Ver. 15. In this difficult verse the meaning of almost every word is dis- puted. It is therefore imperative to con- trol the exegesis by strict regard to the context. The main question relates to the character of the principalities and powers. Subordinate questions are raised as to the subject of the sentence and the meaning of ἀπεκδ. The context before and after (οὖν, ver. 16) requires us to bring the interpretation into close connexion with the main thought, the abolition of the Law.—arexSvodpevos τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας. Till recently the
15.
principalities and powers have been ex- plained as hostile demoniacal spirits, and this view is held by Meyer, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Oltramare and Weiss. In its favour is the impression made by the verse that a victory over the powers is spoken of. How far this is so can be de- termined only by an examination of the terms employed. Against this view the following objections seem decisive. ἀρχ. κ. ἐξ. occur several times in the Epistle, but nowhere in this sense. In Eph. vi. 12 the reference to evil spirits is defin- itely and repeatedly fixed by the context. This is not so here. Further, the con- nexion with the context is difficult to trace. Bengelsays: ‘ Quiangelos bonos colebant, iidem malos timebant: neu- trum jure”. Weiss expresses a some- what similar idea: “Τὰ seems that the Colossian theosophists threatened the readers that they would again fall under the power of evil spirits if they did not submit to their discipline”. But not only have we no evidence for this, but this interpretation cuts the nerve of the pas- sage, which is the abolition of the Law by the cross. Meyer’s view is more relevant: the Law is done away in Christ, and since it is the strength of sin, sin’s power is thus broken, and so is the devil’s power, which is exercised only through sin. Gess interprets that the Law through its curse created separation between men and God, and thus gave a point of support for the dominion of evil spirits. “ΟΕ this handwriting have they boasted. Our guilt was their strength. He who sees the handwriting nailed to the cross can mock these foes.” But these views are read into the passage, and do not lead up to ver. 16. And where the Jewish Law was absent, as in the heathen world, sin was rampant. Ellicott and Lightfoot do not attempt to trace a connexion with the context, nor on their view of ἀπεκδ. is one possible. All this strongly suggests that we should give another sense to dpx. κ. ἐξ. And this is secured if we identify them with ἀρχ. κ. ἐξ. already mentioned (i. 16 and ii. το). In favour of this are the follow- ing considerations: (1) Unless we are warned to the contrary it is natural to keep the same meaning throughout. (2) We thus get a thought that perfectly suits the context. This law that has been abolished was given by angels, its abolition implies their degradation. To them was also subject the whole of the observances of eating, drinking, etc. (3) It is a powerful polemic against the wor- ship of angels (ver. 18), which is lost on