Cornelius a Lapide
Table of Contents
Synopsis of the Chapter
He desires and exhorts the Colossians to be rooted and established in the faith and love of Christ.
Secondly, at verse 8, he opposes against the dreams of the Judaizers and pseudo-philosophers Christ, in whom dwells all the fullness of divinity. For he teaches that through Christ we have been circumcised, not in flesh but in spirit, since, buried together in baptism, we have died to our offenses.
Hence thirdly, at verse 14, he teaches that Christ blotted out the handwriting of sin, affixed it to the cross, and there triumphed over sins and demons; and consequently abrogated Jewish abstinences and ceremonies as useless shadows.
Finally, at verse 18, he decrees that we must follow not a feigned religion of angels in superstitious humility and abstinence, but the true religion of Christ, the one Mediator.
Vulgate Text: Colossians 2:1-23
1. For I would have you know what manner of solicitude I have for you and for those who are at Laodicea, and whoever have not seen my face in the flesh: 2. that their hearts may be comforted, being instructed in charity, and unto all the riches of the fullness of understanding, unto the acknowledgement of the mystery of God the Father and of Christ Jesus: 3. in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4. Now this I say, that no man may deceive you by loftiness of words. 5. For though I be absent in body, yet in spirit I am with you: rejoicing and beholding your order, and the steadfastness of your faith which is in Christ. 6. As therefore you have received Jesus Christ the Lord, walk in Him, 7. rooted and built up in Him, and confirmed in the faith, as also you have learned, abounding in Him in thanksgiving. 8. Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ: 9. for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead corporeally: 10. and you are filled in Him, who is the head of all principality and power: 11. in whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand in the despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ: 12. buried with Him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who has raised Him up from the dead. 13. And you, when you were dead in your offenses and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has quickened together with Him, forgiving you all offenses: 14. blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us, and He has taken it out of the way, fastening it to the cross: 15. and despoiling the principalities and powers, He has exposed them confidently in open show, triumphing over them in Himself. 16. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths: 17. which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. 18. Let no man seduce you, willing in humility and the religion of angels, walking in things he has not seen, in vain puffed up by the sense of his flesh, 19. and not holding the Head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, grows unto the increase of God. 20. If then you are dead with Christ from the elements of this world: why do you yet decree as though living in the world? 21. Touch not, nor taste, nor handle: 22. which all are unto destruction by the very use, according to the precepts and doctrines of men: 23. which things have indeed a show of wisdom in superstition and humility, and not sparing the body; not in any honor to the filling of the flesh.
Verse 1: For I Would Have You Know What Manner of Solicitude I Have for You
1. For I would have you know what manner of solicitude I have for you. — The word "enim" (for) gives the reason why in the preceding chapter, last verse, he said he labored for the faithful ἀγωνιζόμενος, that is, contending in struggle: hence here again for "sollicitudinem" (solicitude), the Greek is ἀγῶνα (agōna, contest), as if he said: Therefore I recall and impress upon you my struggle, labor, and difficult contest, which I have undertaken for you and other faithful, that they may be comforted and your hearts may be strengthened in the faith and grace of Christ.
For you and for those who are at Laodicea, and whoever (as many others) have not seen my face in the flesh. — From this it sufficiently appears that Paul had neither been to nor preached at Colossae or Laodicea. So Chrysostom and Theophylact. Theodoret denies this, and following him Baronius, and they explain these words thus, as if Paul said: Not only for you, O Colossians, but also for those who have not seen me, do I bear the greatest care. But the Apostle seems to mean something else. For why would he here mention those who had not seen his face in the flesh, except because the Colossians and Laodiceans had not seen it? And this is signified by the Greek ὅσοι, which the Syriac renders as "the rest," or "whoever else," who like you have not seen my face. For as if I should say: Peter, Paul, and the other Apostles were celibate, I tacitly say not only that Peter and Paul were celibate, but also that they were Apostles; for this is implied by the word "others": so in like manner when Paul here says he is solicitous for the Colossians and Laodiceans, and others who have not seen his face, he tacitly signifies that the Colossians and Laodiceans had not seen his face. Add to this, in the Acts of the Apostles no mention is made of the Colossians, as is made of the Corinthians, Ephesians, Athenians, and others to whom Paul preached. Nor does that passage in Acts xix, 10, which Baronius cites, prove the point. For it reads thus: "He (Paul, while staying at Ephesus) separated the disciples, daily disputing in the school of a certain tyrant, and this was done for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Gentiles." Nor can you infer from this that, if all in Asia heard the word of God from Paul, therefore the Colossians and Laodiceans, who dwell in Asia, also heard it; for Luke did not say that Paul went to Colossae or Laodicea — indeed, he says the opposite: that Paul stayed at Ephesus and disputed there for two years in the school of the tyrant, so that all the Asians who either dwelt in or came to Ephesus as the metropolis of Asia could hear Paul disputing there: so much so that the rumor of Paul's disputing and preaching at Ephesus spread through all Asia.
Verse 2: That Their Hearts May Be Comforted, Instructed in Charity
2. That they may be comforted, — that is, may receive consolation: for the Greek παρακληθῶσι is passive.
Their hearts, instructed in charity, — that is, when they have been instructed; or, as others render from the Greek, "compacted in charity." For in Greek the more congruous syntax is αὐτῶν συμβιβασθέντων, that is, "of those instructed or compacted in charity." So Theophylact.
And unto all the riches of the fullness of understanding, unto the acknowledgement of the mystery of God the Father and of Christ Jesus. — Note first: By "riches" Paul signifies not wealth of gold and silver, but any abundance and copiousness either of grace, or of wisdom and understanding, of which he speaks here.
Secondly, for "fullness of understanding," the Greek is πληροφορίας (about which word I spoke at Romans xiv, 5) τῆς συνέσεως, that is, "of full persuasion of understanding," that is, of fully and certainly persuaded understanding, which excludes all doubt, says Theophylact. As if he said: Therefore I labor, am certain and solicitous for you, that you may be instructed both in charity and in riches, that is, in abundance of full persuasion, that is, of fully persuaded understanding of the mysteries of faith: namely, that in all the mysteries of faith which pertain to the acknowledgment of God the Father and of Christ Jesus, you may be instructed and fully persuaded and clearly understanding, doubting nothing about them; that you may be certainly persuaded that we have been redeemed and reconciled to God the Father not through angels, as the Simonians or other Innovators try to persuade you, but through Christ.
Verse 3: In Whom Are Hidden All the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge
3. In whom (namely Christ) are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. — Chrysostom notes that this is said against the Gnostics, who name themselves and boast from "knowledge." For "Gnostics" in Greek means "the knowing," as if he said: In Christ is all true wisdom, and from Him it must be sought, not from Simon, not from the Gnostics, not even from the angels of whom they boast. When the Apostle says "treasures," Theophylact (after Chrysostom) says, he shows the abundance of wisdom in Christ; when he says "all," he shows that nothing is hidden from Him; when he says "hidden," he indicates that He alone knows them, and from Him all knowledge and wisdom must be sought: for Christ is wisdom itself and knowledge by His own being.
Note: For "hidden," the Greek is ἀπόκρυφοι, which is not a participle but a noun, and means the same as "occult" and "secret": therefore "hidden" here signifies the same and is taken nominally.
Verse 4: That No Man May Deceive You by Loftiness of Words
4. This I say, that no man may deceive you in the loftiness of words. — For "deceive," the Greek is παραλογίζηται, that is, as Vatablus says, "imposes upon you by false reasonings and arguments." For a true and good syllogism is opposed in Aristotle by a paralogism, which from apparent but false premises concludes a falsehood; or from true premises elicits and deduces a falsehood through a vicious consequence.
Secondly, for "loftiness of words," the Greek is πιθανολογία, that is, "in persuasive speech," in the specious gloss of human reason, in artful and sophistical oration, which is contrived and composed in the appearance of probability for persuading and deceiving. So Theophylact. Our (translator) renders it "in loftiness of speech," because the Simonians, whom the Apostle here strikes at, used to boast of lofty things about heaven, about the mother of angels, about angels and matters and celestial aeons, by which they swept the simple into admiration and seduced them.
Such is the pithanology and painted speech of our Innovators, that by sweet discourses they seduce the hearts of the innocent. For if their reasonings were reduced by a sensible man to logical form and syllogistic shape, they would immediately appear to be nothing other than paralogisms; for example, when they argue thus: God alone is to be adored, therefore images and the Saints are not to be adored, that is, venerated; they paralogize. For they err by the ambiguity of the word "adorandus" (to be adored): in the antecedent, adoration properly so called is meant, which is of latria; in the consequent, however, improper adoration in the broadest sense, namely any pious cult and honor. So too: There is, they say, one mediator, Christ; therefore the Saints are not mediators, nor to be invoked. But they paralogize: for in the antecedent "mediator" means one in himself, or "redeemer"; in the consequent, "mediator" is the same as "intercessor" or "advocate." So with all the rest.
Verse 5: Though Absent in Body, Yet in Spirit I Am with You
Here the Apostle takes up the chief argument of the epistle, namely to refute the false dogmas of the heretics and Judaizers, and against them to strengthen the Colossians in the true faith of Christ.
5. Though I am absent in body, yet in spirit I am with you: rejoicing and beholding your order and the firmness of your faith, — as if he said: Although I am absent in body, yet with the spiritual eye and care I am with you, because in spirit and mind I often contemplate you, and I behold with joy your order (of which I have heard much).
Secondly, Ambrose and Anselm more properly take this of the prophetic spirit, as if through it Paul knew the absent things that were happening at Colossae, and saw them, in the same way that Elisha, like one bodily absent but spiritually present, saw Gehazi receiving gifts from Naaman: for if this was granted to Elisha, why not to Paul? For greater was the grace in the Apostles and Prophets of the New Testament than in the ancient Prophets, and a similar spirit is known to have been in St. Peter, when absent he recognized the deceit of Ananias and Sapphira, Acts v, 3. As if Paul said: Nothing of yours is hidden from me, O Colossians, for I am present with you in spirit; from afar as though near at hand I behold all your matters, and I inspect whatever you do, that you may be reverent in my sight and under my gaze, lest you act badly or think or speak ill concerning the Gospel, nor lend an ear to the innovating Simonians, nor display any inconstancy or doubt in the faith. This sense and opinion is not improbable, if you take the "spirit" not as permanent (for it is not likely this was in the Apostle), but as transient, by which from time to time, when need arose, Paul was caught up, that he might behold absent the state and order of his Churches. But the prior sense is both simpler and more certain.
Rejoicing and beholding your order. — By "order" Ambrose understands the disposition of conversation (manner of life). Following a middle path, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Oecumenius interpret τάξιν, that is "order," as εὐταξίαν, that is "good order," by which all things are done well and orderly according to the order prescribed by Paul or the Bishop. "For as," says Theophylact, "in the line of battle a good arrangement of order makes the phalanx firm; so also in the Church, when there is the good order of charity which arranges all things."
How great a good and benefit this order is, is evident in every republic; for no republic can stand without order; but in order to stand, it is necessary that the citizens be subordinate and obedient to the magistrate, and that each citizen keep his own rank and order: for if this order is disturbed, the republic is disturbed.
Secondly, the same is evident in the hierarchy of celestial spirits and angels, in which there is supreme order, which unites, stabilizes, preserves, and adorns with wondrous beauty the republic of angels.
Thirdly, it is evident in the orderly motion and position of the heavens, stars, elements, and all creatures, and of the whole universe: for if this order be disturbed, the whole universe is disturbed; for the order of the whole universe is its bond and salvation. "The disturbance of order," says Nazianzen in his oration On Moderation to be Observed in Disputation, "introduces into the air thunderbolts, into the earth conflagrations, into the sea floods, into cities and families wars, into bodies diseases, into souls sins as if devising new things," etc.
"You have arranged all things," says the Wise Man, Wisdom xi, 21, "in measure, and number, and weight," O Lord, creator of all! On this saying of the Wise Man, see St. Augustine, On Genesis according to the letter, book IV, chapters III, IV, V, vol. IV, and St. Thomas, Part I, Question V, article 5, where from St. Augustine he teaches that every thing, or every good, has first measure, which provides every thing with a certain mode from the determination of its efficient and material principles; secondly, has number, which gives each thing its species; thirdly, has weight, that is, order and inclination toward its acts and its end; which weight draws the thing itself to its rest and stability. Wishing to signify this, Plato in the Timaeus says the world was made through the cube of three, that is, through 27; for three multiplied into itself, that is, three times three, makes nine, and again three times nine makes 27, which is and is called the cube of three. Through this cube, then, namely through twenty-seven, Plato judged the world to have been made, because in this cube, namely 27, all harmony and consonance (of numbers) consists.
Therefore, because there are such great benefits to good order, hence the Apostle so often inculcates order, and wills that it be preserved in all things. Hence too St. Ignatius, who was nearest to the Apostles and imbued with their spirit and zeal, in his epistles so often and so earnestly commends and enjoins this order: as in his epistle to the Trallians: "He who is within the altar," he says, "is pure, and therefore he obeys the Bishop and the Presbyters: but he who is outside, that is, who does anything without Bishop and Presbyters and Deacons, such a one is of polluted conscience, and is worse than an unbeliever." And to the Smyrnaeans: "Let all things," he says, "in you be done in becoming order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the Deacons, the Deacons to the Presbyters, the Presbyters to the Bishop, the Bishop to Christ, as He is to the Father." The same things St. Ignatius repeats and inculcates in nearly every epistle.
Verse 6: As Therefore You Have Received Jesus Christ the Lord, Walk in Him
6. As therefore you have received Jesus Christ the Lord (as if he said: As you have received from Epaphras and Archippus the faith and doctrine of Jesus Christ, especially that by which you were taught that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Redeemer, and not the angels, so) walk in Him. — For Christ is the way which leads to the Father, not the angels, says Chrysostom. "In Him," therefore, that is, in His faith and institution, "walk." For "Christ" is taken for what is joined to Him, namely the faith, doctrine, and life of Christ, according to Canon 37. Paul wills that we follow the ancient faith handed down by Christ and the Apostles, and not listen to the Innovators.
Verse 7: Rooted and Built Up in Him, Abounding in Thanksgiving
7. Rooted and built up in Him. — These (words) depend on the preceding, "walk in Him," as if he said: So walk in the faith and institution of Christ, that you may have firm and fixed roots in it, and may be built up upon it. For the Greek ἐποικοδομούμενοι is not of past, but of present tense: hence it does not so much mean "built up" as "that you may be built up," or, as it were, that you may be repaired since you have somewhat collapsed. So Theophylact.
Note here a threefold metaphor and comparison. For first he compares Christ and the faith of Christ to a way in which one must walk; secondly, to a root in which we must be implanted and to which we must cleave; thirdly, to a foundation upon which we ought to be built. In a similar manner, Ephesians ii, 20, he said: "Built upon the foundation of the Apostles and the Prophets, with Jesus Christ Himself the chief cornerstone." And in chapter iii, 17: "Christ," he says, "to dwell by faith in your hearts, that being rooted and founded in charity."
Abounding in Him (namely in Christ, that is, in the faith, grace, charity, and other virtues of Christ) in (that is, with) thanksgiving, — for such great benefits of God, which He bestowed upon you through Christ. So Anselm.
Verse 8: Beware Lest Any Man Cheat You by Philosophy and Vain Deceit
8. Beware lest any man deceive you through philosophy. — He returns to verse 4, where he began to treat the principal argument and cause of the epistle, namely to dissuade the Colossians, first from the heresy of the Philosophers, and below from the sect of the Judaizers. "The Apostle," says Tertullian in his book On Prescription, chapter vii, and his book On the Soul, chapter iii, "had been at Athens, and there had experienced the talkative city; when he had tasted all the taverns of wisdom and eloquence there, from that he conceived this admonitory edict."
Note: For "deceive," the Greek is συλαγωγῶν, that is, "plunders." So the Syriac, Theophylact, Ambrose. Whence Hilary, in book XII On the Trinity, reads, "despoils." Therefore Paul calls the Simonians, and the Gnostics begotten from them, and other heretics, plunderers, just as Christ also does, John x, 8. And rightly. For if he is a plunderer who carries off and plunders the goods of fortune, much more is he a plunderer who carries off and plunders from us the true faith, grace, all the virtues, indeed Christ and God Himself; and who destroys not the body but the soul itself, and hands it over to the devil-plunderer and to eternal death to be devoured. This plundering, then, is a monstrous sacrilege: for just as those sacrilegious men who plunder temples are called in Greek ἱερόσυλοι, so also Paul here calls by the same name those who plunder through heresy souls made to the image of God and consecrated to God, and sell and consign them to the devil.
Through philosophy and vain deceit. — "And" here signifies "that is." So too it is taken for "that is" in Galatians vi, 16, and elsewhere, as I said there. As if he said: I do not condemn all philosophy (as Luther wrongly understood), but that which is vain deceit and gentile superstition. Hence he calls this philosophy in 1 Timothy, last chapter, verse 20, "knowledge falsely so called;" such as were those speculations about angels or certain intermediate gods and mediators, with which the books of the Platonists are filled. So Chrysostom and Augustine, book VIII On the City of God, chapters ix and xvi. Although Clement, book I Stromata, thinks that here only the philosophy of Epicurus is condemned, which removes providence and refers pleasure to the number of gods.
Secondly, Paul here strikes at Apollonius of Tyana and other Philosophers, who at this time, like the Apostles, were going around the world to draw the people away from Christ to themselves and their own dogmas, as I said at 1 Corinthians i, 20.
Thirdly, he reproves Simon Magus with his followers, who was the first heresiarch and the father of all Innovators.
Hence it is clear that Simon and the other Innovators of that time stitched together their dogmas like a patchwork from the figments of Plato and other Philosophers. Whence Tertullian, in his book On the Soul, chapter iii, calls the Philosophers the patriarchs of the heretics. The same author, in his book On Prescription, chapter vii: "Heresies," he says, "are suborned by philosophy. Thence the Aeons and certain unspecified forms, and the Trinity of man in Valentinus; he had been a Platonist. Thence Marcion's better God of tranquility had come from the Stoics. And that the soul is said to perish, is observed from the Epicureans. And that the resurrection of the flesh is denied, is taken from the one school of all the Philosophers. And where matter is equated with God, it is the discipline of Zeno. And where anything about a fiery God is alleged, Heraclitus intervenes: the same matters are turned over among the heretics, the same handlings are entangled."
More particularly and at length Irenaeus, in book II Against Heresies, chapter xix, recounts which dogmas the Valentinians and Gnostics borrowed from which Philosopher: "Thales the Milesian," he says, "called water the generation and beginning of all things (now to say 'water' and 'bythos,' that is, 'depth,' is the same — which the Valentinians establish among their Aeons). The poet Homer dogmatized that Ocean is the genesis of the gods and Thetis their mother, which these (heretics) transferred into Bythos and Sige. Anaximander posited as the beginning of all things that which is immense, holding seminally in itself the genesis of all things, from which he claims that immense worlds consist; and these (heretics) transfigured this into Bythos and the Aeons. Anaxagoras, who was also surnamed 'the Atheist,' dogmatized that animals were made from seeds falling from heaven to the earth, and from there they received the Aeon they called 'Sense' (Nous). So from the void of Democritus and Epicurus, and from the latter's atoms, they took their Pleroma." And below: "That the Maker fashioned the world from preexisting matter, both Anaxagoras, Empedocles, and Plato had said before these." Then he teaches that they got from the Stoic doctrine of fate the idea that they make God a servant of necessity. And after a little, he adds: "That they say the Savior was made out of all the Aeons, with all of them depositing in Him as it were their flower, they received from Hesiod's Pandora. The view that food and other actions are indifferent, and that they think they can in no way be defiled because of their high birth, no matter what they eat or do, they took from the Cynics, since they share the same testament with them. Their petty speech and subtlety about questions, although Aristotelian, they try to bring into the faith. That they wish to transfer the universe into numbers, they received from the Pythagoreans."
According to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ, — as if he said: This philosophy or vain deceit which I here condemn, has not been revealed or inspired by God (who is most truthful and Truth itself), but is fabricated and handed down by vain and erring men: and therefore it is vain, erring, mendacious, and deceitful.
Such are the axioms and principles of the ancient Philosophers which contradict our faith, for example: "Nothing comes from nothing"; "There is no return from privation to habit"; "The being of an accident is to be in (a subject)"; "The world is eternal"; "Things equal to one third are equal to each other"; "Every substance, especially the rational, subsists by itself." For these, with one exception, are true in natural things, but not in supernatural; otherwise, from the first the creation of things would be removed (as some have removed it); from the second, the miracles of Christ would be removed, by which He restored sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, walking to the lame; from the third, the truth of the body of Christ in the Eucharist would be removed; the fourth denies the origin of the world; from the fifth, the mystery of the Holy Trinity would be obliterated; from the sixth, the mystery of the Incarnation and of the hypostatic union would be enervated. Although properly the Apostle is not speaking of these, but of other principles and traditions of the Simonians, as I will soon say.
Secondly, this philosophy which I condemn is "according to the elements of the world," that is, according to the rudiments of vain philosophy concerning the production and government of the world, for example that of Plato and the Platonists, who taught that the angels founded the world and are mediators of men with God, that the heavens and stars are animate, and other such things: following whom, Simon Magus pretended that he was a certain god, and that he had first begotten Selene his wife, and that he called her, as it were, the first conception of his mind "Ennoia," asserting that she was the mother of all, and that she had made the angels, then the angels had made and produced the heavens and the world, and other similar fictions; concerning which see verses 18 and 20. So Irenaeus, book I, chapters xx and xxiii, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others here.
Hence it is clear that the Apostle, in Galatians chapter iv, verses 3 and 9, calls "elements of the world" in a different way and in a different sense than here: for there he calls "elements of the world" days, months, and years, which are as it were principles by which the world is created, subsists, and is governed; which the Jews accordingly held as festivals and venerated, as I said there: but here he calls "elements of the world" the principles of worldly wisdom and philosophy.
Thirdly, this philosophy and vain deceit which I condemn "is not according to Christ," that is, it has not been taught and handed down by Christ, nor does it even teach Christ, the redemption of Christ, His grace and faith; but it leads you away from Christ to the angels, the heavens, and the stars, about which, as I have said, it teaches its dreams and inventions. Hence it is clear that it is not true philosophy, but false philosophy, that is condemned by the Apostle; for the true cannot contradict the true, and so true philosophy serves and acts as handmaid to Christian piety.
Verse 9: For in Him Dwells All the Fullness of the Godhead Bodily
9. For in Him (Christ) dwells all the fullness of divinity corporeally. — Note: "For" gives the cause of the preceding, namely why he had said that philosophy and the Philosophers, who lead men away from Christ, must be avoided; and that the philosophy and wisdom which Christ brought from heaven and taught on earth must be followed; as if he said: I do not want you to follow philosophers, who are erring and lying men, because I want you to follow Christ, who is the first Truth: for in Christ dwells all the fullness of divinity corporeally.
Note secondly: For "dwells," the Greek is κατοικεῖ, which signifies not a temporary inhabitation, like παροικεῖ, but a perpetual one. For κατοικεῖ and παροικεῖ are distinguished in Greek, just as in Latin habitare (to dwell) and commorari (to sojourn). Thus Peter, epistle I, chapter i, verse 17, calls the present life παροικίαν, that is, a sojourning. For as Cicero says, "Nature has given us here a lodging for sojourning, not for dwelling." On the contrary, in Psalm lxxxvi, 7, when it is said: "As of all rejoicing, the dwelling is in You," for "dwelling" the Greek is κατοικία, that is, perpetual abode.
Note thirdly: "The fullness of divinity" is the same as "the full and whole divinity," which dwelt in Christ the man. So Ambrose, Theodoret, St. Thomas, Chrysostom with his followers. From this the Apostle leaves it to be consequently inferred that in Christ dwelt all the fullness of wisdom and truth: for divinity brings this and includes it in itself, and consequently Christ as the wisest teacher must be followed, not the Philosophers. Hence St. Augustine, in epistle 57 to Dardanus, and from him the Gloss here, interpret "the fullness of divinity" as the full knowledge of God, which is in Christ and the Gospel of Christ, not however in Moses and in the shadows of the Mosaic law. Erasmus considers this exposition so genuine that he excludes and refutes the prior one already given; but wrongly: for it is established that "the fullness of divinity" properly signifies the full divinity, not the knowledge of God, although, as I said, divinity brings the latter with itself.
Note fourthly: In Christ dwells "the fullness of divinity corporeally," that is, not as in shadow, as it dwelt in the propitiatory, the tabernacle, and the Sacraments of the old law; nor even phantastically, as the Manichaeans wished; nor finally only accidentally, namely through motion and operation, as Nestorius taught; but "corporeally," that is, truly, really, and substantially. This sense is drawn from verse 17, for there he opposes "body" to "shadow." So Prosper, sentence 393, and Augustine, epistle 57 to Dardanus. In a similar sense, verse 17, he calls "the body of Christ" the truth and solidity of Christian realities, represented through the shadows of the law.
Secondly, "corporeally," because in Christ the divine nature is united not only to the soul, but also to the body of Christ; so that from the divine Word and the corporeal human nature, one ineffable corporeal substance is, as it were, composed, which is and is called Christ, or the God-man. Thus the soul can be said to dwell corporeally in man or in the human body. So St. Augustine above, Theodoret, Theophylact, St. Thomas, Part III, Question II, article 9, reply 2. Hence then collapses the argument of Nestorius, who says: if God dwells in Christ, then in Christ there are two hypostases, namely one of God indwelling, the other of the body indwelt: for this does not follow. For in Christ the matter stands as in man, in whom although the soul inhabits the body, yet it has not two but one and the same hypostasis with it: for "inhabits" only signifies that the deity is not mixed nor confused with the body it inhabits, but remains entire and unmingled.
Thirdly, St. Thomas in the place already cited: "corporeally," he says, means in three ways according to the three dimensions of a body. For just as a body has three dimensions, namely length, breadth, and thickness: so in three modes, as it were dimensions, the whole divinity is in Christ, namely first by essence, presence, and power, as it is in other men and creatures. In the second mode by sanctifying grace, as it is in all the other Saints. Thus God and divinity, says Remigius, dwelt in Solomon through wisdom, in Daniel through chastity, in Moses through meekness, in Christ through every virtue and innocence. In the third and most proper mode divinity dwelt in Christ through the hypostatic, or personal, union; and this is proper to Christ alone. But the two former expositions are literal and genuine, this third seems rather to be a certain metaphorical accommodation.
Verse 10: And You Are Filled in Him, Who Is the Head of All Principality and Power
10. And you are in Him (Christ) filled, who is the head of all principality and power, — that is, Christ inhabits you with His fullness of divinity, in the way I said a little earlier from Remigius, namely so that He may fill you with faith, hope, charity, and all His virtues and graces. So Ambrose and Theodoret. "Christ," I say, who is the head of all principality and power; and of all other angels whatsoever, as if he said: Therefore cleave not to the angels which Simon brings forward, but to Christ, as you have begun. Christ is the head both of you and of the angels; therefore join yourselves to Christ the Head as inseparable members, and do not allow yourselves to be torn away from Christ by any reason, that you may constantly and assiduously say: Christ is my head, my hope, my love, and my all. How Christ is the head of the angels, I have already said at Ephesians chapter i, verses 10 and 22.
Verse 11: In Whom Also You Are Circumcised with a Circumcision Not Made by Hand
11. In whom also you have been circumcised with a circumcision not made by hand in the despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ, 12. buried with Him in baptism. — Thus read the Roman Bibles and Theodoret. The Greek, however, the Syriac, Theophylact, and others delete the little word "sed" (but). According to the Roman (text) and Theodoret, there is an antithesis between the circumcision of the flesh given through Moses and the circumcision of the soul instituted by Christ; for the adversative conjunction "sed" signifies this antithesis, and the meaning is: You, O Christian Colossians, have been circumcised with a circumcision not Jewish, which is done by hands and consists in the despoiling of the fleshly body, because, namely, the foreskin is cut off from the fleshly body; but you have been circumcised in the circumcision, that is, with the circumcision (for it is the Hebrew "bet" of contact) of Christ, which circumcises not the body but the soul from sins. If you ask where and when you have been so circumcised by Christ? I answer: in baptism, namely in that very (act) by which you were buried with Christ in baptism: for in baptism not only are all sins circumcised, but they are buried and overwhelmed and absorbed by the expiatory waters. The same metaphor of burial the Apostle ascribes to baptism, Romans vi, 4, as I said there.
Note: He calls a fleshly body "the body of the flesh": for, as St. Augustine says, book XIV On the Trinity, there are many bodies devoid of flesh: such as the heavens, the elements, rocks, etc. Unless you say there is a hypallage and metathesis, by which "body of the flesh" is said for "flesh of the body"; so that you would read and arrange these (words) thus, "in the despoiling of the flesh of the body," and the meaning would be, in the despoiling and cutting away of the fleshly part, namely the foreskin, from the body. So the Hebrews call "the desert of the peoples," not "the desert through the peoples," but rather "the desert from the peoples"; and "the resurrection of the dead," that is, "from the dead." Therefore the Apostle posits an antithesis between the circumcision of Moses and of Christ, in that the former cut away only the flesh, which is the instrument of sin, namely the worthless skin of the foreskin: but the circumcision of Christ cuts away the sins themselves from the soul.
On the Greek reading: Hence the Greek adds the word "of sins": for they have ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει τοῦ σώματος ἁμαρτιῶν τῆς σαρκός, that is, "in the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh." Here note: "The body of the sins of the flesh" is called the body subject to carnal sins. Now according to the Greek and the Syriac, this sense will be: You have been circumcised through Christ with a circumcision not made by hand, in the stripping off of the body of the sins of the flesh; because, namely, your body through the baptism of Christ has been circumcised from carnal sins, and stripped of them, so that it may no longer be a body of sin: for through baptism you have put off the body of sin, and put on the body of grace and justice; and so in reality "to circumcise" is the same as "to put off" or "to strip off" the body of sin. So Theophylact and the Greeks. But the prior reading by antithesis is plainer and truer.
For here the Apostle undertakes to censure the Judaizers and to draw the Colossians away from circumcision and Judaism, just as in verse 8 he drew them away from the philosophers and their dogmas to Christ.
Verse 12: Buried with Him in Baptism, Risen Again Through the Faith of the Operation of God
12. In whom (namely Christ) you have also risen (into a new life, new manners, a new spirit, which you received in baptism) through the faith of the operation (in Greek ἐνεργείας, that is, efficacy, or efficacious operation) of God, who raised Him (Christ) from the dead, — as if to say: You rose in baptism into a new life through the faith by which you believed in God's power and the efficacy of divine grace, by which through Christ He works this spiritual resurrection in believers, just as by the same power He worked the corporeal resurrection in Christ, when He raised Him from death.
That this is the sense is plain from Eph. 1, 19, to which the Apostle here alludes (for this epistle is most like and almost a compendium of the epistle to the Ephesians), where he says thus: "That you may know what is the hope of His calling (that is, to how great goods you have been called, how much grace here and glory in the resurrection you ought to hope for) and what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us, who believe (which here he says, through faith) according to the operation (in Greek it is ἐνεργείας, namely the same word as here) of the might of His power, which He worked in Christ, raising Him from the dead," as if to say: With the same energy and power God raises us believers from the death of sin to the life of grace, by which He raised Christ from death to immortal and glorious life; which here he says briefly, "through the faith of the operation of God, who raised Him from the dead;" leaving those things to be supplied which he supplied when writing to the Ephesians, namely those which I have already cited. So Ambrose and St. Thomas.
Secondly, Adam most probably interprets "faith of operation" as a faith not idle, nor sluggish, but active and operative of good works, which makes a man busy and diligent in good works.
Thirdly, others interpret "the faith of the operation of God" as the faith which God works in us. But the first sense most fits the style of Paul and of the epistle to the Ephesians.
Verse 13: And You, When You Were Dead in Offenses, He Has Quickened Together with Him
13. And you, when you were dead (deprived of the life of grace) in offenses and the uncircumcision (through offenses and the uncircumcision) of your flesh, He quickened together with Him (so that, as Christ by the power of God rose from the dead to a glorious life, so you by the same virtue and power may have been raised by God from the death of sin to the life of grace and of the Spirit) forgiving (pardoning, and freely remitting, for this is the Greek χαρισάμενος) you all offenses. — Note: He calls "the uncircumcision of the flesh" the lusts and carnal sins which are committed through the uncircumcision, so that it is a metonymy and synecdoche, by which from the most notorious species of sins the rest are understood: so some hold. But this sense is too narrow, for it restricts uncircumcision to lust, whereas the Apostle by uncircumcision signifies any sin whatever.
Hence secondly, others by "the uncircumcision of the flesh" understand gentilism and the customs of gentilism, and the manner of life in fulfilling the lusts of the flesh. For so elsewhere, in the manner of the Jews, he frequently calls gentilism and the Gentiles "uncircumcision," because in the manner of the Jews they did not circumcise it. This sense is apt, but does not exhaust the Apostle's mind and the depth of his meaning.
Hence I say thirdly, the Apostle by "the uncircumcision of the flesh" understands the uncircumcision of the flesh, namely whereby a man does not cut off, does not circumcise the desires and lusts of the flesh, but readily follows them, and obeys and indulges them.
Here note: The Jews by circumcision considered themselves made clean, holy, and a people of God. Hence they regarded the uncircumcised gentiles as unclean, polluted, and wicked. From this, proverbially, they called "uncircumcised" or "foreskin" whatever was unclean in any respect. So the Prophets often reproach the Jews, that they have an uncircumcised heart, uncircumcised ears, tongue, eyes, etc., that is, that they have their heart, ears, tongue, and eyes obstructed and hardened by unclean vices and lusts.
An illustrious example of this matter and signification also stands forth in Lev. xix, 23, where it is said thus: "When you have entered the land and planted in it fruit-bearing trees, you shall remove their foreskins: the fruits that they produce shall be unclean (in Hebrew ערלים arelim, that is, foreskinned and uncircumcised) to you, nor shall you eat of them; but in the fourth year all their fruit shall be sanctified, praiseworthy to the Lord (that is, it shall be offered to the Lord, that it may yield to the praise of the Lord: hence in Hebrew it is, A holiness of praises shall be to the Lord); but in the fifth year you shall eat the fruits, gathering the produce which they bring forth."
Here note, the fruits which in the first three years are born from the tree are called "foreskins," because by this law of Moses they were considered unclean and forbidden to the Jews. For just as a boy was unclean until by circumcision the foreskin was removed from him and cast away: so also trees were considered unclean, so that it was not lawful for the Jews to eat their fruit, until the fruits of the first three years were circumcised, that is, plucked off and cast away; so that the fruits of the fourth year were offered to God, and then at last it was lawful to feed on the fruits of the fifth year. God willed by this ceremony to be honored by the Jews with the circumcision of trees, just as with the circumcision of boys: yet fittingly and aptly to the nature of things; for the first fruits of the trees are more watery, more unhealthy and indigestible than the later ones, as Abulensis there rightly noted. Therefore, just as there Scripture calls the uncleanness of the fruits the foreskin of the fruits, so here it calls the uncleanness of the flesh and of carnal sins "the uncircumcision of the flesh."
Here again notice: By "flesh" he understands any concupiscence whatever, even one residing in the will, reason, and mind, such as the desire for honors, vain knowledge, curiosity, heresy, envy, ambition, etc., as I said in Gal. ch. v, ver. 19.
Verse 14: Blotting Out the Handwriting of the Decree That Was Against Us, Fastening It to the Cross
14. Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us. — You ask, what is this "handwriting of the decree?"
First, Theodoret answers that it is our body, in which were fixed and as it were inscribed the debts, that is, the sins of the flesh, which Christ on the cross simply blotted out.
Second, others in Theodoret answer that it is the Decalogue accusing us in the decrees (for so the Greek has, not "of the decree") which it contains and commands. Whence Vatablus: "He calls the law or the Decalogue 'a handwriting,'" he says, "because it was written by the finger of God, or because it bears witness against us, and condemns us, just as a handwriting (a bond) condemns a debtor before the judge." Hence Sixtus of Siena, bk. II, p. 89, thinks the "handwriting of the decree" to be those words of the Israelites in Exodus xxiv: "All that the Lord has spoken, we will do." For this common acclamation of theirs made them, as it were by a written contract, debtors of the whole law to be observed. And Maldonatus in his manuscript Notes says: "decrees," or as the Greek has it, "dogmas," he calls the Evangelical law, which is as it were the receipt of the penalty for sins paid by Christ; while "handwriting" he calls the old law, which testified that all gentiles were under the death penalty: for it had concluded all under sin. He alludes to the two written contracts which debtors and creditors are accustomed to use, one of the debt owed, the other of the debt paid: and he teaches that, just as a writ of debt is abolished and torn up by the writ of payment, so by the Evangelical law the Mosaic law was abolished: see Eph. II, 15.
Here note, the Syriac, Ambrose, Adam, and several others read with the Greeks not "of the decree," but "by the decrees," or "by the commandments," and so explain it, as if Paul were saying: that Christ through the Evangelical decrees and precepts blotted out the handwriting, that is, the law of Moses, which made us guilty before God, so that it is the same as what Paul said in Eph. II, 15: "Making void the law of commandments (of Moses) by decrees (of the Gospel)," as if to say: Christ through faith and the law of faith abrogated the law of Moses.
But the Roman Bible and other Latin versions everywhere read "of the decree," not "by the decrees," and that fits better; for if you read "by the decrees," and understand the decrees or precepts of the Gospel which abolished the handwriting, that is, the law of Moses, the Apostle's discourse will be broken and disjointed: for the τὸ "by the decrees" is interjected and tears the handwriting from its following epithet, "which was contrary to us."
Third, Anselm holds this "Handwriting" to be our memory and that of the demons accusing us of our sins.
Fourth, better, Chrysostom and Theophylact hold it to be God's pact with Adam and this law given to Adam by God: "In whatever day you eat of it (the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil) you shall die the death:" for by this, as it were by a handwriting, we were held bound by the debt of death.
Fifth, St. Thomas thinks it is the memory of God reserving sins, in which the sin of Judah, says Jeremiah xvii, 1, is written with an iron stylus on a diamond nail. "And it is called 'of the Decree,'" says St. Thomas, "because sin remains not only in memory, but also in God's decree, by which He decreed to punish it; but when God remits it, He does not remit it in such a way as to make it as though you had not sinned; but so as to blot out the sin committed, as it were from His memory and decree, in which He reserved it for vengeance and punishment, and at the same time He brings it about that the sin does not remain in the demon's memory for accusation, nor in the sinner's conscience to grieve him": thus far St. Thomas.
Sixth, Ambrose holds this "handwriting" to be the sin and debt of Adam transmitted to us by propagation.
Seventh and best, "the handwriting of the decree" is the obligation to eternal punishment according to the decree of God and the sentence of condemnation pronounced upon Adam and his posterity who sin. For in Greek it is ἐν δόγμασιν, that is, in the decrees of God: for to this obligation and to eternal punishment we have, by sinning of our own accord, as it were subscribed with our own hand, and have bound ourselves to the devil as to an avenger by this obligation. He alludes to the bonds of creditors and debtors, by which metonymically he takes the debt itself, which the bonds usually contain. Therefore this handwriting is nothing other than the obligation, the guilt, and the debt of eternal punishment, so certain and liquid, as if it stood signed by our handwriting and our own hand. "Every man," says Origen, hom. 13 on Genesis, "while he sins, writes the letters of his sin." So Augustine on Ps. LXVIII, St. Thomas, Gagneius, and others. Hence the Syriac translates: He blotted out by the commandments to Himself (that is, by His own, or those of His) the handwriting of our obligations, which was contrary to us. Therefore the sense given in the seventh place is best, and best explains both the Greek and the Latin reading. To which add that the Greek dative δόγμασι, that is, "by decrees," can conveniently be expounded by the genitive "of decrees." For so the Hebrews often use the dative for the genitive, as מזמור לדוד mitsmor ledavid, that is, "a psalm to David himself," that is, a psalm of David. So in II Cor. ch. xii, ver. 7, Paul says ἐδόθη μοι σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί, that is, "a goad was given to me to the flesh," that is, of the flesh. So Cato in his books On Country Matters says "Ornamenta bobus" (ornaments to oxen) for "ornamenta boum" (ornaments of oxen), and "Instrumenta rusticis" (tools to the rustics) for "instrumenta rusticorum" (tools of the rustics): so here "the handwriting by decrees" is "the handwriting of decrees," namely the obligation to death and eternal punishment, or the sentence of condemnation pronounced upon sinners by God through His decrees and precepts.
And it (the handwriting or obligation just spoken of) He took out of the midst (that is, removed) fastening it to the cross, — as if to say: He pierced through this handwriting, and crucified it, that is, He cancelled it and abolished it by His cross and death, Christ dying on the cross. So Theodoret: He alludes to the bonds; which, when the debt has been paid, since they are no longer of any worth, are torn up, or pierced and fastened to the stylus or hook. So Spartianus narrates in his Hadrian, that Hadrian, to gather the favor of the people, remitted to private debtors an infinite sum (it was twenty-seven millions of gold pieces) of money that was owed to the treasury, and burned their bonds in the Forum of Trajan. Far more was remitted and abolished by Christ.
Verse 15: Despoiling the Principalities and Powers, Triumphing Over Them in Himself
15. And despoiling the principalities and powers (that is, despoiling the demons of their power, dominion, and tyranny over men who had been bound and subjected to them by this handwriting of sin), He led them publicly with confidence, triumphing over them in Himself. — Note the word "led," which Anselm thus explains: Christ, he says, led the souls of the Saints from the lower regions to heaven; but in Greek it is ἐδειγμάτισεν, that is, He led and led around in triumph, as conquerors are accustomed to lead enemies and spoil around in triumph, to display and exhibit them as a spectacle to all. So Christ, as a triumpher, led His enemies, namely the demons, with the power they had over men who had been cast down and conquered by Him, in triumph, and displayed them to God and the angels, as Ambrose translates. Devoutly St. Bernard, epist. 190 to Pope Innocent, citing this passage of the Apostle: "Would that," he says, "I might be found among these spoils with which the contrary powers were despoiled, led myself also into the Lord's possession! If Laban pursuing me reproaches me that I withdrew secretly from him, he shall hear that I came secretly to Him and on this account secretly withdrew." By Laban he means the devil, hence he adds: "A more secret cause of sin subjected me to him, a more hidden reason of justice withdrew me from him." Theodoret adds: Christ, he says, by His victory and triumph showed men how feeble the demons are, and how easily they can be conquered with His help. Whence Augustine, epist. 59, translates the Greek word ἐδειγμάτισεν as "He made an example," that is, He set forth a public example for all to behold and beware, so that all may learn by this example not to resist Christ, but to subject themselves to Christ and obey Him: but the Syriac translates ובהת אנון vabehet enun, that is, "and He confounded them." So in Num. xxv, 4, the Lord says to Moses: "Take all the leaders and hang them up against the sun on gibbets." Where for "hang them" the Septuagint translate παραδειγμάτισον, that is, set forth the leaders as an example: namely so that, with those who were participants or leaders in the fornication and idolatry of Baal-peor having been hanged, all the rest may fear and beware.
Secondly, for "with confidence publicly," the Greek has only ἐν παρρησίᾳ, that is, freely, confidently, boldly, and openly. Whence Ambrose translates "in authority." Maldonatus thinks that the "openly" was added by some sciolist wanting to correct the version, since it is not in the Greek; but all the codices have the "openly." I say therefore that the "openly" is included in the "triumphing": for a triumph is held openly and publicly. Indeed, Beza translates ἐν παρρησίᾳ as "He led publicly": for ἐν παρρησίᾳ means freely, intrepidly, openly, publicly, fearing no one.
Thirdly, "triumphing over them," that is, conducting a triumph over them; or "them," namely the demons, leading in triumph.
In Himself, — that is, through Himself; through His own power and victory, gained not from the angels, but by Himself and His own strength.
Note: For "in himself," the Greek is ἐν αὐτῷ. Which with the rough breathing is the same as ἐν ἑαυτῷ, that is, "in himself," as Our [Vulgate translator], the Syriac, and others render it: but with the smooth breathing it means "in him," and then it can be referred to σταυρῷ, that is, "the cross," which preceded; for σταυρός, that is, cross, in Greek is of the masculine gender, as if to say: On the cross itself Christ triumphed over His enemies, so that the cross was the triumphal chariot of Christ. So Theophylact. Whence Origen in homily 8 on Joshua teaches that on Christ's cross the devil was crucified, so namely that on Christ's cross two were affixed, namely Christ visibly, of His own will, and for a time; but the devil invisibly, against his will, and to his eternal disgrace. And he proves this from this passage of the Apostle, where Paul uses the metaphor of triumph, intending to indicate that the cross is the triumphal chariot, on the highest part of which Christ sits triumphing, and on the lowest part the devil is dragged bound, and is displayed as if in pomp. For this is what the Greek ἐδειγμάτισεν and θριαμβεύσας signify. For Origen, explaining that passage in Joshua ch. viii, 29, where Joshua is said to have hung the king of Ai upon a tree (for which Origen reads "upon a twin tree"), allegorically philosophizes thus about the cross of Christ: "The cross of our Lord Jesus Christ was twofold, that is, it consists in a twofold reason and a double character. For visibly indeed the Son of God was crucified in the flesh, but invisibly on that cross the devil with his principalities and powers was affixed to the cross. Will this not seem true to you, if I bring forward as witness of these things the Apostle Paul? 'What was contrary to us, He took out of the midst, fastening it to His cross, despoiling the principalities and powers He led them freely, triumphing over them on the wood of the cross.' Therefore there is a twofold reason for the Lord's cross, one that by which Peter says that Christ crucified left us an example; and this second, by which that cross was the trophy of the devil, on which he was both crucified and triumphed over." Then he proves and declares the same thing through another statement of Paul, saying thus: "Therefore Paul also said: But far be it from me to glory, save in the cross of my Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. You see that here too Paul has set forth a twofold reason for the cross. For he says that two things contrary to each other have been crucified, himself a holy man and the sinful world after that form, no doubt, which we have spoken of, of Christ and the devil. For we are crucified to the world then, when the prince of this world coming finds nothing in us; and the world is crucified to us, when we do not receive the desires of sin." Then Origen objects to himself: if the devil has been crucified, how do we see him prevailing over so many of the faithful? And he answers: "It must be understood," he says, "that the devil has indeed been conquered and crucified, but for those who have been crucified with Christ; but for all believers and all peoples alike he will be crucified then, when that shall be fulfilled which the Apostle says: That as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive."
Verse 16: Let No Man Therefore Judge You in Meat or in Drink
16. Let no man therefore judge you, — that is, rebuke, or condemn; for so by metalepsis κρίνομαι is put for κατακρίνομαι, that is, "to judge" for "by judging to condemn."
In meat, or in drink, — that is, in the choice of and abstinence from foods and drinks prescribed for the Jews in Lev. xi.
Verse 17: Which Are a Shadow of Things to Come, But the Body Is of Christ
17. Or in the part of a feast day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths: which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. — Note with St. Augustine, epist. 59, that the illative conjunction "therefore" signifies that these things are inferred from the preceding. For he had said in verses 6 and following, that our faith and conduct ought to be in Christ alone, in whom, as he says in verse 11, "we have been circumcised with a circumcision not made by hand," in baptism. Hence now he infers that the Judaizers are not to be heard, who taught that Christians must observe the choice of foods and the feast days prescribed by the old law, and consequently the other ceremonies of the old law (for he understands all these by synecdoche from one or another species of foods and feasts).
For that the matter is of Jewish fasts and feasts, not of Christian (which the Innovators twist this passage to apply to), is plain first from the words "new moon" and "sabbaths"; for these are Jewish feasts, not Christian. Second, from what he adds: "Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ," as if to say: I speak of the old feasts, which were a shadow of the feasts of Christ. Third, this is plain from the scope of the whole epistle, which is to act against the Simonians and Judaizers. Fourth, so the Fathers everywhere explain it: Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Theodoret, Ambrose, Anselm, and Augustine, epist. 59 to Paulinus.
Note: The Apostle does not say "on the feast day," but "in the part of the feast day," either because the Judaizers wanted not only the feast day but also each of its parts to be observed; or rather "in the part," that is, as the Syriac translates, "in the divisions of the feasts"; because, as Chrysostom explains, the Judaizers taught that certain Jewish feasts were to be kept, and neglected others, either by their own choice and fancy, as if to say (the Apostle disparaging the feasts of the Judaizers): In vain and without reason do they divide up the abolished feasts of the Jews, so as to keep some and not keep others; or, as Theodoret and Chrysostom say, because those who were at Colossae and elsewhere were far from Jerusalem and the temple, and consequently could not celebrate the Passover and several other feasts. For this is the reason why the Jews even now do not celebrate the Passover or Pentecost by the sacrifice of the lamb and the other things which the law commands to be sacrificed on those days, because the same law commands those things to be sacrificed nowhere else than in the temple at Jerusalem, which they now lack.
Thirdly, the "in the part of the feast day" could be taken more simply, as if to say: Let no one judge you in this part, on this point, in this matter, or in what pertains and looks to the feast day: for so we commonly speak, "In this part," that is, on this fact or point no one can blame me. And so Paul often speaks, as in II Cor. iii, 10: "Which was made glorious in this part." And ch. ix, 3: "That what we glory of concerning you may not be made void in this part." And ch. xi, 21: "As though we had been weak in this part," that is, on this point, in this matter.
Origen gives a tropological explanation, in homily 23 on Numbers, namely that Paul says "in the part of the feast day," because in this life only a part of the feast, but in heaven, where joy is full, the whole feast is celebrated. "In this life," he says, "we are interrupted even though we do not wish it, by the burden of the flesh, we are assailed by its concupiscences and by the cares and anxieties of darkness: that which is perfect shall come, and to the perfect festivity that festivity which is in part shall yield."
Note secondly: The Apostle calls "feast days" the annual solemnities themselves, namely of Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles, and thus they are distinguished from the new moon and the sabbath, which were common feasts, recurring and ordinary in every month and week.
Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ, — as if to say: A shadow is a likeness of a body; so those old observances of foods and feasts were the likeness and type of the things to come through Christ. For he opposes shadow to body, the law to the Gospel, Moses to Christ. Again, in the word "body" there is a catachresis: for here "body" is the same as the truth and solidity of that old shadow, which is of Christ, and brought into the world through Christ, as if to say: We possess the true and solid thing itself, foreshadowed by the old feasts, in Christ; therefore let the Jewish shadows of the feasts cease, the truth being now present. In a similar sense he said in verse 9 that in Christ dwells the fullness of divinity "bodily."
Oecumenius notes that some punctuate this differently, namely so that those words "but the body is of Christ" refer to what follows, "let no one seduce you." So Augustine reads and understands it, epist. 59, as if to say: Let no one seduce you, O faithful, who are the body of Christ. But the prior reading is truer and more common.
Verse 18: Let No Man Seduce You, Willing in Humility and the Religion of Angels
18. Let no man seduce you. — Here is a new period, says Chrysostom, for just as in the beginning of the chapter generally, in verse 8, he attacked the philosophers; but in verse 11, the Judaizers: so here specifically, in verse 16, he attacked the feasts and abstinences of the Judaizers; but in this verse 18, he attacks the error and superstition of the philosophizers in worshipping the angels.
Note: For "seduce," the Greek is καταβραβευέτω, which first, the Syriac translates: let no one make you guilty, or seek to have you condemned; and Photius expounds καταβραβευέτω as κατακρινέτω, that is, "let him condemn." For so Demosthenes calls καταβραβεύειν the prosecutor who carries the case against the accused and seeks and presses for his condemnation. Second, Valla and Lefèvre translate: let no one summon you to contest by setting a prize before you, let no one display the prize to you. Third, Oecumenius says: καταβραβεύειν is said whenever the victory is with one and the prize with another. Whence St. Jerome to Algasia, Question X, translates: "Let no one receive the prize against you." For when someone, placed in a contest, through the iniquity of the umpire or the snares of the trainers, loses the prize and the palm due to him, he is said καταβραβεύεσθαι. Fourth, Ambrose translates: "let no one defeat you." Fifth, Augustine, epist. 59: "let no one convict you."
But note: Just as βραβεύω means "I give the prize, I bestow the reward of the contest and victory" — for from this the brabeuta is named, who in the contest was the judge of those competing, so as to award the prize to the victor: so καταβραβεύειν means to deprive and defraud someone of the prize due, to circumvent someone in his receiving of the prize, and, as Our [Vulgate] translates, to seduce (for the preposition κατά conveys what is contrary and opposed to the verb βραβεύω); and it applies not only to the umpire, but also to the antagonists, as in Virgil Nisus, running in the stadium, intercepts for Salius the prize that Euryalus would obtain: just as the Pharisees are said neither to enter heaven, nor to allow others to enter, as if Paul were saying: Let no one set himself against your prize, let no one intercept or divert your prize and reward, let no one render you unworthy of the crown prepared for you, says Vatablus, and, as Chrysostom with his followers, let no one defraud you of your prize, as if to say: You have been called to the prize of heavenly glory, you must run forward to it, and you have begun to run to it through the faith and religion of Christ; see that the Innovators do not turn you away from this course and prize through the faith and superstition of angels which they are introducing.
Finally, after long thinking about this passage, a new sense has occurred to me, hitherto unheard, but which perhaps will seem to the reader more natural and genuine, namely that καταβραβευέτω is the same as "let him hold dominion against you, insult you, rule you imperiously"; for βραβεύειν, as Budaeus testifies, properly means to rule, to dominate, to command: but κατὰ is the same as "against," so that καταβραβεύειν is the same as what the French say braver (which seems derived from the Greek βραβεύειν) contre quelqu'un: as petulant youths are said to braver la garde, ou contre la garde, when armed they insult, command, and dominate the city's guards and watchmen. The Apostle sufficiently indicates that such were these Innovators introducing the religion of the angels, when he adds that they were doing so willingly, boasting their visions, and being puffed up by the sense of their own flesh; for this is properly braver and faire le brave: for pride is the mother of heresy, and the heretics, puffed up, wish βραβεύειν over the Catholics, that is, to insult and dominate. Add that just as he said of the Judaizers in verse 16: "Let no one judge you," that is, as if a judge presiding over you, judging and condemning you; so of the Angelic heretics he here says: "Let no one καταβραβευέτω you," that is, let no one rule you as a brabeuta, judge you, dominate you imperiously; so that to judge and as it were to preside as judge is almost the same as καταβραβεύειν: for both heretics and Judaizers wished to pass judgment, to judge, and as it were to preside as judges concerning Christian matters, Christ, and the articles of faith. For this is the critical genius of heretics, that they wish to be censors of all, judges, and as it were lords. This seems to be what St. Jerome wishes in the cited place, where he teaches that καταβραβεύειν is a word proper to the Cilicians: for Paul was a Cilician; and so he here translates it: "Let no one overcome you," as if to say: These Innovators are proud, swollen, and, as the French say, font la brave, and they wish by their own wisdom to teach all, and to prevail over and dominate all; finally they wish to be brabeutae, and as it were to preside as brabeutae over the contest of the Christians, and to prescribe for them new laws and religions. Act therefore, O Colossians, reject their arrogance, do not allow them to grow insolent against you, nor permit them to βραβεύειν, that is, to dominate and command over you, indeed over Christ Himself and the Church. So βραβεύειν is taken in the next chapter, verse 15, as I shall say there. Nor is it an obstacle that κατά, when it means "against," demands the genitive, but here has the accusative ὑμᾶς; for he says μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω, since that accusative ὑμᾶς does not correspond to the preposition κατά, but to the verb βραβεύειν, which governs both the accusative and the dative. For so Plutarch says βραβεύειν ἅμιλλαν, that is, to govern a contest, and βραβεύειν δίκην, that is, to moderate a judgment, to preside in court.
From this sense our Interpreter does not dissent, who translates "let no one seduce you": where to seduce means not so much to deceive, as to lead aside, as if to say: Let no one lead you away from Christ and the Church apart after himself, let no one subject you to himself, so that as a new teacher and hierarch he may draw you to his sect and worship of angels, and so dominate you as his disciples and catechumens, like a brabeuta. For thus all heresiarchs have seduced those whom, by their smooth talk, hypocrisy, and ostentation, they drew after them from the Church and led away as disciples.
Willing. — Θέλων, that is, with zeal, of set purpose, or by design, says Erasmus; so that the Colossians might understand that these Innovators were maliciously laying snares for them.
Second, St. Augustine, epist. 59, refers the "willing" to the "in humility," as if to say: Willing to appear humble, an affecter of humility: for so Epiphanius, in the heresy of the Dositheans, calls ἐθελόσοφον one who affects empty wisdom; so the Greeks call ἐθελοδούλους the servants who affect the compliance of masters. Indeed the Africans, says Augustine, mixing a Greek word with Latin call ἐθελοδίτεμ ("would-be-rich") him who affects riches; ἐθελοσαπιεντεμ ("would-be-wise") him who affects wisdom. Coming to this, Ambrose: Paul signifies, he says, that these (Innovators) wished by zeal through humility to cast down the minds of men, that they should not raise themselves to heavenly things.
Third, others would have θέλων to be the same as εὐδοκῶν, that is, self-pleased in the religion of angels.
Fourth and best: "willing," that is, voluntary, willing to dominate by himself, and doing and commanding this of his own accord. Here note: "Willing," first, is referred to καταβραβευέτω, as if to say: These Innovators are imperious, of their own will they wish to βραβεύειν, and to dominate you; do not allow it; secondly, the "willing" can be referred to "walking," as if to say: Willing to walk, or willingly walking in this false religion of angels: so that it is both a Graecism and a Hebraism; and thus "willing" is the same as αἱρετικός, that is, one choosing, who of his own accord, willingly and by his own choice, either forges or follows new dogmas, against the true and received faith.
In humility. — The Greek ταπεινοφροσύνῃ signifies submission and humility of mind, as Ambrose translates; consequently however it signifies the outward modesty and humility of words, manners, and gestures. Whence Augustine, epist. 59, thinks here is noted the feigned modesty of the pseudo-apostles: but it seems truer that the word "humility" pertains to the same matter as the word "religion," namely that it must be referred to the genitive "of angels," which serves both.
For these Innovators seem to have prescribed to their followers acts of humility as well as of religion, both internal and external, by which the angels were to be worshipped according to this new sect and religion of theirs of angels.
And in the religion of angels. — For "religion," the Greek is θρησκεία, which is a word derived from the Thracians, among whom Orpheus invented and prescribed the religion and worship of the gods, which most of the Greeks afterward used: "These," says Nazianzen, "are the rites of the Thracians, from whom also the word θρησκεύειν, that is, to worship religiously, is taken, as the saying goes."
The question is asked here first: what is this humility and religion of angels?
Melanchthon answers that it is the eremitical life, or celibacy, which presents itself as an imitation of the angels. Melanchthon therefore thinks that Hermits and celibates are here noted and condemned for superstition. Second, Calvin and Beza properly think that here the invocation of the Saints and angels is condemned, and Theodoret favors this: "Those who defended the law," he says, "also induced them to worship the angels, saying that the law had been given through them. Now this vice has remained in Phrygia and Pisidia. Wherefore also the Synod which met at Laodicea, which is the metropolis of Phrygia, prohibited by law that they should pray to the angels. And even to this day one can see among them and their neighbors oratories of St. Michael. These then counseled this, using, indeed, humility, saying that the God of all was neither seen, nor comprehended, nor could one come to Him, and that they must reconcile divine benevolence to themselves through the angels. This is what he said: In the humility and cult of angels."
But I say, that only feigned humility and superstition and the idolatrous worship of angels are condemned here. So all the Fathers and Catholic interpreters everywhere, Baronius, Bellarmine, Turrianus, Vasquez, to be cited below, and Theodoret himself, for he himself refers to the Council of Laodicea, which in Canon 35 says: "It is not fitting," he says, "that Christians, having forsaken the Church, should depart and turn to angels and commit idolatry of angels (that is, of demons) and invoke them." This interpretation is favored by the fact that the Apostle often acts against the heresies of Simon then arising: for this Simon was a magician; he therefore worshipped angels, that is, demons.
Secondly, it can, with Jerome (Letter to Algasia, Question X), Clement (Stromata, Book VI), and Ambrose here, be taken as referring to the idolatry of the Jews, who worshipped the sun, the moon, and all the host of heaven, that is, the stars and angels, perhaps thinking (as the Pythagoreans held, and as Epiphanius, Book I, ch. 16, reports the Pharisees believed) that the stars are animate beings; whence Ambrose here understands by the "religion of angels" the worship of stars. But since it is uncertain whether in the time of Christ the Jews were at least publicly idolaters — indeed, R. Samuel of Morocco (in De Adventu Messiae) and many others teach that the Jews were not then idolaters — and since throughout these epistles, and especially in this chapter, Paul attacks heretics:
Hence thirdly, others understand by the religion of angels Judaism and the Jewish religion, which was humble and abject in carnal victims, ceremonies, and bodily lustrations. So that it would be a hendiadys: "Let no man seduce you in the humility and religion of angels," that is, in the humble religion of angels, namely in Judaism, which was given to Moses through angels on Sinai (Gal. III:19) — as if the Apostle wished to turn the Colossians away from Jewish ceremonies and lead them to Christ. For he had spoken before of Judaism: "Let no man," he says, "judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a holyday or of the new moon or of the sabbaths." And there follows, in v. 21: "Touch not, taste not." But although the Apostle often attacks Judaism here and elsewhere, nowhere does he call it the religion of angels. And to what purpose would he so obscurely signify Judaism, when in the preceding words already quoted he had clearly warned and expressed that it must be avoided? The same can be refuted by many other arguments which I shall shortly bring forward.
Wherefore fourthly, it seems more probable, with Theodoret, to argue against semi-Jewish heretics, says Theodoret, and semi-Platonists, and this seems to be gathered from verses 8, 16, and 20. For just as Plato, according to Augustine (City of God, Book VIII, ch. 12 and following), placed certain intermediate gods, so Simon, Menander, Saturninus, Cerinthus, Basilides, the Sethians, the Cainites, placed angels as lesser gods, who fashioned men and the world and spoke through the Prophets. Indeed Cerinthus said angels were nobler than Christ, inasmuch as Christ was a mere man, both because they are pure spirits and because he held them to be the makers of the world, and so he asserted that the God of the Hebrews, who had given the law on Sinai, was an angel. Whence against these the Apostle so often, both here and in Ephesians ch. 1 and Hebrews 1, exalts Christ above the angels, just as nowadays witches sometimes impose upon their inexperienced confessors, when they recount to them their fictitious visions and melodies of angels. (Bartholomew Carranza, however, in his Summa Conciliorum, reads not "angels" but "corners" [angulos], a reading which Surius too mentions in his edition of the Councils, noting it in the margin; for the Council seems to be forbidding hidden idolatry, which was practised in corners where idols were stored once God's Church had been forsaken; nor indeed are angels properly idols. Theodoret, however, and many others read in this canon of the Council not "corners" but "angels," and so the very text of the Councils has it: for angels can be called idols in a general way, in the same way that the worship of the Sun, the Moon, or of anything that is not God is called idolatry, or the worship of idols.) It is not fitting, I say, that having abandoned the Church, men should hold gatherings of abominable idolatry to angels. Whoever shall be found devoting himself to this hidden idolatry, let him be anathema; for forsaking our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, he has gone over to idols. You see therefore that not just any veneration, but only the adoration and idolatry of angels is here condemned by the Council of Laodicea, and consequently by Theodoret as well as by Paul. The same is deduced from the preceding canon 34, and canon 51 of the same Council of Laodicea, where it accepts and decrees the cult of true Martyrs, and condemns the cult of false Martyrs of the heretics; for if it is lawful to venerate men who are martyrs, and this Council so decrees, much more will it be lawful to venerate the angels, who by nobility of nature and condition far surpass men. Therefore when canon 35 condemns the worship of angels, it condemns not the cult of dulia, but of latria. Whence Paul here in the last verse calls this religion of angels a "superstition." The same is clear from the whole chapter, and especially from the next verse, where he says: "Not holding the head," namely Christ. Paul therefore condemns only such a worship of angels as excludes Christ and the worship of Christ, and which leads men away from Christ to men, and substitutes angels for Christ, as the Council of Laodicea, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Oecumenius expressly teach throughout the whole chapter. Finally Theodoret completely frees himself from this error and association of the Novatians in his commentary on Daniel ch. IV, and in the Divine Decrees, Book V, On Angels, where he steadily affirms that angels are to be venerated as ministers of our eternal salvation, who intercede with God on our behalf and plead our cause.
But what was that worship of angels which Paul here attacks? Various authors offer various views. Some think Paul here condemns the idolatry of the Gentiles, who worshipped their tutelary spirits, and on their account celebrated birthdays — as is clear from Censorinus, On the Birthday, and Macrobius in the Saturnalia. Or certainly that he here condemns the idolatry of magicians, who in their magical practices professed to invoke not only demons but also angels, as Tertullian attests in Apology XXIII. So Anselm and Turrianus; and he makes Christ the maker of all things. For this reason also, in Apocalypse XXII:9, the angel refused to be adored by John. Witnesses to this are Clement, Apostolic Constitutions, Book VI, ch. 10; Epiphanius, in [his account of] the heresy of Simon, Menander, Cerinthus, and the others already mentioned; Irenaeus, Book I, ch. 20 and following.
Thus Epiphanius, in [his treatment of] the heresy of Simon, teaches that Simon Magus taught that souls are purged through certain names of Principalities and Powers dwelling in each of the heavens, and through sacrifices and fasts offered to them, and through them to God. For thus speaks Epiphanius: "The same Simon," he says, "sets forth certain names of Principalities and spirits, and hands down diverse heavens, and in each firmament and heaven sets forth certain virtues, and gives them barbaric names; and that no one can otherwise be saved unless he has learned this mystical method and offered other sacrifices to the father of all things through these Principalities and Powers." And this for him is the purgation of souls, which the Apostle attributes to Christ alone.
The same Epiphanius, in [his treatment of] the heresy of the Cainites, expressly mentions the invocation of angels which the Cainites used in shameful matters. This opinion is probable; but it is somewhat too general. For it is common to all the peoples whom the heresy of Simon and Cerinthus pervaded, not peculiar to the Colossians, of whom however the Apostle here seems to say something specifically peculiar. Add that Cerinthus, who above the rest preferred angels to Christ, was so far from adoring the angel of the Jews (whose law he himself observed), that rather, according to Epiphanius, he called him evil and detested him.
Wherefore, on more careful weighing of this passage, the following has often seemed to me truer — what can be gathered from the Apostle himself. First, that this heresy and religion of angels arose from Philosophers; for Paul, at the outset fortifying and paving the way for refuting this heresy, signifies it in v. 4, saying: "Let no man deceive you with loftiness of words;" and in v. 8: "Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy." These philosophers seem to have been Platonists, who fabricated intermediate gods as purgers of souls, as I have already said from Augustine.
Secondly, it is certain that this error consisted in this — that they said the angels were more worthy than Christ, and to be venerated above Christ with a more excellent and peculiar rite, as if they themselves were saviors and mediators of men, but not Christ; for this is what he here says: "Not holding the head," namely Christ. And for this reason the Apostle so earnestly inculcates in chapter 1 and elsewhere the dignity and pre-eminence of Christ over the angels, and this is the common view of Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and others.
Thirdly, the origin and occasion of this error seems to have been the heresy of Cerinthus, who in Christ divided the divinity from the manhood, and said that Jesus was a mere man, but that into him descended Christ the Son of God, and that at the Passion this Christ withdrew from him back into heaven. From this he inferred that Jesus was unfit and unworthy for the office of mediator between God and men; and since God Himself and the Son of God cannot be a mediator, it followed necessarily that to the angels, who by nature are intermediate between God and men, this office of mediator was both due and assigned by God.
Fourthly, from this doctrine of Cerinthus and the Platonists, certain devotees of similar new doctrines at Colossae and Laodicea, which adjoins Colossae, seem to have invented a new sect and religion of angels, as Theodoret here teaches: namely, that with Christ excluded, they should hold that angels were to be regarded and worshipped as mediators of men, and they prescribed ways of invoking them and of conciliating them to themselves through fasts and superstitious abstinences.
This is proved first because nowhere else does the Apostle, or anyone else, make mention of this religion of angels, except in this Epistle to the Colossians: therefore it is likely that this was a peculiar sect there. Indeed, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, which he wrote about the same time, and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where he sedulously exalts Christ above the angels, he makes no mention of this religion and superstition of angels — although there and elsewhere he often attacks Cerinthus, as I have already said. This therefore was a peculiar heresy distinct from the heresy of Cerinthus, though deduced from its principles.
Secondly, because at Laodicea, which is near Colossae, this heresy flourished, as the Council of Laodicea teaches in canon 33 already cited, if we follow the reading of Theodoret and many others; and it is called idolatry which was practiced not openly but secretly. There was therefore here a peculiar cult and superstition of angels, which Theodoret too testifies flourished in Phrygia and Pisidia, that is, near Colossae and Laodicea.
It is proved thirdly, because in describing this religion the Apostle here says it was located in humility, that is, in the humble posture of prostrating oneself and adoring angels; he then adds that it boasts false visions of angels. Again, that it does not hold the head, that is, it excludes Christ, so that they make angels their head. Thirdly, he calls it ethelothreskeian, that is, a fabricated religion and superstition. Fourthly, he explains its precepts, saying: "Touch not, taste not, handle not." Their other doctrines and rites, since neither Paul nor anyone else recounts them, we cannot divine. Fifthly, these heretics seem to have been the same as those who are everywhere called Angelici by Epiphanius, Augustine, and others: for all who write of them place them as distinct from the Simonians, Cerinthians, and other heretics: and their most ancient heresy does not seem to have been any other than this superstitious religion and worship of angels; and from this they seem to have taken their name, that they should be called Angelici. So St. Augustine, in his catalogue of heresies, no. 39: "The Angelici," he says, "were inclined to the worship of angels, whom Epiphanius testifies had now wholly died out." And Gabriel Prateolus, in his Catalogue of Heresies: "The Angelici," he says, "were so called from the fact that they adored angels." He himself places them about the year of Christ 199, perhaps because, having been cut off or blunted here by Paul, they later revived about that year and again grew up with greater increase. The same is attested by Alfonso de Castro, On Heresies, under the word Idolatry; although Epiphanius says it is unknown whether the Angelici were so called from the worship of angels, or from the city Angelina, or because they presumed angelic purity.
Finally, observe here that at Colossae this superstition was afterwards turned into a most sincere veneration of angels. This is clear from that famous temple of Michael which was at Chonae (so were Colossae afterwards called, as is clear from Theophylact and Oecumenius here, and from Nicetas Choniates, Annals, Book VI, beginning), whose feast — from a famous miracle of the same Archangel — the Greek Menologies record on September 6: see Baronius' notes on the Roman Martyrology, May 8. As for the oratories of St. Michael which in Theodoret's time (as he himself narrates) were seen at Colossae, it is uncertain what kind they were and to whom they belonged: whether to the heretics whom Paul here strikes at, or to Catholics reforming the superstition of the heretics.
Walking in the things he hath not seen — that is, as Jerome more clearly renders it (To Algasia, Question X), and Vatablus, "strutting pompously in things which he has not seen." For this is what ἐμβατεύων ("treading upon") means; it is a word taken from the tragic buskins, which are sometimes so called, because in them those who play a king or a god in tragedy walk lofty and pompous, says Erasmus.
Secondly, St. Augustine in Letter 59 renders it: "insisting on the things which he has not seen." Thirdly, Ambrose reads: "extolling the things which he has seen," with the negation "not" removed. Fourthly, it could be rendered, following Budé and Hesychius, "setting his foot in the things he has not seen, occupying and possessing them": for ἐμβατεύω, when written with ω, sometimes (says Hesychius) means to occupy — for example, a place, a house, an inheritance; but here it is written not with ω but with ε. Therefore the first sense fits the Greek best. By these words Paul intimates that these innovators boasted of feigned visions and revelations of angels. So Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book V, ch. 19. That Cerinthus did the same is attested by Theodoret in Heretical Fables, Book II, ch. 4. So St. Anastasius of Antioch, in his Book of Various Questions on Scripture, which he entitled Ὁδηγός, relates concerning Judas the Galilean that his doctrine was to profess fantasies or visions of angels, under the pretext of religion. So Numa Pompilius boasted that he was instructed by the goddess Egeria, and Mohammed persuaded his followers that he had received his Law and the Koran from the Holy Spirit through a dove which he had tamed and accustomed to fly to his ear, so that it might seem to speak in his ear and suggest to him the mysteries of his sect.
Vainly puffed up by the sense of his flesh, — that is, vainly proud in his carnal sense and mind (for the Greek is νοῦς), as if he had knowledge — indeed visions — of sublime things, namely of angels and heavenly matters. He calls the knowledge of these errors carnal, because it had been invented and handed down by the human spirit of carnal men.
Verse 19: Not Holding the Head, from Which the Whole Body Grows Unto the Increase of God
19. And not holding the head (namely Christ, but substituting angels in place of Christ. So Theodoret, Anselm, and others), from which (head, namely Christ) the whole body (the Church) by joints and bands being supplied (that is, receiving from the head the supply of the spirit, motion, and vital sense) and knit together, grows unto the increase of God, — as if to say: Just as the vital spirit, which is necessary for life, sense, and motion, is diffused from the head into the whole body through nerves, joints, and limbs, and so imparts to each member the faculty of feeling and moving, so the spirit of grace from Christ as from the head is derived into the members joined to Him, namely into faithful Christians, through the joints of mutual union and charity, and supplies them with spiritual life and motion; and so the whole body of the Church grows unto the increase of God, that is, as the Syriac has it, grows by the increase of God, namely by the increase of faith and of the Spirit of God. So from Chrysostom does Theophylact teach. Similar, indeed identical, is this passage with that of Ephesians IV:16, on which I have said more in that place.
Verse 20: If Then You Are Dead with Christ from the Elements of This World
20. If therefore you be dead with Christ from the elements of this world: why do you yet decree as if living in the world? — Note first, "you are dead from the elements," that is, you are dead to the elements. Secondly, by "the elements of the world" he means either the law of Moses (which taught as it were the rudiments of faith and holy life, whose perfection Christ teaches, as I said on Galatians IV:3 and 9); or rather the principles and doctrines of the carnal and worldly Philosophers concerning the heavens, the angels, their worship, and the carnal and worldly rites and observances — such as those which Plato and Simon and the Angelici taught about the purgations of souls through angels, which have nothing in agreement with Scripture, faith, or Christ: for these "elements of the world" he calls in v. 8 "philosophy and vain deceit," as I said there; and again he calls them in v. 22 "the precepts and doctrines of men." Therefore he is speaking of these doctrines of the Philosophers, not of the precepts of the law of Moses: for these were not the precepts of men, but of God.
Thirdly, "living in the world," that is in the elements (for he leaves this to be supplied for brevity from what was just said) of the world — he calls philosophers and their followers, who live according to the elements just mentioned and worship angels. Fourthly, for "decree" the Greek is δογματίζεσθε, which can be rendered actively, "you dogmatize, you teach, you decree;" or passively with Chrysostom, "you are dogmatized, you are taught, you are bound by the decrees" of these elements of the world — that is to say: Since through Christ you have died and renounced every sect and worldly philosophy contrary to Christ, which teaches one to live not according to God but according to the elements of the world, that is, according to natural and worldly principles, why do you repeat them again, as if you wished to live once more according to these elements of the world? Beza therefore wrongly renders δογματίζεσθε as "you are burdened with rites": for a doctrine is one thing, a rite another.
Verse 21: Touch Not, Nor Taste, Nor Handle
21. "Do you decree" (that is to say, saying that which follows)? "Touch not, nor taste, nor handle." — Supply: this corpse, this menstruous woman, lest you be defiled, according to the law of Moses; "nor taste" — namely swine's flesh and other foods forbidden and unclean by the old Law — that is to say: That old Law has now been abolished; why then do you believe and decree that its ceremonies are to be observed? So Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Ambrose.
Secondly and more genuinely, that is to say: What do you decree out of the heresy and religion of angels — that one must abstain from this or that food or creature? saying for example, Touch not your wife and taste not wine or flesh, because these were created by evil angels and displease the good angels — on which more in 1 Timothy IV:2. For these things, as I said in the preceding verse, pertain not so much to Judaizers as to the Philosophers and the religion of angels which immediately preceded, as St. Augustine and Jerome teach above, and Tertullian, Against Marcion Book V, ch. 19: "He stigmatizes," he says, "those who, from angelic visions, taught — as it were out of angelic superstition — that one must abstain from certain foods." And Clement, Stromata Book III: "Those who worship angels and demons," he says, "are careful to abstain from wine, the eating of flesh, and sexual intercourse."
Verse 22: Which All Are Unto Destruction by the Very Use
Verse 22. Which all are unto destruction by the very use, according to the precepts and doctrines of men, — that is to say: These observances of the superstitious worship of angels just mentioned bring destruction and eternal damnation to those who observe them, and who in them and in their angels (whom they thus worship) place their hope, and not in Christ. So Ambrose and Augustine.
Secondly, St. Jerome and Chrysostom with their followers refer these to the Jewish observances, of which he said in v. 16: "Let no man judge you in meat or in drink," that is to say: In vain are you anxious about the food and drink of the Jews and of Judaism, which perish, are corrupted, and pass away into the draught. But the former sense is the genuine one, as is clear from what has been said. Hence it is clear what he calls and condemns here as "the precepts and doctrines of men" — namely the vain, futile, erroneous, heretical inventions and dreams of fanatics or of erring men, as I said on v. 8.
Verse 23: Which Have Indeed a Show of Wisdom in Superstition and Humility
23. Which have indeed a show of wisdom in superstition and humility. — For "superstition," the Greek is ἐθελοθρησκεία (will-worship), which Turrianus (Book V For the Letters of the Popes, ch. 7) renders contrariwise, namely as "religion and the true worship of God," as if Paul meant: Abstinence from foods just mentioned, though it be impiety and folly if it be done superstitiously on account of the dreams of men and the fables of angels, is nevertheless wisdom if it be referred to ἐθελοθρησκεία, that is, true religion and worship of God; namely to humble the soul in fasting and to chastise the body and subject it to the spirit. But ἐθελοθρησκεία signifies not true religion, but false and superstitious religion. For it is compounded from θέλω, that is, I will, and θρησκεία, that is, religion — as one might say, voluntary religion fashioned out of one's own brain. Whence Jerome, to Hedibia, interprets it as "false religion;" Ambrose, as "superstition;" so likewise Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Theodoret.
Note secondly: For "reason" the Greek is λόγῳ, which Vatablus renders "appearance;" Chrysostom, "discourse;" our [Vulgate], "reason" — that is to say, Paul: This false religion, or superstition of angels, by which (with abstinences and observances fabricated by themselves, as I have already said) they worship angels as mediators, with Christ excluded — seems to bring forward wise reasons and discourses, and as it were proceeding from God or the angels, which they hold out under a show of piety as defending their superstition: for they say they do it for the sake of humility, modesty, affliction and subjection of the body. And this is what he says: "In humility," namely a feigned and superstitious humility: for the prefix ἐθελο- must here be repeated, so that, just as he said ἐθελοθρησκείας, so likewise it is ἐθελοταπεινοφροσύνη — that is, he means both a humility and a religion that are voluntary and fabricated from one's own brain and will.
And not in any honour to the filling of the flesh (Greek, καὶ ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος, that is, with no sparing of the body — that is to say: These Innovators put forward a show of wisdom and piety with their feigned humility and abstinence, and austerity of life, in which they do not spare the body, but afflict it immoderately and superstitiously) — not in any honor to the satiety of the flesh — that is, with honor or the necessary support for satisfying hunger denied to the body. For "honor" among the Hebrews is not only verbal or ceremonial, but also real; which is nothing other than the supply of necessary things or means. Paul says these things in reprehending the superstition and folly of the Innovators out of compassion, because, namely, on account of their own fables and dreams, as if intending to worship angels, they wore themselves out superstitiously and without fruit — indeed with damage to body and soul — by fasts and penances.
This therefore is that ἐθελοθρησκεία (will-worship) of angels which is here condemned by the Apostle — that is, a voluntary religion, invented out of nothing but the will and fantasy of themselves, or of Simon, or of Cerinthus, or of the Angelici, beside — indeed against — Christ and the law of God; and therefore, on Paul's testimony, was a doctrine of men, and consequently false and mere superstition.
For every true religion and every true worship of God must be instituted by the will of God — whether commanding, counselling, or approving — either by Himself or through His Church and His vicars on earth. This religion, humility, and abstinence of angels, then, was superstitious: first, because it was fabricated by Cerinthus and the Angelici against the law of God; secondly, because they adored angels as lesser gods, makers and governors of the world; thirdly, because they worshipped them as mediators and purgers of souls in place of Christ, with Christ excluded; fourthly, because they pretended to have seen angels who commanded this worship, this humility, and this immoderate abstinence. So today the Devil deludes many under the appearance of an angel, that they may wear out the body with excessive penances and fasts; indeed some, that they may kill themselves. That this is the meaning and mind of the Apostle is clear from what has been said, and from his scope: for the whole Epistle attacks not Christian Monks but Judaizing heretics and pseudo-philosophers. So Jerome above, Augustine in Letter 59, Theodoret, Chrysostom, and others throughout, and most recently Gabriel Vasquez in On Adoration, Book III, ch. 6.
Hence it is clearly evident that the Evangelical precepts and counsels, and those things which are deduced from them, namely monastic and Pontifical constitutions, voluntary abstinences and penances, are not ἐθελοθρησκείαι (will-worship) and superstition, as Kemnitz, Marlorat, and Beza maintain, but are θεοθρησκείαι (God-worship) and the true worship of God; because they hold the head, namely Christ, and are in agreement with the divine will, by which God through Christ in Scripture commands or counsels self-denial, mortification, contempt of self, poverty, and the Church (which is the interpreter of Scripture and the will of God) approves them as having been instituted in accordance with the Gospel, and as exceedingly fitted for fostering and increasing humility of soul, religion, charity, and piety.
Finally, Calvin wrongly maintains that the cult of the relics of the Saints is ἐθελοθρησκεία (will-worship), both because the Apostle is not speaking of it here, and because it is consonant with reason, Scripture, and the will of God that we honor the Saints and their bodies as temples of the Holy Spirit: for God wishes that the Saints, as His friends and children, be thus honored by us; therefore this cult cannot be called a voluntary religion fabricated against the law of God, but rather a pure religion pleasing to God: for whoever honors the Saints and their relics honors God, who is the Author of all their holiness — just as one who honors a king's sons and princes honors the king himself.