(!tonror~ttt
UJ4roingtral :!Innt41y
Continuing
LEHRE UND WEHRE
MAGAZIN FUER Ev.-LuTH. HOMILETIK
THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY-THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY
Vol. vm June, 1937
CONTENTS
The Pastor and Mission Opportunities.
Kleine Hesekielstudien. L. Fuerbringer
Arthur Brunn -
A Few Remarks on Col. 2, 18. 19a. L. T. Woblfeil -
What the Liberal Theologian Thinks of Verbal Inspiration.
Th. Engelder
No.6
Page
419
41-1
_ __ ill
433
Sermon Study on 1 John 4, 12-14. Theo. Laet,;ch __ . ___ . _ . _______ __ 453
Outlines on the Eisenach Epistle Selections _ 410
Theological Observer. - Kirchlicb-Zeitgeschichtliches _ _ 468
Book Review. - Literatur
Ein Predlger muss ntcht allein ",ei-
den, also dass er die Schafe lDlter-
weise. wle aie rechte ChrIsten sollen
seln. sondern auch daneben den Woel-
fen ",ehnn, daBs sle die Schafe ntcht
anerelfen und mit :falsc:her Lehre ver-
fuehren lDld Irrtum einfuehren.
Luther
479
Es ist keln Ding. das die Leute
mehr bel der Kirche behaelt denn
die gute Predlgt. - Apologie, Arl. 24
If the trumpet give an uncertain
sound who shan prepare himself to
the battle? - I Cor. 14. B
Published for the
Ev. Loth. Synod of Missouri. Ohio, and Other States
CONCORDIA PUBLISHING BOUSE, St. Louis, Mo.
424 A Few Remarks on Col. 2, 18.19a
A Few Remarks on Col. 2, 18. 19 a
This verse has tried the patience of commentators, both ancient
and modern, quite consistently. While many have been content
to give what seemed to them the most plausible interpretation,
a by no means negligible number of others have unwittingly
admitted finding their "Waterloo" at this very verse by resorting
to conjectures on account of a supposedly corrupt text, though there
are, with only one unimportant exception, no variant readings.
Like the suicide they consider conjecture the "man's way out,"
but seem to forget that tampering with the MS. record may lead
to equally serious consequences. Superimposing their own specu-
lations upon the sacred text, these people blue-pencil Scriptures
according to their own whims and fancies and glibly tell the
world what the original form of the text was. But these are not
the dialogs of Plato or the dissertations of Aristotle - productions
of the human mind; they are the inspired Word of the omniscient,
infallible God even if some difficulties are met.
The difficulties presented by the words under discussion are
closely bound up with the nature of the Colossian errorists. These
are known to us only from the rather meager references to them
in this epistle and, by contrast, from the points of Christian doc-
trine which the apostle stresses especially. While the references
have been studied very thoroughly, though not always success-
fully, it seems that the latter source of information has often
been either neglected or misunderstood.
It cannot be denied that the errorists were Jews who insisted
upon the observance of the Ceremonial Law as still binding in
New Testament times, and it seems as if they also demanded the
observance by all men of the Nazarite vows concerning drink.
Cpo Lev. 10, 8-11; 11; Num. 6, 1-4. To this must be added a spec-
ulative element, which may have been "a germ from which the
later Gnosticism sprang," though it may be accounted for on other
grounds as well.1} That is about all we can gather from the meager
references in this epistle, and they are the only ones we have.
That such a combination is entirely possible will be admitted when
one remembers Philo's Platonizing.
1) Speaking of the dualism of the Gnostics, Dr. E. G. Sihler says:
"And there is little doubt but that they got their clue from certain
tenets of Plato. Whenever we pass from the Republic of Plato (where
the felicity and the perfection of the non-material and eternal world
of forms or ideas are set forth) - whenever, I say, we pass on to Plato's
effort to explain creation and the material world, an effort made in his
Timaeus, then indeed we are brought face to face with that body of
speculation out of which the Gnostics spun their dualism of the good
A Few Remarks on Col. 2, I8.Iga 425
Moreover, a study of the epistle will reveal that it abounds
in contrasts, which further help to characterize the errorists at
Colossae. Briefly stated, we meet the contrast of visible and in-
visible, of sight and faith, of creature and Creator, of human
wisdom and divine wisdom, of human tradition and divine revela-
tion, of elementary knowledge of the world and the treasures of
knowledge in Christ, of implied incompleteness of Christian knowl-
edge and completeness in Christ, of shadow and body, of humility
and being puffed up, of self-called teachers and called teachers,
of man-made laws and Christian liberty. The mere recitation
of these contrasts makes it evident that the errorists must have
been also rationalists. This combination is not unusual. For
what was it that made the Jews reject Christ? Was it not their
own puny human reason, which told them that the Messiah must
be a mighty temporal ruler and that the lowly Nazarene could
not help them? That was their own speculation, while at the
same time they were meticulous about observing the Ceremonial
Law, including the traditions of the elders. And we cannot get
away from the fact that there are in reality only two religions.
It is either grace or works, and human reason always chooses the
way of works. Besides, all false religions agree in this, that
the object of their worship is not the true God revealed in Christ.
The object is either a combination of objects with a supposed
God included or angels or saints or man's own virtue, and so on
down to objects of coarse wood and stone. Even the worship of
the different types of false religion differs only in degree of
intensity and extension. Since the depravity of man is the same
the world over, the natural, unconverted mind of man runs in the
same channels regardless of time or clime. It is invariably a move-
ment away from God, which, if it remains unchecked, degenerates
more and more and seeks ever lower objects and ever more
hideous forms of worship, just as the reprobate and criminal will
stoop to ever more disgusting and revolting vices and crimes.
The Colossian errorists were no exception.
In view of these facts it will not do to dismiss offhand the
possibility of angel-worship on the part of the Colossian errorists
at such an early date for no better reason than that we have
and perfect God and of the imperfect and inferior power, the Creator,
the former being the Platonic ideal deity and the latter the demiurge
of the Timaeus and of the Old Testament." (From Augustus to Au-
gustine.) If the Gnostics "got their clue from certain tenets of Plato,"
as seems to be the case, they did not spring from the germ at Colossae.
Since, however, the error at Colossae was at least similar to Gnosticism
in tendency, it may have been introduced there by way of Alexandria,
Philonism having trickled through in some manner.
28
426 A Few Remarks on Col. 2, 18. 19a
no secular source of corroboration, though we know that angel-
worship was practised in postapostolic and later times, also at
Colossae. Does not this very epistle condemn such a use of the
traditions of men? As to Zahn's objections (repeated by Ewald),
based on the monotheism of the Jews, the idolatry practised by
the Israelites and Jews upon occasion is sufficient refutation.
Since there are no valid reasons to the contrary, it is simplest
and most natural to understand 1}Q110XELQ. 'tWV UyyFJ.WV of angel-
worship, the genitive being a genitive of the object. It should also
be noted that even some Roman Catholic exegetes adopt this
view in spite of the fact that Lutheran theologians consistently
use this verse to refute and condemn the invocation of saints.
Hence let us grant with many great theologians of our Church,
including Chemnitz, that the false teachers at Colossae worshiped
angels in some manner and reject this view only when further,
better reasons are adduced against it.
The mere enumeration of a few doctrines especially empha-
sized by St. Paul, together with a few additional statements, will
serve to further characterize the Colossian errorists. St. Paul finds
it necessary to dwell especially on the doctrine of the person and
work of Christ, of whom he says that He is "the Image of the
invisible God," 1, 15. He is the Creator of all things, visible
and invisible, even of all angels, 1, 16. The errorists seem to have
argued that they could not worship the unseen God, forgetful,
besides other things, of the fact that He is revealed in Christ, who
is His exact Image. Though nothing constrains us to assume that
they openly denied Christ, their conduct and worship of angels
certainly implied His insufficiency as sole Mediator between God
and man. Just as erroneous views may have been held by them
regarding Creation. If they had any affinity with the speculations
of the later Gnostics, though only in tendency, it must be sought
here. Again, Col. 1, 20 may have been directed against their false
notion that the angels had to be placated in some manner by man,
who had lost their good will by the fall into sin. The admonition
to remain in faith (1,23) no doubt refers to the efforts of the
false teachers to beguile the faithful. "And this I say lest any man
beguile you with enticing words" (2,4), following immediately
after the statement that all treasures of wisdom and knowledge
are hid in Christ (2,3), goes to show that the errorists supposed
the knowledge of the Colossian Christians to be incomplete and
considered themselves capable of supplying the deficiency. Thus
v. 8 charges them with human speculation, which they considered
necessary to complete their Christian knowledge. Cpo 2, 10.
Finally the apostle emphasizes the priority and superiority of
Christ over all hostile principalities and powers, culminating in the
A Few Remarks on Col. 2, 18. 19a 427
declaration: "Having spoiled principalities and powers, He made
a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it," 2, 15. It
would seem that they also feared evil spirits. All this is very
"reasonable." Witness Maryolatry and saint-worship as the
modern analogy. Human reason says that Mary is closer to hu-
manity, or as Chemnitz states the reasons of those who invoke
the saints: Quia scilicet Christus durior, rigidior et asperi01' sit,
sancti Ve1'O magis propitii, clementes et misericordes, immo ad
exaudiendum et iuvandum promptiores, utqui easdem calamitates
in carne ipsi etiam experti sint. (Examen, De Invocatione Sanc-
torum.) Even so it was human reason that led these errorists to
worship angels in order to placate them and to make them sub-
servient as partial mediators. Angels, they would reason, are
creatures like as we are and have been seen by many in the
Old Testament, and their appearance in the New Testament, though
not as frequent, still is a reality. But they are holy and thus
able to approach God, whom they serve, thus opening the way
for us.
The objection that the apostle would have condemned such
worship in stronger terms loses its force if we remember that the
apostle commends the Colossians for the steadfastness of their
faith in Christ (2, 5); that the false teachers evidently urged their
false views not so much by aggressive propaganda as by "enticing
words" and their conduct; and that they were still members of
the congregation (2,19). The references in the epistle indicate
that they were not the bold and boisterous type, but rather of the
sinister, insinuating kind and as such would endeavor to spread
their views by means of calculated and oily words. They were
smooth talkers, clothed in extreme humility, assumed a sancti-
monious attitude, and were innocent of great clarity in setting forth
their views in the absence of a comprehensive and well-developed
system of doctrine. Cf. also the following remarks on the parti-
ciple 1't-s1..rov. The error at Colossae evidently was in an incipient
stage at the time of this writing. What is more, the same objection
might be urged with as much force against any other view.
Having thus briefly sketched the nature of the Colossian er-
rorists, let us proceed to discuss a few details. V.18 is to a certain
extent parallel in structure to vv. 16 and 17 and represents a pro-
gression. Where v.16 has Mil oiiv 'tL~ U!la~ xQLv:hro (Let not any
one judge you), v.18 has M'Y\aEl~ u!lii~ xa'ta~Qa~EUs'tro (Let no one
condemn you), the latter being a stronger term. Oiiv refers back
to v. 10-15. Because of what Christ is to them and has done for
them, especially because Christ has canceled the bond against them
and triumphed over all hostile powers, the Colossians should not
let anyone judge them in eating and drinking, etc., and should
428 A Few Remarks on Col. 2, 18.19a
let no one condemn them by humility and angel-worship. Through
His cross Christ has freed them from the curse of the Law and
completely abolished the Ceremonial Law; through His cross He
has spoiled all evil spirits and divested them of their power and
dominion. It is a tragedy to pass under the yoke of the Law again
after having been liberated, and it is foolish and unnecessary to
worship angels. It has been shown, especially by Abbott, that
the simplex f}QC1i3EUELV seems to have dropped all reference to a prize
and only means "to decide." KC1'tC1j3QC1f}EUIlt'V would then mean "to
decide, or to give judgment, against." "It is adopted instead of
)('C1'tC1)(.QLVELV probably in order to suggest the idea of assumption
of authority." (Abbott.) "Per~ps here in Colossae there was
a flavor of assumption and officialism in their conduct." (A. T.
Robertson.) Many other exegetes agree.
So far no great difficulty is encountered. But the next word,
the participle iW"IOV, has caused much perplexity. Some have
assumed a Hebraism and translated "taking pleasure in," but they
arrive at this Hebraism on the basis of a few Septuagint transla-
tions of a word which does not mean iW.lOv. A view with such
slight support had better run for cover before Paul's rich vocabu-
lary demolish it. Just imagine Paul, well versed in Greek as he
was, the greatest intellect of our era, resorting to a "kind of
Hebraism" to make himself understood by those who spoke Greek
fluently! Others have resorted to conjecture. We maintain, with
Robertson and others, that the participle has been correctly and
purposely used by the inspired writer in its primary sense of
resolving, purposing, determining. Accordingly we translate: Let
no one condemn you, purposing to condemn you by humility and
angel-worship.
However, let us revert to )('C1'tC1i3QC1f}EUE't1O for a moment. We
have seen that this verb is synonymous with )('C1'tC1)(.QLVE'tIO, the dif-
ference in shade of meaning very likely being that of the idea
of assumption of authority. In Luke 11, 31 we read: "The queen
of the South shall rise up in the Judgment with the men of this
generation and condemn them" ()('C1'tC1)(.QLVEL C11hou~). Her good ex-
ample will condemn them. Heb.11,7 we are told that Noah
condemned the world by his faith evidenced in the building of
the ark (3tLcr'tEL • • • aL' f)~ )('C1'tE)(.QLVEV 'tOV )(.6crf.tov). These passages
throw light upon the manner in which the errorists would con-
demn the Colossians. They would condemn them by their con-
duct and behavior, namely, by means of their humility and angel-
worship, in other words, by their example. And because that
is said of them in malam partem and in order to prepare the readers
for the following participle, )('C1'tC1i3QC1j3EUE't1O is used instead of
)('C1'tC1)(.QLVE'tIO, which we should expect after the simplex in the
preceding verse. Thus the preposition EV is taken instrumentally,
A Few Remarks on Col. 2, 18. 19 a 429
which is a common phenomenon in the New Testament and in
the Koine generally. Hence the resultant idea is not essentially
different from that expressed by SLU in Heb.ll, 7. That takes us
back to the participle once more.
True humility is a commendable Christian virtue, whose very
nature is devoid of all ostentatiousness, but because the errorists
were guilty of parading their counterfeit humility in order to
condemn the faithful Christians, - a conduct against which the
apostle's whole nature revolted, - he found it necessary to indicate
his sentiments and feelings in some manner and at the same time
to strike a telling blow, which he does, in keeping with the
marvelous brevity and compactness of the whole epistle, by very
neatly using a single word, the present participle iW.rov,where
secular writers or some of his commentators would perhaps have
used a whole sentence. This was made possible by the choice of
lta.a~Qa~Eui.ro, which warned the readers with its suggestion of
the assumption of authority, which suggestion is repeated and
further stressed by the participle. Thus the participle, used abso-.
lutely, serves the apostle's purpose admirably well. It was self-
evident to his readers that lta'ta~Qa~EuELV was to be understood.
Let us not be dogmatic in our application of either the Attic or
the Hellenistic yardstick to Paul's Greek. So long as he uses
words not found elsewhere in the whole range of Greek literature
and even coins some new ones, we have no right to be surprised
at occasional peculiarities in construction. Why vitiate the sim-
plicity with a Hebraism (rather Septuagintism) or a conjecture
just because this construction balks at the efforts of the translator?
St. Paul simply says: Let no one condemn you if he purposes to
do so (think of it) by his humility and angel-worship. This is
a fine bit of irony, so deftly introduced that a translation cannot
do justice to it. This is also a further answer to the question,
Why does the apostle not use stronger language to condemn the
errorists as severely as he did those in Galatia? iW.rov indicates
that the Colossians were not fully aware of the intentions of the
errorists because the errorists had merely begun to conduct them-
selves in such manner. On any other supposition the mildness of
the apostle's rebuke is inexplicable. He is warning against dangerous
tendencies rather than against any well-developed heresy. To
argue back from the second and third centuries and postulate
an incipient Gnosticism is unscientific.2) Whatever goes beyond
2) One could, of course, with as much plausibility start with the
anti-Jewish systems and, arguing back to the first century, come to
the conclusion that, since they depreciated and even rejected the Old
Testament "and, with it, the Law as a system of divine injunction or
moral obligation" (E. G. Sihler, lac. cit.), the Colossian errorists could
not possibly have had any affinity with them even in tendency.
430 A Few Remarks on Col. 2, 18. 19 a
the direct references and the characterization gained from the
contrasts in this epistle is of evil.3) Moreover, the term Gnosticism
has been overworked as a convenient head under which to classify,
for want of a specific term, heresies only remotely related, like
the folder labeled "adiaphora" in many vertical files.
In the following relative clause critical evidence is overwhelm-
ingly in favor of omission of the negative, and the very fact that
several conjectures have been suggested goes to show that only
subjective considerations have made them necessary. The clause
fJ. EOQa.%E'V EJ,t~a.-eEU