--and this, from Alford.
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. Col_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, Col_2:10, 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_2:8-9; Eph_1:20-21.
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, Col_2:10, and ch. Col_1:16; see above) He (GOD, who is the subject throughout: see also ch. Col_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.
I tend to go on what Cambridge and Alford and the link I have shared to you brother.
God bless.
Johann.
