his culpable ignorance behind the veil of rhetorical magniloquence? Surely if the man understood a matter so important to all his hearers as the way of salvation, he would feel constrained to tell it out in words which all might comprehend. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 8. Beware lest any man spoil you] The word , from , prey, and , to lead or carry away, signifies to rob, or spoil of their goods, as if by violence or rapine. Their goods were the salvation they had received from Christ; and both the Gentile and Jewish teachers endeavoured to deprive them of these, by perverting their minds, and leading them off from the truths of Christianity.

Philosophy and vain deceit] Or, the vain or empty deceit of philosophy; such philosophizing as the Jewish and Gentile teachers used. As the term philosophy stood in high repute among the Gentiles, the Jews of this time affected it; and both Philo and Josephus use the word to express the whole of the Mosaic institutions. So the former: “Those who embraced the philosophy of Moses;” PHIL., De Nomin. Mutand. And the latter; “There are three systems of philosophy among the Jews,” (Bell. Jud., lib. ii. cap 8, sec. 2,) meaning the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, as immediately follows. The Jewish philosophy, such as is found in the Cabala, Midrashim, and other works, deserves the character of vain deceit, in the fullest sense and meaning of the words. The inspired writers excepted, the Jews have ever been the most puerile, absurd, and ridiculous reasoners in the world. Even Rabbi Maymon, or Maimonides, the most intelligent of them all, is often in his master piece (the Moreh Nevochim, the Teacher of the Perplexed) most deplorably empty and vain.

After the rudiments of the world] According to the doctrine of the Jewish teachers; or, according to the Mosaic institutions, as explained and glossed by the scribes, Pharisees, and rabbins in general. We have often seen that haolam hazzeh, this world, of which is a literal translation, is frequently used to express the Jewish system of rites, ceremonies, and institutions in general; what the apostle calls the tradition of men, namely, what men, unauthorized by God, have taught as doctrines received from him. Our Lord frequently refers to and condemns these traditions.

Not after Christ.] Not according to the simple doctrine of Christ, viz.: HE died for our offences; believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Beware: the apostle, after his exhortation, considering their danger from seducing spirits lying in wait to deceive by their sleight and craftiness, 1Ti 4:1,2, doth here reinforce and enlarge his caution he had before suggested, Col 2:4, to engage to a heedful avoidance of all seduction from Christ.

Lest any man spoil you; lest their souls should be made a prey, and they be carried for a spoil by those worst of robbers that beset Christs fold, 2Co 11:20; Gal 6:13.

Through philosophy; either through the abuse of true philosophy in bringing the mystery of Christ under the tribunal of shallow reason, or rather through erroneous, though curious, speculations of some philosophers, as Plato, Pythagoras, Hesiod, &c. then in vogue, which the Gnostics afterwards (who, thinking themselves enriched with the notions of other heretics, would be thought the only knowing persons) dressed up Christ with, not like himself. Their philosophy being a falsely so called science or knowledge, 1Ti 6:20, whatever show of wisdom it might seem to carry along with it, Col 2:23, it was not really profitable; but a

vain deceit, or seduction, as several take the next clause appositively, and the conjunction expositively; yet, if we consider what follows, we may understand another general imposture, viz. superstition, seeing vain deceit, after the tradition of men, is so like that superstition our Saviour doth rebuke in the Pharisees, Mat 15:9, several branches of which the apostle doth afterward in this chapter dispute against, Col 2:16-23; superstition might well be called deceit, from the cheat it puts upon men and the notation of the Greek word, which imports a withdrawing men from the way. Christ, and from his way of worship prescribed in his word; and vain it is as well as a deceit, since it is empty and unprofitable, not accompanied with Gods blessing, nor conducing to the pleasing of him, but the provoking of him, Psa 106:29,43. Being led by no other rule than the tradition of men, which is the same with the precepts of men, Mar 7:8, which God likes not, Isa 8:20; 28:13; Joh 20:31; Act 26:22; 2Ti 3:15,16; he would not give place to human traditions in his house, nor to

the rudiments of the world, ( in allusion to grammar, wherein the letters are the elements or rudiments of all literature), i.e. the ceremonies of the Mosaical law, containing a kind of elementary instruction, for that seems to be the apostles meaning, comparing this verse with Col 2:20 and Col 2:21, and other places, Gal 3:24, these being but corporeal, carnal, and sensible ordinances, suitable to a worldly sanctuary. Heb 9:1,10, not to be imposed in that spiritual one which Christ hath set up, Joh 4:23,24; Ga 5:2. Whatsoever philosophical colours or Pharisaical paint they might appear in, they are not after Christ: we say a false picture of a man is not after the man, being not taken from or resembling his person, but clean another; such descriptions of him, as were not taken from the life and truth that was in him. And therefore he who is Head of his church, and likes not to be misshaped or misrepresented, will not accept of homage from those of his own house, in a livery that he hath not given order for, Lev 10:1; Jer 7:31; 2Co 5:9, how specious soever it may be in the wisdom of this world and the princes thereof, 1Co 2:6,7.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

8. Translate, “Beware(literally, ‘Look’ well) lest there shall be (as I fear thereis: the Greek indicative expresses this) any man (pointing tosome known emissary of evil, Ga 1:7)leading you away as his spoil (not merely gaining spoil out ofyou, but making yourselves his spoil) through (by means of)his philosophy,” c. The apostle does not condemn allphilosophy, but “the philosophy” (so Greek)of the Judaic-oriental heretics at Colosse, which afterwards wasdeveloped into Gnosticism. You, who may have “the richesof full assurance” and “the treasures ofwisdom,” should not suffer yourselves to be led away as a spoilby empty, deceitful philosophy: “riches” arecontrasted with spoil “full” with “vain,” orempty (Col 2:2; Col 2:3;Col 2:9).

after“accordingto.”

tradition of menopposedto, “the fulness of the Godhead.” Applied toRabbinical traditions, Mr7:8. When men could not make revelation even seem to tellabout deep mysteries which they were curious to pry into, theybrought in human philosophy and pretended traditions to help it, asif one should bring a lamp to the sundial to find the hour [Cauationsfor Times, p. 85]. The false teachers boasted of a higher wisdomin theory, transmitted by tradition among the initiated; in practicethey enjoined asceticism, as though matter and the body were thesources of evil. Phrygia (in which was Colosse) had a propensity forthe mystical and magical, which appeared in their worship of Cybeleand subsequent Montanism [NEANDER].

rudiments of the world(Seeon Ga 4:3). “The rudiments”or elementary lessons “of the (outward) world,” such aslegal ordinances; our Judaic childhood’s lessons (Col 2:11;Col 2:16; Col 2:20;Gal 4:1-3). But NEANDER,”the elements of the world,” in the sense, whatis earthly, carnal and outward, not “the rudiments ofreligion,” in Judaism and heathenism.

not after Christ“Their”boasted higher “philosophy” is but human tradition, and acleaving to the carnal and worldly, and not to Christ. Thoughacknowledging Christ nominally, in spirit they by their doctrine denyHim.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Beware lest any man spoil you,…. Or despoil you; rob you of the rich treasure of the Gospel, strip you of your spiritual armour, take away from you the truths and doctrines of Christ, and divest you of your spiritual privileges and blessings; suggesting, that the false teachers were thieves and robbers, and men of prey: or drive and carry you away as spoils, as the innocent harmless sheep are drove, and carried away by wolves, and by the thief that comes to steal, to kill, and destroy; intimating, that such as these were the heretics of those times; wherefore it became them to be upon their guard, to watch, look out, and beware, lest they should be surprised by these deceitful workers, who lay in wait to deceive; were wolves in sheep’s clothing, who transformed themselves into the apostles of Christ; and therefore it became them to take heed, lest any man hurt them, be he ever so wise and learned, or be thought ever so good, religious, and sincere; since men of this cast put on such masks and false appearances, on purpose to beguile. The things by which they imposed upon weak minds are as follow, and therefore to be shunned, avoided, and rejected:

through philosophy: not right philosophy, or true wisdom, the knowledge of God, of the things of nature, of things natural, moral, and civil; which may be attained unto by the use of reason, and light of nature. The apostle does not mean to condemn all arts and sciences, as useless and hurtful, such as natural philosophy in its various branches, ethics, logic, rhetoric, c. when kept within due bounds, and in their proper place and sphere for with instances of these the Scriptures themselves abound; but he means that philosophy, or science, which is falsely so called, the false notions of philosophers; such as the eternity of matter, and of this world, the mortality of souls, the worshipping of demons and angels, c. and also such principles in philosophy, which in themselves, and in the things of nature, are true, but, when applied to divine things, to things above nature, the mere effects of divine power and grace, and of pure revelation, are false as that out of nothing, nothing can be made, which in the things of nature is true, but not to be applied to the God of nature, who has made the world out of nothing; as also that from a privation to an habit there is no return, which is naturally true, but not to be applied to supernatural things, and supernatural agency; witness the miracles of Christ, in restoring sight to the blind, life to the dead, c. and therefore is not to be employed against the resurrection of the dead: philosophy may be useful as an handmaid it is not to be a mistress in theological things; it may subserve, but not govern; it is not to be made use of as a judge, or rule in such matters; the natural man, on these principles, neither knows nor receives the things of the Spirit of God; judgment is not to be made and formed according to them; as of a trinity of persons in the Godhead; of the sonship of Christ, and his incarnation; of man’s redemption by him, of reconciliation and satisfaction by his blood and sacrifice, of the pardon of sin, of a sinner’s justification, of the resurrection of the dead, and such like articles of faith: that philosophy which is right, can only be a rule of judgment in things relating to it, and not in those which are out of its sphere: in a word, the apostle here condemns the philosophy of the Jews, and of the Gnostics; the former had introduced natural philosophy into the worship and service of God, and the things appertaining to their religion; and had made the tabernacle and temple, and the most holy place, and the things belonging thereunto, emblems and hieroglyphics of natural things; as of the sun, moon, and stars, and their influences, and of the four elements, and of moral virtue, c. as appears from the writings of Josephus r, and Philo s when they were types and representatives of spiritual things under the Gospel dispensation; and the latter had brought in the philosophy of Pythagoras and Plato, concerning abstinences, purgations, sacrifices, and ceremonies of worship, given to demons and angels: in short, the apostle’s meaning is, that philosophy is not to be mixed with the pure Gospel of Christ; it has always been fatal to it; witness the school of Pantaenus in Alexandria, in the early times of Christianity, by which the simplicity of the Gospel was greatly corrupted; and the race of schoolmen a few centuries ago, who introduced the philosophy of Aristotle, Averrois, and others, into all the subjects of divinity: to observe no more, such kind of philosophy is here meant, which may be truly called

vain deceit: that is, that which is vain and empty, and has no solid foundation, even in nature and reason itself; and which being applied to divine things and religious observances, is deceitful and delusory:

after the tradition of men; either of the Gentiles, who had their traditions in religion; or of the Jews, called the traditions of the elders, and of the fathers, which the Pharisees were fond of, by which they transgressed the commandments of God; which the apostle was brought up in, and was zealous of formerly, but now was delivered from, and rightly condemned as idle, trifling, and pernicious:

after the rudiments of the world, or “the elements of the world”; not the four elements of earth, air, fire, and water; or the worship of the sun, moon, and stars, c. among the idolatrous Gentiles, but the ceremonial laws of the Jews see Ga 4:8; which were that to them in religion, as the A B C, or letters, are in grammar, the elements and rudiments of it; and though these were to them, when children, useful, but now under the Gospel dispensation are weak, beggarly, and useless, and not to be attended to:

and not after Christ; what he has taught and prescribed, the doctrines and commandments of Christ, the treasures of wisdom and knowledge which are in him; and therefore all such vain and deceitful philosophy, human traditions, and worldly rudiments, are to be rejected; Christ and his Gospel, the revelation he has made, are the standard of doctrine and worship; he only is to be heard and attended to, and whatever it contrary thereunto is to be guarded against.

r Antiqu. l. 3. c. 6. sect. 4. 7. s De Congressu quaerend. Erud. p. 440. 441. de Vita Mosis, l. 3. p. 665, &c. quod deterius pot. p. 184.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Take heed (). Present active imperative second person plural of , common verb for warning like our “look out,” “beware,” “see to it.”

Lest there shall be any one ( ). Negative purpose with the future indicative, though the aorist subjunctive also occurs as in 2Co 12:6.

That maketh spoil of you ( ). Articular present active participle of , late and rare (found here first) verb (from , booty, and , to lead, to carry), to carry off as booty a captive, slave, maiden. Only here in N.T. Note the singular here. There was some one outstanding leader who was doing most of the damage in leading the people astray.

Through his philosophy ( ). The only use of the word in the N.T. and employed by Paul because the Gnostics were fond of it. Old word from (, , one devoted to the pursuit of wisdom) and in N.T. only in Ac 17:18. Paul does not condemn knowledge and wisdom (see verse 2), but only this false philosophy, “knowledge falsely named” ( , 1Ti 6:20), and explained here by the next words.

And vain deceit ( ). Old word for trick, guile, like riches (Mt 13:22). Descriptive of the philosophy of the Gnostics.

Tradition (). Old word from , a giving over, a passing on. The word is colourless in itself. The tradition may be good (2Thess 2:15; 2Thess 3:6) or bad (Mr 7:3). Here it is worthless and harmful, merely the foolish theories of the Gnostics.

Rudiments (). Old word for anything in a (row, series) like the letters of the alphabet, the materials of the universe (2Pet 3:10; 2Pet 3:12), elementary teaching (Heb 5:12), elements of Jewish ceremonial training (Acts 15:10; Gal 4:3; Gal 4:9), the specious arguments of the Gnostic philosophers as here with all their aeons and rules of life.

And not after Christ ( ). Christ is the yardstick by which to measure philosophy and all phases of human knowledge. The Gnostics were measuring Christ by their philosophy as many men are doing today. They have it backwards. Christ is the measure for all human knowledge since he is the Creator and the Sustainer of the universe.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Beware [] . Lit., see to it.

Lest any man spoil you [ ] . The Greek is more precise and personal : lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil. So Rev. Sulagwgew 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 [ ] . Rev. gives the force of the article, his philosophy : kai and is explanatory, philosophy which is also vain deceit. Hence the warning is not against all philosophy. Filosofia, 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 [] , 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 [] . See on 2Pe 3:10. Rudimentary teachings, as in Heb 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. Compare vers. 11, 21, and Gal 4:9.

Of the world. Material as contrasted with spiritual.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “Beware lest any man spoil you” (Blepete me tis humas estai ho sulagogon) “Watch ye lest there shall be anyone robbing you;” making spoil through robbing one, Jer 29:8-9; Heb 13:9; 1Co 3:19; 2Jn 1:8.

2) “Through philosophy and vain deceit” (dia tes philosophias kai kenes apates) “through philosophy and empty deceit;” a philosophy that is intrinsically vain and deceitful — perhaps by a mixture of Jewish and oriental philosophy with Greek Gnosticism, Act 17:18-22.

3) “After the tradition of men” (kata ten paradosin ton anthropon) “according to the traditions of men,” human tradition, as opposed to Divine revelation, and in conflict with the Word of God, Mat 15:1-9.

4) “After the rudiments of the world” (kata ta stoicheia tou kosmou) “according to the elements of the world,” which are weak and beggarly in comparison with Jesus Christ, Gal 4:8-9. In vain Israel rejected Jesus Christ for the traditions of Jewish philosophy, Mar 7:5-9.

5) “And not after Christ” (kai ou kata Christon) “and not according to Christ,” traditions, or patterns of sanctioned conduct, though not named in the Scripture are yet in harmony with them, can be good traditions, with Divine sanction, Gal 1:14; 2Th 2:15; 2Th 3:6.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

8. Beware lest any one plunder you. He again instructs them as to the poison, which the antidote presented by him should be made use of to counteract. For although this, as we have stated, is a common remedy against all the impostures of the devil, (359) it had, nevertheless, at that time a peculiar advantage among the Colossians, to which it required to be applied. Beware, says he, lest any one plunder you. He makes use of a very appropriate term, for he alludes to plunderers, who, when they cannot carry off the flock by violence, drive away some of the cattle fraudulently. Thus he makes Christ’s Church a sheep-fold, and the pure doctrine of the gospel the enclosures of the fold. He intimates, accordingly, that we who are the sheep of Christ repose in safety when we hold the unity of the faith, while, on the other hand, he likens the false apostles to plunderers that carry us away from the folds. Would you then be reckoned as belonging to Christ’s flock? Would you remain in his folds? Do not deviate a nail’s breadth from purity of doctrine. For unquestionably Christ will act the part of the good Shepherd by protecting us if we but hear his voice, and reject those of strangers. In short, the tenth chapter of John is the exposition of the passage before us. [Joh 10:0 ]

Through philosophy. As many have mistakingly imagined that philosophy is here condemned by Paul, we must point out what he means by this term. Now, in my opinion, he means everything that men contrive of themselves when wishing to be wise through means of their own understanding, and that not without a specious pretext of reason, so as to have a plausible appearance. For there is no difficulty in rejecting those contrivances of men which have nothing to set them off, (360) but in rejecting those that captivate men’s minds by a false conceit of wisdom. Or should any one prefer to have it expressed in one word, philosophy is nothing else than a persuasive speech, which insinuates itself into the minds of men by elegant and plausible arguments. Of such a nature, I acknowledge, will all the subtleties of philosophers be, if they are inclined to add anything of their own to the pure word of God. Hence philosophy will be nothing else than a corruption of spiritual doctrine, if it is mixed up with Christ. Let us, however, bear in mind, that under the term philosophy Paul has merely condemned all spurious doctrines which come forth from man’s head, whatever appearance of reason they may have. What immediately follows, as to vain deceit, I explain thus; “Beware of philosophy, which is nothing else than vain deceit, ” so that this is added by way of apposition. (361)

According to the tradition of men. He points out more precisely what kind of philosophy he reproves, and at the same time convicts it of vanity on a twofold account — because it is not according to Christ, but according to the inclinations of men; (362) and because it consists in the elements of the world. Observe, however, that he places Christ in opposition to the elements of the world, equally as to the tradition of men, by which he intimates, that whatever is hatched in man’s brain is not in accordance with Christ, who has been appointed us by the Father as our sole Teacher, that he might retain us in the simplicity of his gospel. Now, that is corrupted by even a small portion of the leaven of human traditions. He intimates also, that all doctrines are foreign to Christ that make the worship of God, which we know to be spiritual, according to Christ’s rule, to consist in the elements of the world, (363) and also such as fetter the minds of men by such trifles and frivolities, while Christ calls us directly to himself.

But what is meant by the phrase — elements of the world ? (364) There can be no doubt that it means ceremonies. For he immediately afterwards adduces one instance by way of example — circumcision. The reason why he calls them by such a name is usually explained in two ways. Some think that it is a metaphor, so that the elements are the rudiments of children, which do not lead forward to mature doctrine. Others take it in its proper signification, as denoting things that are outward and are liable to corruption, which avail nothing for the kingdom of God. The former exposition I rather approve of, as also in Gal 4:3

(359) Our Author evidently refers to what he had said as to the advantage to be derived from steadfastness in the faith. See p. 178. — Ed.

(360) “ Quand elles n’ont ni monstre ni couleur;” — “When they have neither show nor appearance.”

(361) See p. 148, n. 2.

(362) “ Selon les ordonnances et plaisirs des hommes;” — “According to the appointments and inclinations of men.”

(363) “ Es choses visibles de ce monde;” — “In the visible things of this world.”

(364) “ Rudimens, ou elemens du monde;” — “Rudiments, or elements of the world.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

PHILOSOPHY THE FOE OF CHRISTIANITY

Col 2:8-9

SUBJECTS for sermonizing are quite often born out of comparisons between some speeches one has heard and what he knows the sacred Scriptures to say. Such is the one we now propose to discuss!

In connection with the matters now at issue between fundamentalists on the one side and modernists on the other, it cannot be forgotten that philosophy, and particularly philosophers, have played a prominent roll in the whole speculation of evolution. In fact, the early and Greek philosophers were largely advocates of a kindred hypothesis, and the meanest opponents of the Christian faith among modernists have been the teachers of philosophy. Hence our subject!

The necessity of discussing it exists in the circumstance that philosophy does not grow more friendly to Christianity, but rather more antagonistic to the same. Pauls language, therefore, is in no whit out of date, and the warning that he sent to the Colossian Church is needed, not only by my auditors and readers, but by the Christians of the land.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the worlds and not after Christ.

For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:8-9).

I invite your attention to the treatment of this subject under three heads: Philosophy Defined, Philosophy Tested, and Philosophy Transcended.

PHILOSOPHY DEFINED

The word, philosophy, predicates the love of wisdom. That is its Greek-root meaning philos lover, or friend, and sophoswisdom. The thought suggested is altogether a worthy one, and were the study pursued in the right spirit, the results should be both desirable and profitable. Solomon writes to his children after this manner:

Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding.

For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law.

For I was my fathers son, tender and only beloved in the sight of my mother.

He taught me also, and said unto me, Let thine heart retain my words: keep my commandments, and live.

Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth.

Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee.

Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

Exalt her, and she shall promote thee: she shall bring thee to honour, when thou dost embrace her.

She shall give to thine head an ornament of grace: a crown of glory shall she deliver to thee.

Hear, O my son, and receive my sayings; and the years of thy life shall be many (Pro 4:1-10).

Truly, wisdom is the principal thing. Beyond debate, she does promote those who embrace her; to the heads of such she gives her ornament of grace; upon their brows she places a crown of glory.

We are not here, then, tonight to speak against wisdom or the search therefor; but ere we finish it may appear that there is a wide stretch between what men call philosophy and that which is suggested by the root meanings of the word.

It is a great thing to get wisdom. The world is infatuated with the thought of securing knowledge, but wisdom is preferable even to knowledge. There are many things one can know that yield no profit. Wisdom deals only with profitable knowledge and is itself such knowledge applied. He that seeketh wisdom seeketh a good thing!

It appeals, however, to intellectual pride. Paul, writing to the Corinthians, who were themselves Greeks, quotes from Isa 29:14, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise. Of course, it was not true wisdom, for such would not be Gods attitude toward the same. Reference is evidently to an intellectual conceit. There is much of the same abroad in the land at this moment. It is an interesting psychological study to have Prof. M______ , a man who has made some scientific discoveries, the worth of which to his fellows is not yet determined, speak of Mr. Bryan, one of the most brilliant intellects of the centuriesa man whose fruitful life blessed millionsas not intellectual * * but merely an emotionalist. Such is the conceit of men who follow specific branches of learning. And it was against such that Paul hurled his Biblical and yet stinging questions in the Corinthian Letter, Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? Goethe is probably speaking both from experience and from observation when, in Faust, he makes his hero a student longing for the pleasures of knowledge, but who, while thus engaged, changes his course from the speculative to the sensual and sells out his soul to his adversary, Mephistopheles.

The very conception of wisdom entertained by the ancients is a proof positive of the egoism that was ever inherent in the same. You remember that Minerva was the favorite goddess of philosophy, and that she was supposed to have had no mother, but to have sprung full-formed from the head of Jupiter; in other words, to be a perfect child of brain-intellectuality. To be sure, there are exceptions to all rules. Lord Bacon was the child of a believing mother and on that account he approached philosophy from another standpoint, saying, The road to true philosophy is precisely the same with that which leads to true religion; and from both one and the other, unless we would enter in as little children, we must expect to be totally excluded; while Seeker tells us that nature teaches us that those trees bend the most freely which bear the most fully. It is a parable of Pauls contention: God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are.

Philosophy has been guilty of too often proposing the impossible. The man who attempts a rational explanation of practically everything in the universe and, while about it, disregards the God who made it, is not likely to flood the world with light.

David said, The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God, and any philosophy of the universe, or philosophy of human life that takes not God into account, can never profit the world. Its musings will but muddle men; its philosophisings will result in confusion for readers; its professed light will be but darkness. The one reason that the science of the Bible stands the test of time, and will; that the Bibles psychology has proven true to mans experiences, and will ever so abide; that Bible history is increasingly shown to be absolutely dependable; that Bible sociology will forever remain sound, and that the Bibles philosophy of life has never yet failed a man who truly tested it, is due to the circumstance that the revelation of the Bible is properly basedIn the beginning God. Given God, we have an explanation of the Universe. Given God, we have a starting point for scientific research. Given God, we have from Him the fixed principles of human behavior. Given God, we are confident that a sound philosophy of life exists. Given God, we have an explanation of Israel and the Church. Given God, we have a ground of government and occasion of good-will among men; and a prophecy of a finally perfected world. Away with your philosophies that deny, forget, or even neglect God! They are vain deceit. They are after the traditions of men; and after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ, What profit has come to the world from Aristotle, Plato, and DesCarte; what from Bacon and his school; Hobbes Locke, Hume, Hartley, Mill, and Condillac?

Of the opponents of the Christian faith, what names exceed Kant, the writer of The Critique of Pure Reason, Hegel in his Absolute Idealism, Spencer, the advocate of mechanism; Nietzsche, with his brutal survival, and Haeckel with his unsolved Riddle of the Universe? These are men who impoverish the world as they pass.

PHILOSOPHY TESTED

Philosophy is no new science, if, in fact, the term science may be at all properly employed in speaking of it. It is one of the most ancient branches of learning. The millenniums have known its exponents. In fact, the present-day teachers constantly appeal to the philosophers of two and even three thousand years ago.

The brief spurt of Greek supremacy produced a whole school of philosophers, and contrary to the Darwin theory, their kind have not improved with the centuries, and while there are many varieties among them, the species as a whole has rather declined.

Philosophy itself is far less in vogue to-day than it was two hundred years before Christ. The reasons for this are not far to seek. I shall mention three of them. It has often proved a vain deceit; it has failed to extricate itself from the traditions of men, and it has been weighted with the rudiments of the world.

It has often proved a vain deceit!

Tillotson said, Philosophers have given us several plausible rules for peace and tranquility of mind, but they fall very much short of bringing men to it.

John Foster tells us that in the academy the philosophers made a great many excellent discourses and asked Panthroidas how he liked them. He answered, Indeed I think them very good but of no profit at all, since you yourselves do not use them.

Beyond all question, Socrates was among the first of the Greeks. His innovations of thought resulted in his condemnation to death, and in prison he drank the hemlock that sent his spirit into eternity, but even that Greek made a better contribution to freedom of intellect than to the sum of knowledge.

It might be well to remind our readers in passing that the Church didnt administer it, since at that time the Christian Church had no existence. It is now the uniform custom of every anti-Christian spokesman, and, even of every professed Christian advocate of Darwinism, to charge every known persecution to the Church, without ever a hint even that by the church they mean apostate Rome. If there ever was a case of overworked falsehood, the church versus Galileo is an instance. Whenever those advocates of evolution who find no scientific defense for their doctrine meet the slightest opposition to their speculation, they seek to cloud the whole question by saying that it is another case of the church against Galileo. Read Professor Mores Dogma of Evolution and be forever silenced on that subject. It was the offended scientists who sent the lone Galileo to judgment and scaffold, and who, in their reaction from that mistake, swing now to the opposite extreme and give open arms to speculative Darwin.

But with Socrates it was Meletus, the poet, and Annytus, the tanner, and Lycon, the oratorall of them members of the patriotic party, who said, Socrates is guilty first, of denying the gods recognized by the state, and introducing new divinities, and second, of corrupting the young. But as death faced him he found only this crumb of comforteither it would mean a dreamless sleep or a new life among the departed fellows where he might test out his philosophical principles, and he cared not which. In Wisconsin University sometime ago a student of philosophy committed suicide in order to find out about immortality.

Plato is still a prime favorite with the professor in this branch of learning, but it is extremely doubtful whether his dream of the republic has made any substantial contribution to the actual states of history, or whether his doctrine of good as the absolute ground of all being and identical with Deity has advantaged the world. In fact, Dr. Bates charges against all heathen philosophies that they professed themselves to be wise in their speculations but became fools in practice, many of them ending their lives in suicide, so insufficient are the best precepts of mere reason to relieve us in distress.

The religion of Israel produced the greatest people known to the early centuries of history, and the religion of Christ has given to the world modern civilization. But if philosophy has ever made a state great, or a generation happy, history has failed to make a record of it.

It has failed to extricate itself from the traditions of men.

That is the meaning of the Apostles words.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men (Col 2:8).

Ward Beecher said, What we call wisdom is the result, not the residuum of all the wisdom of past ages. Our best institutions are like young trees growing upon the roots of the old trunks that have crumbled away.

That is the very principle that certain philosophers have sought to disprove, and their endeavors have been all in vain. Plato imagined himself original and, when he failed to find in creation the clear evidences of a creator, supposed he was blazing for his fellows a brand new path, but the truth is that that was the weakness of his whole philosophy. Having disdained the roots of wisdom both revealed and illustrated, he failed to provide a new shoot that could take root for itself and fill the world with fruitful branches.

Aristotle attempted to state the relation of the godhead to the world without adopting either the expression or conception of his predecessors. Like other sensationalists, he simply succeeded in demonstrating the language of Scripture, There is no new thing under the sun.

The trouble about philosophy is that it attempts to sweep all millenniums with a small field-glass and to sound the ocean depths of life with a six-foot plummet, and the result is often ridiculous. You cant judge society by a village section; much less can you understand millenniums by the study of a minute, or the nations by the appearance of a man.

Albert Edgar Bruce recently contributed the following poem to a liberal paper.

PROVINCIALISM

I judge all the Dagoes by Tony Cattini;I judge all the Japs by the one that I know;I judge all the Slovaks by Moritz Koppini;I judge all the Chinks by my wash-man, Wing Po.

I judge all the Spaniards by Pedro Garcia;I judge all the French by Alphonse de Bernard;I judge the Egyptians by Ibin Ben Kia;I judge all the Hindus by Boma Singh Kard.

I aint traveled far from the place I was born in,But Ive seen the world, for its all come to me;Some odd foreign face I meet up with each morninFrom countries way off, beyond the deep sea.

You cant tell me much about these strange races,For aint I seen all of em, right in this town?I know their queer dress and their funny shaped facesWhite, black, red and yeller and lots of em brown.

Theyre diffrent from us, and Im blamed if I like em; They talk in a lingo you cant understand;They make me so mad that I most want to strike em.Why didnt they stay in their own foreign land?

Of course they may have me in close observation,To find out what kind of a man I may be;But how can they know of our glorious nation?I wonder, if they judge my country by me?

We advise the students of philosophy to commit to memory this poem.

It has always been weighted with the rudiments of the world.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world (Col 2:8).

The world by wisdom knew not God and students by philosophy have never yet found Him. Charles F. Banning, writing recently of philosophic atheism, said: I can explain it best by an illustration. While in the army I was stationed for four months at Camp Meade, Maryland, drilling negro troops from the South. We had noticed that they had no enthusiasm or ambition and little endurance. Most of the men who came into camp seemed like new men within a few days under the regularity of the army food and discipline. These men, however, did not improve as the other men. After a careful examination it was discovered that these men had hookworm and did not know it. The hookworm was sapping their vitality and ambition. Practical atheism affects one much the same way. Before one knows it, he has shut God out of his life.

A little while ago there was a convention of teachers in philosophy held in one of our Western cities. A speaker stood before them and said, Of all the outstanding men in our department, so far as I know there are but four who do not hold to a materialistic, mechanistic theory of the universe. If that be true, how perfectly that illustrates the Apostles words

For the preaching of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

That no flesh should glory in His presence.

But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord (1Co 1:18-31).

This text leads us to our last point:

PHILOSOPHY TRANSCENDED

In Him (Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

And ye are complete in Him, which is the Head of all principality and power (Col 2:9-10).

Let three things be understood then:

First, The true wisdom is with God.

How easy it is for the most learned of men to depart from the true source of wisdom when once any taint of skepticism has come upon them. A widely-known Professor, recently declared that if he had to choose between atheism and fundamentalism he would choose fundamentalism, because, as he added, The teachings of atheism are contrary to the teachings of science; and yet, the same man turns about and says, However, fundamentalism is at fault in that it attempts to transgress into the known when its province as a religion is with the unknown. We ask, Since when?

The Christian faith, in both its Old Testament form and its New Testament expression; deals with both the known and the unknown, time and eternity, with both the mortal and the immortal, with both the world that now is and that which is to come. We would commend to all such the statement of John, who rested his faith upon that which he had heard with his ears, had seen with his eyes, had handled with his hands of the Word of Life (1 John 1); and who on that account, added, Hereby we do know that we know Him (1Jn 2:3); and again, We know that, when He shall Appear, we shall be like Him (1Jn 3:2). We know also that we have passed from death unto life (1Jn 3:14). We know that every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God (1Jn 4:2). We know that we dwell in Him (1Jn 4:13). By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep His Commandments (1Jn 5:2). We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know Him that is true, and we are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the True God, and Eternal Life (1Jn 5:20). Our science is not a mere hypothesis; our philosophy is not a series of speculations. With us observation and experience combine to make knowledge sure.

That wisdom is manifested in Christ. The Apostle Paul had occasion to say, I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him. Charles Spurgeon, famed alike for his clear thinking and his incisive and convincing speech, said, Wisdom had had its time, and time enough; it had done its all, and that was little enough; it had made the world worse than it was before it stepped upon it; and now God says, Foolishness shall overcome wisdom; now ignorance, as ye call it, shall sweep away science; now (saith God) humble, childlike faith shall crumble to the dust all the colossal systems your hands have piled. He calls his warriors. Christ puts his trumpet to his mouth, and up come the warriors, clad in fishermens garb, with the brogue of the lake of Galileepoor humble mariners. Here are the warriors, O Wisdom, that are to confound thee; these are the heroes who shall overcome thy proud philosophers; these men are to plant their standard upon thy ruined walls, and bid them fall forever; these men and their successors are to exalt a Gospel in the world which ye may laugh at as absurd, which ye may sneer at as folly, but which shall be exalted above the hills, and shall be glorious even to the highest heavens.

He is our explanation of all things.

Without Him was not any thing made that was made.

In Him was life; and the life was the light of men.

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.

He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.

But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His Name.

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

And of His fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

For the Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him (Joh 1:3-5; Joh 1:9-14; Joh 1:16-18).

John Huss, the Christian martyr, once dreamed that the pictures of the Christ which adorned his walls had been obliterated by the Pope. Waking he was greatly grieved. The next day he dreamed again that the painters were restoring the pictures in far more glorious form than they had previously held. He then interpreted his dream to mean the veritable truth that, though the image of Christ might be temporarily obscured, it would return again and again and be always the hope of the nations. And he saw his dream fulfilled in the work of Luther, who with consummate ability brought to the people a fresh revelation of the Christ.

We affirm it our faith that though philosophy may obscure the Christ, and science, so-called, may seek to efface Him from the thought of the world, He will return in even more glorious form, the express image of the Father, and in the light of His countenance darkness shall flee away and men shall come to know even as they are known.

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley

8. Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ:

Translation and Paraphrase

8. Watch (carefully) lest anyone (deceive you and) be carrying you off like (conquerors carry off) spoils (of war), through (their) propagandizing of (human philosophy and) wisdom, and (their) vain (fruitless) deceit, (all of which is) according to the traditions of men, (and) according to the rudimentary principles of (this) world, and not according to Christ.

Notes

1.

In Col. 2:6-7 Paul laid down a true positive foundation for life. Now in Col. 2:8 he begins to speak of the negative, undesirable, worldly, false doctrines that are opposed to Christ.

2.

As we read Col. 2:8 ff, we are confronted with many allusions to the heresy at Colossae. Many of the allusions are obscure to us, but to the Colossians Pauls words struck home plainly.

The Colossian heresy was basically a group of additions to Christ, They wanted to add philosophy (Col. 2:8), perhaps also circumcision (Col. 2:11), rules about Jewish ceremonies (Col. 2:16), worship of angels (Col. 2:17), and rules about self-denial of the body (Col. 2:20).

3.

Paul warned, Take heed lest anyone be carrying you off, like conquerors carry off the spoil of war. All of the additions to Christ were endangering the Colossians. By these human ideas, men were about to deceive the Colossians, and when that happened it would be just as if some conqueror made spoil of them.

As we think of spoil, we think of captives of war being carried away, and paraded before crowds in victory processionals. The conquered peoples were treated as spoils of war and led away into slavery.

The teachers of human philosophy and human religious ideas around Colossae would boast whenever they made a convert and deceived someone into accepting their ideas, like conquering generals gloried over their vanquished opponents.

4.

The philosophy which Paul warned against is not exactly what we ordinarily mean by philosophy. The word philosophy literally means love of wisdom. It was used by the Greek writers for either zeal for or skill in any art or science, or any branch of knowledge. (Thayer). Philosophy refers to any moral system. We could speak of the philosophy of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, the Greeks, etc. Here is Colossians philosophy seems to refer to the theology (or theosophy) which concerned itself with Jewish rituals, and honoring angels, and rules about self-denial of the body. Paul calls all of these things vain deceit (or empty, fruitless deceit). Eph. 5:6.

5.

Paul describes the vain deceit and philosophy of men in three ways:

(1)

It is after the tradition of men.

(2)

It is after the rudiments of the world.

(3)

It is not after Christ.

6.

Traditions are ideas or teachings handed down from one generation to another. They may be good traditions (2Th. 2:15; 2Th. 3:6), or undesirable traditions originated by men alone (Mar. 7:8-9; Mat. 15:2).

7.

By rudiments Paul refers to the basic, first, primary, simple elements of anything. The letters of the alphabet are the rudiments of writing. The elements are the rudiments of the material universe. 2Pe. 3:10. Numbers are the rudiments of mathematics.

Paul here refers to the philosophy and vain deceit of men as being rudiments. Compared to the boundless, profound, unsearchable wisdom in Gods word, mens ideas are like A-B-Cs. They are but the rudiments of truth. Philosophy, though it is usually thought of as very profound, is rudimentary because it is only the teachings and traditions of men.

8.

In Gal. 4:3 Paul also refers to the rudiments of the world. The reference there is obviously to the law of Moses. It was called rudiments, not because it was not given by God, but because it was an imperfect, incomplete, temporary system, given to bring us unto Christ (Gal. 3:24).

It is very possible that the rudiments Paul refers to in Col. 2:8 may be the same as, or similar to, those in Gal. 4:3, the reference being to the law of Moses in both places. The reference in Colossians does seem to apply to other things as well, however.

9.

Many interpreters have understood the rudiments referred to in Colossians to be the stars and planets and signs of the zodiac. They feel that the Colossian heresy included astrological ideas, perhaps even a worship of the heavenly bodies. The Revised Standard version sets forth this idea in its translation: the elemental spirits of the universe.

Certainly Christians should shun astrology as a guide for their lives. The Old Testament prophets thundered the message that Gods children should not worship the host of heaven nor seek guidance from them. (Jer. 8:2; Zep. 1:5; 2Ch. 33:3; 2Ch. 33:5). Why should we seek the heavenly bodies rather than the God who made them? Usually the people who follow the Bible the least are the people who look to things like astrology for guidance the most. When men reject the word of God, they turn to superstition.

As true as all of this is, there is no real indication that Paul was referring to the heavenly bodies by his references to rudiments. Even those who think that Paul was referring to heavenly bodies differ widely in unfolding the meaning of this passage.

10.

How tragic that mens ideas are not after Christ. But that is utterly true. No man has ever thought up out of his own intellect and knowledge the truth about God, His will, and promises. These things are things which we have either learned from Gods revelation of Himself, or we do not know them, 1Co. 2:9-12.

Study and Review

8.

What are we to take heed to prevent? (Col. 2:8)

9.

Explain the verb spoil in Col. 2:8.

10.

What does vain mean in vain deceit?

11.

Philosophy and vain deceit are said to be after two things. What are they?

12.

To what does the word rudiments in Col. 2:8 refer?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(8) Spoil you.Properly, lead you away as a spoil, triumph over you as a captive, and make you a slave. Comp. St. Pauls language as to the older Judaism at Corinth (2Co. 11:20), Ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face.

Philosophy and vain deceiti.e. (like the knowledge falsely so called of 1Ti. 6:20), a philosophy which is inseparably connected with vain deceit. The warning implied here seems to be two-fold:(1) First, against considering Christianity primarily as a philosophy, i.e., a search for and knowledge of speculative truth, even the highest. That it involves philosophy is obvious, for it claims to solve for us the great problem of Being, in Nature, in Man, and in God. St. Paul, while he depreciates the wisdom of this world, dwells emphatically on the gospel as the wisdom of God. (See especially 1Co. 2:6-16.) In this Epistle in particular he speaks of wisdom again and again (Col. 1:9; Col. 1:28; Col. 2:3; Col. 3:16; Col. 4:6) as one great characteristic of Christian life. Nor is it less clear (as the ancient Greek commentators here earnestly remind us) that Christianity finds a place and a blessing for all true philosophy of men, and makes it, as St. Paul made it at Athens, an introduction to the higher wisdom. But Christianity is not a philosophy, but a lifenot a knowledge of abstract principles, but a personal knowledge of faith and love of God in Christ. (2) Next, against accepting in philosophy the vain deceit of mere speculation and imagination instead of the modest, laborious investigation of facts. This is the knowledge falsely so called; of this it may be said (as in 1Co. 8:1) that it puffs up, and does not build up. In ancient and modern times it has always confused brilliant theory with solid discovery, delighting especially to dissolve the great facts of the gospel into abstractions, which may float in its cloudland of imagination.

After the tradition of men.This is the keynote of our Lords condemnation of the old Pharisaic exclusiveness and formalism (Mat. 15:2-3; Mat. 15:6; Mar. 7:8-9); it is equally the condemnation of the later Jewish, or half-Jewish, mysticism which St. Paul attacks here. It is hardly necessary to remark that the Apostle often claims reverence for traditions (1Co. 11:2; 2Th. 2:15; 2Th. 3:6; see also 1Co. 15:3; 2Pe. 2:21), but they are traditions having their starting point in direct revelation of God (Gal. 1:12), and, moreover, traditions freely given to all, as being His. The traditions of men here condemned had their origin in human speculation, and were secretly transmitted to the initiated only.

The rudiments of the world.See Gal. 4:2, and Note there. This marks the chief point of contact with the earlier Judaism, in the stress still laid, perhaps with less consistency, on matters of ritual, law, ascetic observance, and the like. These are of the world, i.e., belonging to the visible sphere; and they are rudiments, fit only for the elementary education of those who are as children, and intended simply as preparation for a higher teaching.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

(8-15) The general exhortation of the previous verses is now emphasised by a solemn warning against deadly speculative error. Now, (1) the character of that error in itself is described with apparently intentional vagueness, as a philosophy of vain deceit, after tradition of men, after the rudiments of this world. Even its Judaic origin, which is made clear below (Col. 2:16-17), is here only hinted at in the significant allusion to Circumcision, and perhaps in the phrase the rudiments of the world, which is also used of the Judaism of Galatia (Gal. 4:3; Gal. 4:9). (2) What is brought out vividly and emphatically is the truth which it contradicts or obscures. First, the full indwelling Godhead of Christ and His headship over all created being; and next, as derived from this, our own spiritual circumcision in Him, i.e., the true death unto sin and new life unto righteousness in Him who is the One Atonement for all sin, and the One Conqueror of all the powers of evil. On the relation of the Epistle to Gnosticism see Excursus A.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

II. THE PROPOSED “PHILOSOPHY” CONSIDERED, Col 2:8-23.

1. Its characteristics, Col 2:8.

8. Beware Take heed Pointing to some well-known person who urged upon them his philosophy, as he termed it, as a substitute for Christ, which the apostle pronounces an empty cheat. To spoil means to carry off as plunder. Thus would the false teacher, if possible, carry them off, body and soul. The caution is not against all philosophy, nor is the Greek philosophy referred to, but a peculiar Colossian system which combined Oriental spiritualistic speculations (Col 2:18) with Jewish ritualism, (Col 2:16,) and set itself in opposition to the gospel. From the apostle’s point of view, its characteristics were, first, positively, it was given by tradition of men, and so was of human origin; it was made up of rudiments of the world; elementary religious ideas gathered from various non-Christian sources; and, second, negatively, it was not according to Christ, as all true philosophy is. Philosophy is a search for the truth. Within the domain of revelation it heartily accepts its authority, and is always in harmony with the truth revealed by Christ.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘Watch carefully lest there shall be anyone who carries you off captive through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and in him you are made full, who is the head of all principality and power.’

Positively they must ensure their roots in Christ are firm, and that they are built up in Him and established in the faith taught by Apostolic men. But they are also to watch carefully against being deceived by human wisdom, which is not really wisdom at all (compare 1Co 1:17 to 1Co 2:2). Their concentration must be on Christ alone, not on inferior beings, however seemingly exalted, for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form and our fullness is in Him, the One Who is over all.

This warning applies to any who would come between us and Christ, whether Mary, the saints, the angels, or any spirit beings. Christ is superior to all and we are in direct contact with Him. We need no other as intermediaries, and to allow them to be seen as intermediaries is to come between us and Christ and to destroy what is most holy.

(Mary must be given due honour as the God-bearer’, the one chosen by God for that purpose, the one through whom, with all her failings, God brought His Son into the world. But as an intermediary between God and us, or Jesus Christ and us, she has no place, and she would have been horrified at even the thought of it. There is not a word in Scripture to support the idea. The words at the cross were personal, for Mary’s benefit, not theological (Joh 19:26-27).

‘Watch carefully.’ The Christian is not just to accept anything that seems ‘helpful’. He is to be constantly on his guard. Anything that takes his eyes off Christ is to be shunned, for in Him they have everything. The use of the indicative rather than the subjunctive stresses the very real danger. The need is not just a possibility but a certainty. It is an alert.

‘Lest any man carry you off captive through his philosophy or vain deceit.’ The picture is vivid. Later he will stress that it is the enemies of Christ who have been carried off captive (Col 2:15). Thus the Colossians must beware of the same fate from a different source. Those who seek to do it are their enemies, however wise they may seem. ‘Philosophy’ (love of wisdom) means any view of God or the world or human life generally. ‘Vain deceit’ puts it in context. Anything contrary to, or that purports to add to, the Gospel is vain deceit.

‘After the tradition of men, after the elements of the world, and not after Christ.’ The world of that day was faced with a vast array of teachings and philosophies with respect to divine things. Paul turns them away from all of them to Christ. Full truth is found in Him alone. All else must be discarded. The warning is just as necessary today. Primitive religions are taking new forms in naturism and new world philosophies. But the only answer, the only truth about such things, is found in Christ, and what He is, and what He is revealed to be in the Scriptures.

‘Tradition’ (paradosin). Compare 1Co 11:2; 2Th 2:15; 2Th 3:6 for its use in a Christian sense. They are to beware of any traditions not firmly based in the Apostolic tradition presented to the early church in the first century. The latter are traditions received from God, all others (including later Christian traditions) are the traditions of men.

‘The elements (or elementary teaching) of the world’. Many sought to teach what they regarded as basic and foundation truths relating to intermediary supernatural beings. But they were opposed to the true world view which spoke of God in Christ as the Creator and Sustainer of the universe without intermediaries. Any reaching out to other supernatural beings or intermediaries, whether through mediums or religious means is wrong.

‘In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.’ The word for ‘dwells’ represents permanent dwelling, as opposed to temporary residence, demonstrating the permanence of the divine fullness in Christ. This is no passing thing but permanent enjoyment of the fullness of deity. The word for fullness (pleroma) refers to completeness and totality (see on Col 1:19). He partakes completely in the totality of the fullness of what God is.

‘The Godhead’ (theotes). Used by Paul only here. It refers to Godhead in the most exclusive sense of truly and fully divine. We can compare ‘theiotes’ used in Rom 1:20 which refers to a more general sense of divine power revealed. Creation reveals the footprint of God, the hand of God in creating, but Christ reveals Him in all the fullness of His being. In creation we perceive His hand, in Christ we see His face in all its glory (2Co 4:4 with Col 3:18).

‘Bodily’ may mean in one complete ‘body’, not divided up among intermediaries. Alternately it may mean in human bodily form, stressing the fullness of the Godhead as involved in the incarnation. ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (Joh 1:14).’ Both are true.

‘And you are made complete (full) in Him.’ He is all that we need to be made complete. Christ is everything. To think of going to lesser powers when we can personally know the all-powerful would be foolish in the extreme, for it is God’s purpose that we know Him and be made complete in Him, that is, be endued with all that it is possible for redeemed mankind to enjoy. ‘For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace’ (Joh 1:16).

‘Who is the head of all principality and power.’ He is the One Who is ‘far above all’ (Eph 1:21), to Whom all are subject. There is no power or rule in heaven or earth over which He is not the Head, and over which He does not have the full mastery and complete authority. Having Him what want we more?

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Christ verses Philosophy: False Doctrine Confronted In Col 2:8-15 Paul then warns them of such false doctrines by restating Christ’s preeminence in contrast to human philosophy.

Col 2:9 Comments – Everything we need to be, do and become is wrapped up in becoming like Jesus.

Col 2:10 “And ye are complete in Him” Illustration – I had a dream in the late 1980’s where Al and Merle Schukoske, my former employers, came up and knocked on my door. I met them at the door of my home. As I saw their faces, there swept over me the loneliness and seemly unhappiness of remaining a single young man. Then I looked up towards heaven and I saw the glory of God as it shown down upon me and flooded my soul. It gave me such a complete happy feeling inside that the desire for marriage, for other relationships, or for everything temporal and earthly, faded away and I felt complete in God’s presence. When we get to heaven, we will be totally complete. We will be in need of nothing. The idea of being lonely, even as a single person, will not exist, just as hunger and pain will not exist. Even on this earth, this completeness is available to us to give us strength. For we are complete in Him.

People often ask how they will feel in heaven when they realize that some of their loved ones did not make it, but instead, are suffering in eternal damnation. Will there be sorrow in heaven over this issue? The answer can be found in this verse in Col 2:10. We will find ourselves in a state of fullness and completeness that we will no longer have the longings that we now experience on earth. Rom 8:23-39 also refers to this completeness and absence of earthly longings. It tells us that while we are in our mortal bodies, we groan and eagerly await redemption (Rom 8:23-25). When we are redeemed, we will find that the love of God (Rom 8:35-39) so penetrates our entire being that we will no longer groan and long for things. For in the presence of His love, we will be complete. We will be whole, entire, and lacking nothing. If we are lacking nothing in Heaven while in the presence of God, then how can we sorrow and long for something any longer?

Col 2:14 “having forgiven you all trespasses” Comments – When Jesus Christ shed His blood on Calvary, God accepted this sacrifice as the payment for the sins of all mankind. We must become identified with His death, burial and resurrection in order to also be identified with His forgiveness. Our identification with all of these events takes place when we place our faith in God’s power to raise Christ from the dead. We cannot receive His forgiveness without first receiving His work on Calvary.

Col 2:14  Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Col 2:14 “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us” – Comments That is, wiping away the certificate of indebtedness. God wipes our slate clean. The phrase “against us” means that these laws were contrary to our fleshly nature. Mankind did not have the ability to walk in all of the commandments and ordinances because he was by nature depraved.

Illustration Peter asked Jesus how many times we are to forgive our neighbours when they sin against us. Jesus replied that we are to always be willing to forgive others (Mat 18:21-35). Such a story reflects man’s inherent nature to sin.

Col 2:14 “that was against us, which was contrary to us” Comments – That is, the Law was against our nature ( – against us). Man was a sinner by nature (Rom 3:23) and the Law is holy, just and good (Rom 7:12) and spiritual (Rom 7:14). The Law was set against us ( – contrary to us) like an adversary and it slew us (Rom 7:9).

Rom 3:23, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”

Rom 7:9, “For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.”

Rom 7:12, “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.”

Rom 7:14, “For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.”

Col 2:15 “And having spoiled principalities and powers” – Comments – Jesus disarmed, or took away, the power and authority of all rulers and authorities. These “principalities and powers” that have been spoiled refer to the demonic forces that fell with Satan at Christ’s resurrection. These demonic powers that were made subject to Christ are now subject to us through His glorious name, the name of Jesus. We have authority over the Devil, and the basis of our authority is the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Col 2:15 “he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it” – Comments – BDAG translates the phrase “triumphing over them in it” as “led in a triumphal procession” (see BDAG, 1). In ancient times a king would sometime parade his conquered victims into his capital and before his people in a display of strength and power. This would encourage his people to follow him because they believed he was a leader that could protect them from the enemy. Satan has been defeated. Jesus fought and won.

Scripture References – Note a similar verse in Eph 4:8:

Eph 4:8, “Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Col 2:8. Beware lest any man spoil you, &c. Make a spoil of you. The Apostle here refers to the vain deceit of Gentile, as well as Jewish philosophy. The word rendered rudiments, , may undoubtedly signify shadows, as opposed to substance; such as the Jewish ceremonies were. But there is a peculiar spirit in speaking of the boasted dictates of Pagan philosophy but as elements, or lessons for children, when compared with the sublime instruction to be received in the school of Christ.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Col 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 Col 2:6-7 , be rendered fruitless!

The future after (comp. Heb 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 Gal 4:11 .

As to the participle with the article , comp. on Gal 1:7 : .

Respecting , 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 , it means to rob; and is so taken here by Hilary, Chrysostom, Theodoret ( ), Theophylact ( ), 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, , as well as with the purposely chosen peculiar expression in itself, which is more significant than the classical or , and serves vividly to illustrate the idea of the seduction , through which one falls under extraneous power, as respects its disgracefulness.

. ] through philosophy and empty deceit . It is to be observed that neither the preposition nor the article is repeated before (see Khner, II. 1, pp. 476, 528; Buttmann, Neut. Gr . p. 86 [E. T. 100]), because with . . there is added no further element different from . (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 (Col 2:4 ), with which it is presented, is a (Plat. Rep . p. 607 B), and (Plut. Mor . p. 1069 C). On the idea of (1Co 15:14 ; Eph 5:6 ), comp. Dem. 821. 11.: , and on , Plat. Soph . p. 260 C: , . The , however, against which Paul utters his warning, is not philosophy generally and in itself , a view at variance with the addition . . closely pertaining to it, however much the wisdom of the world in its degeneracy (comp. Herm. gottesd. Alterth . 12; and Culturgesch. d. Griech. u. Rm . 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 (1Co 1:18 ff; 1Co 2:6 ). Rather, he has in view (comp. Col 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 . appended. [89] (Plat. Def . p. 414 C: , ). Possibly it was also put forward by the false teachers themselves expressly under this designation (comp. the Sophists as the , Xen. Mem . i. 2. 19; and , 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 (Col 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 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 Mal 1:1Mal 1:1 , p. 298 f.

. . . .] might be and this is the common view closely joined with (Winer, p. 128 f. [E. T. 169]). But the would not suit this connection, since is already in itself a definite and proper idea, in association with which a would be inconceivable; whereas the figurative still admits also the negative modal statement ( . ) for greater definiteness. Accordingly . . . . . (comp. Steiger, Ellicott) is to be taken as definition of mode to . Paul, namely, having previously announced whereby the 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 ( ) and negatively ( . ). The genitive . is to be explained: . (comp. 2Th 3:6 ), and denotes the category , the traditio humana as such, opposed to the divine revelation. Comp. Mar 7:8 . What is meant , doubtless, is the ritual Jewish tradition outside of the Mosaic law (comp. on Mat 15:2 ), the latter being excluded by .; but Paul designates the thing quite generally, according to the genus to which it belongs, as human .

] 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 Gal 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, . . . and . . , have it as their aim to render apparent the worthlessness and unsuitableness for the Christian standpoint (comp. Gal 4:9 ). Hence, also, the contrast which, though obvious of itself, is nevertheless emphatic: . The activity of that has not Christ for its objective standard; He, in accordance with His divine dignity exalted above everything (see Col 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 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 and 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 , 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 . . ., 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 . . . for the Synoptical Gospels (Mat 15:2 f.); as if (comp. especially Gal 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.”

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

V

HUMAN PHILOSOPHY VERSUS THE ENDURING GOSPEL OF CHRIST

Col 2:8-3:17 .

This chapter continues the exposition of Colossians. While on broad general lines, the main teaching part of the letter has already been considered, we need to examine somewhat in detail certain words and phrases in the long paragraph commencing Col 2:8 and ending Col 3:17 . In Col 2:8 “spoil” has the sense of captives “make you a spoil,” and in the same verse, on the word “philosophy,” note

1. The derivation of the word literally “a love of wisdom,” i.e., human wisdom, or reasonings, in accounting for things, as opposed to divine revelation in accounting for things.

2. The province of philosophy. Certain matters come legitimately within the realm of human philosophy upon which its reasonings and even its working suppositions may be heard tentatively, its conclusions, or hypotheses, continually subject to modification as investigation affords new light.

But certain other matters are entirely outside its realm, e.g., whatever is supernatural cannot be settled by natural reasonings.

Whatever touches ultimate origin and destiny lies entirely outside the realm of human science, and hence when human philosophy attempts to settle matters beyond the reach of human science it becomes mere speculation. Its dogmatic claims are, as the apostle here puts it, “vain deceit.” All its voluminous, varied, and contradictory literature upon these subjects from the beginning of time till this hour is as valueless as the “airy nothings” of a dream. If every book of it were burned today in one huge bonfire, as were the magical books of the Ephesians, the world would be better off.

The only light in it all is the light of its burning. See 1 Corinthians Col 1:18 ; Col 2:16 .

Do not understand me to deny all legitimate scope to human philosophy. Within bounds it has a great place, but even in that place its value may be greatly overestimated. I am quite sure that more than half of the matter in the textbooks on philosophy in all our schools, colleges, and universities is the most worthless rubbish, and some of it rank poison.

I am not talking of science. A man who denies the value of science real science rails at God’s appointed method by which man is commanded to subdue the earth and lay under tribute all nature’s potentialities. The predicate for all schools of human learning is God’s dower of authority to man over land and sea and sky, and his commission to subdue the earth. Here in the natural world human philosophy is the avant-courier and handmaid of science. It supposes, it experiments, it makes myriads of tentative explorations and flights, shedding off the failures, utilizing and improving the successes, and thus ever contributing to the enlargement of science.

Philosophy becomes a fool only when it invades the realm of ultimate origins, destinies, and the supernatural. Here it is vainer than a peacock, and blinder than a mole, which, burrowing under the earth, is a fine judge of earthworms, but utterly incompetent to become a critic of landscapes, sky views, and ocean wonders.

“Ne sutor ultra crepidam.” On these matters all God’s treasures of wisdom and knowledge are stored up in Christ, who is the only revelator of God’s hidden things. A human philosophy which, leaving out God (deifying instead, Chance or Fate), leaving out man’s highest nature and highest relations, leaving out distinction between matter and spirit, attempts a scheme of the universe and the related human life perpetrates a folly unworthy of preservation in human literature. Observe next in Col 2:8 ,

3. “After the tradition of men.” “Tradition,” that which is handed down transmitted from father to son, or from one generation to another may be either good or bad according to its origin or subject matter. In the New Testament the word is accordingly used sometimes in a good sense, sometimes in a bad sense. Paul commands Timothy to pass on to other good men the deposit of good doctrine which he had received from Paul. If the original matter be a revelation from God, it does not cease to be good because, “handed down,” provided only it be held sacredly intact and transmitted unimpaired. The supreme test of an oral “tradition” is its conformity with the word written. The Pharisees made void the written word of God with rabbinical traditions. And so tradition in the early Christian centuries began that undermining of the simplicity of the written gospel which culminates in our day into that which is another gospel or no gospel.

The context (Col 2:11-18 ) indicates that “the traditions of men” here rebuked by the apostle is a Jewish element of Gnosticism rather than heathen, because these traditions are in the same verse said to be “after the rudiments of the world” and not “after Christ.” But what is meant here by “rudiments”? In a general way “rudiments” means what is elemental the first principles. Of course, “rudiments of the world” may mean worldly first principles, referring to mere human origin, but this hardly accords with the New Testament usage of the word “rudiments” or with the immediate context. The rudiments of revelation were the types, shadows and ritual of the Old Testament. It was characteristic of the Jew in the time of our Lord, and is so even now that he went not beyond these rudiments. He would not see in Christ the substance of these shadows, so he never went on to maturity.

Moreover, by their traditions they corrupted and distorted even the shadows. This corruption might appear in stressing the letter which killeth against the Spirit which maketh alive. Or by their endless elaborations, interpretations, emendations, infinite trifling details they might convert the law into a burdensome yoke impossible to be borne. Or by merely human speculation on the fact that the law was given by “the disposition of angels” they might merge Jewish speculation into the heathen element of Gnosticism, a creation by eons graded emanations from God. To meet which Paul presents Jesus as having in himself “all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Let the reader particularly note the force of this expression, perhaps the strongest in the New Testament.

Observe (1) “Godhead.” The Greek theotes means “deity” not the weaker word “divinity” the natural force of which may be evaded, or shaded down. The expression is even stronger than John’s “The Word was God ( Theos ).”

Observe (2) “fulness,” not in part nor in certain directions, but “all the fulness of Deity.”

Observe (3) “bodily” ( somatikos ), i.e., “bodily-wise.” The word is carefully chosen. Here Lightfoot speaks to the point: “It is not ‘in a body’ for Deity cannot be so confined. It is not ‘in the form of a body’ for this might suggest the unreality of Christ’s human body, but ‘bodily,’ i. e., bodily-wise, or with a bodily manifestation.”

Observe (4) “dwells” ( katoikei ): “In him dwells all the fulness ( pleroma ) of Deity bodily,” as just before, in contrast with their vain deceit, their philosophy, he has affirmed that in Christ “all the treasures of wisdom [sop/no] and of knowledge ( gnosis ) are stored” (Col 2:3 ).

Observe (5) “And ye, in him, are complete,” i.e., filled full ( pepleromenoi ). Being in union with Christ, there is no need to seek from human sources a wisdom, a knowledge, a philosophy, on the matters stated.

Observe (6) Instead of Christ being a low grade eon, or emanation from God a subordinate angel “He is the head of all principality and authority” Kreek, he Kephale pases arches hai exousias . He then goes on to show that in being united to Christ they received the real, or spiritual circumcision, and their baptism was in a figure both a burial and a resurrection with Christ. In other words, the antitype of circumcision is regeneration, and baptism symbolizes Christ’s burial and resurrection and pledges our own. He then reaches his true climax in a double direction:

1. That in his death on the cross he fulfilled, cancelled, and abrogated all the Old Testament economy took it entirely out of the way took it forever away.

2. That on the cross he not only conquered, but made an open show of Satan and all his demons. Here he follows the imagery of a Roman triumphal procession, accorded to their conquering generals, dragging captive princes in their train. (See the author’s sermon on the “Three Hours of Darkness.”) He came in triumph, by resurrection and ascension, after the battle on the cross, not to imperial Rome, but to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of God, shouting, Lift up your heads, O ye gates, And be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors, And let the King of Glory come in.

“When he ascended up on high he led captivity captive,” i.e., he broke all the chains of bondage which Satan had bound on men, redeeming the captives of the terrible one, and he gave as largess the outpoured Holy Spirit with all his varied gifts to men. Truly that was “the crisis of this world.”

Let not the reader fail to note the apostle’s conclusions from this victory on the cross:

1. Let no man judge you in meat and drink according to the Mosaic distinctions between the clean and unclean. That distinction is abrogated.

2. Let no man judge you on any part of the sabbatic cycle, either the seventh-day sabbath, the lunar sabbath, the three great annual sabbaths, the land sabbath or the Jubilee sabbath. They were all shadows; the body is of Christ. The whole old covenant with its sacrifices, types, ritual, and priesthood, has passed away. This passage is the death blow to all sects which observe the seventh day sabbath. They are either Jews on this point or merely keepers of a sabbath which commemorates creation. Yet when we come to consider the more elaborate arguments in the letter to the Hebrews, written a little later, we will find that “there remaineth to the people of God a sabbath-keeping” (Sabbatismos) which commemorates not rest from creation nor deliverance from Egypt, but our Lord’s rest after his greater work of redemption.

3. Let no man seek to impose on you circumcision of the flesh. Ye are regenerated, having the spiritual circumcision.

4. Let him not judge as one of the Essenes, trying to kill sin by afflicting the body, saying, “handle not, taste not, touch not” this or that. All their minute rules, all their asceticism, all their adjournment of marriage, all their retirement from the world into caves, nunneries, or monasteries, all their regimen of diet and scourging of the body is mere will worship and availeth nothing toward shutting out temptations. Allurement, lust, passion, envy, jealousy, malice, and covetousness, that run riot in the world, will find a man in his seclusion. Walls of brick and stone cannot shut out human passion. God meant for us to live in the world, but not to be of the world. “I pray not that they may be taken out of the world, but that they may be kept from the evil one,” says our Lord. The true remedy is to set our affections on things above, where our citizenship is. Let the expulsive power of new affections drive the old loves out of the heart. Put off the old man and put on the new man, which, after God, is re-created unto knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness. Let the reader note that chapter Col 3:11 of this letter and Eph 4:24 , both allude to man’s original creation in the image of God, and this image involved “knowledge” ( epignosis ), “righteousness” ( dikaiosune ) and “holiness of truth” ( hosioteti tes aletheias ).

5. Where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondmen, freemen, but Christ is all and in all.

These five conclusions from Christ’s work on the cross constitute a priceless heritage, ever to be most jealously guarded. They are summed up as follows:

1. The distinctions between clean and unclean meats and drinks is forever obliterated.

2. The creation sabbath and all the cycle of Jewish sabbaths are superseded.

3. Circumcision of the flesh, distinguishing Jew from Gentile, is abrogated.

4. Asceticism and seclusion from the world as a preventive of temptation and passion is valueless.

5. Distinction of race, caste, society slavery and freedom, civilization and barbarism, culture and ignorance are all impossible in Christ. He died for man, as man. Regeneration, or the new creation, ignores all artificial distinctions. There will never be a kingdom of Jesus over Jews, as Jews. There will never be a restoration of the Jewish polity. It would be a horrible anticlimax.

Christ was crucified because he would not restore the national Jewish polity, but established a spiritual kingdom.

Seventh Day Adventism and all premillennial adventism representing Christ as coming to reign for a thousand years in a restored earthly Jerusalem over a restored Jewish nation, with the Gentile world in subjugation, nullify the cross and seek to rebuild what he there forever cast down.

Since the cross, and forever since the cross, it will be true “Where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondmen, freemen; but Christ is all and in all.”

There will be a Jerusalem, the capital of this world. But it will be the heavenly Jerusalem coming down from God out of heaven after the general judgment. The Holy Spirit will infill it, according to John’s vision (Rev 21:10-14 ). “The twelve gates were twelve pearls; each one of the several gates was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass. And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God the Almighty, and the Lamb, are the temple thereof. And the city hath no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine upon it: for the glory of the Lord did lighten it, and the lamp thereof is the Lamb. And the nations shall walk amidst the light thereof: and the kings of the earth bring their glory into it. And the gates thereof shall in no wise be shut by day (for there shall be no night there): and they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it: and there shall in no wise enter into it anything unclean, or he that maketh an abomination and a lie: but only they that are written in the Lamb’s book of life,” (Rev 21:10-14 ; Rev 21:22-27 ).

There never will be a reversion to Moses. The great central truth of the cross and what it abrogates, set forth in Colossians, enlarged in Ephesians and elaborated in every detail in the letter to the Hebrews, makes an eternal break with Judaism, as is fitly followed by the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple and the eternal cessation of its sacrifices and priesthood. Therefore the author cannot bear the thought that anyone should fail to learn the lesson of Col 2:14-15 . As the Crusaders failed, so will the Jewish Zionists. The tomb is empty. The sanctity is forever gone from the earthly Jerusalem and the land. Let Greek Catholic and Roman Catholic have their quarrels over the empty tomb and vacant temple site, regulated by Moslem police. Our Lord is not there; he is risen. The Jerusalem that now is answereth to Mount Sinai and is in bondage with her children. The Jerusalem that is above is our mother, and regeneration is our certificate of citizenship. Heaven is our Holy Land. Let us by illumination, faith, hope, and love make tours to that holy land. I am far from denying that God overruled the Crusades to much reflexive good. But the Crusades themselves, so far as their immediate purpose and hope are concerned, have no rivals in the history of folly.

I have no desire To climb where Moses stood And view that landscape o’er but would prefer to be caught up with Paul into the third heaven, into the paradise of God. “And view THAT landscape o’er.”

I continually rejoice that I am not coming unto the dark, thunder-rocked, fire-crested, smoke-shrouded, trumpet-riven Mountain of the Law, there to quake and tremble, but unto Mount Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, unto God the judge, unto the general assembly and church of the first-born, unto the spirits of just men made perfect, unto Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, unto the blood of sprinkling in the true holy of holies whose atoning efficacy speaks better things for us than the blood of Abel’s typical animal sacrifice. Oh! when, thou city of my God, Shall I thy courts ascend?

I have not the temperament of the archaeologist. I could never potter with Old Mortality among the tombs of men once heroes, but seek the company of living heroes. I could not be a Chinese with his back to the future, worshiping his ancestors, and am entirely without desire to go East except “by way of the West.” Campbell’s Pleasures of Hope is a greater book than Rogers’ Pleasures of Memory. I lift my hat when I hear Paul shouting: “Forgetting the things that are behind and reaching out to the things that are before I press on toward the goal of the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.”

I have been scornfully asked, why the waste of the letters to the Colossians, Ephesians, and Hebrews, since Titus in less than a decade would obviate their necessity by the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish polity?

My answer was, because he foresaw the great apostasy which, under the guise of Christianity, would revert to the Old Testament type and revive its hierarchy, its priesthood, its human mediators, its ritual, its anointings, its genuflexions commanding to abstain from meats and forbidding to marry and which would foist on half the world a blended Jewish and heathen system of superstition, tyrannizing over the cradle, the grave and the spirit world, and over governments, while drunk with the blood of the saints.

QUESTIONS

1. What is the meaning of “spoil” in Col 2:8 ?

2. What is the derivation of the word “philosophy”?

3. What is the province of human philosophy and its value there?

4. Into what realm may it not intrude, and what the value of its literature when intruding there?

5. Into this realm beyond the scope of human philosophy, what, according to Col 2:3 of this letter, is the position of our Lord, and how does he make known its secrets?

6. What is the meaning of “tradition” in Col 2:8 , and how is the word used in the New Testament?

7. What is the meaning of “rudiments” in Col 2:8 , and to what does the New Testament usage of the word usually refer?

8. Show from the context that a Jewish element of Gnosticism is under consideration here.

9. At what point in the argument does the Jewish element blend With the heathen?

10. In what great, declaration concerning Christ does Paul meet the false philosophy? (Col 2:9 .)

11. Meaning of “Godhead” in Col 2:9 , and how often elsewhere in the New Testament does the word occur, and compare its force with John’s “the Word was God.”

12. Meaning of “bodily,” and quote Lightfoot on the choice of the word?

13. Meaning of “complete in him”?

14. What is the antitype of circumcision, and the relation of baptism thereto?

15. State the great climax of Paul in two directions.

16. State the five conclusions from his argument.

17. What is the value of the conclusions as a heritage?

18. What is the effect as to Judaism of the central truth of the cross as argued in Colossians, Ephesians, and Hebrews?

19. Wherein the great error of Seventh-Day Adventism, and most premillennial teaching?

20. What is the folly of the Crusades?

21. Will there ever be a restored earthly Jerusalem, with Christ as King over the Jews, and Gentiles in subjection?

22. What is the Jerusalem before the saints?

23. Why, in view of the destruction of Jerusalem in less than a decade, did Paul write these prison letters to make a final break with Judaism?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Ver. 8. Lest any man spoil you ] A metaphor either from sheep stealers or plunderers, . Seducers plunder men of their precious souls. They take them prisoners, 2Ti 3:6 . They make merchandise of them, 2Pe 2:3 ; or bring them into bondage, smiting them on the face, 2Co 11:20 . Constantius the emperor suspecting Julian’s proneness to paganism, sent him to be carefully grounded in Christianity to Nicomedia; but he frequented by stealth the company of Libanus and Jamblichus the philosophers, who warped him fully to their bent; which brake out afterwards.

Through philosophy ] In the year of Christ 220, the Artemonites, a certain kind of heretics, corrupted Scripture out of Aristotle and Theophrastus, turning all into questions, as afterwards the schoolmen also did, that evil generation of dunghill divines, as one calleth them. Tertullian not unfitly saith, that the philosophers were the patriarchs of the heretics. Not but that there is an excellent and necessary use of philosophy, truly so called; but the apostle meaneth it of their idle speculations and vain deceits, those airy nothings, as the apostle expounds himself. See Trapp on “ Rom 1:21 “ See Trapp on “ Rom 1:22 “

And not after Christ ] The Gentiles then could not be saved by their philosophy without Christ. And yet not only the divines of Cullen set forth a book concerning the salvation of Aristotle, whom they called Christ’s forerunner in naturals, as John Baptist was in supernaturals; but also some of the school doctors, grave men (saith Acosta), do promise men salvation without the knowledge of Christ. (Agrippa, Balaeus.)

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

8 15 .] See summary, on Col 2:1 general warning against being seduced by a wisdom which was after men’s tradition, and not after Christ, of whose perfect work, and their perfection in Him, he reminds them .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

8 .] Take heed lest there shall be (the future indicative expresses strong fear lest that which is feared should really be the case; so Aristoph. Eccles. 487, , . Hartung, ii. 138: see reff. and Winer, 56. 2. b a ) any one Who (cf. , ref. Gal. and note. It points at some known person) leads you away as his prey (Mey. connects the word in imagery with the foregoing but this perhaps is hardly necessary after the disregard to continuity of metaphor shewn in Col 2:6-7 . The meaning ‘to rob’ (so with , Aristn. ii. 22), adopted here by Thdrt. ( . ), ‘to undermine ,’ Chrys. ( , ), hardly appears suitable on account of the , which seem to imply motion. We have (see Rost and Palm’s Lex.) in Heliod. and Nicet., which idea of abduction is very near that here) by means of his (or the article may signify, as Ellic., the current, popular, philosophy of the day: but I prefer the possessive meaning: see below) philosophy and empty deceit (the absence of the article before shews the to be epexegetical, and the same thing to be meant by the two. This being so, it may be better to give the the possessive sense, the better to mark that it is not all philosophy which the Apostle is here blaming: for Thdrt. is certainly wrong in saying , , the former being, as Mey. observes, the form of imparting, this, the thing itself. The . is not necessarily Greek , as Tert. de prscr. 7, vol. ii. p. 20 (‘fuerat Athenis’) Clem. Strom, i. 11, 50, vol. i. p. 346, P. ( , ), Grot. al. As De W. observes, Josephus calls the doctrine of the Jewish sects philosophy: Antt. xviii. 2. 1, , . , . The character of the philosophy here meant, as gathered from the descriptions which follow, was that mixture of Jewish and Oriental, which afterwards expanded into gnosticism), according to the tradition of men (this tradition, derived from men, human and not divine in its character, set the rule to this his philosophy, and according to this he : such is the grammatical construction; but seeing that his philosophy was the instrument by which, the character given belongs in fact to his philosophy), according to the elements (see on Gal 4:3 ; the rudimentary lessons: i.e. the ritualistic observances (‘nam continuo post exempli loco speciem unam adducit, circumcisionem scilicet,’ Calv.) in which they were becoming entangled) of the world (all these belonged to the earthly side were the carnal and imperfect phase of knowledge now the perfect was come, the imperfect was done away), and not (negative characteristic, as the former were the affirmative characteristics, of this philosophy) according to Christ (“who alone is,” as Bisp. observes, “the true rule of all genuine philosophy, the only measure as for all life acceptable to God, so for all truth in thought likewise: every true philosophy must therefore be , must begin and end with Him”):

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Col 2:8 . Paul once more (previously in Col 2:4 ) begins to attack the false teachers, but turns aside in Col 2:9 from the direct attack to lay the basis for the decisive attack in Col 2:16-23 . . It is not clear that we can infer from the singular that only one false teacher had appeared in the Colossian Church. 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”. : the future indicative after implies a more serious estimate of the danger than the subjunctive. For the construction, followed by a participle with the article, cf. Gal 1:7 , Luk 18:9 . . The sense is disputed. Several of the Fathers and some modern writers think it means “to rob”. It is used in this sense with (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., th., x., 35 (with ), Nicet., Hist., 5, 96 (with ), and it may be chosen with the special sense of seduction in mind. . 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 Coloss. Hort thinks that the sense is akin to the later usage of the word to denote the ascetic life. : “according to human tradition” as opposed to Divine revelation. Meyer, Ellicott and Findlay connect with . It is more usual to connect with . or . . . . . The last is perhaps best. It indicates the source from which their teaching was drawn. . [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; Klpper, ad loc. ; Spitta, 2 Pet. u. Jud. , 263 sq. ; Everling, Paul. Angel. u. Dm. , 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 Encyclopdia Biblica .] Originally . 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 Gal 4:3 . ( Planting and Training , i., 465, 466, cf. 323 [Bohn’s ed.].) He pointed out that if . meant first principles we should have had a genitive of the object, as in Heb 5:12 , . . . . Such an omission of the leading idea is inadmissible. Further, Paul regarded the heathen as enslaved under . . . 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 would be inappropriate), but the ceremonial observances, which were so called as earthly and material. It has been further pointed out by Klpper that following . . . . this term introduced by and not connected by 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 (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 Gal 4:11 , immediately following the mention of . in Col 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 . . . with is fully satisfied only if the former are personal. In Gal 4:3 Paul applies the illustration of the heir under “guardians and stewards” to the pre-Christian world under the . . ., and here again a personal reference is forcibly suggested. Still more is this the case with Gal 4:8-9 . In Col 2:8 Paul says . In the next verse he asks “how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly ., to which you wish to be in bondage ( ) over again?” This clearly identifies . . with . . , and therefore proves their personality, which is suggested also by .; accordingly they cannot be the heavenly bodies or the physical elements of the world. Hilgenfeld, followed by Lipsius, Holsten and Klpper, 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 , Jas 1:17 ). But it is strange that the spirits of the stars should be called . . . 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. . . . 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 . , 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. , , . 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”. must be taken similarly, not having Christ for its subject-matter. . means the person of Christ, not teaching about Christ, and is opposed simply to ., not to . . . The false teachers put these angels in the place of Christ.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Col 2:8-15

8See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. 9For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.

Col 2:8-15 This is one long sentence, one sustained presentation in Greek.

Col 2:8

NASB, NRSV,

TEV”see to it”

NKJV”beware”

NJB”make sure”

This is a present active imperative . Christians must continue to guard their freedom in Christ from false teachers while yielding it to weaker brothers (cf. Rom 14:1 to Rom 15:13; 1 Corinthians 8; 1Co 10:23-33). It is often difficult to tell the difference between these two groups. False teachers pervert truth, while weak brothers advocate personal preferences.

“that no one takes you captive” This is a negative present active participle. This strong Greek term, used only here in the NT, meant (1) to kidnap, (2) to seduce (2Ti 3:6), or (3) to take as a slave. False teachers always want control!

“through philosophy” This is not a condemnation of human rational thinking. Humans are created in the image of God and must worship Him with their entire being, including their minds (Deu 6:5; Mat 22:32; Mar 12:29-30; Luk 10:27). This is the rejection of the speculative philosophy/theology of false teachers (cf. Col 2:23; 1Co 1:26 to 1Co 2:8; Eph 4:13; Eph 5:6; 1Ti 6:20).

“empty deceptions” This term can be translated “deceit, deception, or delusion” (cf. Mat 13:22; Eph 4:22; 2Th 2:10; Heb 3:13). False teachers are often sincere, but deceived!

“according to” This is the Greek term kata. It is repeated three times to define “philosophy and empty deception”:

1. “to the traditions of men” So much of human’s religiosity is cultural, not biblical (cf. Isa 29:13; Col 2:23). Often we pass on what we have received without checking the Bible for ourselves!

2. “not according to Christ” It is based on human reasoning, experience, or speculation.

3. “the elementary principles” Most words develop from a literal, physical sense to a metaphorical extension. This term (stoicheia) originally referred to something in a row, a series. It developed into several connotations:

a. The basic physical building blocks of the world (air, water, earth, and fire, cf. 2Pe 3:10; 2Pe 3:12).

b. The basic teachings of a subject (cf. Heb 5:12; Heb 6:1 for Judaism).

c. The angelic powers behind the heavenly bodies (cf. I Enoch 52:8-9; the early church fathers; Col 2:8; Col 2:20; 1Co 15:24) or the angelic ranks (aeons) of the Gnostic false teachers (cf. Col 2:10; Col 2:15; Eph 3:10).

d. Angels hostile to mankind who tried to stop the giving of the Law to Moses (cf. Act 7:38; Heb 2:2)

e. Possibly the impersonal structures of our fallen world that allow fallen mankind to appear independent from God (education, government, medicine, religion, etc. (cf. Gal 4:3; Gal 4:8-9 and Hendrik Berkhof’s Christ and the Powers by Herald Press, p. 32).

“rather than according to Christ” This was the third use of kata. The problem with the world’s philosophy is that it defines truth by a standard other than God’s revelation, the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is human discovery, not divine revelation.

Col 2:9 “in Him” This phrase is in an emphatic position. “In Him” was a key phrase in Paul’s theology (“in whom” Col 2:3; ” in Christ” Col 2:5; “in Him” Col 2:6; Col 2:9-11; “with Him” Col 2:12-13). Notice, also, Eph 1:3-4; Eph 1:7; Eph 1:9-10; Eph 1:12-14). Paul returns again to Christology as he did in Col 1:15-20. This is the main issue and the main issue is a person!

“all the fullness of Deity” This dual aspect of Christ’s nature refuted the false teachers, (cf. Col 1:15-20). They agreed that He was fully God, but denied that He was fully human (cf. 1 John 1 and 1Jn 4:1-3). The term “fullness” (plrma) was a Gnostic term for the angelic levels (aeons) between a high good god and evil matter (cf. Joh 1:16, Col 1:19, Eph 1:23; Eph 3:19; Eph 4:13).

This abstract term for “deity” (theots) is only used here in the NT. Jesus is the full and complete revelation of God, not the angelic levels (aeons) or the false teachers’ secret knowledge. It is possible that this was one of the Gnostic teachers’ key terms. Paul often uses their terminology to describe Christ.

“dwells” This is a present active indicative. Some of the Gnostic false teachers believed that the “Christ spirit” came upon Jesus for a limited period. This verse asserts that Jesus’ two natures were in permanent union.

“in bodily form” This was a truth that Gnosticism could not affirm because of their Greek dualism between a good god and evil matter. It is crucial in Christianity (cf. 1Jn 4:1-3).

Col 2:10 “you have been made complete” This is a perfect passive participle of plerma (cf. Col 2:9; Joh 1:16; Eph 3:19). The Christian has been and continues to be filled by Him and for Him! Jesus has made us complete!

“He is the head over all rule and authority” This refers to the Gnostic false teachers’ view of salvation. For them salvation consisted in secret knowledge ( a password or secret name) which allowed them to move through the angelic spheres between matter (world) and spirit (God, cf. Col 1:16; Col 2:15; Eph 1:22-23; Eph 3:10; Eph 6:12). Paul asserted that salvation is in Christ. He is the head of all angelic/demonic realms (cf. Rom 8:38-39)! See Special Topic: Angels in Paul’s Writings at Eph 6:12.

George Ladd’s A Theology of the New Testament, has an interesting paragraph about Paul’s terminology:

“A study of the language Paul uses to designate these angelic spirits suggests that Paul deliberately employed a vague and varied terminology. This is seen particularly in his alternation between the singular and the plural forms of several of the words. It is impossible successfully to group this terminology into clearly defined orders of angelic beings, nor is it at all clear that by the various words Paul purposes to designate different kinds or ranks of angels. Probably Paul was facing views that elaborated distinct orders of angels, and he purposed by his exceedingly flexible language, which may almost be called symbolic, to assert that all evil powers, whatever they may be, whether personal or impersonal, have been brought into subordination by the death and exaltation of Christ and will eventually be destroyed through his messianic reign”(p. 402).

For “authority” see Special Topic at Col 1:16.

Col 2:11 “you were circumcised with a circumcision” Paul is using the OT covenant sign (cf. Gen 12:8-14) in a spiritual sense (cf. Deu 10:16; Deu 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Php 3:3). This must be figurative language or else the false teachers had some Judaistic tendencies. There is so much that is unknown and uncertain about the heretical groups of the NT. In some ways these false teachers are a combination of Greek Gnosticism and Jewish legalism (cf. Col 2:11; Col 2:16; Col 2:18). The commentator Lightfoot asserted they were similar to the Essenes (the Dead Sea Scrolls community which was a separatist group of sectarian Jews of the first century who lived in the desert).

“a circumcision made without hands” This is a metaphorical use of circumcision as the covenant sign in the OT. The “new” circumcision is a new heart and a new relationship with God through Christ (cf. Rom 2:28-29; Php 3:3). Even in the OT when the new covenant is discussed (cf. Jer 31:31-34 and Eze 36:22-38), circumcision was never even mentioned, much less emphasized.

“the removal of the body of the flesh” This refers to the old fallen nature, not the physical body (cf. Rom 6:6; Rom 7:24; Gal 5:24; Col 3:5).

Col 2:12 “having been buried with Him in baptism” This is an aorist passive participle of a syn compound which means “co-buried.” This is the metaphor of baptism as immersion analogous to burial (cf. Rom 6:4). As believers share Jesus’ sufferings, death, and burial, they will also share His resurrection and glory (cf. Col 2:12 b; Rom 8:17; Eph 2:5-6).

For Paul baptism was a way of asserting death to the old life (old man) and the freedom of the new life (new creature, cf. 2Co 5:17; Gal 6:15) to serve God (cf. Rom 6:2-14; 1Pe 2:24).

“you were also raised up with Him” This compound with syn is parallel to “having been buried” (cf. Col 2:13; Col 3:1; Rom 6:4-5; Eph 2:6). Believers’ burial and resurrection are linked as two sides of a complete event. They were “co-buried” and “co-raised” in Eph 2:5-6, also, using syn compounds, which meant “joint participation with.”

“who raised Him from the dead” Jesus is the first-fruit of the Resurrection (cf. 1Co 15:20; 1Co 15:23). The Spirit that raised Him will also raise believers (cf. Rom 8:10-11; Rom 8:23).

This phrase is an excellent opportunity to show that the NT often attributes the works of redemption to all three persons of the Godhead.

1. God the Father raised Jesus (cf. Act 2:24; Act 3:15; Act 4:10; Act 5:30; Act 10:40; Act 13:30; Act 13:33-34; Act 13:37; Act 17:31; Rom 6:4; Rom 6:9)

2. God the Son raised Himself (cf. Joh 2:19-22; Joh 10:17-18)

3. God the Spirit raised Jesus (cf. Rom 8:11)

This same Trinitarian emphasis can be seen in Col 2:9-10.

Col 2:13 “When you were dead” This is a present participle meaning “being dead.” This reflects the results of the Fall-spiritual death (cf. Genesis 3; Rom 5:12-21; Eph 2:1-3). Gentiles were sinners cut off from the covenant people (cf. Eph 2:11-12). The Bible speaks of three stages of death.

1. spiritual death (cf. Genesis 3; Isa 59:2; Rom 7:10-11; Eph 2:1; Jas 1:15)

2. physical death, (cf. Genesis 5)

3. eternal death, “the second death,” “the lake of fire” (cf. Rev 2:11; Rev 20:6; Rev 20:14; Rev 21:8)

“uncircumcision of your flesh” This was a way of referring to Gentiles (cf. Col 2:11).

“He” This must refer to the Father. If so, the pronouns through Col 2:15 refer to the Father.

“made you live together with Him,” There are three syn compounds in Col 2:12-13 (co-buried, Col 2:12; co-raised, Col 2:12; and co-quickened, Col 2:13) which show what had already happened to believers spiritually (aorists). This is very similar to Eph 2:5-6. In Ephesians God has acted on behalf of Jesus in Eph 1:20 and Jesus has acted on behalf of believers in Eph 2:5-6.

“having forgiven us all our transgressions” This is an aorist (deponent) middle participle. “Forgiven” is from the same word root as “grace” (cf. Rom 5:15-16; Rom 6:23; 2Co 1:11; Col 3:13; Eph 4:32). Notice God freely forgives “all” sin through Christ (except unbelief)!

Col 2:14

NASB”having canceled out the certificate of debt”

NKJV”having wiped out the handwriting of requirements”

NRSV”erasing the record”

TEV”canceled the unfavorable record of our debts”

NJB”He has wiped out the record of our debt to the Law”

This rather cryptic language probably relates somehow to the false teachers. It refers to the Mosaic Covenant (cf. Eph 2:15, which could be characterized as “do and live”- “sin and die” (cf. Deu 27:26; Eze 18:4). Paul clearly teaches the sinfulness of all mankind (cf. Rom 3:9; Rom 3:19; Rom 3:23; Rom 11:32; Gal 3:22). Therefore, the OT became a death sentence to all mankind!

The term “certificate” was used of (1) a signed IOU, (2) a signed confession, and (3) a legal indictment. The OT was a curse! This Greek term comes into English as “autograph” (self written).

“He has taken it out of the way” This is a perfect active indicative. This same verb is used in Joh 1:29 and 1Jn 3:5 to refer to the removal of sins. Jesus lived under and fulfilled the Mosaic covenant’s requirements. He performed what sinful, fallen mankind could not do. His death was, therefore, not for personal sin, but He became a perfect sacrifice (cf. Leviticus 1-7) for sin. He became “cursed” (cf. Deu 21:23) that mankind might be delivered from the curse of the Law (cf. Gal 3:13)!

“nailing it to the cross” This referred to either (1) a public notice or (2) the charges placed over a crucified person. The cross (Jesus’ death) overcame the Law’s hostility (OT decrees, cf. 2Co 5:21).

Col 2:15

NASB, NKJV,

NRSV”disarmed”

TEV”freed”

NJB”stripped”

This is a rare term, an aorist middle (deponent) participle. Its basic etymology was to take off clothing. It seems to have meant “to strip away from.” It referred to taking weapons from dead soldiers (cf. Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 82. In this context it relates deity’s (the Father and the Son) destruction of the powers of the spiritual realm that was hostile to mankind. The believer’s victory is of God through Christ and by the Spirit.

If this rare verb is interpreted as middle voice then the TEV expresses the thought “freed himself from the power of the spiritual rulers.” If it is interpreted as active voice then “He disarmed the rulers” (cf. NASB, NKJV, NRSV).

“the rulers and authorities” These terms were used by the Gnostics (false teachers) for the angelic levels (aeons, cf. Col 2:10; Eph 1:21; Eph 3:10; Eph 6:11-12; Rom 8:38-39; 1Co 15:24). See Special Topics at Col 1:16 and Eph 6:12.

NASB”He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him”

NKJV”He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it”

NRSV”made a public example of them, triumphing over them in it”

TEV”he made a public spectacle of them by leading them as captives in his victory procession.”

NJB”and paraded them in public, behind him in his triumphal procession”

The historical background to this was a triumphal parade into Rome for a victorious general (cf. 2Co 2:14). The captives were marched behind him in chains. By His death on the cross and His resurrection Jesus overcame (1) the curse of the Law and (2) the hostile angelic powers.

As is obvious from the modern translations that the pronoun at the end of the verse can be understood in two related ways: (1) to Christ or (2) to the cross. It is neuter and most translations relate it to Christ’s victory over evil by means of His sacrificial death.

SPECIAL TOPIC: WAR IN HEAVEN

“public display” See Special Topic below, second paragraph.

SPECIAL TOPIC: BOLDNESS (PARRHSIA)

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

Beware = See (App-133) to it.

lest. App-105.

any man. App-123.

spoil. Greek sula gogeo. Only here.

through. App-104. Col 2:1.

philosophy. Greek philosophia. Only here.

after. App-104.

men. App-123.

rudiments. See Gal 1:4, Gal 1:3.

world. App-129.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

8-15.] See summary, on Col 2:1-general warning against being seduced by a wisdom which was after mens tradition, and not after Christ,-of whose perfect work, and their perfection in Him, he reminds them.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Col 2:8. ) So, , Rev 22:14.-) who not only makes spoil out of you, but makes yourselves a spoil. Both to this word , and to the word , vain, are opposed fulness, riches, treasures [Col 2:2-3; Col 2:9].-, by) This expresses the instrument.- , philosophy and vain deceit) a Hendiadys, as Col 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, Col 2:23, was vain deceit.-, 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, Col 2:11; Col 2:16; Col 2:20; wherefore the proposition in Col 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.- , of men) The antithesis is, of the Godhead, Col 2:9.- , the elements [rudiments]) The antithesis is, bodily, Col 2:9; Col 2:17 : comp. elements, Gal 4:3, note.- , and not according to Christ) He ought therefore peculiarly and solely to approve of the dectrine that is according to Christ.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Col 2:8

Col 2:8

Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit,-He warns them that they must not let any one pervert them from the faith in Christ by their human reasonings and theories that are vain and deceptive. The Spirit recognized that no salvation could come to man through human philosophies, or the deductions of human reason, through the vain deceit of mans experience as developed in society, in history, or in any worldly experiences or wisdom can teach. All efforts to find righteousness in any of these spoil men, deprive them of the only true righteousness that is found in Christ, and that comes from God through Christ Jesus. All the philosophies of men, all the deceits of human wisdom, and all the rudiments of the world discovered by human reason spoil men, ruin their souls, lead them to everlasting death by leading them away from God and his salvation.

after the tradition of men,-[This so-called philosophy was a man-made scheme. God had nothing to do with it. It was originated entirely by men and is handed along from men to men. The stream rises no higher than its source.]

after the rudiments of the world,-[As to their subject matter, it concerns itself with what is of the world. This marks the chief point of contact with the earlier Judaism, in the stress still laid on matters of ritual law, ascetic observance, and the like. The phrase suggests more than Jewish ritualistic observances, since world includes the whole sphere of material things, and Paul is giving the category to which the false teaching belonged. To go back to rudiments was to show themselves children. (Gal 4:3).]

and not after Christ:-[This is in contrast with all that precedes-Christ is the source, substance, and the end of the plan of salvation. What is not after Christ is rudimentary; all teaching that does not make him the center only serves to lead men captive. All culture apart from him is an illusion and deceit.]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Chapter 7 Christ the Antidote to Human Philosophy

Col 2:8-10

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power, (vv. 8-10)

Scripture nowhere condemns the acquisition of knowledge. It is the wisdom of this world, not its knowledge, that is foolishness with God. Philosophy is but worldly wisdom. It is the effort of the human mind to solve the mystery of the universe. It is not an exact science, for the philosophers have never been able to come to any satisfactory conclusion as to either the why or the wherefore of things. The Greeks seek after wisdom, we are told, and it was they who led the way for all future generations in philosophical theorizing. Before a divine revelation came it was quite natural and proper that man should seek by wisdom to solve the riddles that nature was constantly propounding. But now that God has spoken this is no longer necessary, and it may become grave infidelity. From Plato to Kant, and from Kant to the last of the moderns, one system has overturned another, so that the history of philosophy is a story of contradictory, discarded hypotheses. This is not to say that the philosophers were or are dishonest men, but it is to say that many of them have failed to avail themselves of that which would unravel every knot and solve every problem, namely, the revelation of God in Christ as given in the Holy Scriptures.

Plato yearned for a divine Word-logos-which would come with authority and make everything plain. That Word is Christ of whom John writes, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And again, The Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth (authors translation). The Word is no longer hidden. We do not need to search for it. The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Socrates pondering the, to him, unsolvable problems relating to possible future rewards and punishments, said, It may be, Plato, that the Deity can forgive sins, but I do not see how. No such perplexities need trouble any honest mind now, for what philosophy could not explain, the gospel has made clear, that gospel in which is revealed the righteousness of God for sinful men. Apart from this divine revelation the wisest philosopher of the twentieth century knows no more in regard to the origin and destiny of man than the Attic philosophers of so long ago.

Two great systems were still contending for the mastery over the minds of men in the Western world when Paul wrote this letter to the Colossians-Stoicism and Epicureanism. The one said: Live nobly and death cannot matter. Hold appetite in check. Become indifferent to changing conditions. Be not uplifted by good fortune nor cast down by adversity. The man is more than circumstances, the soul is greater than the universe. Epicureanism said: All is uncertain. We know not whence we came. We know not whither we go. We only know that after a brief life we disappear from this scene, and it is vain to deny ourselves any present joy in view of possible future ill. Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. To many of the former class the Christian message appealed, and one has only to read 1Co 9:24-27 or Php 4:11-13 to see how readily Pauls message would lay hold of an honest Stoic. With Epicureanism, Christianity had nothing in common. But while the Stoic might find in Christianity the fulfillment of his hearts yearning, there was not in his philosophy anything the Christian needed, for everything that was best in that system he already had in Christ.

Besides these two great outstanding philosophical schools there were many lesser systems among both the Greeks and Romans, all of them seeking to draw away disciples to themselves. The Gnostics embodied parts of all the different schools of thought in their new system. From the weird guesses embodied in the Pythagorean fables down to the evolutionary theories of the present time, the church of God is still in conflict with these vagrant philosophies.

Against all such the Christian is warned. Beware lest any man spoil you [i.e., lest any make a prey of you] through philosophy and vain deceit. These may make a great show of learning, and their adherents may look down with contempt from their heights of fancied superiority upon people simple enough to believe the gospel and to accept the Holy Scriptures as the inspired Word of the living God. But with all their pretentiousness they are simply the traditions of man, the rudiments or elements of the world. The apostle thus expresses his contempt for mere reasoning in comparison with divine revelation. These systems that claim so much were after all but elementary. It was the ABC of the world offered to those who were in the school of Christ and had left the kindergarten of human tradition far behind. Can a man by searching find out God? Impossible. But God is already known in His Son.

It is most important that Christians should see this, particularly the young men who are called of God to be ministers of His Word. It is a sad commentary on conditions in Christendom that in the average theological seminary far more time is given to the study of philosophy than to searching the Scriptures. A minister of an orthodox church said recently, I could have graduated with honors from my seminary without ever opening the English Bible. Thank God^ this is not true of all such training schools, but it is true of perhaps the majority. The result is we have today thousands of professed ministers of Christ, many of them unconverted, and others who, though children of God, have been so stunted and hindered by their philosophical education that they are utterly unable to open up the Scriptures to others, for they are so ignorant of the Word themselves. Christianity owes no debt to Greek, Roman, Medieval, or Modern philosophy. It is like the Bible itself in this-

A glory gilds the sacred page;

Majestic, like the sun,

It sheds a light on every age,

It gives, but borrows none.

A man can be a well-furnished minister of Jesus Christ who has never heard the names of the great philosophers, whether pagan or Christian, and who is utterly ignorant of their systems and hypotheses, providing he will study to show [himself] approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (2Ti 2:15). The truest culture, intellectual or spiritual, is that which is drawn from the constant study of the Bible. How often as one comes in contact with men of most gracious personality, gentlemanly appearance, high spirituality, and well-trained intellect he finds upon inquiry that they are like John Wesley, men of one book, and in some instances, hardly conversant with the literature of earth. And in saying this I do not mean to put a premium on ignorance, for as mentioned in the beginning of this address, the knowledge of this world is not under the ban.

The Christian may well avail himself of any legitimate means of becoming better acquainted with the great facts of history, the findings of science, and the beauties of general literature. But let him never put human philosophy in the place of divine revelation. If he studies it at all, and there is no reason why he should not do so, let him begin with this-God has spoken in His Son and in the Holy Scripture He has given us the last words upon every question that philosophy raises. Browning was right when he wrote:

I say, the acknowledgment of God in Christ,

Accepted by the reason, solves for thee

All questions in the earth and out of it,

And has so far advanced thee to be wise.

When the Savior revealed Himself to the Samaritan woman she found her every question answered as she gazed upon His face.

In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. We have already seen in a previous lecture that this word pleroma, fullness, was a favorite term of the Gnostics. It represented to them the sum of the qualities of Deity, and with them Christ was but one of many stepping-stones or intermediaries leading up to the pleroma. But here we learn that not only are all the attributes of God seen in Christ, as Arius afterward thought and as Theistic philosophers everywhere admit, but the very essence of the nature of God in all its entirety dwells in Him.

All that God is, is fully told out in Christ. He could say, He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. So that we may say without hesitation, if any ask as to the character of God, that God is exactly like Jesus. Jesus is the Christ, and in Christ all the fullness of Deity dwells in a body, so that when at last we come into the presence of the Father we shall find in Him one known and loved before, not a stranger still unknown and possibly unknowable. J. N. Darby was thinking of this when he wrote:

There no stranger-God shall meet thee!

Stranger thou in courts above:

He who to His rest shall greet thee,

Greets thee with a well known love.

Confessedly great is the mystery of piety, He who hath been manifested in flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, proclaimed unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory (1Ti 3:16). God is revealed, He is no longer hidden. All His glory shines in the face of Christ Jesus. This solves at once for me as a believer the mystery of the universe.

And that which seemed to me before

One wild, confused Babel,

Is now a fire-tongued Pentecost

Proclaiming Christ is able;

And all creation its evangel

Utters forth abroad

Into mine ears since once I know

My Saviour Christ is God.

In verse 10 we are told, And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power. The word complete is literally filled full. In Christ dwells all the pleroma of Deity, and we have our pleroma in Him. We do not need to go elsewhere for illumination or information. And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him (Joh 1:16-18). This revelation floods our being with rapture, fills our cup of joy, and satisfies every demand of the intellect. We are filled full in Him. I would suggest that it is not the believers standing exactly that is in view here. We have that in Eph 1:6. There we are told we are accepted in the beloved. In that sense we may be said, of course, to be complete in Him, but Col 2:10 is rather our state. It is the state of those who have found every need met in Christ, who is the Head of all principality and power.

It has already been pointed out that principalities and powers are terms relating to different ranks of spiritual beings. In a pretended knowledge of the nature and office of these glorious intelligences, the Gnostics reveled and placed them high above Christ Himself who was, according to them, but one who introduced the initiate into the fellowship of this great serried host leading on up to the invisible God. But the truth is the very opposite, for all the principalities and powers (and these may be good or evil, fallen or unfallen) were created by Him and for Him in whom all the fullness dwells, and He is the Head of all angelic companies as well as human beings.

No place too high for Him is found,

No place too high in heaven.

God would have His people ever realize that He who stooped to the depths of shame and suffering of the cross for their salvation is as to the mystery of His wondrous Person, God over all, blessed forever.

It will be observed that verse 10 does not complete the sentence, which is carried right on in verses 11-12. But as what follows is intimately linked with the next subject for our consideration, I leave them now to take them up in the next address, only observing that it is immediately after the declaration of Christs Headship over all angels that we are told of the depths of His humiliation. For God would never separate the Person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ. But He would have us remember that it was because of His transcendent character and His true Deity that He could undertake the work of purging our sins when He gave Himself a sacrifice on our behalf. He had to be who He was in order to do what He did.

The settlement of the sin question could never be effected by a created being. The issues were too great. Of all men it is written, None of them can by any means redeem his brother or give to God a ransom for him, for the redemption of the soul costs too much. Therefore, let it alone for ever. This is a somewhat free translation, but authorized by the best Hebrew scholars. It emphasizes what is here brought before us. Low thoughts of Christ result from low thoughts of sin. When I realize the enormity of my iniquity I know that only the Daysman for whom Job yearned can save me from such a load of guilt. He, because He is God and Man, can lay his hand upon us both, and thus by making atonement for sin bring God and man together in holy, happy harmony.

Can a mere man do this?

Yet Christ saith, this He lived and died to do.

Call Christ, then, the illimitable God,

Or lost!

-Browning

And so we may conclude with this tremendous truth: God has no other answer to all the questionings of the mind of man as to spiritual verities than Christ, and no other is needed, for Christ is the answer to them all. He who refuses Christ refuses Gods last word to mankind. He has said everything He has to say in sending Him into the world as the Giver of life and the propitiation for our sins. To turn from Him is to refuse the living incarnation of the Truth and to shut oneself up to error and delusion.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

world

kosmos = mankind. (See Scofield “Mat 4:8”).

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

Beware: Deu 6:12, Mat 7:15, Mat 10:17, Mat 16:6, Phi 3:2, 2Pe 3:17

spoil: Col 2:18, Son 2:15, Jer 29:8, Rom 16:17, Eph 5:6, Heb 13:9, 2Jo 1:8

philosophy: Act 17:18, Act 17:32, Rom 1:21, Rom 1:22, 1Co 1:19-23, 1Co 3:18, 1Co 3:19, 1Co 15:35, 1Co 15:36, 2Co 10:5,*Gr: 1Ti 6:20, 2Ti 2:17, 2Ti 2:18, 2Ti 3:13

after the tradition: Col 2:22, Mat 15:2-9, Mar 7:3-13, Gal 1:14, 1Pe 1:18

the rudiments: or, the elements, Col 2:20, Gal 4:3, Gal 4:9, Eph 2:2

after Christ: Eph 4:20

Reciprocal: Mat 15:3 – Why Mat 24:4 – Take Mar 13:5 – Take Act 15:1 – Except 1Co 3:12 – wood 1Co 3:20 – that 2Co 11:3 – so 2Co 11:13 – false Col 2:4 – lest Col 2:23 – will Heb 9:1 – and Jam 1:16 – Do Jam 2:20 – O vain 2Pe 2:1 – even 1Jo 2:26 – concerning

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

(Col 2:8.) , -Be on your guard lest any one make a spoil of you through philosophy and vain deceit. The verb , in this sense, is sometimes followed by the accusative of the persons to be guarded against, occasionally by the genitive preceded by , sometimes also by ; but most usually by , and its compounds with the aorist subjunctive. Here, however, we have the future indicative, , as in Heb 3:12. The apostle therefore does not say that the evil had happened, but he expresses his fear that it would happen-his misgiving, that what he apprehended would take place. Winer, 56, 2 (b), ; Bernhardy, p. 402; Hartung, vol. 2.139. He saw the attractive subtlety, and he could not withhold the warning and pre-intimation. The expression, too, is pointed and emphatic- -more so than if he had employed the subjunctive, . It individualizes the spoiler-represents him as at his work-associates vividly the actor with the action. Gal 1:7. When some infer from the language that the apostle had only one person specially in his eye-one restless and attractive heresiarch, we would not contradict, though we are not prepared to come decidedly to the same conclusion. The participle, which occurs only here, belongs to the later Greek, and denotes-making a prey of-driving off as booty, though it is finical on the part of Meyer to base the latter signification upon the expression of the 6th verse, walk in Him, as if they might be caught when not in that walk, and forced away as a spoil. The expression shows the strong feeling of the apostle, and how he regarded their capture by that philosophy as fatal, almost beyond recovery , to their faith and peace. It is not in accordance with the language to think of the false teacher or teachers taking faith, mind, or purity, or anything else as a prey from the Colossians, for the Colossians themselves are the booty. The means employed were-

-By philosophy and empty delusion. This philosophy is none other than the theme of the of Col 2:4, and is nothing else in essence than vain deceit. For the second clause, where neither preposition nor article is repeated, explains the first-philosophy which was expressed in vain words, is identical with vain deceit. There is no reality about it. It is out and out a delusion, a tissue of airy figments. The term philosophy was a favourite one in the Greek world, but it was extended in course of time to portions and objects of Jewish study by the affectation of Philo and Josephus. Tittmann, in his very one-sided essay, restricts the term solely to Jewish doctrine, and Heinrichs no less narrowly to Jewish worship. Perhaps the apostle would not have given any mere Jewish system such an appellation, but he uses the term because there might be in it some mixture of Gentile lore, and especially because the false teachers dignified their views by such a title.

-After the tradition of men. The preposition does not connect this with the first clause of the verse, as Meyer construes, and as if it showed the direction in which they were seduced, but it is to be joined with the immediately preceding words. It points out, not so much, as Storr supposes, the authority of that philosophy, as its general source and character. It is according to the tradition of men, and not according to Divine revelation. In 2Th 3:6, the construction is fully expressed. Elements of the tradition here referred to are found in Mat 15:2; Mar 7:3; Mar 7:5; Mar 7:8-9; Mar 7:13; Gal 1:14. It is not simply doctrine, as Olshausen and Huther take it; nor perhaps Graeco-Jewish doctrine, as others supposed. It was, to a great extent, that tangled mass of oral teaching, which, age after age, the Jews had unwarrantably engrafted on the written law. That farrago of unwritten statute and ritual is contrasted by Jesus with the commands of God. It was solely of man, and partook largely of his vanity and weakness. As in the instance adduced by Christ, it explained away the obligation of the fifth commandment by a mean quibble, which added impiety to filial neglect, and permitted a son to starve his parent under a pretence of superior liberality to God. It taught the payment of mint, anise, and cumin, but forgot the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith. It scrupled to eat with unwashed hands, but was forward to worship with an unregenerate heart. It was eloquent and precise about cleaning of cups, but vague and dumb about the purifying of conscience. It converted religion into a complicated routine, with a superstitious and perplexing ritual, as if man were to be saved by the observance of ceremonies as puerile as they were cumbrous-a series of postures, ablutions, amulets, and vain repetitions. It lost sight of the spir ituality of worship, but enjoined a careful genuflexion. It buried ethics under a system of miserable and tedious casuistry. It attempted to place everything under formal regulation, and was now busied in solemn trifling, and now lost in utter indecency. It was mighty about the letter, and oblivious of the spirit. It rejoiced in the oblation of a ram, but had no sympathy with the sacrifice of a broken and contrite heart. It drew water every year from the well at Siloam with a pompous procession, but had no thirst for the living stream which its prophets had predicted and described. It would drill man into a fatiguing devotion. It trained to the mere mummery of worship when it prescribed the movement of eye and foot, of head and arm. It intruded its precepts into every relation, and attempted to fill out the Divine law by laying down directions for every supposable case. It was not content with leading principles, but added innumerable supplements. It surrounded the rite of circumcision with many ridiculous minutiae. It professed to guard the sanctity of the Sabbath by a host of trifling injunctions, descending to the needle of the tailor, the pen of the scribe, and the wallet of the beggar. The craftsman was told that he was guilty if he tied a camel-driver’s knot, or a sailor’s knot, on that day, but not guilty if he merely tied a knot which he could loose with one of his hands; and that he might leap over a ditch, but not wade through the water that lay in it. It declared by what instrument the paschal lamb should be roasted, and how a jar of wine must be carried during a festival; with what gestures a phylactery was to be put on, and with what scrupulous order it was to be laid aside. It left nothing to the impulse of a living piety. It was ignorant that a sanctified spirit needed no such prescriptions; that the due order could only be learned from the inner oracle; and that obedience to all its ramified code, apart from the spirit of genuine faith and devotion, was only acting a part in a heartless pantomime.

And these traditions proved that they were from man, not only from their character, but from their verbiage and appended sanctions. If the Mishna be, as we believe it to be, on the whole, a faithful record of many such traditions, then, that they were of men is a fact inscribed on their very front. The recurring formula is-Rabbi Eleazar said this, but Rabbi Gamaliel said that; this was the opinion of Rabbi Meir, but that of Rabbi Jehudah; Hillel was of this mind, but Beth Shammai of that; Rabbi Tarphon pronounced in this way, but Rabbi Akivah in that; thus thought Ben Azai on the one hand, but thus thought Rabbi Nathan on the other; such was the decision of Jochanan Ben Saacchai, but such was the opposite conclusion of Matthias Ben Harash. It never rose above a mere human dictum, and it armed its jurists with supreme authority. It never shook the mire off its wings, or soared into that pure and lofty empyrean which envelopes the Divine tribunal, so that in His light it might see light. What had been thus conceived in the dry frivolity of one age, was handed down to another, and the mass was swiftly multiplied in its long descent. The Pharisee selected one portion and practised it, and the Essene chose another and made it his rule of life. It was carried in one or other of these shapes to other lands, and though it commingled with other opinions of similar source and tendency, it never belied its parentage as the TRADITIONS OF MEN.

-After the rudiments of the world. The reference is somewhat obscure. The noun is employed in 2Pe 3:10; 2Pe 3:12, to denote the elements of physical nature, while in Heb 5:12 it signifies the simple lessons and truths of Christianity, and is opposed to . In the former sense it frequently occurs in the ancient philosophy, as comprising fire, air, earth, and water. It is amusing to observe with what ingenuity some of the Greek Fathers give it such a sense in the passage before us, because, forsooth, all the elements are employed in the Jewish service-water for purification and fire for sacrifice, earth for the erection of altars, and the revolution of the aerial bodies for the determination of the sacred festivals. The noun sometimes signifies an elementary sound, or a letter, and so came to denote what is rudimentary-what is suited to the tuition of infancy. In this sense we understand the apostle to use it in Gal 4:3; Gal 4:9, and with special reference to the Jewish ritual and worship. The churches in Galatia had a strong and wayward tendency to revert to Judaism, or at least to incorporate it, or a portion of it, into the new religion. And as they had embraced a system which was spiritual and mature-which was not embodied in types and ceremonies, but in pure, simple, universal truths-the apostle wonders why, with their higher and manly privilege, they should go back to the weak and beggarly elements; why, when they had been reading the book of Divine instruction with its complete and lasting lessons, they should revert and descend again to the mere alphabet. It was as if one who was able to sweep the heavens, and tell the sizes, distances, and revolutio ns of its luminaries, should forswear this noble exercise, and seat himself in an infant school, and find the highest pleasure among the first and trite axioms and diagrams of geometry.

The term marks the nature of these elements. It is said that the Jewish economy had -a worldly sanctuary, an epithet placed in contrast with , and with . Our opinion is, that in the clause under discussion, the apostle refers to the Jewish worship. Some interpreters, such as Meyer and Bhmer, think this exposition too restricted, and give the meaning as referring both to the ritual of the Jewish and the heathen world, supposing the world to signify, as it often does, the non-Christian portion of its population. Huther also gives it a similar extension of meaning-Elemente des ethischen Lebens in der Welt. His objections to the common interpretation are fully set aside by De Wette, and are not in themselves of any weight. But the phrase before us has a definite meaning affixed to it in the Epistle to the Galatians, and there it denotes simply the Jewish system. There was in the Galatian churches no attempt to heathenize, but only to Judaize; no endeavour to engraft heathenism, but only Judaism on the new dispensation.

That the Mosaic economy should receive the name of elements is easily understood, but why should such a genitive as be added? It belonged to the world in a special sense, not to the world or age in the Jewish sense of the term, as if, as Wahl supposes, the meaning were-adapted to the men of this age. It was of the world, as being like it, evident to the senses, visible, and material, in contrast with what is spiritual and invisible. In this sense, the whole economy was mundane, for it was sensuous; it pictured itself to the eye in the stones of its edifice, the robes of its priests, the victims of its altars, its restrictions on diet, its frequent washings, the blood of its initiatory rite, and the periods of its sacred festivals. It was a worldly panorama, and it portrayed but the elements of spiritual truth. It set before its votaries the merest first principles, which were indeed often expounded and developed by its prophets. It was a shadow of things to come, not even a full and vivid picture. Under the 17th verse the exposition will be more fully given. The party at Colosse, who attempted to seduce, presented some elements of the Mosaic ritual and worship as a special instrument of spiritual elevation and ascetic discipline. They inculcated a philosophy which, whatever might be its mysticism or its metaphysical or heathen features, was in essence an adaptation of Judaism, not as found in the Mosaic writings, but as overlaid and disfigured by a mass of accumulated traditions.

-And not after Christ. That philosophy was not according to Christ. It is a needless dilution of the sense, on the part of Erasmus and Rell, etc., to render-not according to the doctrine of Christ. It was not based upon Christ, but was in contrariety to His person and work. It depreciated Him, and undervalued His mediation. But true Christian science has Him for its centre, and Him for its object. It bows to His authority, and ever seeks to exalt Him. Any new doctrine may be safely tested by the estimation in which it holds Christ; for all that is false and dangerous in speculation, invariably strives to lower His rank and official dignity, and therefore is neither in source, spirit, substance, nor tendency, according to Him. And they were to be on their guard against such dangerous deceptions, which were not according to Christ. Though the apostle says-not after Christ-it must not be inferred that the errorist or errorists made no profession of Christianity, or were openly hostile to it. Had this been the case, their non-Christian character would have been boldly and distinctly pointed out by the apostle. They seem to have been disciples in name. Nor did they come like mere Judaizers and make an open assault, or insist in plain terms that Christian Gentiles should be circumcised and keep the law. Then they would have been confronted like the Judaizers in Galatia. But they were more insidious in their attack-boasted the possession of an inner and a higher knowledge, and preached an ide al system of specious pretensions, and made up apparently of Judaism and Gnosticism, – or Judaism deeply imbued with that mysticism which distinguished the Essenes, and that kind of theosophy which is found in Philo.

Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians

Col 2:8. The apostle again comes to the subject of the Judaistic philosophers, who claim to have something to offer the brethren that is better than their simple belief of the Gospel. They would make them think that something of value was being lost if they did not accept the ideas of philosophy as a part of their religious life. Paul is warning them to beware of these false teachers. To .spoil means to take from a man that which is his valuable possession. The simple faith of the Gospel is the most valuable thing one can possess, and if he permits the false teacher to cause him to give up that faith, he will be robbed of a costly treasure. A thief accomplishes his work with instruments adapted to his evil work, and likewise this false teacher has his instruments which are named in this verse. Vain deceit. The ideas offered by these philosophers were not only deceitful, but they were empty (vain). They were traditions or things handed down from man and not from Christ. Rudiments denotes elements and world means the people of the earth. These deceitful philosophies were elements produced in the minds of men and not by Jesus Christ.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Col 2:8. Take heed. The word is usually rendered thus.

Lest there shall be; the peculiar form of the original is thus reproduced, marking an impending danger quite certain to come upon them.

Any one. This indefinite expression does not imply that Paul did not know who these false teachers were (comp. Gal 1:7).

Maketh you his booty; not, rob you. Ellicott: The false teachers sought to lead them away captive, body and mind; the former by ritualistic restrictions (Col 2:16), the latter by heretical teaching (Col 2:18).

Through his (lit, the) philosophy and vain deceit. The two terms apply to the same thing, as the original indicates; the philosophy of the false teachers was vain deceit. The article shows that the Apostle means not philosophy in itself and in general, however much it had, in its decay and according to its manifestation in that age, proven itself to the Apostle as folly in comparison with the wisdom of the gospel, but the definite speculation, known to his readers, which obtained in Colossse and that region, and which consisted of Gnostic theosophy blended with Judaism (Essenism), designated by the name philosophy, on account of its ontological character, and in general, irrespective of its relation to the truth rightly so called; but perhaps put forward also by the false teachers themselves under this designation, which is the more probable, since Paul uses the word only in this passage (Meyer). Comp. Introduction, 2.

After the tradition of men. Such a description was peculiarly appropriate to a mystic theosophy like this of the Colossian false teachers. The teaching might be oral or written, but it was essentially esoteric, essentially traditional. It could not appeal to sacred books which had been before all the world for centuries. The Essenes, the immediate spiritual progenitors of those Colossian heretics, distinctly claimed to possess such a source of knowledge, which they carefully guarded from divulgence (Lightfoot).

After the rudiments (or, elements) of the world. Elements is the proper rendering. In 2Pe 3:10; 2Pe 3:12, but in Pauls Epistles (see mare, references) the term has a didactic sense: rudimentary instruction. The Fathers indeed explained this passage of the heavenly bodies as regulating festivals, but this is quite out of keeping with the fact that a mode of instruction is here referred to. The phrase suggests more than Jewish ritualistic observances, since world includes the whole sphere of material things, and the Apostle is giving the category to which the false teaching belonged. To go back to rudiments was to show themselves children (comp. Gal 4:3).

And not after Christ. This is in contrast with all that precedes: Christ is source, substance, norm and end of Christianity. What is not after Christ is rudimentary, not advanced; all teaching that does not make Him the centre only serves to lead men captive. Culture apart from Him is an illusion and deceit.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Our apostle comes now in a particular and special manner to warn the Colossians, that they beware of all the enemies of Christianity, whether Pagan or Jewish, for Christianity was opposed by both: The heathen philosophers and wise men did amuse the Christians with their vain speculations: The Jewish teachers were for imposing upon them the Levitical rites, which he calls rudiments or elements fitted for the infancy of the church: but these things were not now after Christ, that is, not according to the doctrine and mind of Christ. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, &c.

Where note, That it is not philosophy, as such, which St. Paul warns them against; for true and sound philosophy is the improver of our reason, the guide of our faculties, and teaches us the true knowledge of God, and ourselves, and is no hindrance, but a great help to religion; but it was the philosophy of the Greeks at that day which is here condemned, because it was vain and empty, fallacious and deceitful. It was vain because it conduced nothing to true piety, and making them better; it was deceitful, because it hazarded their souls, and robbed them of happiness.

Note farther, That the Mosaic rites and legal ceremonies, as they were prescribed by God, and adapted to the infant state of the Jewish church, had a goodness ye, an excellency in them; but the observation of them, since the coming of Christ, is sinful, as being an implicit denial, that he is come in the flesh; accordingly, he warns, them to beware of the philosophy of the Greeks and the ceremonial rites of the Jews; neither of which, he tells them, were after Christ, that is, not according to the institution of injunction of Christ, but did draw away the heart from him, therefore, they were both unwarrantable and unsafe.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Beware of Empty Deceit

Paul urged them to be constantly on their guard lest anyone take them captive through human reasoning. The philosophers Paul is speaking of were puffed up with their own knowledge, which led to empty reasoning that could not save. Such reasoning bred traditions which were passed from one man to another as a type of law. The “basic principles of the world” would be the basic teachings of worldly instructors, or heathens. Paul’s whole point here is that teachings which do not come from Christ are teachings that will not save but will cause one to be captured by the devil ( Col 2:8 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

Col 2:8. Beware lest any man spoil you , lest there be any one who makes a prey of you; through philosophy The pretended wisdom of the heathen philosophers; and vain deceit Sophistical and delusive reasonings, and unprofitable speculations. The apostle, as Macknight justly observes, does not condemn sound philosophy, but that kind of it which had no foundation in truth; and, being formed merely from imagination, aided by the pride of human reason, was supported by tradition; that is, by the affirmation of the inventors, handed down from one to another. Of this kind was the philosophy of the Platonists concerning demons, whom they represented as carrying mens prayers to God, and as bringing back from God the blessings prayed for. They spake of them likewise as governing the elements and all human affairs, by a sort of independent power. It seems some teachers had crept in among the Christians at Colosse, either of Gentile or Jewish extraction, who endeavoured to blend deceits of this kind with the gospel of Christ, and that this is what the apostle here condemns; 1st, Because it was empty and deceitful, promising wisdom, but giving none. 2d, Because it was grounded, not on truth, or solid reason, but on the vain and false traditions of men. 3d, Because, as the apostle here says, it was after the rudiments, , the elements, of the world Such as the Jewish ceremonies, or the pagan superstitions. The ceremonies of the Mosaic law have this appellation, (Gal 4:3,) being but a carnal worship in comparison of the more spiritual ordinances of the gospel; and but an elementary kind of institution, (like the alphabet to children, or the first principles of science,) fitted to the infancy of the church; and not after Christ According to his institution and doctrine, but tending to withdraw the heart from him.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Verse 8

Spoil you; rob you, deprive you of your faith and hope in salvation by grace.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

SECTION 9. WARNING AGAINST ERROR IN THE GUISE OF PHILOSOPHY AND JUDAISM. CH. 2:8-15.

Take heed lest there will be any one making plunder of you through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ. Because in Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And in Him ye are made full; who is the Head of all principalities and authority; in whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in Baptism: wherein (or in whom) also ye were raised with Him through belief of the working of God who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead by your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made you alive with Him, having forgiven us all the trespasses, having blotted out the handwriting against us with the dogmas, which was contrary to us: and He has taken it out of the midst, having nailed it to the cross; having stripped of from Himself the principalities and the authorities, He made a show of them openly, having led them in triumph in it.

Col 2:8. Specific danger against which Paul warns his readers.

Take heed or see-to-it: same word as behold in Col 2:5. It denotes simply an act of sight: have your eyes open lest etc.

Making-plunder of: or literally lead-away-plunder. Paul fears lest his readers be themselves led away by an enemy as spoil. For error enslaves both body and soul. This exposition is suggested by the use in one or two places of this rare Greek word, and of similar words. It is a compound of the word used in 2Co 11:8; where Churches are said to have been plundered by Paul who received their contribution to do work for others.

Through philosophy etc.: means by which Paul feared that his readers might be led captive.

Philosophy: literally love-of-wisdom: a common Greek word. Diogenes Lrtius tells us (Lives of Philosophers Introd. 12) that Pythagoras was the first to call himself a philosopher or lover of wisdom, on the ground that no one is wise except God. In this sense, the word is one of the noblest in human language, denoting mans effort to understand that which is best worth knowing. In a somewhat similar sense, it is used by Philo to describe the religious teaching of the Jews: e.g. vol. i. 613, they who philosophize according to Moses. And Josephus speaks (Antiq. bk. xviii. l. 1, 2) of the schools of thought embodied in the Jewish sects, Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, as philosophies. This last use helps us to understand how a word with an origin so good came to have, as here, a sense evidently bad. Under the guise of professed love of wisdom, men attached themselves to schools putting forth their own explanations of the phenomena of life, explanations for the more part artificial and baseless. Of such baseless philosophies we have abundant and various examples in the many Gnostic systems prevalent in the second century, strange mixtures of the Gospel with earlier Jewish and Gentile teaching. See note on THE GNOSTICS at the end of this Exposition. These were called philosophy: and we shall see that to something of this sort probably Paul refers here.

Deceit: the teachers of this philosophy being either deceivers or themselves deceived.

Empty: a hollow form of error.

That both words are under one article, suggests that philosophy and error are two sides of one instrument of seduction. It claimed to be a search for wisdom: actually it was a hollow deception. A close parallel in 1Ti 6:20, the profane empty-voices and oppositions of knowledge falsely so named. For the precise nature of this teaching we must seek in the warnings which follow and in the foregoing exposition of truth which Paul tells us was written as a safeguard against this persuasive error.

According to according to not according to: description, positive and negative, of the path along which the captives were led.

Tradition of men: same words in Mar 7:8; cp. Mar 7:3; Mar 7:5; Mar 7:9; Mar 7:13 : a close and instructive parallel. Cp. Gal 1:14; and contrast 1Co 11:2; 2Th 2:15; 2Th 3:6. They who are led away by this philosophy go along a path marked out by no higher authority than that of men, from whom it has been handed down. All teaching is apt to become mere tradition. For it is easier to learn to repeat results than to understand the processes by which they have been attained and the proofs on which they rest; easier to accept as decisive a masters ipse dixit than to follow his reasoning. False teaching is specially liable to become tradition. For it has no basis of truth. A conspicuous example of tradition is found in the Talmud which consists almost entirely of assertions of celebrated Jewish teachers; the greater part having no ground whatever except the teachers authority. See Barclays selections in English from the Talmud. Similarly the Gnostics handed down secret doctrines professedly received from one or other of the Apostles.

The rudiments of the world: same words and sense in Gal 4:3, where see note: the rudimentary teaching derived from the material world. In some sense both Greek philosophy and O.T. ritual were on their better side rudimentary forms of teaching preparatory to the Gospel. And with all false teaching are associated such rudimentary elements of truth. Otherwise the falsehood would not live. In Gal 4:3 we learn that this rudimentary teaching brings men under bondage. Similarly, they who seek to lead captive the Colossian Christians would lead them along a path marked out by the traditions of men and by the rudimentary teaching of the material world. Of these two delineations of this wrong path, possibly the traditions of men recall rather Jewish teaching; and the rudiments of the world that of Gentiles.

And not according to Christ: not taking for their guide the nature and purposes of Christ. Cp. Rom 15:5. And this agrees with Pauls exposition in DIV. II. of the nature and work of Christ, as a safeguard against prevalent error; and especially with the last words of this exposition, Christ, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Col 2:9. A great truth proving, as Col 2:8 assumes, that every path not according to Christ leads astray. That which in Col 1:19 was a divine purpose is here stated to be an abiding reality: in Him dwells.

All the fulness: as in Col 1:19, but now defined by the words of the Godhead, or Deity. It denotes all that distinguishes God from the highest of His creatures; all the attributes and powers of which God is full, and in which our conception of God finds its realisation. These have an abiding home in the God-Man, and are His fulness: cp. Joh 1:14. The overflow of this fulness fills us. And because the Eternal Son wears a human body, in Him this fulness dwells bodily: i.e. in bodily form and manner. We may perhaps reverently say that in the Eternal Son dwelt from eternity the fulness of the Deity. At the Incarnation, the same fulness, dwelling unchangeably in Him, assumed bodily form. And in the glorified humanity of Christ this bodily form continues, as henceforth the abiding dwelling-place of all the perfections of God. The Son assumed bodily form in order that this fulness might fill us, supplying all our need and enabling us to attain the true aim of our being. Now, inasmuch as in Christ dwells this fulness, His nature ought to be the norm of our action. For His fulness is our hope. Consequently, every path which is not according to Christ leads away from the goal of our life.

Col 2:10. And we are etc.: one step farther, viz. from Christ to His people.

Ye are in Him: as your refuge and bulwark and home. Consequently, since He is full, in Him ye are made-full or made-complete: same word as in Col 1:9; Col 1:25. It denotes a filling up of an outline of any kind. The outline here is sketched by the needs and aim of our being. They who are in Christ, and so far as they are in Him, find in Him their need supplied and their goal attained. In them remain no unfilled chasms. They have therefore no need to seek anything away from Christ.

All principality and authority: same words in same order in Col 1:16, and apparently in the same sense, viz. different ranks of angelic powers. Their mention here, after the earlier mention there, suggests very strongly that they had something to do with the error prevalent at Coloss. And this is confirmed by the same words again in Col 2:15 and by the mention of angels in Col 2:18.

See further in the note under Col 3:4. Paul here says that, whatever angelic powers have rule or authority over men, of all such Christ is the Head. This implies that He is not only their Ruler but stands to them in the relation of the head to the various members of a living body, viz. the living and controlling source of their power and action. Consequently, any trust in angels which leads away from Christ springs from ignorance of their relation to Him.

Notice that the angels, who are here said to be vitally united to Christ as their Head were also created by Him. In other words, their continued life depends upon their abiding union with Him from whom they first received it: and they use their powers under the direction of Him from whom these powers were derived. Doubtless it was to prepare the way for this important harmony, and thus to overturn an error which practically set the angels against Christ, that Paul taught in Col 1:16 that through Him even the angels were created; a statement nowhere found from his pen except in this Epistle written to dispel this special error.

Notice also that Christ bears to the Church (Col 1:18) and to the angels the same relation of Head: another important harmony. Both men and angels spring from Him: and of both angels and redeemed mankind He is the Head.

Col 2:11-12 a. Another important truth added to those foregoing.

Not-made-with-hands: i.e. superhuman. It emphasises the absence of human agency. Contrast Eph 2:11. The same two words, here contrasted, are placed conspicuously side by side in Mar 14:58. This superhuman circumcision has Christ for its encompassing element, being wrought in virtue of inward union with Him: in whom ye were also circumcised.

The laying-aside: as we take off and put away clothes. The cognate verb in Col 3:9, where the readers are said to have themselves laid aside the old man: a similar verb in 2Co 5:4. Also the opposite verb in Col 3:10 : put on the new man; and again in Col 3:12.

The body of the flesh: the human body looked upon in its material constitution, in view of the truth ever present to the mind of Paul (e.g. Rom 6:12) that through the needs and desires arising from the constitution of our body sin rules all those whom Christ has not saved. For in fallen man the flesh, although in itself good, has come under the domination of sin and has become a weapon with which sin enslaves its victims. Hence apart from Christ, mans flesh is (Rom 8:3) flesh of sin and his body (Rom 6:6) a body of sin. Circumcision is only the outward removal, by human hands, of a small part of that body which to so many is an instrument by which sin holds them captive. But the servants of Christ have stripped off from themselves and laid aside their entire body of flesh, inasmuch as they have been completely rescued from its deadly dominion. Henceforth they stand in a new relation to their own bodies: these are no longer the throne of sin but the temple of God.

In the laying aside of the body of the flesh: the environment in which took place the circumcision not made with hands. While the one was done the other was done. Or, practically, the two clauses describe under two aspects the same inward experience. The two figures are linked together by the next clause: in the circumcision of Christ, the better circumcision which has Christ for its source and distinguishing mark.

Having-been-buried with Him in your Baptism: another description of this inward and spiritual circumcision, specifying also its time and outward instrumentality. A close parallel with Rom 6:4 : a parallel the more remarkable because in the N.T. this mode of thought is found only with Paul, and is extremely rare even with later Christian writers. Already, in Rom 6:3-11; Gal 2:20; Gal 6:14, we have been taught that, like Christ and in Christ, we are to be dead to sin, i.e. completely separated from it as the dead are separated from the world in which they once lived, by means of that death upon the cross by which Christ Himself was separated from the penalty and curse and power of sin under which for our sakes He once groaned; and that consequently Baptism, the visible gate through which the convert from heathenism entered the company of the professed followers of Christ, is designed to be the funeral service of the old life announcing publicly that life has ceased and separating the dead man completely from the land in which he lived. In this sense the Colossian Christians were buried in the grave of Christ; and this burial took place in their Baptism.

Although this burial is evidently metaphorical, we have no hint that Baptism refers to anything except the outward rite. Indeed the metaphor needs the outward rite as its basis and explanation. And in Rom 6:3, so similar in thought and expression, baptized for Christ refers indisputably to the rite, of which Paul goes on to explain the inward significance.

The sudden and conspicuous introduction of a new topic, circumcised circumcision circumcision, in this warning against error suggests irresistibly that, as in Galatia (Gal 5:2-3) so in Coloss, the false teachers insisted on circumcision as a condition of salvation. This reveals a Jewish element in the error here combated. (In Gal 2:16 this suggestion is placed beyond doubt.) Paul declares that circumcision by the hands of men is needless for the servants of Christ because they have already undergone a more complete circumcision, that in the Baptism by which they were outwardly and formally joined to Christ their whole body, not a mere fragment of it, looked upon as a body of sin, its real earlier condition, was buried in the grave of Christ. Consequently, they have actually experienced that circumcision of the heart of which Moses and the Prophets (Deu 30:6; Eze 44:9) so frequently spoke as the real condition of spiritual blessing.

Col 2:12 b. Wherein also: or in whom also. Grammatically, each rendering is equally admissible: and the context affords no sure ground of decision. On the one hand, Baptism is the nearest antecedent: and raised with Him evidently supplements buried with Him, recalling forcibly the ancient mode of the rite (see under Rom 6:4) and the baptismal water under which the convert sank and from which he rose. Paul may wish to say that in their Baptism his readers were not only buried, but also raised, with Christ. On the other hand, Christ in His relation to His people is the chief thought of the whole sentence: in Him dwells and in Him ye are, Col 2:9-10; who is the Head, Col 2:10; and in whom also ye were circumcised, Col 2:11, where the first three words are the same as in Col 2:12 b. Paul may wish to say, still thinking of the dignity of Christ, that in Him we have been not only circumcised with a superhuman circumcision but also raised together with Christ through faith. It cannot be objected that our resurrection is not with Him but in Him. It is both in Him, resulting from inward union with Him, and with Him, introducing us to a life enjoyed by fellowship with Him. So expressly Eph 2:6 : raised together with Him in Christ Jesus. This latter exposition is slightly favoured by the added words through faith. For to say that in Baptism they were raised through faith is somewhat clumsy: whereas the words buried with Him in Baptism would be evenly balanced by the addition, in Him ye were also raised through faith. But confident decision is impossible; and unimportant. For each exposition embodies a truth. The command of Christ made Baptism, to those not yet baptized, whether Jews or heathens, a condition of His favour; and therefore the only ordinary way to the new life which flows from His death, burial, and resurrection. In this correct sense, in their Baptism the Colossian Christians had risen with Christ. On the other hand, their resurrection was in Christ as well as with Christ. For it both resulted from inward contact with Him and placed them by His side.

Through faith: the constant condition of salvation in all its aspects; Php 3:9; Eph 2:8; Eph 3:12; Eph 3:17; Rom 3:22, etc.

Working: see under Php 3:21. It was the active power of God raising Christ from the dead. A close and important parallel in Eph 1:19.

Faith or belief of the working etc.: belief that the activity of God raised Him from the dead. According to a common Greek construction, the genitive specifies the object of faith, and in this case the object-matter. So Php 1:27; 2Th 2:13. Similarly, in Php 3:9; Eph 3:12; Rom 3:22; Rom 3:26, it specifies the personal object of faith. These words assert that saving faith (like that of Abraham, Rom 4:21) rests upon the recognised power of God.

The phrase raised together with Christ is found also in Col 3:1; Eph 2:6. In this last place the readers are said to be also seated with Christ in the heavenly places. Similarly, believers are crucified, dead, and buried, with Christ: Col 2:20; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:11; Rom 6:4. This remarkable teaching is both very familiar to Paul and peculiar to him. It demands our best attention.

Under Rom 6:6 we have learnt that we are dead and crucified with Christ in the sense that we have shared with Him the results of His own death, that through His death upon the cross we have escaped completely, as He escaped, from the penalty and burden and dominion of sin. The day will come when we shall share to the full the results of His resurrection and ascension: for, ourselves risen from the dead, we shall sit with Him upon His throne in endless life. In that day we shall say, I am risen with Christ and through Christ and in Christ. For we shall share His throne, this being a result of His resurrection and ascension, and of our inward union with Him, a union begun on earth. For, had He not risen, we should not have believed in Him, and should not rise with Him. Now, when a future event is absolutely certain, we sometimes speak of it as present or past. For the future seems inadequate to express such certainty. Just so, as Paul looked forward with perfect confidence to the day when he will sit with Christ in glory, and remembered that no hostile power could prevent that glory, he felt that it was already his. And when, looking back to the cross and to the empty grave of Christ, he remembered that all the glory awaiting him was a result of His death and resurrection, and felt in his own heart and life the presence and power of the Risen One bearing him forward to the great consummation, the intervals between Christs resurrection and his own conversion and between his present life on earth and the realisation of his hopes in the great day seemed to vanish from his view; and he felt himself to be already risen and enthroned with Christ. This anticipatory language is the more easy because a certainty touching the future is to a large extent an actual present influence upon us. Our confident hope becomes a mental platform on which we stand and from which we view all things. The heir to vast estates looks upon them as already his own; and takes them into all his plans for life. In this sense Paul was already risen with Christ. In his Baptism he had been laid in His grave: for it was a formal declaration that in Christ his old life of bondage had ceased. And through a faith grasping the infinite power which raised Christ from the grave Paul was himself made a sharer of the immortal life to which His resurrection and ascension had introduced the humanity of Christ, already a sharer virtually of that victory over death which will soon, as it seemed to him, be his in outward bodily reality.

Notice that faith is the link between Christs resurrection and our own. Our assurance that the power of God is able to raise the dead enables us to believe that God actually raised Christ. A result of this faith will be that the same power will raise us. And a foretaste of that final resurrection we have in the new life which the power of God has already breathed into us, and which reveals itself day by day in victory over sin and communion with the spiritual world. In Eph 1:19-20, this relation between the resurrection of Christ and our present spiritual life is further expounded.

Col 2:13. Another statement, in a somewhat different, yet related, form, of the great change described as risen with Christ.

And you: in addition to Christ whom God raised from the dead. It emphasises by repetition this second resurrection. Same words in Col 1:21, where they add, to Gods purpose to reconcile all things to Himself in Christ, the actual reconciliation of the readers of this Epistle: similarly Eph 2:1. In Col 1:21 Gentile Christians were contrasted with Jewish Christians. But the word ye-were-raised in Col 2:12, which certainly includes Gentiles, forbids such contrast here. At the same time these introductory words raise into great prominence the Colossian Christians to whom Paul now writes: and the words uncircumcision of your flesh remind us that they were Gentiles.

By trespasses: the instrument with which these dead ones were slain. Same words and sense in Eph 2:1.

In what sense these men were formerly dead, must be determined by Pauls general system of thought. Since they were manifestly living, their death could not be that of the body. Since it was caused by trespasses, and was connected with uncircumcision, it could not be inherited depravity resulting from Adams one trespass: Rom 5:18. Moreover, the dead ones have been made alive in close connection with the resurrection of Christ, and their trespasses have been forgiven. Now we remember that (Rom 6:23) the wages of sin is death. This death can only be utter ruin of body and soul. It will be consummated (2Th 1:9; Mat 10:28) in the day of judgment. But inasmuch as sinners are already beyond reach of salvation except by the power of Him who raises the dead, and are separated from the Source of Life, a separation producing moral corruption, Paul correctly and frequently speaks of them as already dead. See under Rom 7:9; Eph 2:1; 1Ti 5:6 : also Joh 5:24-25, a most important coincidence enabling us to trace the teaching of Paul to the lips of Christ; 1Jn 3:14; Rev 20:14. Just as a dead and a sleeping child differ chiefly in that, whereas the latter will wake up to life, activity, growth, and manhood, nothing awaits the former except corruption and worms, a difference which all human power fails utterly to bridge, so and in infinitely greater degree differ those whom God has, and those whom He has not, made alive together with Christ: cp. Joh 5:25. Such was the awful former position of the Colossian Christians. They had committed trespasses: and these trespasses were bars shutting them up in the doom and gloom of eternal corruption.

Uncircumcision: joint cause with trespasses of this death. Or rather it places their death by reason of trespasses in its relation to their outward separation from the ancient people of God. Similar thought in Eph 2:11-12. The uncircumcised bodies of the Colossians once bore witness to their separation from the God of Abraham and from the chosen nation of the Old Covenant. By commanding circumcision God had claimed for His own the human body. The heathen live in ignorance or rejection of this claim and are thus outside the Covenant. The words uncircumcision of your flesh came the more easily to Pauls pen because, in the heathen, with absence of the seal of the Covenant was associated moral bondage to the rule of the bodily life.

Such was the terrible position of those to whom Paul now writes. They had again and again fallen into sin, and were as their bodies bore witness outside the Covenant of God. Consequently, they were separated from the only life worthy of the name, and were under the dominion of eternal corruption, a dominion from which no earthly power could save them.

Has-made-alive: has removed all that is involved in the word death. By reuniting them to Himself, the source of life, God breathed into them new vital power, a power opening to them a prospect of endless development and activity, a spiritual development already begun.

You together with Him: a very emphatic mode of asserting that God has so joined us to Christ that the act by which He gave life to the sacred corpse in the grave gave immortal life also to us. This is really equivalent to the statement in Col 2:12, ye were raised together with Him. But this statement now before us looks at the inward spiritual life received by believers, when they believe, in consequence of the life then breathed into the Saviours lifeless body. Col 2:12 looked at their removal from the realm of spiritual death and restoration to the land of the living resulting from Christs uprising from the sleep of death. Both expressions are again together in Eph 2:5-6. The words before us are the more suitable here because the new life thus received is derived each moment from vital inward contact with the Risen Lord.

All the trespasses: suggesting many sins, and an all-embracing pardon.

Having-forgiven etc.: a condition involved in this new life. Since surrender to death is the just and inevitable punishment of sin, restoration to life implies forgiveness; and necessarily follows it. Just so, to a man doomed to die, pardon is life.

Forgiven: literally bestowed favour-upon: same word in Rom 8:32; Php 1:29; Php 2:9; and in the same sense in Col 3:13; 2Co 2:7; 2Co 2:10; 2Co 12:13. By the change from you to us, Paul puts himself among those whose trespasses are forgiven.

Col 2:14. This forgiveness is now traced to the cross of Christ, the means by which was removed the obstacle to forgiveness which lay in the written law. It is added in the form of a second participial clause, which passes, according to the frequent habit of Paul in matters of great importance, into direct assertion.

Blotted-out, literally washed-out: a common word for complete removal of writing. The defective nature of ancient ink made it easy. Same word and sense in Rev 3:5; Act 3:19; Psa 69:29; Deu 9:14; and, in a similar sense, in Rev 7:17; Rev 21:4.

The handwriting: a later Greek word, usually in the sense of a written obligation; so Tob 5:3; Tob 9:5. In this sense it passed without change into Latin.

Dogma: an exact reproduction in English of the Greek word here used. It denotes something which seems good, e.g. an opinion which commends itself as true or a course of action which commends itself as wise. It is frequently used for the expressed judgments of the Greek philosophers, for a joint resolution touching some united action, and for the decrees of an authority which claims to determine the conduct of others. So in Luk 2:1, there went out a decree from Csar Augustus; Act 17:7. The decisions of the conference at Jerusalem (Act 15:23-29) are in Act 16:4 called dogmas. Similarly Ignatius To the Magnesians (ch. 13) speaks of the decrees of the Lord and of the Apostles. In this verse the dogmas must be the various commands, ritual or moral, of the Law of Moses, looked upon simply as the decrees of an authority claiming to direct and control mans conduct. For the handwriting against us can be no other than the Law of Moses which Paul speaks of in 2Co 3:6 as the letter which kills. And this condemnatory document is the chief feature of the Old Covenant. The connection between the handwriting and the dogmas is not determined by the grammatical construction; but is left to be inferred. Perhaps it is easiest to understand it as the handwriting written with the dogmas, as in Gal 6:11 we have an epistle written with (large) letters. But, however we render these words, their meaning is clear. The Law was made up of dogmas, i.e. of commands claiming simply obedience. And these decrees gave to the Law its power against us: for we had broken them; and they cried out for punishment.

Which was contrary to us: a very conspicuous repetition, given as an express assertion, of the words against us. This remarkable emphasis indicates Pauls chief thought in this verse, a thought ever present to his mind, viz. the condemnation pronounced by the Law, and the barrier thus erected between man and God. Similarly, in Rom 7:3 the law of marriage condemns a married woman to bondage while her (bad) husband lives. Such a law seemed to be against her best interests.

Usually, the word rendered handwriting denotes something written by the person whom the writing binds. It is not so here. Man is bound by a law written not by himself but by God. But this does not in the least degree make Pauls language inappropriate. The essential point is obligation resting upon a written document. By whom written is immaterial. Indeed it is the national law not made by us which gives its binding force to the bond we have ourselves signed. Another point is that the document consists of decrees claiming obedience.

The word dogmas proves that the handwriting was the Law of Sinai, which consisted entirely of written decrees. For the law written on the heart, (Rom 2:15,) although marking out certain actions as forbidden, would hardly be thus described. The change in Col 2:13 from you to us made it easy for Paul to write of the Law of Moses as hostile: for doubtless, as a Pharisee, he had often quailed under its condemnation. And in this condemnation even the heathen were included. For we read in Rom 3:19 that the Law was given to Israel to make the whole world silent and guilty before God. The Law of Sinai proves that all men are under the anger of God. For it awakens the law written within, and through that inner law pronounces sentence even upon those who have never heard of the God of Israel.

The mention of forgiveness recalls to Pauls thoughts the tremendous sentence written in unmistakable characters in the commands of the ancient Law. He remembers that in former times this written law had seemed to be his worst enemy. And even now forgiveness can come only by blotting out its terrible decrees.

And He has taken it away out of the midst: a restatement, in the form of direct assertion, of what is already implied in blotted-out. The writing completely erased is here described as an obstacle removed. [The Greek perfect suggests the abiding result of the removal of the great barrier blocking the way to forgiveness.]

Having nailed it to the cross: means by which the obstacle was removed. The person holding the bond has driven a nail through it and fastened it to the cross of Christ, thus making it invalid. This is a very graphic way of saying that the obstacle to forgiveness which lay in the Law, i.e. in the justice of God of which the Law is an embodiment, was removed by means of the death of Christ. Practically, the nails which fastened to the cross the hands and feet of Jesus, and thus slew Him, pierced and rendered invalid the Law which pronounced our just condemnation.

Col 2:15. Perhaps the most obscure verse in the New Testament. Its obscurity arises from our ignorance of the precise nature of the error here combated.

[The verb denotes to take off clothes. The very rare verb adds the idea of laying aside the stripped off clothing. An accusative following these verbs may denote either the person unclothed or the clothing taken off: for both person and clothes are direct objects of the act of unclothing. The middle voice denotes most simply removal of ones own clothing. In this sense it occurs in Col 3:9; and the corresponding abstract substantive in Col 2:11. But the middle voice of all sorts of Greek verbs denotes not infrequently merely an action for the benefit of the actor. This would allow us to take the principalities etc. as the persons unclothed. And this is done by the Vulgate, which renders expolians princip. etc. But we cannot think that Paul would use in this more remote sense, without any indication of his meaning, a word so commonly used in, and therefore naturally suggesting, the simple meaning of laying aside ones own clothes.

The principalities and the authorities may be either the clothing laid aside, or may belong only to the next verb made-a-show-of as its direct object, the clothing laid aside not being specified. This seems to have been the favourite exposition of the Latin Fathers, who suppose that the clothing laid aside was the human flesh of Christ. Their rendering would be, having stripped Himself of His own body by death, He made a show of the principalities, etc. This exposition has found its way into the MSS. FG, which read having laid aside the flesh, He made a show etc. Probably the word flesh was an explanatory note which was afterwards copied into the text: a frequent source of error in the text of the N.T. To this exposition it is an objection that, by putting the object before the verb it gives to the angelic powers a prominence not easily explained. On the other hand, the Greek Fathers generally accept the other interpretation, viz. that the principalities etc. were themselves the garment laid aside and the object of the public show. This interpretation agrees so well with the grammatical structure of the verse that we may, with most modern commentators, accept it.]

Two questions remain. The principalities and the authorities are undoubtedly successive ranks of angels. Are they good or bad? And did God or Christ strip them off from Himself?

In Col 2:10 and Col 1:16, where the same words are found in the same order, they certainly denote good angels, as does the word angel when not otherwise defined. But, that here the angelic powers are said to have been stripped off and laid aside, suggested to the Greek Fathers that Paul refers to hostile, and therefore bad, angels. This is the plain reference of the same words in Eph 6:12; where, however, the meaning is made quite clear by the foregoing mention of the devil and of strenuous conflict, and by the absence of any mention of good angels. But to the Colossians Paul says nothing about hostile angels: in Col 2:10 he uses the words before us of good angels: and in Col 2:18 we have, based upon this verse, a dissuasion from worshipping of angels, such worship being inconceivable except as rendered to holy beings. Again, the principalities etc. are here looked upon as a robe which must have been previously worn or it could not have been laid aside. In what sense could evil spirits be thus conceived? Only by supposing that in their attack on the Incarnate Son they clung to Him like a deadly robe, and that in repelling their attack He stripped them off from Himself. But I do not know that enemies attacking are ever so described: and of such desperate struggle with evil powers we have as yet in this place no hint. Another serious objection is that this exposition involves a change of subject of which we have no indication. Certainly in Col 2:13 it is the Father who has made us alive together with Christ and forgiven us all trespasses. In Col 2:14 there is no hint of change of subject. For it is in perfect harmony with Pauls thought to say that the Father blotted out the handwriting against us and nailed it to the cross. Indeed God is said in Rom 3:25-26 to have given Christ to die in order to reconcile the justification of believers with His own justice. If Col 2:15 refers to Christ repelling an attack of evil spirits, we have a most important change of actor in the scene before us which could hardly have been made in perfect silence. An exposition surrounded by such difficulties can be accepted only after all others have failed.

Is there any sense in which until the death of Christ and no longer the angels of heaven were, or might be spoken of as, a robe of God? There is. In Gal 3:19 we read that the Law was ordained by the agency of angels: see my note. The whole argument in Heb 1:1 ff; Heb 2:1 ff, especially Heb 2:2 the word spoken by the agency of angels, implies that they were the medium through which the revelations of the Old Covenant were given. If so, we may speak of these bright messengers as the robe in which God revealed Himself to men during long ages. Only under the veil of angelic forms and through angel lips did they see His face and hear His voice. Even at the Incarnation (Luk 2:9) God approached man in the same mysterious garb. But in Christ the veil was laid aside. Through the lips of the Incarnate Son God spoke to man face to face and revealed His unveiled glory. He thus stripped off and laid aside the garb He had previously worn. This action of God is a strong reason why the Colossian Christians should not (Col 2:18) worship angels. To do so, is to cling to a superseded mode of Divine revelation. The prevalence of this error suggested this mention of angelic powers. In Christ the Law as a means of salvation has passed away, having been nailed (Col 2:14) to His cross: therefore none may now (Col 2:16) pronounce sentence against others on legal grounds. And in Christ God has (Col 2:15) laid aside the visible mediation of angels: consequently, no one (Col 2:18) may any longer worship them.

Openly: i.e. without reserve, telling the whole truth. Same word in 2Co 3:12. By laying aside the mediation of angels, God revealed the whole truth about them and their relation to Himself and to men. They are seen to be our helpers not our lords.

Having-led-them etc.: an exposition of the foregoing, describing the manner of this unreserved and public show of the discarded angelic robe.

Led-in-triumph: same word as in 2Co 2:14, where see note. If the principalities etc. were enemies, this word would naturally suggest a train of captives led along as in a Roman triumph and revealing by their number the greatness of the victory. And it must be admitted that this natural connection of thought favours the exposition of the Greek Fathers noticed and rejected above. But the serious objections to it, stated above, outweigh this support. Moreover apparently the word denoted originally the peaceful Greek processions in honour of Dionysius: and this made more easy its use by Paul when thinking only of a public procession and not of the military victory implied in a Roman triumph.

How did God, in Christ or in His cross, lead the angels, good or bad, in triumphal procession and thus make them a public show? Perhaps in two ways. The changed position of angels in the New Covenant as compared with the Old was itself a conspicuous manifestation by God of their subordination to the Son. It made plain to all men that they were no longer His medium of revelation to man. Again, their occasional appearance around the person of Christ is another public mark of their changed position. They are now manifestly subordinate to the Son as His servants: e.g. Mat 4:11; Luk 22:43; Mat 28:5; Mat 24:31; Mat 26:53. In the N.T. angelic mediation as a means of revelation to man is almost laid aside; and angels appear only to pay homage to the Son or to help His servants; in other words, as swelling the train of Christ the Conqueror. The incompleteness of this explanation is perhaps due to our ignorance of the exact nature of the error this Epistle was designed to overturn.

The last words of Col 2:15 may be rendered with equal right in Him or in it. The former rendering is better. For it was in the entire personality of Christ rather than in His cross and death that God revealed the subordinate position of angels. And this suits the scope of 9, of which Christ and His relation to us are the chief feature. In Him was manifested to men the victory of God involved in the establishment of the New Covenant.

The exposition implied in the Vulgate is maintained by Meyer: that of the Greek Fathers by Ellicott and Lightfoot. The exposition I have adopted differs little from that of Alford, and from that advocated by Findlay in a very able paper in The Expositor, 1st series, vol. x. p. 403 and in the Pulpit Commentary. Mr. Findlay has done good service by calling attention to the original connection of the Greek word rendered triumph with the Dionysiac processions.

In SECTION 9 the warning already given in 8 becomes much more definite. The error warned against is called philosophy, i.e. an attempt to reach the realities underlying the phenomena around and is further described as empty deception. Its source is mere human tradition: and what good it possesses belongs only to the rudimentary teaching common to the whole human race. In contrast to it, Paul points to Christ as the norm of Christian belief and practice. In Him dwells all completeness; a completeness shared by all who dwell in Him. To Him bow the hierarchy of heaven. And even the blessings of the Old Covenant belong to His servants by their union with Him in Baptism. So closely are they joined to Him that they have lain in His grave, and already share His resurrection life. This life implies, as its condition, forgiveness of sins. And this forgiveness is traced to the death of Christ, by which was removed the barrier to forgiveness based upon the ancient Law or rather upon the eternal justice of God of which that law was a literary embodiment. In the Old Covenant God revealed Himself to men in the garb of angelic agency. But in these better days that garb has been laid aside: and those bright spirits, who in former times appeared as the highest powers on earth, bearers of the might of God, appear now merely as swelling the train of One Greater than themselves.

Notice in this warning, as marked features of the error combated, philosophy and tradition, angelic powers and circumcision. This suggests that the error contained both theosophic and Jewish elements. And this suggestion will be confirmed in 10.

We notice also that, to guard against this error, Paul relies wholly on a setting forth of the Christians relation to Christ. This explains the full exposition in DIV. II., before the error is mentioned, of the Person and Work of Christ.

Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ”

We have many philosophies around today that may have the Word in them but only enough to make them acceptable to the untaught ear. We find this in the cults. Cults lead even believers astray. We should know some of the marks of the cults.

Lowering of Christ

Uplifting of the leader

Heavy emphasis on giving

Experience oriented

Limiting if not subjugating of women

Emphasis on loyalty to leader and/or group rather than Christ

Overemphasis on the Gospels.

I trust that you understand that all knowledge and truth is centered in God, not the cult leaders – not Roberts, not White, not Moon, not the Pope, and not any human being.

Let’s consider some terms relating to philosophy. Philosophy is a system of ethics or thought. The term used here is only used in the New Testament and both are in relation to false doctrine. Many believers love to dig into philosophical thought, but it seems to me that the Word is so straightforward, and so massive that I don’t have to spend time in other areas, when I know so little about the Bible after so many years of study.

Philosophy isn’t wrong but it does seem to be a side track to some believers. Many through the ages have tried to mix it with Christianity but seldom with any success. Francis Schaffer seems to have done some good with it, yet in all of the thought he presents, it is the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ which must change the person.

The fact that it is with “vain deceit” in the passage indicates it isn’t the best.

The word translated spoil according to Robertson means “to carry off as booty a captive, slave, maiden.” Not the terminology of someone teaching proper doctrine.

Philosophy is the Greek word “philosophia” which appears only once in the Scripture and here is used of Jewish Christian ascetics to describe their false ways.

Thayer mentions that it means “used either of zeal for or skill in any art or science, any branch of knowledge.”

As to the rightness or wrongness of it the context is clear, it will spoil your beliefs, it is the tradition of men, it is of the world, and not after Christ – seems kind of definite – it isn’t for the believer that wants to walk with God.

Robertson kindly mentions of this philosophy, “knowledge falsely named.”

Merriam-Webster speaks to the word:

“1 a : (1) all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1) archaic : PHYSICAL SCIENCE (2) : ETHICS c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology

“2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs

“3 a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought

“4 a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher”

No matter which definition you use, except the fourth you should come away feeling that philosophy is not for the believer. We have the truth, it is not related to theory and is not arrived at through speculation.

Wrong, in and of itself, most likely not, but why bother putting your time into things that are speculative, theory and general when we have the truth that can change our lives?

We’ve seen some terms in this passage that I would like to look at briefly to be sure we understand just what they mean.

Wisdom: The quality of being wise. The ability to gather information and use it in a proper manner. Making the better judgment in a given situation.

Knowledge: It is the facts that we gather via ear, eye, taste and touch to help us understand what we observe around us.

Understanding: It is the comprehension of what these facts mean.

Intelligence: The general knowledge that one possesses.

Comprehension: Understanding what the mind contains.

Perception: Consciousness of items we encounter.

Let me illustrate this.

Perception is seeing a ten-dollar bill on the ground.

Comprehension is knowing that it is a ten-dollar bill not a one dollar bill.

Intelligence is knowing you’d better grab it before the man behind you grabs it.

Understanding is what the man behind you doesn’t have when you pick up the ten-dollar bill for you see it belongs to him.

Knowledge is when you know he is six foot-five and three hundred pounds.

Wisdom is returning the ten dollars.

Having said all this, when we come up against a need for knowledge, where can we go – the text says that Christ is the repository of all knowledge. We have only to go to Him to seek the knowledge we have need of. It is also a very nice addition – his knowledge it TRUE.

Christ is very much like a computer. He contains all knowledge. I recently gave my pastor a packet of sheets of printed pages. I’d guess it was about eight pages of single-spaced book titles – titles than I have available to me on my computer. Indeed, I have several hundred volumes of secular works that are not on the list. Indeed, if I don’t have what I want on my own computer I can go to the internet and find most any older book online.

The point however is this. I must have a method of access to that computer – someway to connect to all that information. Christ’s knowledge is the same. We must have a connection to him to gain that knowledge which we need. We have the written Word to provide much of the needed information, but we also have the link of prayer to access Him personally and directly.

There is a brief study that loosely relates to this passage and the thought of not following the philosophy of man. The topic comes up now and then so I will include it.

Just some thought about do’s and don’ts

I used to avoid Pizza parlors which serve beer. I also used to avoid any restaurant which served alcohol. I was challenged on this many many times over several years.

There were some reasons for this stand.

1. Obviously I didn’t want to be a stumbling block to anyone that might see me in such an establishment.

2. I feel my position as a minister requires that I be very careful in my living so that I give no one cause to point a finger my way.

3. Most groups that I was with at the time had similar feelings.

4. I love pizza and beer. Since I had a problem with alcohol in my early years, I try to avoid temptation.

This was a personal conviction and decision. I never taught this nor did I require any of my acquaintances to sit through a discourse on the subject. Now, had I at some point started telling people that they needed to take on this standard so that they could walk with the Lord in a proper manner, I would have stepped into error.

Know that the believers around you will be more intolerant about this stand than most unsaved people. Many times I have explained my position to lost people and found great acceptance and understanding from them. With believers the displeasure was often on their faces and in their following attitude/actions.

We will see in a later lesson some do’s and don’ts of how to handle this sort of situation.

Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson

2:8 {4} Beware lest any man {i} spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, {5} after the tradition of men, {6} after the {k} rudiments of the world, {7} and not after Christ.

(4) He brings all corruptions under three types. The first is that which rests on vain and curious speculations, and yet bears a show of certain subtle wisdom.

(i) This is a word of war, and it is as much as to drive or carry away a spoil or booty.

(5) The second, which is manifestly superstitious and vain, and stands only upon custom and pretended inspirations.

(6) The third type was of those who joined the rudiments of the world (that is to say, the ceremonies of the Law) with the Gospel.

(k) Principles and rules, with which God ruled his Church, as it were under a schoolmaster.

(7) A general confutation of all corruptions is this, that if it adds anything to Christ, it must necessarily be a false religion.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

B. The true doctrine of Christ 2:8-15

Paul revealed what his readers enjoyed in Christ in this pericope to encourage them to remain faithful to the true revelation they had received and believed.

"The apostle now makes his most direct attack against ’the Colossian heresy.’ The entire passage bristles with exegetical difficulties, and calls for closer attention to its wording and argument than any other part of the Epistle." [Note: Vaughan, p. 197.]

"Col 2:8 functions as a heading and initial statement of the section’s theme, in chiastic form:

    Col 2:8 a    polemical denunciation    16-23

    Col 2:8 b    in accordance with Christ 9-15" [Note: Dunn, p. 144.]

"The one thing that is clear is that the false teachers wished the Colossians to accept what can only be called additions to Christ." [Note: Barclay, p. 161.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

"Philosophy"-this is the only occurrence of the word in the New Testament-here does not refer to the study of basic questions concerning God, man, and the meaning of life. It refers to the speculations and ideas of false teachers not rooted in divine revelation. These ideas had come down by merely human tradition.

"Much depends on our semantics at this point. If by philosophy we mean the search for clarity and understanding regarding the whole of reality, then the Christian must in a sense philosophize. He must think clearly, and he must strive for a self-consistent view of life. In his quest, however, he must always submit to the guidance, limitation, and criticism of the light of divine revelation. On the other hand, if by philosophy we mean human speculation regarding man’s basic questions without due respect for the revelation of God, then the Christian, no doubt, will accord this philosophy a greatly diminished relevance to his life and calling. . . .

"I seriously question the view that Paul, as Tertullian after him, is to be understood as condemning all study of philosophy [cf. 1Co 15:1-58; Act 17:22-30]. . . .

"I take the word, then, to be limited by the context; the Colossian philosophy is in mind, as well as any other, of course, which is not in harmony with divine revelation." [Note: Johnson, 476:302-03, 307. See David L. Mosher, "St. Paul and Philosophy," Crux 8:1 (November 1970):3-9.]

"Empty deception" describes "philosophy." This is clear from the fact that the two nouns are the objects of one preposition, "through" (Gr. dia), and there is no article before "empty deception." The idea is that the particular philosophy Paul had been warning his readers about was empty deception ("vain deceit," AV). These are not two separate dangers. This had come down to his readers as pagan tradition.

"Although the context of Col 2:8 probably has reference to a proto-gnostic type of philosophy at Colosse that had a disastrous mix of legalism, asceticism, and mysticism with Christianity, the implications of Paul’s exhortation to ’beware of philosophy’ are appropriately applied to other alien systems of thought that have invaded Christianity down through the centuries since then." [Note: Norman L. Geisler, "Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:1 (March 1999):3.]

 

". . . We cannot properly beware of philosophy unless we be aware of philosophy." [Note: Ibid., p. 18.]

The "elementary principles (Gr. stoicheia) of the world" probably refer to the religious practices the false teachers were promoting that were simply external and physical (Col 2:20; cf. Gal 4:3; Gal 4:9). The view of many commentators is that this false religious system of worship had the elemental spirits as its subject matter (cf. Col 2:18). [Note: See O’Brien, Colossians . . ., pp. 129-32, for further discussion.] These practices probably involved observance of the Law of Moses. Christ was neither the source nor the content of these teachings.

"The context makes it clear that these prohibitions refer to things that are ethically neutral, not to things that are inherently sinful. . . . Voluntary self-denial in matters of food can be a helpful spiritual exercise, and may on occasion be recommended by considerations of Christian charity; but what is deprecated here is a form of asceticism for asceticism’s sake, cultivated as a religious obligation. . . .

"As has been said, the Colossian heresy was basically Jewish. Yet the straightforward Judaizing legalism of Galatians was not envisaged in Colossians. Instead it was a form of mysticism which tempted its adepts to look on themselves as a spiritual elite. . . .

"To look to movements within Judaism for the source of the Colossian heresy is a wiser procedure than to postulate direct influences from Iranian [Mesopotamian] or Greek culture." [Note: Bruce, 563:196-97, 200-1.]

"It is best to recognize that both Jewish and Gentile elements were present in the Colossian heresy, many of which were generally shared by the populace in the highly charged world of the first century, especially in the syncretistic and Hellenistic mood of Achaia and western Asia Minor. Many of the elements developed into the Gnosticism of the second century but with far more elaborate philosophical-religious views than are found in Colossians. The most one can say of the error in Colossians is that it was a syncretism of Jewish, Gentile, and Christian features that diminished the all-sufficiency of Christ’s salvation and His personal preeminence." [Note: House, "Heresies in . . .," p. 59.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 2

THE BANE AND THE ANTIDOTE

Col 2:8-10 (R.V.)

WE come now to the first plain reference to the errors which were threatening the peace of the Colossian community. Here Paul crosses swords with the foe. This is the point to which all his previous words have been steadily converging. The immediately preceding context contained the positive exhortation to continue in the Christ Whom they had received, having been rooted in Him as the tree in a fertile place “by the rivers of water,” and being continually builded up in Him, with ever-growing completeness of holy character. The same exhortation in substance is contained in the verses which we have now to consider, with the difference that it is here presented negatively, as warning and dehortation, with distinct statement of the danger which would uproot the tree and throw down the building, and drag the Colossians away from union with Christ.

In these words the Bane and Antidote are both before us. Let us consider each.

I. The Poison against which Paul warns the Colossians is plainly described in our first verse, the terms of which may require a brief comment.

“Take heed lest there shall be.” The construction implies that it is a real and not a hypothetical danger which he sees threatening. He is not crying “wolf” before there is need. “Anyone”- perhaps the tone of the warning would be better conveyed if we read the more familiar “somebody”; as if he had said-“I name no names-it is not the persons, but the principles that I fight against-but you know whom I mean well enough. Let him be anonymous, you understand who it is.” Perhaps there was even a single “somebody” who was the centre of the mischief. “That maketh spoil of you.” Such is the full meaning of the word-and not “injure” or “rob,” which the translation in the Authorised Version suggests to an English reader. Paul sees the converts in Colossae taken prisoners and led away with a cord round their necks, like the long strings of captives on the Assyrian monuments. He had spoken in the previous chapter (Col 1:13) of the merciful conqueror who had “translated” them from the realm of darkness into a kingdom of light, and now he fears lest a robber horde, making a raid upon the peaceful colonists in their happy new homes, may sweep them away again into bondage. The instrument which the man stealer uses, or perhaps we may say, the cord, whose fatal noose will be tightened round them, if they do not take care, is “philosophy and vain deceit.” If Paul, had been writing in English, he would have put “philosophy” in inverted commas, to show that he was quoting the heretical teachers own name for their system, if system it may be called, which was really a chaos. For the true love of wisdom, for any honest, humble attempt to seek after her as hid treasure; neither Paul nor Pauls Master has anything but praise and sympathy and help. Where he met real, however imperfect, searchers after truth, he strove to find points of contact between them and his message, and to present the gospel as the answer to their questionings, the declaration of that which they were groping to find. The thing spoken of here has no resemblance but in name to what the Greeks in their better days first called philosophy, and nothing but that mere verbal coincidence warrants the representation-often made both by narrow-minded Christians, and by unbelieving thinkers-that Christianity takes up a position of antagonism or suspicion to it. The form of the expression in the original shows clearly that “vain deceit,” or more literally “empty deceit,” describes the “philosophy” which Paul is bidding them beware of. They are not two things, but one. It is like a blown bladder, full of wind, and nothing else. In its lofty pretensions, and if we take its own account of itself, it is a love of and search after wisdom; but if we look at it more closely, it is a swollen nothing, empty and a fraud. This is what he is condemning. The genuine thing he has nothing to say about here. He goes on to describe more closely this impostor, masquerading in the philosophers cloak. It is “after the traditions of men.” We have seen in a former chapter what a strange heterogeneous conglomerate of Jewish ceremonial and Oriental dreams the false teachers in Colossae were preaching. Probably both these elements are included here. It is significant that the very expression, “the traditions of men,” is a word of Christs, applied to the Pharisees, whom He charges with “leaving the commandment of God, and holding fast the tradition of men”. {Mar 7:8} The portentous undergrowth of such “traditions” which, like the riotous fertility of creepers in a tropical forest, smother and kill the trees round which they twine, is preserved for our wonder and warning in the Talmud, where for thousands and thousands of pages, we get nothing but Rabbi So and So said this, but Rabbi So and So said that; until we feel stifled, and long for one Divine Word to still all the babble.

The Oriental element in the heresy, on the other hand, prided itself on a hidden teaching which was too sacred to be entrusted to books, and was passed from lip to lip in some close conclave of muttering teachers and listening adepts. The fact that all this, be it Jewish, be it Oriental teaching, had no higher source than mens imaginings and refinings, seems to Paul the condemnation Of the whole system. His theory is that in Jesus Christ every Christian man has the full truth concerning God and man, in their mutual relations, -the authoritative Divine declaration of all that can be known, the perfect exemplar of all that ought to be done, the sun clear illumination and proof of all that dare be hoped. What an absurd descent, then, from the highest of our prerogatives, to “turn away from Him that speaketh from heaven,” in order to listen to poor human voices, speaking mens thoughts!

The lesson is as needful today as ever. The special forms of mens traditions in question here have long since fallen silent, and trouble no man any more. But the tendency to give heed to human teachers and to suffer them to come between us and Christ is deep in us all. There is at one extreme the man who believes. in no revelation from God, and, smiling at us Christians who accept Christs words as final and Himself as the Incarnate truth, often pays to his chosen human teacher a deference as absolute as that which he regards as superstition, when we render it to our Lord. At the other extremity are the Christians who will not let Christ and the Scripture speak to the soul, unless the Church be present at the interview, like a jailor, with a bunch of man-made creeds jingling at its belt. But it is not only at the two ends of the line, but all along its length, that men are listening to “traditions” of men and neglecting “the commandment of God.” We have all the same tendency in us. Every man carries a rationalist and a traditionalist under his skin. Every Church in Christendom, whether it has a formal creed or no, is ruled as to its belief and practice, to a sad extent, by the “traditions of the elders.” The “freest” of the Nonconformist Churches, untrammelled by any formal confession, may be bound with as tight fetters, and be as much dominated by mens opinions, as if it had the straitest of creeds. The mass of our religious beliefs and practices has ever to be verified, corrected, and remodelled, by harking back from creeds, written or unwritten, to the one Teacher, the endless significance of Whose person and work is but expressed in fragments by the purest and widest thoughts even of those who have lived nearest to Him, and seen most of His beauty. Let us get away from men, from the Babel of opinions and the strife of tongues, that we may “hear the words of His mouth”! Let us take heed of the empty fraud which lays the absurd snare for our feet, that we can learn to know God by any means but by listening to His own speech in His Eternal Word, lest it lead us away captive out of the Kingdom of the Light! Let us go up to the pure spring on the mountain top, and not try to slake our thirst at the muddy pools at its base! “Ye are Christs, be not the slaves of men.” “This is My beloved Son, hear ye Him.”

Another mark of this empty pretence of wisdom which threatens to captivate the Colossians is, that it is “after the rudiments of the world.” The word rendered “rudiments” means the letters of the alphabet, and hence comes naturally to acquire the meaning of “elements,” or “first principles,” just as we speak of the A B C of a science. The application of such a designation to the false teaching is, like the appropriation of the term “mystery” to the gospel, an instance of turning the tables and giving back the teachers their own words. They boasted of mysterious doctrines reserved for the initiated, of which the plain truths that Paul preached were but the elements, and they looked down contemptuously on his message as “milk for babes.” Paul retorts on them, asserting that the true mystery, the profound truth long hidden and revealed, is the word which he preached, and that the poverty-stricken elements, fit only for infants, are in that swelling inanity which called itself wisdom and was not. Not only does he brand it as “rudiments,” but as “rudiments of the world,” which is worse-that is to say, as belonging to the sphere of the outward and material, and not to the higher region of the spiritual, where Christian thought ought to dwell. So two weaknesses are charged against the system: it is the mere alphabet of truth, and therefore unfit for grown men. It moves, for all its lofty pretensions, in the region of the visible and mundane things, and is therefore unfit for spiritual men. What features of the system are referred to in this phrase? Its use in the Epistle to the Galatians, {Gal 4:3} as a synonym for the whole system of ritual observances and ceremonial precepts of Judaism, and the present context, which passes on immediately to speak of circumcision, point to a similar meaning here, though we may include also the ceremonial and ritual of the Gentile religions, in so far as they contributed to the outward forms which the Colossian heresy sought to impose on the Church. This then is Pauls opinion about a system which laid stress on ceremonial and busied itself with forms. He regards it as a deliberate retrogression to an earlier stage. A religion of rites had come first, and was needed for the spiritual infancy of the race-but in Christ we ought to have outgrown the alphabet of revelation, and, being men, to have put away childish things. He regards it further as a pitiable descent into a lower sphere, a fall from the spiritual realm to the material, and therefore unbecoming for those who have been enfranchised from dependence upon outward helps and symbols, and taught the spirituality and inwardness of Christian worship.

We need the lesson in this day no less than did these Christians in the little community in that remote valley of Phrygia. The forms which were urged on them are long since antiquated, but the tendency to turn Christianity into a religion of ceremonial is running with an unusually powerful current today. We are all more interested in art, and think we know more about it than our fathers did. The eye and the ear are more educated than they used to be, and a society as “aesthetic” and “musical” as much cultured English society is becoming, will like an ornate ritual. So, apart altogether from doctrinal grounds, much in the conditions of today works towards ritual religion. Nonconformist services are less plain; some go from their ranks because they dislike the “bald” worship in the chapel, and prefer the more elaborate forms of the Anglican Church, which in its turn is for the same reason left by others who find their tastes gratified by the complete thing, as it is to be enjoyed full blown in the Roman Catholic communion. We may freely admit that the Puritan reaction was possibly too severe, and that a little more colour and form might with advantage have been retained. But enlisting the senses as the allies of the spirit in worship is risky work. They are very apt to fight for their own hand when they once begin, and the history of all symbolic and ceremonial worship shows that the experiment is much more likely to end in sensualising religion than in spiritualising sense. The theory that such aids make a ladder by which the soul may ascend to God is perilously apt to be confuted by experience, which finds that the soul is quite as likely to go down the ladder as up it. The gratification of taste, and the excitation of aesthetic sensibility, which are the results of such aids to worship, are not worship, however they may be mistaken for such. All ceremonial is in danger of becoming opaque instead of transparent, as it was meant to be, and of detaining mind and eye instead of letting them pass on and up to God. Stained glass is lovely, and white windows are “barnlike,” and “starved,” and “bare”; but perhaps, if the object is to get light and to see the sun, these solemn purples and glowing yellows are rather in the way. I for my part believe that of the two extremes, a Quaker meeting is nearer the ideal of Christian worship than High Mass, and so far as my feeble voice can reach, I would urge, as eminently a lesson for the day, Pauls great principle here, that a Christianity making much of forms and ceremonies is a distinct retrogression and descent. You are men in Christ, do not go back to the picture book A B C of symbol and ceremony, which was fit for babes. You have been brought in to the inner sanctuary of worship in spirit; do not decline to the beggarly elements of outward form.

Paul sums up his indictment in one damning clause, the result of the two preceding. If the heresy, have no higher source than mens traditions, and no more solid contents than ceremonial observances, it cannot be “after Christ.” He is neither its origin, nor its substance, nor its rule and standard. There is a fundamental discord between every such system, however it may call itself Christian, and Christ. The opposition may be concealed by its teachers. They and their victims may not be aware of it. They may not themselves be conscious that by adopting it they have slipped off the foundation; but they have done so, and though in their own hearts they be loyal to Him, they have brought an incurable discord into their creeds which will weaken their lives, if it do not do worse. Paul cared very little for the dreams of these teachers, except in so far as they carried them and others away from his Master. The Colossians might have as many ceremonies as they liked, and welcome; but when these interfered with the sole reliance to be placed on Christs work, then they must have no quarter. It is not merely because the teaching was “after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world,” but because, being so, it was “not after Christ,” that Paul will have none of it. He that touches his Master touches the apple of his eye, and shades of opinion, and things indifferent in practice, and otherwise unimportant forms of worship, have to be fought to the death if they obscure one corner of the perfect and solitary work of the One Lord, who is at once the source, the substance, and the standard of all Christian teaching.

II. The Antidote.-“For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and in Him ye are made full, who is the head of all principality and power.”

These words may be a reason for the warning-“Take heed, for”; or they may be a reason for the implied exclusion of any teaching which is not after Christ. The statement of its characteristics carries in itself its condemnation. Anything “not after Christ” is ipso facto wrong, and to be avoided-“for,” etc. “In Him” is placed with emphasis at the beginning, and implies “and nowhere else.” “Dwelleth,” that is, has its permanent abode; where the tense is to be noticed also, as pointing to the ascended Christ. “All the fulness of the Godhead,” that is, the whole unbounded powers and attributes of Deity, where is to be noted the use of the abstract term. Godhead, instead of the more usual God, in order to express with the utmost force the thought of the indwelling in Christ of the whole essence and nature of God. “Bodily,” that points to the Incarnation, and so is an advance upon the passage in the former chapter (Col 1:19), which speaks of “the fulness” dwelling in the Eternal Word; whereas this speaks of the Eternal Word in whom the fulness dwelt becoming flesh. So we are pointed to the glorified corporeal humanity of Jesus Christ in His exaltation as the abode, now and forever, of all the fulness of the Divine nature, which is thereby brought very near to us. This grand truth seems to Paul to shiver to pieces all the dreams of these teachers about angel mediators, and to brand as folly every attempt to learn truth and God anywhere else but in Him.

If He be the one sole temple of Deity in whom all Divine glories are stored, why go anywhere else in order to see or to possess God? It is folly; for not only are all these glories stored in Him, but they are so stored on purpose to be reached by us. Therefore the Apostle goes on, “and in Him ye are made full”; which sets forth two things as true in the inward life of all Christians, namely, their living incorporation in and union with Christ, and their consequent participation in His fulness. Every one of us may enter into that most real and close union with Jesus Christ by the power of continuous faith in Him. So may we be grafted into the Vine, and builded into the Rock. If thus we keep our hearts in contact with His heart and let Him lay His lip on our lips, He will breathe into us the breath of His own life, and ye shall live because He lives, and in our measure, as He lives. All the fulness of God is in Him, that from Him it may pass into us. We might start back from such bold words if we did not remember that the same apostle who here tells us that that fulness dwells in Jesus, crowns his wonderful prayer for the Ephesian Christians with that daring petition, “that ye may be filled with all the fulness of God.” The treasure was lodged in the earthen vessel of Christs manhood that it might be within our reach. He brings the fiery blessing of a Divine life from Heaven to earth enclosed in the feeble reed of His manhood, that it may kindle kindred fire in many a heart. Freely the water of life flows into all cisterns from the ever fresh stream, into which the infinite depth of that unfathomable sea of good pours itself. Every kind of spiritual blessing is given therein. That stream, like a river of molten lava, holds many precious things in its flaming current, and will cool into many shapes and deposit many rare and rich gifts. According to our need it will vary itself, being to each what the moment most requires, -wisdom, or strength, or beauty, or courage, or patience. Out of it will come whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, as Rabbinical legends tell us that the manna tasted to each man like the food for which he wished most.

This process of receiving of all the Divine fulness is a continuous one. We can but be approximating to the possession of the infinite treasure which is ours in Christ; and since the treasure is infinite, and we can indefinitely grow in capacity of receiving God, there must be an eternal continuance of the filling and an eternal increase of the measure of what fills us. Our natures are elastic, and in love and knowledge, as well as in purity and capacity for blessedness, there are no bounds to be set to their possible expansion. They will be widened by bliss into a greater capacity for bliss. The indwelling Christ will “enlarge the place of His habitation,” and as the walls stretch and the roofs soar, He will fill the greater house with the light of His presence and the fragrance of His name. The condition of this continuous reception of the abundant gift of a Divine life is abiding in Jesus. It is “in Him” that we are “being filled full”-and it is only so long as we continue in Him that we continue full. We cannot bear away our supplies, as one might a full bucket from a well, and keep it full. All the grace will trickle out and disappear unless we live in constant union with our Lord, whose Spirit passes into our deadness only so long as we are joined to Him.

From all such thoughts Paul would have us draw the conclusion-how foolish, then, it must be to go to any other source for the supply of our needs! Christ is “the head of all principality and power,” he adds, with a reference to the doctrine of angel mediators, which evidently played a great part in the heretical teaching. If He is sovereign head of all dignity and power on earth and heaven, why go to the ministers, when we have access to the King; or have recourse to erring human teachers, when we have the Eternal Word to enlighten us; or flee to creatures to replenish our emptiness, when we may draw from the depths of God in Christ? Why should we go on a weary search after goodly pearls when the richest of all is by us, if we will have it? Do we seek to know God? Let us behold Christ, and let men talk as they list. Do we crave a stay for our spirit, guidance and impulse for our lives? Let us cleave to Christ, and we shall be no more lonely and bewildered. Do we need a quieting balm to be laid on conscience, and the sense of guilt to be lifted from our hearts? Let us lay our hands on Christ, the one sacrifice, and leave all other altars and priests and ceremonies. Do we look longingly for some light on the future? Let us steadfastly gaze on Christ as He rises to heaven bearing a human body into the glory of God.

Though all the earth were covered with helpers and lovers of my soul, “as the sand by the sea shore innumerable,” and all the heavens were sown with faces of angels who cared for me and succoured me, thick as the stars in the Milky Way-all could not do for me what I need. Yea, though all these were gathered into one mighty and loving creature, even he were no sufficient stay for one soul of man. We want more than creature help. We need the whole fulness of the Godhead to draw from. It is all there in Christ, for each of us. Whosoever will, let him draw freely. Why should we leave the fountain of living waters to hew out for ourselves, with infinite pains, broken cisterns that can hold no water? All we need is in Christ. Let us lift our eyes from the low earth and all creatures, and behold “no man any more,” as Lord and Helper, “save Jesus only,” “that we may be filled with all the fulness of God.”

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary