Colossians 2:15

Col_2:15

Having spoiled principalities and powers, or, having stripped off and put away the powers of evil.

Christ took upon Himself our human nature with all its temptations (Heb_4:15). The powers of evil gathered about Him. Again and again they assailed Him, but each fresh assault ended in a new defeat. In the wilderness He was tempted by Satan; but Satan retired for a time baffled and defeated (Luk_4:13). Through the voice of His chief disciple the temptation was renewed, and He was entreated to decline His appointed sufferings and death. Satan was again driven off (Mat_16:23; comp. 8:31). Then the last hour came. This was the great crisis of all, when the power of darkness made itself felt (Luk_22:53), when the prince of this world asserted his tyrrany (Joh_12:31). The final act in the conflict began with the agony in Gethsemane, and ended with the cross of Calvary. The victory was complete. The enemy of man was defeated. The powers of evil, which had clung like a Nessus robe about His humanity, were torn off and cast aside for ever. And the victory of man is involved in the victory of Christ. In His death we too are divested of the poisonous clinging garments of temptation, and sin, and death. For this image of the garments see Isa_64:6, but especially Zec_3:1-10. In this prophetic passage the image is used of His type and namesake, the Jesus of the Restoration, not in His own person, but as the High Priest and representative of a guilty, but cleansed and forgiven people, with whom He is identified. The powers specially meant are those of Eph_6:12. Displayed as a victor displays his captives or trophies in a triumphal procession. Nowhere does the word convey the idea of making an example, but signifies to display, publish, proclaim. Boldly, not publicly, although the latter idea may be sometimes connected with the word as a secondary notion (Joh_7:4). Leading them in triumph, the same metaphor as in 2Co_2:14. Here, however, it is the defeated powers of evil; there the subjugated persons of men who are led in public, chained to the triumphal car of Christ. In the Cross. The violence of the metaphor is its justification. The paradox of the crucifixion is thus placed in its strongest light--triumph in helplessness, glory in shame. The convicts gibbet is the victors car. (Bp. Lightfoot.)

Christ triumphant

To the eye of reason the Cross is the centre of sorrow, the lowest depth of shame; to the Jew a stumbling-block, and to the Greek foolishness. How different, however, to the eye of faith--a token of glory, a field of triumph, the chariot in which Christ rode when He led captivity captive.

I. Christ making a spoil of principalities and powers.

1. The contest. Satan, leagued with sin and death, had made this world the home of woe. He found our first parents in Eden; they became his slaves. Yet the voice of mercy was heard even while the fetters were being rivetted--Ye shall be free. The earth groaned and travailed in its bondage. In the fulness of time, the Deliverer came forth born of a woman. Then came the Temptation; eventually the Passion; at last the Cross. Hark how the Conqueror cries, It is finished. Where are now His enemies? All defeated.

2. The division of the spoil.

(1) He disarmed His enemies. Satan had in his hand a sharp sword called the Law. This was wrested from his hand. Death was deprived of his darts, which were broken in two, and the feather end returned that he might never destroy the ransomed. Sin, Satans armour bearer, was despoiled of his shield.

(2) Victors carry away all the treasures belonging to the vanquished. Satan had taken away all our possessions--Paradise with all its joy and peace--not that he could enjoy them--but Christ has gotten them all back.

(3) Victors take away all the ornaments from the enemy, the crown and jewels. Satans crown is taken away, his sovereignty is gone. He may tempt, but he cannot compel, threaten but not subdue.

3. What says this to us? If Christ has spoiled Satan, let us not be afraid to encounter him.

(1) If he accuse you, reply, Who shall lay anything to the charge of Gods elect?

(2) Ii he condemn you, ask, Who is he that condemneth?

(3) If he threaten to divide you, shout, I am persuaded, etc.

(4) If he let loose your sins upon you, dash the hell dogs aside with this, If any man sin, etc.

(5) If death should threaten you, exclaim, Oh death, where is thy sting? etc. Your battles shall turn to your advantage. The more numerous they are the greater the spoil. Your tribulation shall work patience, etc.

II. The triumph.

1. Most of the old commentators refer this to the resurrection and the ascension; Paul refers it to the Cross, but the Cross as the ground of the ultimate triumph when Christ shall enter on His reign over an undisputed universe.

2. Picture this triumph. The pearly gates open, angels crowd on the battlements.

(1) The vanguard of the redeemed approach the city. Abel comes in alone, and then follow the patriarchs, prophets, heroes, of four thousand years.

(2) The Prince of the House of David, with Satan, sin, and death in eternal captivity.

(3) Then the great mass of His people--fathers, reformers, etc.

(4) I might describe the mighty pictures at the end of the procession, for in the old Roman triumphs the deeds of the conqueror were depicted in paintings, the towns he had taken, the battles he had fought. I might present hell destroyed; heavens gates opened by the golden lever of Christs atonement; the grave despoiled. Conclusion: Where will you be? Among the captives or in the Conquerors train? (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The triumph of the Cross

I. Was over the powers of evil.

1. The existence of evil is a painful fact, we meet with it everywhere.

2. Evil is embodied in invisible and potent personalities, called--

(1) Principalities, because of their excellency, knowledge, and station.

(2) Powers, because of the mighty influence they wield and the terrible havoc they work. They exist in vast numbers (1Pe_4:2; Jud_1:6), and are the bitter foes of man (Eph_6:12).

II. Was achieved after severe conflict. The conflict was--

1. Continuous from the Fall to the Cross.

2. Fierce.

3. Deadly (Luk_22:53; Joh_12:30).

III. Was signal and complete. Lessons:

1. Christ has conquered the powers of evil.

2. To the believer ultimate victory is certain.

3. Keep up a brave heart in the fiercest conflict. (G. Barlow.)

Christs victory

The shock that buried Lisbon in 1755 never ceased to vibrate till it reached the wilds of Scotland and the vineyards of Madeira. It was felt among the islands of the Grecian Archipelago, and it changed the level of the solitary lakes that sleep beneath the shadows of the North Alps. Even so the shock that Satans kingdom sustained when Christianity was established will not cease to vibrate till it move the whole world. (Christ and other Masters.)

Believers share the triumph of Christ

I belong to deaths Master, was the expression of a Christian woman lately, who at length died of internal cancer. She was attended by a Roman Catholic nurse, who was very much astonished at the calm patience and peace of the poor sufferer. A lady called to see her one day. The door was opened by the nurse. How is Mrs. Bristow to-day? inquired the visitor. She is very ill, sir, was the reply. The nurse then gave the following details:--Last night she was seized with violent pain, and I thought she was dying. I said to her, Ye are dying; shall I send for a clergyman to prepare you for death? Oh, no, she said, I want no minister, for I am ready to die at any moment. But, I said, are you not afraid to die? No, indeed, not a bit, she replied. Tell me why you are not afraid to die, when you have not been prepared by your clergyman, nor received the rites of your Church? I said. Because, she replied, joyously, I belong to deaths Master. I am a poor sinner saved by grace, and His blood has washed away my sin, and secured me a title to glory.

The triumph of Christ

I do not admire Napoleon, except in the matter of his cool courage, but for that he was noteworthy. They always represent him in the midst of the battle with folded arms. His eagle eye is on the conflict, but he is motionless as a statue. Every soldier in the imperial army felt that victory was sure, for the captain was so self-possessed. If he had been hurrying too and fro, rushing here, there, and everywhere, and making a great fuss about everything, they would have inferred that defeat was impending. But see him yonder! All is well. He knows what he is at. It is all right, for he does not strive, nor cry, nor cause his voice to be heard; he is calm, for he can see that all is well. There stands the Crucified this day, upon the vantage ground, at the right hand of God, and He surveys the battle-field in calm expectancy until His enemies are made His footstool. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5. The angels themselves subjected to Christ, Col_2:15.

15. Having spoiled—The verse relates to that feature in “the philosophy” which pertains to the worship of the holy angels. It is wholly irrelevant to say, with most commentators, that Christ in his death conquered and triumphed over the infernal powers: it proves nothing on the point in hand. The principalities and the powers refers us back to Col_2:10, where Christ is said to be their Head. We, therefore, hold the holy angels to be meant, as is absolutely essential to a conclusiveness in the argument. The verse closely connects with the preceding one. The Mosaic ritual was given through the ministry of angels, (Gal_3:19; Heb_2:2,) who were thus the revealers of God in that shadowy dispensation. He now took away that handwriting, first, suspending it on the cross that it might die, and, second, he divested himself (instead of spoiled) of the principalities and the powers as promulgators of his law, and subjected them to the incarnate Son as their Head, through whom alone, thenceforth, he will reveal himself. He then openly—at the ascension—exhibited them as subject to Christ, and as if following him in triumphal procession as their Lord. Whatever power, then, the false teacher supposed the angels to have had in revealing God, their office in that respect was at an end. Nor could the worship which belonged to Christ be given to them.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2:15 He shamed them publicly by his victory (literally he led [them] in triumphal procession): The Roman army would celebrate a great victory with a triumphal procession. The victorious Roman general would lead the humiliated captives from his campaign into the conquered city. The image vividly captures the glorious victory that God, through the cross of Christ, has won over all hostile spiritual powers (see also Eph 4:7-11).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Col 2:15. Ἀπεκδυσάμενος, having stripped off, having spoiled) Mat 12:29.—τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας, principalities and powers) Those, who worshipped good angels, at the same time feared the bad; neither with good reason: comp. Col 2:10.—ἐδειγμάτισεν, made a show) This was done at His ascension, Eph 4:8.—ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ, openly) While both they themselves beheld it in their turn, and good angels, and then men, and God Himself. The nakedness of the vanquished enemy was manifest from the fact itself, and in the Gospel.—αὐτοὺς, them) The masculine refers to the angels.—ἐν αὐτῷ, in Him) in Christ. So Hilarius the deacon explains it. This (ἐν αὐτῷ) refers (belongs) to the whole paragraph, [which treats of GOD down from Col 2:12.—V. g.] and which is here concluded. [Evidently as Eph 1:20; Eph 2:5.—V. g.]

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Col_2:15.[111] In this doing away of the law was involved the victory and triumph of God over the devilish powers, since the strength of the latter, antagonistic to God, is in sin, and the strength of sin is in the law (1Co_15:56); with the law, therefore, the power of the devil stands or falls.

If ἀπεκδυσ. ran parallel, as the majority suppose, with ΠΡΟΣΗΛΏΣΑς, there must have been a ΚΑΊ inserted before ἘΔΕΙΓΜΆΤ., as in Col_2:14 before the finite verb, because otherwise no connection would be established. Hence a full stop (Beza) must be placed before ἈΠΕΚΔΥΣ., or at least a colon (Elzevir, Bleek); and without any connecting particle the significant verb heads all the more forcibly the description of this final result expressed with triumphant fulness: Having stripped the lordships and powers, he has made a show of them boldly, holding triumph over them in the same. Observe the symmetrical emphatic prefixing of ἀπεκδυσ., ἐδειγμάτ.,., and ΘΡΙΑΜΒ. The subject is still always God, not Christ,[112] as Baur and Ewald hold, following Augustine, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Erasmus, Grotius, Calovius, and many others; hence the reading ἀπεκδ. τὴν σάρκα in F G (which omit Τ. ἈΡΧ. Κ. Τ. ἘΞΟΥΣ.) Syr. Goth. Hil. Aug. was an erroneous gloss; and at the close, not αὑτῷ (Syr. Vulg. It. Theodoret, Luther, Melanchthon, Elzevir, Griesbach, and Scholz), instead of which G has ἙΑΥΤῷ, but ΑὐΤῷ should be written; see Wolf in loc. The figurative ἀπεκδυσ., which illustrates the deprivation of power that has taken place through the divine work of reconciliation, represents the ἀρχὰς καὶ ἐξουσ. as having been clothed in armour (comp. Rom_13:12; Eph_6:11; 1Th_5:8), which God as their conqueror stripped off and took from them; Vulg.: exspolians. Comp. on ἐκδύειν and ἈΠΟΔΎΕΙΝ, used from Homers time in the sense of spoliare, Dem. 763. 28, 1259. 11; Hesiod, Scut. 447; Xen. Anab. v. 8. 23; 2Ma_8:27; and on the subject-matter, Mat_12:19; Luk_11:22. Moreover, we might expect, in accordance with the common usage of the middle, instead of ἀπεκδυσάμενος, which is elsewhere used intransitively (comp. Col_3:9), the active ἀπεκδύσας (comp. Mat_27:28; Mat_27:31; Luk_10:30); yet even in Plat. Rep. p. 612 A, the (right) reading ἀπεδυσάμεθα is to taken in the sense of nudavimus; and Xenophon uses the perfect ἀποδέδυκεν, which is likewise intransitive elsewhere (see Kühner, I. p. 803), actively, see Anab. l.c.: πολλοὺς ἤδη ἀποδέδυκεν, multos veste spoliavit; comp. Dio Cass. xlv. 47. Further, the middle, as indicating the victorious self-interest of the action (sibi exspoliavit), is here selected even with nicety, and by no means conveys (as Hofmann, in order to refute this explanation, erroneously lays to its charge) the idea: in order to appropriate to Himself this armour; see on the contrary generally, Krüger, § 52. 10. 1; Kühner, II. 1, p. 93 f. The disarming in itself, and not the possession of the enemys weapons, is the interest of the victor. Lastly, the whole connection does not admit of any intransitive interpretation, such as Hofmann, in his Schriftbew. I. p. 350 f. (and substantially also in his Heil. Schr. in loc.), has attempted, making the sense: God has laid aside from Himself the powers ruling in the Gentile worldwhich were round about Him like a veil concealing Him from the Gentilesby manifesting Himself in unveiled clearness. Something such as this, which is held to amount to the meaning that God has put an end to the ignorance of the Gentile world and revealed Himself to it, Paul must necessarily have said; no reader could unravel it from so strange a mode of veiling the conception, the more especially seeing that there is no mention at all of the victorious word of Christ[113] converting the Gentiles, as Hofmann thinks, but on the contrary of what God has effected in reference to the ἀρχαὶ and ἐξουσίαι by the fact of reconciliation accomplished on the cross; He has by it rendered powerless the powers which previously held sway among mankind; comp. Joh_12:30 f., Joh_16:11.

That these ἀρχαί and ἐξουσίαι are two categories of evil angels (comp. Eph_6:12), corresponding to two classes of good angels similarly named (comp. Col_2:10), is taught by the context, which has nothing to do with mediating beings intervening between God and the world (Sabatier), or even with human rulers. Ritschl, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 522, understands the angels of the law-giving (comp. on Col_1:20), of whom God has divested Himself (middle), i.e. from whose environment He has withdrawn Himself. Even apart from the singular expression ἀπεκδυσάμ. in this sense, this explanation is inappropriate, because the ἀρχαί and ἐξουσίαι appear here as hostile to God, as beings over whom He has triumphed; secondly, because the angels who ministered at the law-giving (see on Gal_3:19) have no share in the contents of the law, which, as the νόμος Θεοῦ, is holy, righteous, good, and spiritual (Romans 7), and hence no deviation from Gods plan of salvation can be attributed to the angels of the law; and, finally, because the expression τὰς ἀρχὰς κ. τὰς ἐξουσίας is so comprehensive that, in the absence of any more precise indication in the text, it cannot be specially limited to the powers that were active in the law-giving, but must denote the collective angelic powershostile, however, and therefore devilish. Them God has disarmed, put to shame, and triumphed over, through the abrogation of mens legal debt-bond that took place by means of the atoning death. The emphatic and triumphant prominence given to this statement was, doubtless, specially occasioned by those speculations regarding the power of demons, with which the false teachers were encroaching on the work of Christ.

δειγματίζειν, preserved only here and in Mat_1:19 (comp. however, παραδειγματίζειν, especially frequent in Polybius; see Schweighäuser, Lex. p. 429), denotes, in virtue of its connection with the conception of triumph, the making a show (Augustine, ep. 59: exemplavit; Hilary, de trin. 9: ostentui esse fecit) for the purpose of humiliation and disgrace (comp. Chrysostom), not in order to exhibit the weakness of the conquered (Theodoret, Böhmer), but simply their accomplished subjugation; comp. Nah_3:6 : θήσομαί σε εἰς παράδειγμα.

ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ] is usually rendered publicly, before the eyes of all, consequently as equivalent to φανερῶς in Joh_7:10 (the opposite: ἐν κρυπτῷ, Joh_7:4; Mat_6:4; Rom_2:28); but this the word does not mean (see on Joh_7:4); moreover, the verb already implies this idea;[114] and the usage of Paul elsewhere warrants only the rendering: boldly, freely and frankly. Comp. Eph_6:19; Php_1:20. Hilary: cum fiducia; Vulgate: confidenter palam. The objection that this sense is not appropriate to the action of God (Hofmann), overlooks the fact that God is here represented just as a human triumpher, who freely and boldly, with remorseless disposal of the spoils acquired by victory, subjects the conquered to ignominious exhibition.[115]

θριαμβεύσας αὐτ. ἐν αὐτῷ] synchronous with ἐδειγμ.: while He triumphed over them. Respecting θριαμβεύειν τινα, to triumph over some one, see on 2Co_2:14. Comp. the passive θριαμβεύεσθαι, to be led in triumph, Plut. Coriol. 35. αὐτούς refers κατὰ σύνεσιν to the devils individually, who are conceived as masculine (as δαίμονες, κοσμοκράτορες, Eph_6:12), see generally Winer, p. 138 [E. T. 183]; and ἐν αὐτῷ is referred either to the cross (hence, also, the readings ἐν τῷ ξύλῳ or σταυρῷ) or to Christ. The former reference is maintained by the majority of the Fathers (Theophylact: ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ τοὺς δαίμονας ἡττημένους δείξας), Beza, Calvin, Grotius, and many others, including Böhmer, Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald, Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 432, ed. 2; and the latter, by Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, Wolf, Estius, Bengel, and many others, including Flatt, Bähr, Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, Bleek, Hofmann, Rich. Schmidt. The reference to Christ is erroneous, because Christ is not mentioned at all in Col_2:14, and God pervades as subject the entire discourse from Col_2:11 onwards. We must hold, therefore, by the reference to τῷ σταυρῷ, so that ἐν αὐτῷ once more places the cross significantly before our eyes, just as it stood emphatically at the close of the previous sentence. At the cross God celebrated His triumph, inasmuch as through the death of Christ on the cross obliterating and removing out of the way the debt-bill of the law He completed the work of redemption, by which the devil and his powers were deprived of their strength, which rested on the law and its debt-bond. The ascension is not to be here included.

[111] Holtzmann, p. 156 f., rejects this verse because it interrupts the transition of thought to ver. 16 (which is not the case); because δειγματίζειν is un-Pauline (but in what sense is it un-Pauline? it is in any sense a very rare word); because θριαμβεύειν is used here otherwise than in 2Co_2:14 (this is incorrect); but, especially, because ver. 15 can only be explained by the circle of ideas of Eph_3:10 and Col_1:10; Eph_4:8; Eph_2:15 f. (passages which touch our present one either not at all, or at the most very indirectly).

[112] Through this erroneous definition of the subject it was possible to discover in our passage the descent into hell (Anselm and others).

[113] In which sense also Grotius explained it, though he takes ἀπεκδυσάμ. rightly as exarmatos. See, in opposition to him, Calovius. Hofmanns explanation is also followed by Holtzmann, p. 222; it is an unfortunate attempt at rationalizing.

[114] Hence Hofmann joins it with θριαμβεύσας, in which, however, the idea of publicity is obviously already contained. Hofmann, indeed, assumes a reference of contrast to the invisible triumphs, which God has ever been celebrating over those powers. But thus the idea of θριαμβεύειν is extended to an unwarranted amplitude of metaphorical meaning, while, nevertheless, the entire anthropopathic imagery of the passage requires the strict conception of the public θρίαμβος Moreover, the pretended contrast is altogether foreign to the context.

[115] It is an inconsiderate fancy of Hofmann to say, by way of controverting our explanation: Who would be surprised, that the triumpher should make a show of the conquered, without previously asking their permission? As if such a thought, no doubt very silly for the victor, were necessarily the contrast to the frank daring action, with which a general, crowned with victory, is in a position to exhibit his captives without any scruple, without sparing or hesitation! He has the ἐξουσία for the δειγματίζειν, and uses it ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Col 2:15 . In this difficult verse the meaning of almost every word is disputed. It is therefore imperative to control 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 , Col 2:16 ) requires us to bring the interpretation into close connexion with the main thought, the abolition of the Law. ἀπεκδυσάμενος τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας . Till recently the principalities and powers have been explained 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 determined 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 6:12 the reference to evil spirits is definitely and repeatedly fixed by the context. This is not so here. Further, the connexion with the context is difficult to trace. Bengel says: “Qui angelos bonos colebant, iidem malos timebant: neutrum jure”. Weiss expresses a somewhat similar idea: “It 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 passage, 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. “Of 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 Col 2:16 . 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 ἀρχ . κ . ἐξ . And this is secured if we identify them with ἀρχ . κ . ἐξ . already mentioned (Col 1:16 and Col 2:10 ). In favour of this are the following 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 worship of angels (Col 2:18 ), which is lost on the other view. In effect Paul says, “You are worshipping angels who were degraded when Christ was crucified”. We may therefore take ἀρχ . κ . ἐξ , as in the rest of the Epistle, as angelic powers, identical with στοιχεῖα τ . κόσμου , and holding a special relation to the Law. The next question is as to the meaning of ἀπεκδ . The translation “having put off His body” may be safely set aside, for Paul must have said this if he had meant it. The Greek commentators, followed by Ellicott and Lightfoot, interpret “having put off from Himself”. The word is used in this sense in Col 3:9 . They explain that Christ divested Himself of the powers of evil that gathered about Him, since He assumed our humanity with all its temptations. But (apart from the change of subject) the change of metaphor is very awkward from stripping off adversaries, like clothes, to exhibiting and triumphing over them. More cogent is the objection caused by the strangeness of the idea. Christ wore our human nature with its liability to temptation. But that He wore evil spirits is a different and indeed most objectionable idea. The same translation is adopted by some who take the other view of ἀρχ . κ . ἐξ ., and the explanation given is that God in the death of Christ divested Himself of angelic mediators. This is free from the impropriety of the other view, but shares its incongruity of metaphor. The more usual translation is “spoiled”. The middle can mean “stripped for Himself,” and this again suits either view of ἀρχ . κ . ἐξ . If evil spirits, they are stripped of their dominion; but if angels of the Law, they are despoiled of the dominion they exercise. This view, though stigmatised by Zahn as “an inexcusable caprice,” is probably best. They are fallen potentates. There is no need to worship them, or to fear their vengeance, if their commands are disobeyed. With the true interpretation of this passage, every reason disappears for assuming that Christ is the subject. ἐδειγμάτισεν ἐν παρρησία . “He made a show of them openly.” No exhibition in disgrace is necessarily implied. The principalities and powers are exhibited in their true position of inferiority, as mediators of an abolished Law and rulers of elements to which Christians have died. ἐν παρ . is not to be translated “boldly,” for courage is not needed to exhibit those who are spoiled. The word is contrasted with “reserve,” and indicates the frank, open exhibition of the angels in their true position when the bond was cancelled and Christ was manifested as the final revelation of God. θριαμβεύσας . This seems to express most definitely that the ἀρχ . κ . ἐξ . are hostile powers. Alford, referring to 2Co 2:14 , says the true victory is our defeat by Him. Findlay thinks the reference in the verb (which is not earlier than Paul) is not to the Roman military triumph, but to the festal procession ( θρίαμβος ) of the worshippers of Dionysus. In this case God is represented as leading the angels in procession in His honour; in other words, bringing them to acknowledge His greatness and the revelation of Himself in Christ. It is perhaps safest to translate “triumphing over”. This is favoured by other passages in Paul, which imply that the ἀρχ . κ . ἐξ . needed an experience of this kind. ἐν αὐτῷ may refer to Χριστ . or σταυρ . or χειρόγ . The second is best, for there has been no reference to Christ since Col 2:13 , and it is the cancelling of the bond, not the bond itself, that is the cause of the triumph. It is in the death of Christ that this triumph takes place. Zahn explains the passage to mean that God has stripped away the principalities and powers which concealed Him, not from the Jews, to whom He had revealed Himself, but from the heathen world. Thus He has revealed Himself and these apparent deities in their true character. He has triumphed over them in Christ, and led them vanquished in His train. But this was not accomplished on the cross, but through the preaching of the Gospel among the Gentiles, accompanied with such signs and wonders as in the story of the maid with the spirit of divination and the exorcists at Ephesus. But this is not what is required by the argument, which has the Jewish Law in view.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The cross was as a chariot of triumph. No conqueror could have triumphed so gloriously in his chariot, as Christ did upon the cross.

Satan and his angels.

As a conqueror made by a show of those captives, and put them to shame.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

ALFORD, ELLICOTT, and others translate the Greek to accord with the translation of the same Greek, Col 3:9, "Stripping off from Himself the principalities and the powers: " GOD put off from Himself the angels, that is, their ministry, not employing them to be promulgators of the Gospel in the way that He had given the law by their "disposition" or ministry (Act 7:53; Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2, Heb 2:5): God manifested Himself without a veil in Jesus. "THE principalities and THE powers" refers back to Col 2:10, Jesus, "the Head of all principality and power," and Col 1:16. In the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, God subjected all the principalities, &c., to Jesus, declaring them to be powerless as to His work and His people (Eph 1:21). Thus Paul's argument against those grafting on Christianity Jewish observances, along with angel-worship, is, whatever part angels may be supposed to have had under the law, now at an end, God having put the legal dispensation itself away. But the objection is, that the context seems to refer to a triumph over bad angels: in Co2 2:14, however, Christ's triumph over those subjected to Him, is not a triumph for destruction, but for their salvation, so that good angels may be referred to (Col 1:20). But the Greek middle is susceptible of English Version, "having spoiled," or, literally [TITTMANN], "having completely stripped," or "despoiled" for Himself (compare Rom 8:38; Co1 15:24; Eph 6:2). English Version accords with Mat 12:29; Luk 11:22; Heb 2:14. Translate as the Greek, "The rules and authorities."

made a show of them--at His ascension (see on Eph 4:8; confirming English Version of this verse).

openly--Joh 7:4; Joh 11:54, support English Version against ALFORD'S translation, "in openness of speech."

in it--namely, His cross, or crucifixion: so the Greek fathers translate. Many of the Latins, "In Himself" or "in Him." Eph 2:16 favors English Version, "reconcile . . . by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby." If "in Him," that is, Christ, be read, still the Cross will be the place and means of God's triumph in Christ over the principalities (Eph 1:20; Eph 2:5). Demons, like other angels, were in heaven up to Christ's ascension, and influenced earth from their heavenly abodes. As heaven was not yet opened to man before Christ (Joh 3:13), so it was not yet shut against demons (Job 1:6; Job 2:1). But at the ascension Satan and his demons were "judged" and "cast out" by Christ's obedience unto death (Joh 12:31; Joh 16:11; Heb 2:14; Rev 12:5-10), and the Son of man was raised to the throne of God; thus His resurrection and ascension are a public solemn triumph over the principalities and powers of death. It is striking that the heathen oracles were silenced soon after Christ's ascension.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 15. And having spoiled principalities and powers] Here is an allusion to the treatment of enemies when conquered: they are spoiled of their armour, so much the word απεκδυειν implies; and they are exhibited with contumely and reproach to the populace, especially when the victor has the honour of a triumph; to the former of which there is an allusion in the words εδειγματισεν εν παρρησια, making a public exhibition of them; and to the latter in the words θριαμβευσας αυτους, triumphing over them. And the principalities and powers refer to the emperors, kings, and generals taken in battle, and reserved to grace the victor's triumph. It is very likely that by the αρχας και εξουσιας, principalities and powers, over whom Christ triumphed, the apostle means the נשיאות nesioth and רשות roshoth, who were the rulers and chiefs in the Sanhedrin and synagogues, and who had great authority among the people, both in making constitutions and explaining traditions. The propagation of Christianity in Judea quite destroyed their spiritual power and domination; just as the propagation of Protestantism, which was Christianity revived, destroyed, wherever it appeared, the false doctrine and domination of the pope of Rome.

In it.] The words εναυτω refer rather to Christ, than to the cross, if indeed they be genuine; of which there is much reason to doubt, as the versions and fathers differ so greatly in quoting them. Griesbach has left them out of the text.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

15. Spoiling principalities. There is no doubt that he means devils, whom Scripture represents as acting the part of accusing us before God. Paul, however, says that they are disarmed, so that they cannot bring forward anything against us, the attestation of our guilt being itself destroyed. Now, he expressly adds this with the view of shewing, that the victory of Christ, which he has procured for himself and us over Satan, is disfigured by the false apostles, and that we are deprived of the fruit of it when they restore the ancient ceremonies. For if our liberty is the spoil which Christ has rescued from the devil, what do others, who would bring us back into bondage, but restore to Satan the spoils of which he had been stript bare?

Triumphing over them in it. The expression in the Greek allows, it is true, of our reading — in himself; nay more, the greater part of the manuscripts have ἐν αὑτῳ with an aspirate. The connection of the passage, however, imperatively requires that we read it otherwise; for what would be meagre as applied to Christ, suits admirably as applied to the cross. For as he had previously compared the cross to a signal trophy or show of triumph, in which Christ led about his enemies, so he now also compares it to a triumphal car, in which he shewed himself conspicuously to view. For although in the cross there is nothing but curse, it was, nevertheless, swallowed up by the power of God in such a way, that it has put on, as it were, a new nature. For there is no tribunal so magnificent, no throne so stately, no show of triumph so distinguished, no chariot so elevated, as is the gibbet on which Christ has subdued death and the devil, the prince of death; nay more, has utterly trodden them under his feet.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(15) Having spoiled principalities and powers . . .—This verse is one of great difficulty. Not, indeed, in the main idea. The cross, as usual, is identified with the triumph over the powers of evil which it won. The very phrase “made a show,” is cognate to the words “put Him to open shame” applied to the Crucifixion (Heb_6:6). The apparent triumph of the “power of darkness” over Him was His real and glorious triumph over them. The general idea is familiar to us, telling, as in the noble old hymn Vexilla Regis—

“How of the Cross He made a throne

On which He reigns, a glorious king.”

His forgiveness of the penitent thief was the first act of His all-saving royalty. Accordingly, taking (as in 2Co_2:14-16) his metaphor from a Roman triumph, St. Paul represents Him as passing in triumphal majesty up the sacred way to the eternal gates, with all the powers of evil bound as captives behind His chariot before the eyes of men and angels. It is to be noted that to this clause, so characteristic of the constant dwelling on the sole glory of Christ in this Epistle, there is nothing to correspond in the parallel passage of the Epistle to the Ephesians, which dwells simply on Christ as “our peace,” and as the head of the Church.

The difficulty lies in the word here translated “having spoiled.” Now this translation (as old as St. Jerome’s Vulgate), makes all simple and easy; but the original word certainly means “having stripped Himself”—as in Col_3:9, “having put off (stripped off from ourselves) the old man.” It is a word used by St. Paul alone in the New Testament, and by him only in these two passages, the latter of which makes the sense perfectly clear. Being forced, then, to adopt this translation, we see that the words admit of two renderings. (1) First, “having stripped from Himself the principalities and powers,” that is, having stripped off that condition of the earthly life which gave them a grasp or occasion against Him. But this, though adopted by many old Greek commentators (Chrysostom among the rest), seems singularly harsh in expression and far-fetched in idea, needing too much explanation to make it in any sense clear. (2) Next, “having unclothed Himself, He made a show of principalities and powers.” On the whole this rendering, although not free from difficulty, on account of the apparent want of connection of the phrase “having stripped Himself” with the context, seems the easiest. For we note that a cognate word, strictly analogous, is used thus (without an object following) in 2Co_5:4, “Not that we desire to unclothe ourselves, but to clothe ourselves over our earthly vesture.” The context shows that the meaning there is “to put off the flesh.” This is suggested still more naturally in the passage before us by the preceding phrase, “in the putting off of the body of the flesh”—a phrase there used of the flesh as evil, but found in Col_1:22 of the natural body of Christ. Accordingly many Latin fathers (among others Augustine) rendered “stripping Himself of the flesh,” and there is some trace of this as a reading or a gloss in the Greek of this passage. Perhaps, however, St. Paul purposely omitted the object after the verb, in order to show that it was by “stripping Himself of all” that He conquered by becoming a show in absolute humiliation, He made the powers of evil a show in His triumph.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

15. having spoiled] “Having put off from Himself” (R.V.).—The Greek verb is apparently unknown before St Paul; classical illustration is impossible. Its literal meaning is “to strip off”; and its voice is middle. This voice, it is alleged, compels us to explain it of the Lord’s stripping off something from Himself, divesting Himself. And explanations vary between (a) that given in margin R.V., (“having put off from Himself His body”), supported by the Peshito Syriac version and (among other Fathers) by Ambrose, Hilary, and Augustine (see Lightfoot); and (b) that given in text R.V., advocated by Lightfoot, and supported by Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and other Fathers. In this last, the thought would be that the powers of evil swarmed, so to speak, around Him who had taken our place under “the curse of the Law,” and that He in His triumph, stripped or cast them off.

The objection to (a) is that it brings in an alien and isolated idea, and in obscure terms. The objection to (b) seems to us to be that it presents to us an image very peculiar in itself, and not obviously proper to the next words. To cast off enemies and then at once to exhibit them are not quite congruous ideas.

And why should we reject the A.V. rendering as if ungrammatical? The lawful force of the middle voice would be as well represented by “stripping for Himself” as “stripping from Himself”; it makes the subject of the verb to be also in some degree the object of the action. And the Lord did “strip His foes for Himself”: “He taketh from him the armour, and divideth the spoils” (Luk_11:22). The imagery is then congruous; the disarmed and despoiled foes are then appropriately, as captives, “shewn” in triumph. We recommend accordingly the A.V.[83]

[83] It is objected that below, Col_3:9, we have the same verb in the same voice used where the meaning clearly is “to strip from oneself.” But classical parallels exist to such a varying use of the middle in neighbouring contexts. See Sophocles, Ajax, 245, 647 (Dindorf). (Note by the Bishop of Worcester.)

The Old Latin Version has exuens se, following explanation (b). The Vulgate renders the verb exspolians—the immediate original of the A.V.

principalities and powers] Lit., the governments and the authorities, the recognized enemies of Redemption and the Redeemer. These made their dire hostility supremely felt in that “hour” which He Himself called “the authority of the Darkness” (Luk_22:53). The personal adversaries (under their Chief; see the intimations of Luk_4:13; Joh_13:2; Joh_14:30), who had crossed His path so often as the “demons” of possession, now directly assailed Himself, as they are still permitted in measure to assail (Eph_6:12) His followers, who meet them in Him the Conqueror.—See further above on Col_1:16.

made a shew of them] Nearly the same Greek verb as that used Mat_1:19; “make her a public example.” The Latin Versions have traduxit, “led them along,” as the captives in a Roman triumph.

openly] Rather, boldly (Lightfoot). The “openness” indicated by the Greek phrase (quite literally, “in, or with, outspokenness”) is the openness of confidence. It is used Joh_7:4 (where Lightfoot explains it to mean “to assume a bold attitude”); Eph_6:19; Php_1:20.

triumphing over them] The Greek verb (thriambeuein) occurs elsewhere (in N.T.) only 2Co_2:14; where it is variously explained “to make to triumph” or “to lead in triumph.” Here it is of course the latter.—Philologically it is probably akin to the Latin triumphus.

in it] The Cross. The margin A.V., “in Himself” is quite untenable, though it is countenanced by the Latin, (in semetipso), and by Wyclif, Tyndale (“in his awne persone”), Cranmer, and Rheims. The Genevan version has “in the same crosse.”

The Lord’s atoning Death, the apparent triumph of His foes over Him, was His absolute and eternal triumph over them, when it was seen, in His Resurrection, to be the mysterious Ransom of His Church from the curse and from sin, and so His own glorification as its Head. Vicit qui passus est; cui gloria in œternum.

This whole passage while pregnant with primary and universal truth has doubtless a special reference all the while to the “Colossian heresy” with its angelology and angelolatry. He who is King of all orders of good Angels is here presented as Conqueror of their evil counterpart; he, from both points of view, fills the field.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And having spoiled principalities and powers,.... Principalities of hell, the infernal powers of darkness, the devil that had the power of death, the accuser of the brethren, who often objected their debts, with all his works and posse: these Christ has divested of their armour, wherein they trusted to have ruined men, as sin, the law, and death; he has ransomed his people from him that was stronger than they, and taken the prey out of the hands of the mighty; he has bruised the serpent's head, demolished his works, destroyed him himself, and all his powers, and defeated all their counsels and designs against his elect: some render the word "having put off", or "unclothed": and which some of the ancient writers apply to the flesh of Christ, and understand it of his putting off the flesh by death, whereby he gave the death blow to Satan and his powers, Heb 2:14, to which sense agrees the Syriac version, which renders the words, , "and by the putting off of his body, he exposed to shame principalities and powers": but it may be better interpreted of unclothing, or stripping principalities and powers of their armour, with which they were clothed; as is usually done to enemies, when they fall into the hands of their conquerors: unless rather this is to be understood of Christ's taking away the power and authority of the Jewish ecclesiastical rulers and governors, by abolishing the ceremonial law, and the ordinances of it; declaring himself to be the alone King and Lawgiver in his house, and requiring subjection to his institutions and appointments, which sense agrees with the context:

he made a show of them openly; when being raised from the dead, he ascended on high, and led captivity captive; he led Satan and his principalities and powers captive, who had led others, as he passed through the air, the territories of the devil, in the sight of God and the holy angels:

triumphing over them in it; which some understand of the cross, as if where and by what he got the victory, there he triumphed; the cross, where his enemies thought to make a show of him, expose him to public scorn and contempt, and to triumph over him, was as it were the triumphant chariot, in which he triumphed over all the powers of hell, when he had conquered them by it: but the words may be rendered "in himself", as they are by the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions; and the sense be, that as he by himself got the victory, his own arm brought salvation to him, so he alone shared the glory and honour of the triumph: or it may be rendered "in him", and the whole in this and the preceding verse be applied to God the Father, who, as in Col 2:12; is said to raise Christ from the dead, to quicken sinners dead in sins, and to forgive all their trespasses; so he may be said to blot out the handwriting of ordinances, and to spoil principalities and powers, expose them to public view and shame, and triumph over them, "in him", in and by his Son Jesus Christ: the whole is an allusion to the victories, spoils, and triumphs, of the Roman emperors, who when they had obtained a victory, a triumph was decreed for them by the senate; in which the emperor was drawn in an open chariot, and the captives being stripped of their armour, and their hands tied behind them, were led before him and exposed to public view and disgrace; while he was shouted and huzzaed through the city of Rome, and had all the marks of honour and respect given him (b): now all that is said in the preceding verses show how complete the saints are in and by Christ; and stand in no need of the philosophy of the Gentiles, or the ceremonies of the Jews; nor have anything to fear from their enemies, sin, Satan, and the law, for sin is pardoned, the law is abolished, and Satan conquered,

(b) Vid. Lydium de re Militari, l. 6. c. 3.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

Ver. 15. He made a show of them] A plain allusion to the Roman triumphs. {See Trapp on "Eph 4:8"} Christ made the devils a public spectacle of scorn and derision, as Tamerlane did Bajazet the Great Turk, whom he shut up in an iron cage made like a grate, in such sort, as that he might on every side be seen; and so carried him up and down, as he passed through Asia, to be of his own people scorned and derided.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And having spoiled - Plundered as a victorious army does a conquered country. Notes, Col 2:8. The terms used in this verse are all military, and the idea is, that Christ has completely subdued our enemies by his death. A complete victory was achieved by his death, so that every thing is now in subjection to him, and we have nothing to fear.

Principalities and powers - Notes, Eph 1:21; Eph 6:12, note. The “principalities and powers” here referred to, are the formidable enemies that had held man in subjection, and prevented his serving God. There can be no doubt, I think, that the apostle refers to the ranks of fallen, evil spirits which had usurped a dominion over the world, Joh 12:31, note; Eph 2:2, note. The Saviour, by his death, wrested the dominion from them, and seized upon what they had captured as a conqueror seizes upon his prey. Satan and his legions had invaded the earth and drawn its inhabitants into captivity, and subjected them to their evil reign. Christ, by his death. subdues the invaders and recaptures those whom they had subdued.

He made a show of them openly - As a conqueror, returning from a victory, displays in a triumphal procession the kings and princes whom he has taken, and the spoils of victory. This was commonly done when a “triumph” was decreed for a conqueror. On such occasions it sometimes happened that a considerable number of prisoners were led along amidst the scenes of triumph see the notes at 2Co 2:14. Paul says that this was now done “openly” - that is, it was in the face of the whole universe - a grand victory; a glorious triumph over all the powers of hell It does not refer to any public procession or display on the earth; but to the grand victory as achieved in view of the universe, by which Christ, as a conqueror, dragged Satan and his legions at his triumphal car; compare Rom 16:20.

Triumphing over them in it - Margin, or, “himself.” Either “by the cross,” or “by himself.” Or, it may mean, as Rosenmuller suggests, that “God Col 2:12 triumphed over these foes in him; i. e., in Christ. The sense is substantially the same, that this triumph was effected by the atonement made for sin by the Redeemer. See the word “triumph” explained in the Notes on 2Co 2:14. The meaning of all this is, that since Christ has achieved for us such a victory, and has subdued all the foes of man, we should not be led captive, but should regard ourselves as freemen. We should not be made again the slaves of custom, or habit, or ritual observances, or superstitious rites, or anything whatever that has its origin in the kingdom of darkness. We are bound to assert and to use our freedom, and should not allow any hostile power in the form of philosophy or false teaching of any kind, to plunder or “spoil” us; Col 2:8. The Christian is a freeman. His great Captain has subdued all his enemies, and we should not allow them again to set up their dark empire over our souls. The argument of the apostle in these verses Col 2:13-15 is derived from what Christ has done for us. He mentions four things:

(1) He has given us spiritual life.

(2) He has forgiven all our trespasses.

(3) He has blotted out or abolished the “ordinances” that were against us.

(4) He has triumphed over all our foes. From all this he infers (Col 2:16 ff) that we should not be made captive or subdued by any of the rites of superstition, or any of the influences of the kingdom of darkness.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

And despoiling the principalities and powers; the devil and his infernal spirits. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

And having spoiled; some render it, seeing he hath stripped or made naked, as runners and racers used to put off their clothes.

Principalities and powers; hence some of the ancients read putting off his flesh (possibly by the carelessness of some scribes, writing that which signifies flesh instead of that which signifies principalities, in all the authentic copies); but besides that Christ hath not put off the human nature, only the infirmities of the flesh, 2Co 5:16; Heb 5:7, it doth not agree with what follows. One conceits that by principalities and powers are meant the ceremonies of the law, because of the Divine authority they originally had; and that Christ unclothed or unveiled them, and showed them to be misty figures that were accomplished in his own person. But I see no reason thus to allegorize, for it is easy to discern the word is borrowed from conquering warriors having put to flight and disarmed their enemies, (as the word may well signify disarming, in opposition to arming, Rom 13:12; Eph 6:11,14), and signifies here, that Christ disarmed and despoiled the devil and his angels, with all the powers of darkness. We have seen that by principalities and powers are meant angels, Col 1:16, with Rom 8:37; Eph 1:21; and here he means evil ones, in regard of that power they exercise in this world under its present state of subjection to sin and vanity, Luk 4:6; Joh 12:31; 2Co 4:4; Eph 2:2; 6:12; 2Ti 2:26; whom Christ came to destroy, and effectually did on his cross defeat, Luk 11:22; Joh 16:11; 1Co 15:55; Heb 2:14; 1Jo 3:8; delivering his subjects from the power of darkness, Col 1:13, according to the first promise, Gen 3:15.

He made a show of them openly; yea, and Christ did, as an absolute conqueror, riding as it were in his triumphal chariot, publicly show that he had vanquished Satan and all the powers of darkness, in the view of heaven and earth, Luk 10:17,18.

Triumphing over them; even then and there where Satan thought he should alone have had the day by the death of the innocent Jesus, was he and his adherents triumphed over by the Lord of life, to their everlasting shame and torment. What the papists would gather hence, that Christ did, in this triumphant show upon the cross, carry the souls of the patriarchs out of their Limbus, i.e. their appointment to hell, is a mere unscriptural fiction; for those that he made show of in his victorious chariot are the very same that he spoiled to their eternal ignominy and confusion.

In it: some render this, (as in the margin), in himself, or by himself, i.e. by his own power and virtue and not by the help of any other; the prophet saith he trod the winepress alone, and had not any of the people with him, Isa 63:3; yet it seems here better to adhere to our own translation, in it, considering what went before of his cross, that he triumphed over Satan on it or by it, because the death that he there suffered was the true and only cause of his triumphs; there he trod Satan under his feet, there he set his seed at liberty, and they who go about to bereave them of it, and bring them into bondage, do no other than restore to Satan his spoils.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Having stripped off the principalities and the dominions (Col_1:16 Col_2:10; Act_7:38, Act_7:53; Gal_3:19; Heb_1:5, Heb_1:7, 14 2:2, 5; Deu_33:2; Psa_68:17) Apekdusamenov has been rendered, from the time of the Latin Vulgate, "having spoiled" (exspolians), a rendering which is "not less a violation of St. Paul"s usage (Col_3:9) than of grammatical rule" (Lightfoot; so Alford, Ellicott, Wordsworth, Hofmann, Revisers). It is precisely the same participle that we find inkdusiv Col_3:9, and the writer has just used the noun ajpe (ver. 11) in a corresponding sense (see note in loc. on the force of the double compound). He employs compounds of duw in the middle voice seventeen times elsewhere, and always in the sense of "putting off or, "on" from one"s self;" and there is no sure instance in Greek of the middle verb bearing any other meaning. Yet such critics as Meyer, Eadie, Klopper, cling to the rendering of the Vulgate and our Authorized Version; and not without reason, as we shall see. The Revised margin follows the earlier Latin Fathers and some ancient versions, supplying "his body" as object of the participle, understanding "Christ" as subject. But the context does not, as in 2Co_5:3, suggest this ellipsis, and it is arbitrary to make the participle itself mean "having disembodied himself. Nor has the writer introduced any new subject since ver. 12, where" God" appears as agent of each of the acts of salvation set forth in vers. 12-15. Moreover, "the principalities and the dominions" of this verse must surely be those of ver. 10 and of Col_1:16 (compare the "angels" of ver. 18). We understand St. Patti, therefore, to say "that God revealing himself in Christ; "in him," 15 b put off and put away those angelic powers through whom he had previously shown himself to men." The Old Testament associates the angels with the creation of the world and the action of the powers of nature Job_38:7; Psalm cir. 4), and with its great theophanies generally (Psa_68:7; Deu_33:2; 2Ki_6:17, etc.) and its hints in this direction were emphasized and extended by the Greek translators of the Act_7:38, 53 (St. Stephen) Gal_3:19; Heb_2:2, ascribe to them a special agency in the giving of the Law. Hebrews 1. and it. show how large a place the doctrine of the mediation of angels filled in Jewish thought at this time, and how it tended to limit the mediatorship of Christ. The mystic developments of Judaism among the Essenes and the Ebionites (Christian Essenes), and in the Cabbala, are full of this belief. And it is a cornerstone of the philosophic mysticism of Alexandria. In Philo the angels are the "Divine powers," "words," "images of God, forming the court and entourage of the invisible King, by whose means he created and maintains the material world, and holds converse with the souls of men (see quotation, ver. 10). This doctrine, we may suppose, was a chief article of the Colossian heresy. Theodoret"s note on ver. 18 is apposite here: "They who defended the Law taught men to worship angels, saying that the Law was given by them. This mischief continued long in Phrygia and Pisidia." The apostle returns to the point from which he started in ver. 10. He has just declared that God has cancelled and removed the Law as an instrument of condemnation; and now adds that he has at the same time thrown off and laid aside the veil of angelic mediation under which, in the administration of that Law, he had withdrawn himself. Both these acts take place "in Christ." Both are necessary to that "access to the Father" which, in the apostle"s view, is the special prerogative of Christian faith (Eph_2:18 Eph_3:12; Rom_5:2) and which the Colossian error doubly barred, by its ascetic ceremonialism and by its angelic mediation. (See, on this passage, Alford; also Peirce"s "Paraphrase and Notes," 2nd edit., 1729; Robertson Smith, on "Christ and the Angels," Expositor, second series, vol. 1:138, etc.; A. Sabatier"s "L"Apotre Paul," p. 220, 2nd edit., 1881.) We are compelled, with all deference to its high authority, to reject the view of the Greek Fathers, to which Ellicott, Lightfoot, and Wordsworth have returned, according to which "Christ in his atoning death in it; "the cross," ver. 15 b stripped off from himself the Satanic powers." For it requires us to bring in, without grammatical warrant, "somewhere (Lightfoot), "Christ" as subject; it puts upon" the principalities and the dominions" a sense foreign to the context, and that cannot be justified by Eph_6:12, where the connection is wholly different and the hostile sense of the terms is most explicitly defined; and it presents an idea harsh and unfitting in itself, the incongruity of which such illustrations as those of the Nessus robe and Joseph"s garment only make more apparent. It is one thing to say that the powers of evil surrounded Christ and quite another thing to say that he wore them as we have worn "the body of the flesh" (ver. 11; Col_3:9) He made a show (of them) openly, having led them in triumph in him; or, it (Eph_1:21, Eph_1:22; Php_2:10; 1Pe_3:22; Heb_1:5, Heb_1:6; Joh 1; Mat_25:31 Mat_26:53; Rev_19:10 Rev_22:9) In this, as in the last verse, we have a finite verb between two participles, one introductory ("having stripped off"), the other explanatory, Deigmatizw, to make a show or example, occurs in the New Testament besides only in, Mat_1:17, where it is compounded with para (Revised Text) giving it a sinister meaning of not belonging to the simple verb. With the angelic "principalities, etc., for object, the verb denotes, not a shameful exposure, but "an exhibition of them in their true character and position," such as forbids them to be regarded superstitiously (ver. 18). God exhibited the angels as the subordinates and servants of his Son (ver. 10: comp. Luk_1:26 Luk_2:10, Luk_2:13; Mar_1:13; Luk_22:43; Mat_28:2, etc.) "Openly" (ejn parrhsia: literally, in freedom of speech, a favourite word of St. Paul s) implies the absence of reserve or restraint, rather than mere publicity (comp. Eph_6:19; Php_1:20) Qriambeusav ("having triumphed;" 2Co_2:14 only other instance of the verb in the New Testament; its use in classical Greek confined to Latinist writers, referring, historically, to the Roman triumph) presents a formidable difficulty in the way of the interpretation of the verse followed so far. For the common acceptation of the word "triumph" compels us to think of the "principalities," etc., as hostile (Satanic); and this, again, as Meyer strongly contends, dictates the rendering "having spoiled" for ajpekdusamenov. So we are brought into collision with two fixed points of our former exegesis. If we are bound lexically to abide by the reference to the Roman military triumph, then the angelic principalities must be supposed to have stood in a quasi-hostile position to "the kingdom of God and of Christ," in so far as men had exaggerated their powers and exalted them at Christ"s expense, and to have been now robbed of this false pre-eminence. The writer however, ventures to question whether, on philological grounds, a better, native Greek sense cannot be found for this verb. The noun thriambos ("triumph"), on which it is based, is used, indeed, in the Latin sense as early as Polybius, a writer on Roman history (160 B.C.). But it is extant in a much earlier classical fragment as synonymous with dithyrambos, denoting "a festal song;" and again in Plutarch, contemporary with St. Paul, it is a name of the Greek god Dionysus, in whose honour such songs were sung, and whose worship was of a choral, processional character. This kinder triumph was, one may imagine, familiar to the eyes of St. Paul and of his readers, while the spectacle of the Roman triumph was distant and foreign (at least when he wrote 2 Corinthians). We suggest that the apostle"s image is taken, beth here and in 2Co_2:14, from the festal procession of the Greek divinity, who leads his worshippers along as witnesses of his power and celebrants of his glory. Such a figure fittingly describes the relation and the attitude of the angels to the Divine presence in Christ. Let this suggestion, however, be regarded as precarious or fanciful, the general exposition of the verse is not thereby invalidated. (For further elucidation, see the Expositor, first series, vol. 10. pp. 403-421; 11. p. 78. On "triumph," in 2 Corinthians, see Mr. Waite"s Additional note in "Speaker"s Commentary.") The Revisers omit the marginal "in himself" of the Authorized Version, which correctly, as we think, refers the final ejn aujtw to Christ (ver. 10), though incorrectly implying "Christ" as subject of the verse. It was not only "in the cross" that God unveiled himself, dispensing with angelic theophanies, but in the entire person and work of his Son (Col_1:15; 2Co_4:4; Joh_1:14, 18 14:9) "Which veil" (for hero we may apply the words of 2Co_3:14) "is done away in Christ." So the whole passage (vers. 10-15) ends, as it begins, "in him:" "We are complete in him in our conversion from sin to holiness set forth in baptism, and our resurrection from death to life experienced in forgiveness (vers. 11-13); and in the removal at once of the legal bar which forbade our access to God (ver. 14), and of the veil of inferior and partial mediation which obscured his manifestation to us (ver. 15).

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And having spoiled the principalities and powers - The evil angels, of their usurped dominion. He - God the Father. Exposed them openly - Before all the hosts of hell and heaven. Triumphing over them in or by him - By Christ. Thus the paragraph begins with Christ, goes on with him, and ends with him.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

15. Having put off from himself the principalities (Revision). Christ overcame and disarmed the spirits of darkness, the evil angels. He triumphed over Satan and all his powers. Made a show of them. Put them to an open shame by triumphing over them in his resurrection and ascension.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

15. ἀπεκδυσάμενος. What is the force of the middle? I. In itself it may = stripping for Himself, i.e. despoiling τὰς ἀρχὰς κ. τὰς ἐξουσίας for His own purposes. But it is not only very improbable that St Paul should use the same word, and that a rare one, in one sense here, and in another sense so soon as Col 3:9, but also, as it seems, this meaning is “wholly unsupported by the lexical usage of ἀποδύω, ἐκδύω, and ἀπεκδύω” (Ellicott).

II. Hence it = Christ (see Col 2:14, notes) stripping Himself of something. But of what?

(1) Sc. τὴν σάρκα. So the Latin Fathers, e.g. Augustine, Ep. 149 (§ 26), exuens se carne, principatus et potestates exemplavit. Also the Peshiṭta “and by putting off His body.” But this metaphor has no support from the context nearer than Col 2:11, which is too far away.

(2) τὰς ἀρχὰς κ. τὰς ἐξουσίας, Col 1:16 note.

(a) They are commonly understood as evil, see Eph 6:11-12. In this case they are pictured as gathering round Christ, at various times in His life on earth, and with special force and nearness at the Passion. But there, at the Cross, “the powers of evil, which had clung like a Nessus robe about His humanity, were torn off and cast aside for ever” (Lightfoot). Cf. Chrysostom who sees in ἀπεκδ. a metaphor from wrestling.

The weakness of this interpretation is that unless the phrase τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου (Col 2:8) refers to angels there is no hint in this Epistle that St Paul regards τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ ἐξουσίας as evil. On the contrary, in Col 1:16 and Col 2:10 it is somewhat clearly implied that they are good, or at least may include the good, and this is confirmed by ἀγγέλων in Col 2:18.

(b) The ἀρχαί and the ἐξουσίαι are spiritual beings generally.

(α) Possibly, but improbably, there is a specific reference to the angels as God’s means of communication with the world before the Incarnation, especially at the giving of the Law (Gal 3:19, cf. Act 7:53), which presumably is regarded as a χειρόγραφον introduced by them. In contrast to that, God “divested Himself of angelic mediation” in the Atonement. Angels are thus discredited. This would give an intelligible meaning but would seem to require “God” as the subject of ἀπεκδ. There appears to be no evidence of a belief that angels worked by means of the Law and precept and thus, as it were, held men in their grip, or the passage might mean that Christ by freeing Himself, and us, from any such grip showed His superiority to them.

(β) More probably they represent the spiritual powers that attended on Christ to help Him, as, in accordance with Jewish belief, they helped all who tried to do right. The thought will then be that in the final scene He stripped Himself of these His usual attendants. He thus showed up these Powers, to whom the Colossians were bid submit by the false teachers, as wholly unnecessary and useless. Even on the Cross Christ could do without them. So far from availing Himself of them He drew them, as He drew Christian men (2Co 2:14), even in His train.

ἐδειγμάτισεν, “made a show of them,” “displayed them,” Mat 1:19 only, in the Greek Bible.

It does not = make an example (“exemplum de illis dedit,” Aug. loc. cit.), which is παραδειγματίζω, Mat 1:19, Text. Rec.; Heb 6:6†; Num 25:4. Apparently here it = showed them in their true character.

ἐν παρρησίᾳ. The exact phrase only in Joh 7:4; Joh 16:29. Cf. Wis 5:1. It probably = with freedom of speech, and hardly so loses its proper force as to merely = openly. Translate perhaps “without reserve.” It is probably to be taken closely with ἐδειγμάτισεν, and expresses the free and unreserved character of Christ’s action in displaying them.

θριαμβεύσας, “leading them in triumph.” So also 2Co 2:14†, τῷ δὲ θεῷ χάρις τῷ πάντοτε θριαμβεύοντι ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ χριστῷ. Similarly Lightfoot quotes Plutarch, of persons being led as captives in the formal “triumphs” given to victorious generals, as saying, τοῦτον Αἰμίλιος ἐθριάμβευσε and βασιλεῖς ἐθριάμβευσε. Cf. however Field, Otium Norv. III. on 2 Cor.

αὐτούς. The masculine definitely regards the ἀρχαί and ἐξουσίαι as persons. It is probably to be joined only with θριαμβεύσας.

ἐν αὐτῷ, “in it.” See notes on Textual Criticism.

(a) Not τὸ χειρόγραφον, which has been left long since.

(b) Nor Christ, either by regarding God as the subject of the verbs (which is improbable, vide supra), or as referring to Him even though He is the subject; cf. note on εἰς αὐτόν, Col 1:20. Cf. G, ἐν ἑαυτῷ, Vulg. in semetipso, followed by Wyclif, Tyndale, “in his awne persone,” and the margin of the A. V. “in himself.” For this adds but little to the thought of the passage.

(c) It doubtless refers to the Cross, the thought of which has been passing under the whole verse and now reappears. Observe the collocation of αὐτοὺς with ἐν αὐτῷ. Even on His Cross, the very weakest point in His whole earthly existence (2Co 13:4), He showed Himself far superior to all angelic beings. “The convict’s gibbet is the victor’s car” (Lightfoot).

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

15.] The utmost care must be taken to interpret this verse according to the requirements of grammar and of the context. The first seems to me to necessitate the rendering of ἀπεκδυσάμενος, not, as the great majority of Commentators, ‘having spoiled’ (ἀπεκδύσας), a meaning unexampled for the middle, and precluded by the plain usage, by the Apostle himself, a few verses below, ch. 3:9, of the same word ἀπεκδυσάμενοι,—but ‘having put off,’ ‘divested himself of.’ Then the second must guide us to the meaning of τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας. Most Commentators have at once assumed these to be the infernal powers, or evil angels: relying on Eph 6:12, where undoubtedly such is the specific reference of these general terms. But the terms being general, such specific reference must be determined by the context of each passage,—or, indeed, there may be no such specific reference at all, but they may be used in their fullest general sense. Now the words have occurred before in this very passage, ver. 10, where Christ is exalted as the κεφαλὴ πάσης ἀρχῆς κ. ἐξουσίας: and it is hardly possible to avoid connecting our present expression with that, seeing that in τὰς ἀρχὰς κ. τὰς ἐξουσίας the articles seem to contain a manifest reference to it. Now, what is the context? Is it in any way relevant to the fact of the law being antiquated by God in the great Sacrifice of the atonement, to say that He, in that act (or, according to others, Christ in that act), spoiled and triumphed over the infernal potentates? Or would the following οὖν deduce any legitimate inference from such a fact? But, suppose the matter to stand in this way. The law was διαταγεὶς διʼ ἀγγέλων (Gal 3:19: cf. Act 7:53), ὁ δι ἀγγέλων λαληθεὶς λόγος (Heb 2:2): cf. also Jos. Antt. xv. 5. 3, ἡμῶν τὰ κάλλιστα τῶν δογμάτων, κ. τὰ ὁσιώτατα τῶν ἐν τοῖς νόμοις διʼ ἀγγέλων παρὰ τ. θεοῦ μαθόντων;—they were the promulgators of the χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν. In that promulgation of theirs, God was pleased to reveal Himself of old. That writing, that investiture, so to speak, of God, was first wiped out, soiled and rendered worthiess, and then nailed to the Cross—abrogated and suspended there. Thus God ἀπεξεδύσατο τὰς ἀρχὰς κ. τὰς ἐξουσίας—divested Himself of, put off from Himself, that ἀγγέλων διαταγή, manifesting Himself henceforward without a veil in the exalted Person of Jesus. And the act of triumph, by which God has for ever subjected all principality and power to Christ, and made Him to be the only Head of His people, in whom they are complete, was that sacrifice, whereby all the law was accomplished. In that, the ἀρχαὶ κ. ἐξουσίαι were all subjected to Christ, all plainly declared to be powerless as regards His work and His people, and triumphed over by Him, see Php 2:8, Php 2:9: Eph 1:20, Eph 1:21. No difficulty need be created, on this explanation, by the objection, that thus more prominence would be given to angelic agency in the law than was really the fact: the answer is, that the prominence which is given, is owing to the errors of the false teachers, who had evidently associated the Jewish observances in some way with the worship of angels: St. Paul’s argument will go only to this, that whatever part the angelic powers may have had, or be supposed to have had, in the previous dispensation, all such interposition was now entirely at an end, that dispensation itself being once for all antiquated and put away. Render then,—putting off (by the absence of a copula, the vigour of the sentence is increased. The participle is contemporary with ἦρκεν above, and thus must not be rendered ‘having put off’) the governments and powers (before spoken of, ver. 10, and ch. 1:16: see above) He (God, who is the subject throughout: see also ch. 3:3:—not Christ, which would awkwardly introduce two subjects into the sentence) exhibited them (as completely subjected to Christ;—not only put them away from Himself, but shewed them as placed under Christ. There seems no reason to attach the sense of putting to shame (παραδειγματίσαι) to the simple verb. That this sense is involved in Mat 1:19, is owing to the circumstances of the context) in (element of the δειγματίσαι) openness (of speech; declaring and revealing by the Cross that there is none other but Christ the Head πάσης ἀρχῆς κ. ἐξουσίας), triumphing over them (as in 2Co 2:14, we are said (see note there) to be led captive in Christ’s triumph, our real victory being our defeat by Him,—so here the principalities and powers, which are next above us in those ranks of being which are all subjected to and summed up in Him) in Him (Christ: not ‘in it,’ viz. the cross, which gives a very feeble meaning after the ἐγείραντος αὐτόν, and συνεζωοπ. σὺν αὐτῷ above). The ordinary interpretation of this verse has been attempted by some to be engrafted into the context, by understanding the χειρόγρ. of a guilty conscience, the ἀρχ. κ. ἐξ. as the infernal powers, the accusers of man, and the scope of the exhortation as being to dissuade the Colossians from fear or worship of them. So Neander, in a paraphrase (Denkwürdigkeiten, p. 12) quoted by Conyb. and Howson, edn. 2, vol. ii. p. 478 note. But manifestly this is against the whole spirit of the passage. It was θρησκεία τῷν ἀγγέλων to which they were tempted—and οἱ ἄγγελοι can bear no meaning but the angels of God.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

15. ἀπεκδυσάμενος τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας, ἐδειγμάτισεν, κ.τ.λ. The verb ἀπεκδύεσθαι appears not to occur in any writer before St. Paul; its occurrence, therefore, here and in 3:9, as well as that of ἀπέκδυσις in ver. 11, is remarkable. It is, no doubt, chosen in order to express more emphatically the completeness of the action. Both ἀποδύειν and ἐκδύειν occur in classical authors in the sense “strip,” hence of enemies, “strip of arms, spoliare.” For ἐκδύειν in the sense “strip,” see Mat 27:28, Mat 27:31; Mar 15:20; Luk 10:30. The middle occurs 2Co 5:4 of putting off the mortal body. In this Epistle, 3:19, ἀπεκδυσάμενοι occurs again in the sense “strip off and put away,” viz., τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον. It is very difficult to decide in what sense the word is used here.

First, it has been taken absolutely, “having put off from himself his body, he made a show,” etc., as RV. marg. This, which supposes ὁ Χριστός to be the subject, is the interpretation adopted by Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, and some other Latins. Probably, however, they had before them a Latin counterpart of the reading found in G, viz. τὴν σάρκα καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας. The Latin of G has the same. Thus Hilary has twice, “exutus carnem et potestates ostentui fecit” (773, 990); once, however, he has “spolians se carne et principatus et potestates ostentui fecit” (204).

Novat. also has “exutus carnem potestates dehonestavit” (De Trin. 16). It will be observed that these quotations, except the third from Hilary, agree with G in omitting τὰς ἀρχάς. This reading may have originated from the eye or ear error of a copyist, aided by the suggestion of ἀπεκδ.; but more probably was a gloss, which was supposed to be a correction, and so substituted for the correct text. There is a trace either of the reading or the interpretation in a Docetic work quoted by Hippolytus, Haer. viii. 10, p. 267, ψυχὴ ἐκείνη ἐν τῷ σώματι τραφεῖσα, ἀπεκδυσαμένη τὸ σῶμα καὶ προσηλώσασα πρὸς τὸ ξύλον καὶ θριαμβεύσασα διʼ αὐτοῦ τὰς ἀρχάς, κ.τ.λ. The Syriac Peshitto has the same interpretation, “by the putting off of his body”; and so the Gothic also.

In support of this interpretation 2Co 5:4 is referred to, where the cognate verb ἐκδύσασθαι is used absolutely of putting off the body. But there the metaphor is not abruptly introduced, the verb only carrying out the figure introduced with its explanation in vv. 2, 3. Here it would be quite isolated, being neither explained nor suggested by anything in the context, with which, indeed, the idea would have no apparent connexion. Some expositors, indeed, have found an allusion to the metaphorical use of ἀποδύεσθαι, “to prepare for a contest,” as in Plut. Mor. 811 E, πρὸς πᾶσαν ἀποδυόμενοι τὴν πολιτικὴν πρᾶξιν. This explanation is very far-fetched, and entirely unsuitable.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Having spoiled principalities and powers [απεκδυσαμενος τας αρχας και τας εξουσιας] . For the verb spoiled, see on putting off, ver.

Col 2:11The principalities and powers are the angelic hosts through whose ministry the law was given. See Deu 33:2; Act 7:53; Heb 2:2; Gal 3:19. Great importance was attached, in the later rabbinical schools, to the angels who assisted in giving the law; and that fact was not without influence in shaping the doctrine of angelic mediators, one of the elements of the Colossian heresy, which was partly Judaic. This doctrine Paul strikes at in ch. Col 1:16; Col 2:10; here, and ver. 18. God put off from himself, when the bond of the law was rendered void in Christ 's crucifixion, that ministry of angels which waited on the giving of the law, revealing Christ as the sole mediator, the head of every principality and power (ver. 10). The directness of the gospel ministration, as contrasted with the indirectness of the legal ministration, is touched upon by Paul in Gal 3:19 sqq.; 2Co 3:12 sqq.; Heb 2:2.

He made a show of them [εδειγματισεν] . Only here and Mt 1:19, see note. The compound paradeigmatizw to expose to public infamy, is found Heb 6:6; and deigma example, in Jude 1:7. The word is unknown to classical Greek. The meaning here is to make a display of, exhibit. He showed them as subordinate and subject to Christ. Compare especially Hebrews 1. throughout, where many points of contact with the first two chapters of this epistle will be found.

Openly [εν παρρησια] . Or boldly. See on Phl 1:8. 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 [θραιμβευσας αυτους] . See on 2Co 2:14. If we take this phrase in the sense which it bears in that passage, leading in triumph, there seems something incongruous in picturing the angelic ministers of the law as captives 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 Corinthians, 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 mediators, yet exulting in the triumph of the one and only Mediator. Even in the figure in 2 Corinthians, the captives rejoice in the triumph. Compare Rev 19:11. Our knowledge of the word qriambeuw is not so extensive or accurate as to warrant too strict limitations in our definition.

In it [εν αυτω] . The cross. Many expositors, however, render 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. In it is necessary only if the subject of the sentence is Christ; but the very awkward change of subject from God (quickened us together, ver. 13) is quite unnecessary. God is the subject throughout. 198

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

προσηλώσας κ.τ.λ.] ‘The abrogation was even more emphatic. Not only was the writing erased, but the document itself was torn up and cast aside.’ By προσηλώσας is meant that the law of ordinances was nailed to the cross, rent with Christ’s body, and destroyed with His death: see the notes on Gal. vi. 14 δι’ οὗ [τοῦ] σταυροῦ ἑμοὶ κόσμος (the world, the sphere of material ordinances) ἐσταύρωται κἀγὼ κόσμῳ, where the idea is the same. It has been supposed that in some cities the abrogation of a decree was signified by running a nail through it and hanging it up in public. The image would thus gain force, but there is no distinct evidence of such a custom.

15. ἀπεκδυσάμενος κ.τ.λ.] This word appears not to occur at all before St Paul, and rarely if ever after his time, except in writers who may be supposed to have his language before them; e.g. Hippol. Hær. i. 24 ἀπεκδυσάμενον τὸ σῶμα ὃ περικεῖται. In Joseph. Ant. vi. 14. 2 ἀπεκδὺς is only a variation for μετεκδὺς which seems to be the correct reading. The word also appears in some texts of Babrius Fab. xviii. 3, but it is merely a conjectural emendation. Thus the occurrence of ἀπεκδύεσθαι here and in iii. 9, and of ἀπέκδυσις above in ver. 11, is remarkable; and the choice of an unusual, if not a wholly new, word must have been prompted by the desire to emphasize the completeness of the action. The force of the double compound may be inferred from a passage of Lysias, where the two words ἀποδύεσθαι and ἐκδύεσθαι occur together; c. Theomn. i. 10 (p. 117) φάσκων θοιμάτιον ἀποδεδύσθαι ἢ τὸν χιτωνίσκον ἐκδεδύσθαι. Here however the sense of ἀπεκδυσάμενος is difficult. The meaning generally assigned to it, ‘having spoiled, stripped of their arms’, disregards the middle voice. St Jerome is chiefly responsible for this common error of interpretation: for in place of the Old Latin ‘exuens se’, which was grammatically correct, he substituted ‘exspolians’ in his revised version. In his interpretation however he was anticipated by the commentator Hilary, who read ‘exuens’ for ‘exuens se’ in his text. Discarding this sense, as inconsistent with the voice, we have the choice of two interpretations.

(1) The common interpretation of the Latin fathers, ‘putting off the body’, thus separating ἀπεκδυσάμενος from τὰς ἀρχὰς κ.τ.λ. and understanding τὴν σάρκα or τὸ σῶμα with it; comp. 2 Cor. v. 3 ἐνδυσάμενοι. So Novat. de Trin. 16 ‘exutus carnem’; Ambros. Expos. Luc. v. § 107 (I. p. 1381) ‘exuens se carnem’, comp. de Fid. iii. 2 (II. p. 499); Hilar. de Trin. i. 13 (II. p. 10) ‘exutus carnem’ (comp. ix. 10, p. 265), x. 48 (p. 355) ‘spolians se carne’ (comp. ix. 11, p. 266); Augustin. Epist. 149 (II. p. 513) ‘exuens se carne’, etc. This appears to have been the sense adopted much earlier in a Docetic work quoted by Hippol. Hær. viii. 10 ψυχὴ ἐκέινη ἐν τῷ σώματι τραφεῖσα, ἀπεκδυσαμένη τὸ σῶμα καὶ προσηλώσασα πρὸς τὸ ξύλον καὶ θριαμβεύσασα κ.τ.λ. It is so paraphrased likewise in the Peshito Syriac and the Gothic. The reading ἀπεκδυσάμενος τὴν σάρκα καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας (omitting τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ), found in some ancient authorities, must be a corruption from an earlier text, which had inserted the gloss τὴν σάρκα after ἀπεκδυσάμενος, while retaining τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ, and which seems to have been in the hands of some of the Latin fathers already quoted. This interpretation has been connected with a common metaphorical use of ἀποδύεσθαι, signifying ‘to strip’ and so ‘to prepare for a contest’; e.g. Plut. Mor. 811 E πρὸς πᾶσαν ἀποδύομενοι τὴν πολιτικὴν πρᾶξιν, Diod. Sic. ii. 29 ἐπὶ φιλοσοφίαν ἀποδύντες. The serious objection to this rendering is, that it introduces an isolated metaphor which is not explained or suggested by anything in the context.

(2) The common interpretation of the Greek fathers; ‘having stripped off and put away the powers of evil’, making ἀπεκδυσάμενος govern τὰς ἀρχὰς κ.τ.λ. So Chrysostom, Severianus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret. This also appears to have been the interpretation of Origen, in Matt. xii. § 25 (III. p. 544), ib. § 40 (p. 560), in Ioann. vi. § 37 (IV. p. 155), ib. xx. § 29 (p. 356), though his language is not explicit, and though his translators, e.g. in Libr. Ies. Hom. vii. § 3 (II. p. 413), make him say otherwise. The meaning then will be as follows. Christ took upon Himself our human nature with all its temptations (Heb. iv. 15). The powers of evil gathered about Him. Again and again they assailed Him; but each fresh assault ended in a new defeat. In the wilderness He was tempted by Satan; but Satan retired for the time baffled and defeated (Luke iv. 13 ἀπέστη ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ἄχρι καιροῦ). Through the voice of His chief disciple the temptation was renewed, and He was entreated to decline His appointed sufferings and death. Satan was again driven off (Matt. xvi. 23 ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾶ, σκάνδαλον εἶ ἐμοῦ: comp. Matt. viii. 31). Then the last hour came. This was the great crisis of all, when ‘the power of darkness’ made itself felt (Luke xxii. 53 ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ σκότους; see above i. 13), when the prince of the world asserted his tyranny (Joh. xii. 30 ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου). The final act in the conflict began with the agony of Gethsemane; it ended with the cross of Calvary. The victory was complete. The enemy of man was defeated. The powers of evil, which had clung like a Nessus robe about His humanity, were torn off and cast aside for ever. And the victory of mankind is involved in the victory of Christ. In His cross we too are divested of the poisonous clinging garments of temptation and sin and death; τῷ ἀποθέσθαι τὴν θνητότητα, says Theodore, ἣν ὑπὲρ τῆς κοινῆς ἀφεῖλεν εὐεργεσίας, ἀπεδύσατο κἀκείνων (i.e. τῶν ἀντικειμένων δυνάμεων) τὴν αὐθεντείαν ᾗπερ ἐκέχρηντο καθ’ ἡμῶν. For the image of the garments comp. Is. lxiv. 6, but especially Zech. iii. 1 sq., ‘And he showed me Joshua the high-priest standing before the angel of the Lord and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan.... Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments.... And He answered and spake unto those that stood before Him saying Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him He said Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee’. In this prophetic passage the image is used of His type and namesake, the Jesus of the Restoration, not in his own person, but as the high-priest and representative of a guilty but cleansed and forgiven people, with whom he is identified. For the metaphor of ἀπεκδυσάμενος more especially, see Philo Quod det. pot. ins. 13 (I. p. 199) ἐξαναστάντες δὲ καὶ διερεισάμενοι τὰς ἐντέχνους αὐτῶν περιπλοκὰς εὐμαρῶς ἐκδυσόμεθα , where the image in the context is that of a wrestling bout.

This interpretation is grammatical; it accords with St Paul’s teaching; and it is commended by the parallel uses of the substantive in ver. 11 ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκός, and of the verb in iii. 9 ἀπεκδυσάμενοι τὸν πάλαιον ἄνθρωπον κ.τ.λ. The ἀπέκδυσις accomplished in us when we are baptized into His death is a counterpart to the ἀπέκδυσις which He accomplished by His death. With Him indeed it was only the temptation, with us it is the sin as well as temptation; but otherwise the parallel is complete. In both cases it is a divestiture of the powers of evil, a liberation from the dominion of the flesh. On the other hand the common explanation ‘spoiling’ is not less a violation of St Paul’s usage (iii. 9) than of grammatical rule.

τὰς ἀρχὰς κ.τ.λ.] What powers are especially meant here will appear from Ephes. vi. 12 πρὸς τὰς ἀρχάς, πρὸς τὰς ἐξουσίας, πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ σκότους τούτου, πρὸς τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας κ.τ.λ. See the note on i. 16.

ἐδειγμάτισεν] ‘displayed’, as a victor displays his captives or trophies in a triumphal procession: Hor. Epist. i. 17. 33 ‘captos ostendere civibus hostes’. The word is extremely rare; Matt. i. 19 μὴ θέλων αὐτὴν δειγματίσαι (where it ought probably to be read for the more common word παραδειγματίσαι), Act. Paul. et Petr. 33 ἔλεγε πρὸς τὸν λαὸν ἵνα μὴ μόνον ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ Σίμωνος ἀπάτης φύγωσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ δειγματίσουσιν αὐτόν. Nowhere does the word convey the idea of ‘making an example’ (παραδειγματίσαι) but signifies simply ‘to display, publish, proclaim’. In the context of the last passage we have as the consequence, ὥστε πάντας τοὺς εὐλαβεῖς ἄνδρας βδελύττεσθαι Σίμωνα τὸν μάγον καὶ ἀνόσιον αὐτὸν καταγγέλλειν , i.e. to proclaim his impieties. The substantive occurs on the Rosetta stone l. 30 (Boeckh, C. I. 4697) τῶν συντετελεσμένων τὰ πρὸς τὸν δειγματισμὸν διάφορα.

ἐν παρρησίᾳ] ‘boldly’, not ‘publicly’. As παρρησία is ‘unreservedness, plainness of speech’ (παν-ρησία, its opposite being ἀρρησία ‘silence’), so while applied still to language, it may be opposed either (1) to ‘fear’, as John vii. 13, Acts iv. 29, or (2) to ‘ambiguity, reserve’, Joh. xi. 14, xvi. 25, 29; but ‘misgiving, apprehension’ in some form or other seems to be always the correlative idea. Hence, when it is transferred from words to actions, it appears always to retain the idea of ‘confidence, boldness’; e.g. 1 Macc. iv. 18 λήψετε τὰ σκυλα μετὰ παρῥησίας, Test. xii. Patr. Rub. 4 οὐκ εἶχον παρῥησίαν ἀτενίσαι εἰς πρόσωπον Ἰακώβ, Jos. Ant. ix. 1O. 4 ὑπ’ αἰσχύνης τε τοῦ συμβεβηκότος δεινοῦ καὶ τοῦ μηκέτ’ αὐτῷ παρῥησίαν εἶναι. The idea of publicity may sometimes be connected with the word as a secondary notion, e.g. in Joh. vii. 4, where ἐν παρρησίᾳ εἶναι ‘to assume a bold attitude’ is opposed to ἐν κρυπτῷ ποιεῖν (comp. xviii. 20); but it does not displace the primary sense.

J. B. Lightfoot, St Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon: a revised text with introductions, notes and dissertations (London: Macmillan, 1875) — public domain. Electronic text from Project Gutenberg (ebook #50857). Covers Colossians and Philemon only (the verse-by-verse notes; introductions and dissertations are omitted); Lightfoot's companion Galatians and Philippians volumes are not included, as the available public-domain scans carry garbled Greek that cannot be faithfully reproduced.