492 WORD STUDIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. [Cu. IL
tion, is touched upon by Paul in Gal. iii. 19 sqq.; 2 Cor. iii, 12 sqq.; Heb. ii. 2. .
He made a show of them (édevyydticev). Only here and Matt. i. 19, see note. The compound rrapadevyparivw to expose to public infamy, is found Heb, vi. 6; and Seiya example, in Jude 7. The word is unknown to classical Greek. The mean- ing here is to make a display of, exhibit. He showed them as subordinate and subject to Christ. Compare especially Heb. i. throughout, where many points of contact with the first two chapters of this epistle will be found.
Openly (év wappnoia). Or boldly. See on Philem. 8. Not publicly, but as by a bold stroke putting His own ministers, chosen and employed for such a glorious and dignified office, in subjection before the eyes of the world.
Triumphing over them (3psauBevcas avtovs). See on 2 Cor. ii. 14. If we take this phrase in the sense which it bears in that passage, leading in triumph, there seems something in- congruous in picturing the angelic ministers of the law as cap- tives of war, subjugated and led in procession. The angels “do His commandments and hearken unto the voice of His word.” But while I hold to that explanation in 2 Cor., I see no reason why the word may not be used here less specifically in the sense of leading a festal procession in which all share the triumph; the heavenly ministers, though set aside as medi- ators, yet exulting in the triumph of the one and only Media- tor. Even in the figure in 2 Cor., the captives rejoice in the triumph. Compare Apoc. xix. 11. Our knowledge of the word SptauBevw is not so extensive or accurate as to warrant too strict limitations in our definition.
In it (év ad7@). The cross. Many expositors, however, ren- der in Him, Christ. This I adopt as harmonizing with the emphatic references to Christ which occur in every verse from 5 to 14; Christ, four times; in Him, four; in whom, two; with Him, three. Jn ct is necessary only if the subject of the sentence is Christ; but the very awkward change of subject
Cu. II.] THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 493
from God (quickened us together, ver. 13) is quite unnecessary. God is the subject throughout.*
16. Therefore. Conclusion from the cancelling of the bond. The allusions which follow (vv. 16-19) are to the prac- tical and theoretical forms of the Colossian error, as in vv. 9— 15; excessive ritualism, asceticism, and angelic mediation.
Judge (xpwérw). Sit in judgment.
Meat—drink (8pecev—rocer). Properly, eating, drinking, as 1 Cor. viii. 4; but the nouns are also used for that which is eaten or drunk, as John iv. 32 (see note); vi. 27, 55; Rom. xiv. 17. For the subject-matter compare Rom. xiv. 17; 1 Cor. viii. 8; Heb. ix. 10, and note on Mark vii. 19. The Mosaic law contained very few provisions concerning drinks. See Levit. x. 9; xi. 34, 36; Num. vi. 3. Hence it is probable that the false teachers had extended the prohibitions as to the use of wine to all Christians. The Essenes abjured both wine and animal food.
* I adopt this explanation of this most difficult passage, which is Ritschl’s and Sabatier’s, followed by Alford, as, on the whole, satisfying most of the conditions of the exegesis. The great body of modern exegetes interpret principalities and powers as meaning the Satanic hosts. Some explain that Christ, in His final victory on the cross, forever put away from Himself the Satanic powers which assailed His humanity, and which clung to Him like a robe (so Lightfoot and Ellicott). Others, that Christ stripped off the armor from these vanquished enemies (so Meyer, Hadie, Maclaren). But on either of these explanations it may fairly be asked what point of connection with the context is furnished by the ideas of despoiling or of putting away the powers of darkness. How is the fact that Christ triumphed over the infernal hosts relevant to His abrogating the legal bond in His crucifixion? Our ex- planation links itself with the fact of Christ’s headship of the ranks of angels (ver. 10), and is appropriate in view of the heresy of angel-worship, against which a direct warning follows in ver. 18, It also enables us to retain the proper middle sense of amexdvcduevos, and does not compel us to read it here in one way, and in another way in ch. iii. 9; and it also enables us to avoid the very awkward change of subject from God to Christ, which Bishop Light- foot’s explanation necessitates. I find my own view confirmed by Mr. G. C. Findlay’s article in the ‘‘ Expositor,” first series, x., 403. The case is put by him in a singularly lucid manner. Without admitting his conelusion that Paul’s metaphor in 2 Cor ii. 14 was distinctly shaped by the Bacchie festival, I think he has shown sufficient reason for allowing a wider interpretation of Spiaufevw, as indicated in my note.