Colossians 2:16

The apostle concludes the chapter with exhortations to proper duty, which he infers from the foregoing discourse.

I. Here is a caution to take heed of judaizing teachers, or those who would impose upon Christians the yoke of the ceremonial law: Let no man therefore judge you in meat nor drink, etc., Col 2:16. Much of the ceremonies of the law of Moses consisted in the distinction of meats and days. It appears by Rom. 14 that there were those who were for keeping up those distinctions: but here the apostle shows that since Christ has come, and has cancelled the ceremonial law, we ought not to keep it up. "Let no man impose those things upon you, for God has not imposed them: if God has made you free, be not you again entangled in that yoke of bondage." And this the rather because these things were shadows of things to come (Col 2:17), intimating that they had no intrinsic worth in them and that they are now done away. But the body is of Christ: the body, of which they were shadows, has come; and to continue the ceremonial observances, which were only types and shadows of Christ and the gospel, carries an intimation that Christ has not yet come and the gospel state has not yet commenced. Observe the advantages we have under the gospel, above what they had under the law: they had the shadows, we have the substance.

II. He cautions them to take heed of those who would introduce the worship of angels as mediators between God and them, as the Gentile philosophers did: Let no man beguile you of your reward, in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, Col 2:18. It looked like a piece of modesty to make use of the mediation of angels, as conscious to ourselves of our unworthiness to speak immediately to God; but, though it has a show of humility, it is a voluntary, not a commanded humility; and therefore it is not acceptable, yea, it is not warrantable: it is taking that honour which is due to Christ only and giving it to a creature. Besides, the notions upon which this practice was grounded were merely the inventions of men and not by divine revelation, - the proud conceits of human reason, which make a man presume to dive into things, and determine them, without sufficient knowledge and warrant: Intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind - pretending to describe the order of angels, and their respective ministries, which God has hidden from us; and therefore, though there was a show of humility in the practice, there was a real pride in the principle. They advanced those notions to gratify their own carnal fancy, and were fond of being thought wiser than other people. Pride is at the bottom of a great many errors and corruptions, and even of many evil practices, which have great show and appearance of humility. Those who do so do not hold the head, Col 2:19. They do in effect disclaim Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man. It is the highest disparagement to Christ, who is the head of the church, for any of the members of it to make use of any intercessors with God but him. When men let go their hold of Christ, they catch at that which is next them and will stand them in no stead. - From which all the body, by joints and bands, having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Observe, 1. Jesus Christ is not only a head of government over the church, but a head of vital influence to it. They are knit to him by joints and bands, as the several members of the body are united to the head, and receive life and nourishment from him. 2. The body of Christ is a growing body: it increaseth with the increase of God. The new man is increasing, and the nature of grace is to grow, where there is not an accidental hindrance. - With the increase of God, with an increase of grace which is from God as its author; or, in a usual Hebraism, with a large and abundant increase. - That you may be filled with all the fulness of God, Eph 3:19. See a parallel expression, Which is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, fitly joined together, maketh increase of the body, Eph 4:15, Eph 4:16.

III. He takes occasion hence to warn them again: "Wherefore, if you be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are you subject to ordinances? Col 2:20. If as Christians you are dead to the observances of the ceremonial law, why are you subject to them? Such observances as, Touch not, taste not, handle not," Col 2:21, Col 2:22. Under the law there was a ceremonial pollution contracted by touching a dead body, or any thing offered to an idol; or by tasting any forbidden meats, etc., which all are to perish with the using, having no intrinsic worth in themselves to support them, and those who used them saw them perishing and passing away; or, which tend to corrupt the Christian faith, having no other authority than the traditions and injunctions of men. - Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will-worship and humility. They thought themselves wiser than their neighbours, in observing the law of Moses together with the gospel of Christ, that they might be sure in the one, at least, to be in the right; but, alas! it was but a show of wisdom, a mere invention and pretence. So they seem to neglect the body, by abstaining from such and such meats, and mortifying their bodily pleasures and appetites; but there is nothing of true devotion in these things, for the gospel teaches us to worship God in spirit and truth and not by ritual observances, and through the mediation of Christ alone and not of any angels. Observe, 1. Christians are freed by Christ from the ritual observances of Moses's law, and delivered from that yoke of bondage which God himself had laid upon them. 2. Subjection to ordinances, or human appointments in the worship of God, is highly blamable, and contrary to the freedom and liberty of the gospel. The apostle requires Christians to stand fast in the liberty with which Christ hath made them free, and not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage, Gal 5:1. And the imposition of them is invading the authority of Christ, the head of the church, and introducing another law of commandments contained in ordinances, when Christ has abolished the old one, Eph 2:15. 3. Such things have only a show of wisdom, but are really folly. It is true wisdom to keep close to the appointments of the gospel, and an entire subjection to Christ, the only head of the church.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Col_2:16-17

Let no man therefore Judge you.

Christian liberty

I. The points in which that liberty is to be exercised.

1. Those which, in addition to circumcision, were principally in question were--

(1) Meat and drink, which refers to unclean things, things offered to idols, and perhaps the Nazarite vow. As there were few Jewish regulations as to drink, probably other ascetic practices were in question.

(2) Sacred seasons--annual festivals, the monthly feast of the new moon, and the weekly Sabbath.

2. The relation of the Gentile converts to these was really the question whether Christianity was to be more than a Jewish sect, and the main force which, under God, settled the contest was the vehemence and logic of Paul.

3. He lays down the ground on which the whole matter was to be settled. They are a shadow, etc. Coming events cast their shadows before. The great work of Christ whose goings forth have been from everlasting, may be thought of as having set out from the Throne as soon as time was, like the beams of some far-off star that have not yet reached a dark world. The light from the Throne is behind Him as He advances across the centuries, and the shadow is thrown far in front.

II. This involves the purely prophetic and symbolic character of the old testament order.

1. Sacrifice, altar, priest, temple, spoke of Christ.

(1) The distinctions of meats were meant to familiarize men with the conceptions of purity and impurity, and so, by stimulating conscience to work the need of a Purifier.

(2) The yearly feasts set forth various aspects of Christs work, and the Sabbath showed in outward form the rest into which He leads His people who cease from their own works and wear His yoke. And all are like outriders who precede a prince on his progress, and as they gallop through sleeping villages rouse them with the cry, the king is coming.

2. And when the king has come where are the heralds? When the reality, who wants the shadows? And if that which threw the shadow forward has arrived, how shall the shadow be visible too?

III. Therefore the cessation of all these observances is involved in their prophetic character.

1. The practical conclusion is not, let no man observe these any more, but let no man judge you about them. He does not quarrel with the rites, but with men insisting on them.

2. His own practice is the best commentary on his meaning. When they said to him, You must circumcise Titus, he said, Then I will not. When nobody tried to compel him he circumcised Timothy to avoid scandals.

3. In times of transition, wise supporters of the new will not be in a hurry to break with the old. The brown sheaths remain on the twigs alter the tender green leaf has burst from within them, but there is no need to pull them off, for they will drop presently.

4. The bearing of Pauls principles on the religious observance of Sunday.

(1) The obligation of the Jewish Sabbath has passed away, but the institution of a weekly day of rest is put in Scripture independently and prior to the Mosaic institution. That is the natural conclusion from the narrative in Genesis, the fact that Sabbath was made for man, i.e., for the race, and the traces of a pre-Mosaic Sabbath, e.g., in Assyria. It is a physical and moral necessity, and that is a mistaken benevolence which on the plea of culture or amusement for the many, compels the labour of the few.

(2) The gradual growing up of the practice of observing the Lords day is in accordance with the whole spirit of the New Covenant, which has next to nothing to say about externals, but leaves the new life to shape itself. The necessity of a day of rest is not less now than at the first. I distrust the spirituality which professes that all life is a Sabbath, and therefore holds itself absolved from special seasons of worship; but it is better to think of the day as a great gift for the highest purposes, than to keep it as a mere commandment. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)

The ceremonial and the real in religion

Ceremonial in religion--

I. Can form no just basis for individual condemnation. Let no man judge you. The essence of religion does not consist in the outward form, but the inward spirit.

II. Is typical of the real. Rites have their place in the culture of the race, and in their proper sphere are important. They sketch the outlines of truths, and are valuable only as they conduct to the realities they predict and typify.

III. Is abolished and rendered nugatory by the real. It is a dangerous infatuation to snatch at the shadow when we may embrace the substance. Lessons:

1. Learn to exercise forbearance in externals.

2. Christ alone can satisfy the deepest craving of the soul. (G. Barlow.)

The shadow and the substance

Therefore marks the connection. The handwriting is destroyed, Christians are free; why then go back to the elements of bondage.

I. The admonition.

1. Eating and drinking have reference to the dietetic injunctions of Mosaism. These had a strong hold of the Jewish mind (Act_10:9-16). The distinctions of days point collectively to the periodical feasts and sacred seasons. And the idea was that all this was essential to salvation, and so obligatory on Gentile Christians.

2. Against this notion Paul asserts the great principle of Christian liberty. Such things ought never to be a criterion of piety. Yet how strong is the tendency to-day to forbid certain kinds of food at certain seasons, and to insist on saints days. The doctrine here is that one kind of food is as lawful, and one day as sacred, as another. All these distinctions have passed away, and are no longer binding. That we are at liberty to observe certain days, such as those on which we commemorate the great redemptive facts, e.g., Christmas, Easter, etc., there can be no doubt, but they are not obligatory (Rom_14:6).

3. The great practical question is that which relates to the Sabbath. The seventh day was long kept along with the first; but this was condemned as Judaizing by the Council of Laodicea (a.d. 864). The apostle declares that a Christians true piety is not to be judged by his regard of the Jewish Sabbath any more than to the other festivals. That was a shadow of the Lords day. That a seventh portion of our time should be specially given to God is based on considerations as old as creation; but the foundation and character of the Lords day are altogether changed from those of the Jewish Sabbath. Its true principle is allegiance to a living Saviour whose resurrection on that day it commemorates, as laying the foundation of a new spiritual creation. The Saviours appearances on that day subsequent to His resurrection, and the usage of the apostles, hallow the first day of the week, and make it with a Divine fitness and beauty the Christians day of rest.

II. The argument. The coming Saviour as the Sun of Righteousness, in the establishment of the Jewish economy, flung a shadow of His approaching advent and dispensation down on the descendants of Abraham, that they might walk in it, and conserve the worship and truth of God. As a shadow it was--

1. Predicted and foretold that something grander was coming.

2. It was prefigurative. A shadow is s likeness, however faint, and the truths embodied in Christ were dimly typified in Judaism.

3. But as a shadow is evanescent, it was made to vanish away when that which was perfect had come. Then it answered its purpose and disappeared. The reality was reached in the Son of God. (J. Spence, D. D.)

Religion, freedom, and joy

Religion is not like the prophets roll, sweet as honey when it was in his mouth, but as bitter as gall in his belly. Religion is no sullen stoicism, no sour Pharisaism: it does not consist in a few melancholy passions, in some dejected looks or depressions of mind; but it consists in freedom, love, peace, life, and power; the more it comes to be digested: into our lives, the more sweet and lovely we shall find it to be. Those spots and wrinkles which corrupt minds think they see in the face of religion are, indeed, nowhere else but in their own deformed and misshapen apprehensions. It is no wonder, when a defiled fancy comes to be the glass, if you have an unlovely reflection. (John Smith.)

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

Col 2:16-17. Let no man, therefore, &c. — Seeing these things are so, and the ceremonial law is now abolished, let no one, who is in a bigoted manner attached to it, judge and condemn you Gentile Christians; that is, regard none who judge you, in regard to the use of meat or drink — Forbidden by it; or in respect of a holyday — Η εν μερει εοπτης, in respect of a festival. The festivals, distinguished from new moons and sabbaths, meant days of rejoicing annually observed. Of these some were enjoined in the law, others by human authority, such as those instituted in commemoration of the deliverance of the Jews by Esther, and of the purification of the temple by Judas Maccabeus. Or the new moon, or the sabbath days — The weekly Jewish sabbaths; which are but a lifeless shadow emblematical of good things to come — Intended to lead men’s minds to spiritual and evangelical blessings. But the body — Of those shadows; is of Christ — The substance of them is exhibited in the gospel of Christ, in whom they all centre; and having the latter, we need not be solicitous about the former. “The whole of the ceremonial law of Moses being abrogated by Christ, (Col 2:14,) Christians are under no obligation to observe any of the Jewish holydays, not even the seventh-day sabbath. Wherefore, if any teacher made the observance of the seventh day a necessary duty, the Colossians were to resist him. But though the brethren in the first age paid no regard to the Jewish seventh-day sabbath, they set apart the first day of the week for public worship, and for commemorating the death and resurrection of their Master, by eating his supper on that day; also for the private exercises of devotion. This they did, either by the precept or by the example of the apostles, and not by virtue of any injunction in the law of Moses. Besides, they did not sanctify the first day of the week in the Jewish manner, by a total abstinence from bodily labour of every kind. That practice was condemned by the council of Laodicea, as Judaizing.” — Macknight.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6. Deductions from the foregoing, Col_2:16-23.

a. Caution against legal observances, Col_2:16, Col_2:17.

16. No man… judge you—As to the right or wrong of your conduct, in eating, or in drinking, or in the observance of the annual, monthly, or weekly festivals. In these matters there is no obligation. A divine authority was claimed for them; but Paul insists that they were but a shadow whose substance is Christ. The Jewish seventh-day Sabbath is here meant, and not the Christian first-day Sabbath. The Jewish aspects of the Sabbath are done away, but not the day itself as enjoined in the decalogue, which was given, not through the ministry of angels, but by the audible voice of God himself, and which the Saviour taught is “for man” universally. Note, Rom_14:5-6.

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

CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES

Col_2:16. Let no man therefore judge you.—They could not well prevent an adverse judgment being given on their disregard of what the ritualists thought to be of supreme moment, but they could refuse to argue about such trifles.

Col_2:17. Shadow … body.—The relationship is indicated here of the old ceremonial worship to the worship of the Spirit. To confound shadow and substance, or mistake the shadow for the substance, has ever been the fatal error of ritualism.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Col_2:16-17

The Ceremonial and the Real in Religion.

After dealing with the speculative theories so busily propagated by the false teachers at Colossæ, the apostle descends from the height of his lofty argument, and with incomparable force sweeps away the whole group of errors which overrated an excessive ritualism and insisted on a rigorous asceticism. The existence of the ceremonial in religion is a confession of the imperfection of our nature; and the more rudimentary the ceremonial, the lower it supposes our condition. The ceremonial foreshadows the real, and is intended to help in attaining it. In the nature of things, therefore, the ceremonial is but temporary. When it puts man in possession of the real it vanishes. The shadow is absorbed in the substance. To compel man to find salvation in the ceremonial, when he already possesses the real, is a retrogression and an injustice. The liberty of the gospel places the believer above the slavery of external ordinances, and furnishes him with a law—the law of a christianised conscience—as to their use or neglect.

I. That the ceremonial in religion can form no just basis for individual condemnation.—“Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat,” etc. (Col_2:16). The Mosaic law enforced certain injunctions concerning eating and drinking. It gave minute directions as to the animals that were to be eaten, making a distinction between the clean and the unclean. As to drinking, the priests were strictly forbidden the use of wine on the eve of solemn public duty; and the vow of the Nazarites required entire abstinence from the fruit of the vine. The tendency of the Jews was to multiply these distinctions and prohibitions, and to exalt them into undue importance. The reference to special days embraces the collective periodical feasts and sacred seasons of the Levitical ritual—the yearly, monthly, and weekly celebrations. The term holy day would include the festivals of the Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles respectively. The new moon alludes to the monthly celebrations mentioned (Num_10:10; Num_28:11). The Sabbath days refer to the weekly solemnities and services of the seventh day. The Jews assumed that the obligation of these regulations was permanent, and their observance essential to the salvation of the Christian believer. The gospel teaches that the observance or non-observance of these ceremonial rites is no just ground for judging each other. We are not justified in condemning any one for neglecting them, or to think any better of one who reverently observes them. The essence of religion does not consist in the outward form, but in the inward spirit—not in the ceremonial, but in the real. “Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” (Col_2:17).

II. That the ceremonial in religion is typical of the real.—“Which are a shadow of things to come” (Col_2:17). Ceremonies have their place in the culture of mankind, and in their legitimate sphere they are important. They are adapted to the infant stage in the development of the race. They sketch out the bold, rough outlines of truths that are in a half-formed, embryotic state. They are shadows projected across the disc of our mental vision—of grand realities which are ever advancing into clearer view. They are typical of the existence and certain manifestation of deeper and unchangeable truths. They are predictive of things to come. The great yearly festival of the Passover typified the forgiveness of sins by the shedding of the precious blood of Christ. The Pentecost, or feast of the firstfruits, sets forth the sustenance and ample provision God has made for the soul. The feast of the Tabernacles was a significant reminder of God’s providential guidance and fatherly care of human life. The new moon, or first day of the month, with its usual service, impressed on the minds of the people the truth that Jehovah, the Ruler of the seasons, was the God of providence as well as of creation. The weekly Sabbath, with its grateful rest, was expressly instituted to commemorate the rest of God after the exercise of His creative energy. Then the ordinary sacrifices were doubled, and the shewbread renewed, to indicate that God is the source and sustenance of our life. And so the whole Mosaic law was a type and presage of the gospel. The spiritually enlightened look through the outward and visible symbol to the great truth signified. The ceremonial is valuable only as it conducts to the real.

III. That the ceremonial in religion is abolished and rendered nugatory by the real.—“But the body is of Christ” (Col_2:17). When the substance appears, the shadow is swallowed up. As the shadows are to the body, so were the types and ceremonies of the law to Christ. They were figures of evangelical blessings; but the truth, the reality, and abiding substance of them are found in the person, work, and salvation of Christ. All the grand truths prefigured by the ancient Mosaic ritual are embodied in Christ. He gives the fullest personal representation of Jehovah as the God of nature, providence, and redemption, at once the Author and the Ruler of the spiritual life. In Christ, therefore, as the substance and antitype, all shadow and symbol disappear. It is a dangerous infatuation to snatch at the shadow and cling to it, when we may embrace and rest in the sufficiency of the substance. This is to restore the cancelled handwriting and nullify the splendid triumph of the cross. In Christ the ceremonial is effete, powerless, dead. He only is the changeless, eternal, all-satisfying real.

Lessons.—

1. Learn to exercise the spirit of Christian forbearance in external observances.

2. Be careful not to rest in the ceremonial.

3. Christ alone can satisfy the deepest craving of the soul.

GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES

Col_2:16-17. The Shadow and the Substance of the Sabbath.

I. The transient shadow which has passed away.—The Sabbath as a sign between God and the Israelites, marking them off from all other nations by its observance—as a mere Jewish institution.

II. The permanent substance which cannot pass.—“The body is of Christ”—the Spirit of Christ is the fulfilment of the law. To have the Spirit of Christ is to have fulfilled the law. Apply this to Sabbath observance.—F. W. Robertson.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

5. Two special warnings

(2:16–23.)

16     Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink [in eating or in drinking],24 or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days [of sabbaths]:25 17Which26 are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ [Christ’s]. 18Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility [arbitrarily in humility]27 and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not28 seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind [lit., the mind of his flesh], 19And not holding the Head, from which [whom]29 all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered [being supplied], and knit together, increaseth with the increase 20of God. Wherefore [omit Wherefore]30 if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21(Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22Which all are to perish with the using;) [for destruction in the consumption:]31 after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23Which things have indeed a shew [repute] of wisdom in will-worship, and humility; and neglecting [unsparingness]32 of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh [only to the satisfying of the flesh].33

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

The first warning, against a fleshly legality. Col_2:16-17.

Col_2:16. Let no man therefore judge you.—Since the personality of the readers is strongly emphasized by the position of the words: τις ὑμᾶς. in sharp contrast, “therefore” refers to what was said above (Col_2:1-15), especially to their endowments and position in Christ: not merely however to the doing away of the Mosaic law (Meyer and others). Bengel: ex. v. 8–15 deducitur igitur. Κρίνειν means “to judge;” the connexion defines it more closely : allow no one the right to judge and to condemn you, if you do not respond to such demands. The warning is found in this,—permitting their action to be determined by this (Bleek). Neminem, qui vos judicare conatur, audiatis (Bengel). He treats of Christian, gospel freedom. Luther: Let no one make conscience for you (see also Rom_14:22). It is not therefore=κατακρινέτω (Baehr).

In eating or in drinking.—, Ἐν denotes the sphere, the point where the judgment was exercised, as Rom_2:1. Βρώσει. and πόσει set forth the act of eating and drinking—food is βρῶμα; drink, πόμα (Rom_14:17; 2Co_9:10; 1Co_8:4; 1Co_10:4; Heb_11:10). As the Mosaic law had (Lev_7:10-27) prohibitions respecting food alone, and forbade wine only to the Nazarites (Num_6:3), and during the time of priestly service (Lev_10:9), the false teachers had certainly gone beyond this and heightened asceticism for Christians (Mat_23:24; Rom_14:21). It is a false view, that there is here only a consonance without further significance (De Wette). Whether all indulgence in meat (Olshausen) or in wine (Schenkel) was forbidden, does not appear from the context.

Or in respect of a holyday, or of the new moon, or of sabbaths.—After “eating and drinking,” joined with the copulative καί, the disjunctive union with ἤ follows, because the Apostle passes over to another matter. [It is true that eating and drinking may form one category, but in view of the doubtful reading, there is no sufficient critical or exegetical ground for preferring to make the above distinction.—R.] Ἐνμέρει, in respect of, in the point of (2Co_3:10; 2Co_9:8; comp. Winer’s Gram. p. 571), denotes the category, which includes the species: ἑορτῆς, festum annum, νομηνίας, in mense, σαββάτων, in hebdomade (Bengel); the diversity is indicated by ἤ instead of καί. The threefold order of 1Ch_23:31; 2Ch_2:4; 2Ch_31:3, is transposed. Comp. Gal_4:10. It is incorrect to apply it to partial observances of festivals (Chrysostom and others), or to make it=vicibus festorum (Melanchthon), or=ne ulla quidem eorum ex parte (Suicer); Beza and others inexactly interpret by respectu. [The E. V. “in respect of” is exact enough, as it certainly suggests the idea of a category,=in the matter of.—R.] Christians should not permit themselves to be bound to Jewish festivals in their worship of God; neither to the three great annual feasts, nor the new moons, nor the Sabbath; σάββατα=σάββατον, Mat_12:1; Luk_4:16; Act_13:14; Act_16:13; it does not refer to the triple Sabbath (jubilee year, Sabbatic year, weekly Sabbath, Heumann [Barnes). Bengel: hic significanter positus; nam sabbata dicuntur dies singuli hebdomados. Thus Ignatius contends against the σαββατίζειν as well as against Judaism in the Epistle to the Magnesians, 9. [The passage reads in English: “no longer observing Sabbaths, but keeping the Lord’s day.”—Eadie:—“nor were they to hallow the ‘Sabbaths,’ for these had served their purpose, and the Lord’s Day was now to be a season of loftier joy, as it commemorates a more august event than either the creation of the universe, or the exodus from Egypt. The new religion is too free and exuberant to be trained down to ‘times and seasons’ like its tame and rudimental predecessor. Its feast is daily, for every day is holy; its moon never wanes, and its serene tranquility is an unbroken Sabbath.” The Jewish Sabbath was kept by the early Christians as well as the Lord’s Day. The practice was condemned finally at a council in the neighboring city of Laodicea.—Wordsworth: “σαββάτων, the Seventh day Sabbath, the Jewish Sabbath, which as far as it was the seventh day Rest, had been filled by Christ resting in the grave. The position of the day is changed, but the proportion remains unchanged, and has received new strength and sanction by its consecration to Christ under the gospel in the Lord’s Day.”—R.].

Col_2:17. Which are a shadow of things to come.—This verse is a proof of the warning. “O [see critical notes; the meaning is the same if the reading a be adopted.—R.] comprises all as a unit, and means: this (eating, drinking, feasts according to the precepts of the laws of Moses) is “a shadow of things to come.” Σηιά, umbra vitæ expers (Bengel), is not=σκιαγραφία, sketched in outline with charcoal, “silhouette” (Calvin and others), since its antithesis here is not εἰκώς, but σῶμα. It denotes the typical in the Mosaic law, not exactly the unsubstantialness (Meyer) or the transitoriness (Spener), and not at all the darkness (Musculus); for it gives certain intimation of the substance of the reality, and truth of the “things to come” (Heb_8:5; Heb_10:1). Ἐστίν denotes the permanent nature of the former things; it is not=ἧν, but the commands and institutions have and retain a typical meaning. Τὰ μέλλοντα are future things, the things of αἰὼν μέλλων, not like this (Schenkel), nor is ἀγαθῶν to be supplied, from Heb_10:1. These things cast a shadow into the αἰὼν οὗτος, so that the light, as well as the μέλλοντα, standing in the light, are before us. So long as one walks in the shadow, holds to it, he is not in the αἰὼν μέλλων, which began with the appearing of Christ, not to begin first with His parousia (Meyer); for there is added:

But the body is Christ’s (Winer’s Gram. p. 495).—This refers to the presence of the αἰὼν μέλλων, which had already entered. However, he, who still holds to the ordinances of the law, and allows himself to be governed by erring and erroneous men, not by Christ, does not hold to Him, is not yet in the Messianic kingdom and age, as he may and should be. The passage treats of a point of view rather than a point of time. See 1Jn_2:8 [Lange, Comm. p. 53.] “But the body” is in contrast with “shadow,” fulfilment, full substance and life of “the things to come.” Ἐστίν is to be joined to Χριστοῦ; to Him as Head and Lord (Col_2:6; Col_2:19) it belongs; He has the direction of the “things to come,” is the antithesis of τις (Col_2:16). It is neither: ad Christum pertinet, ab eo solo petenda est (Grotius), ex Christo pendet (Storr), appeared in Christ (Huther), nor is σῶμα to be repeated with Χριστοῦ (Bengel), certainly it is not=the Christian Church (Schenkel); as little is σκιά the Jewish Church. [Wordsworth: σῶμά is substantial reality. Alford incorrectly asserts that the Apostle could not thus have spoken, if the ordinance of the Sabbath had been, in any form, of lasting obligation in the Christian Church. Against this view, see Ellicott in loco and his references, also Wordsworth, Sermon 44, Christian Sunday.—R.] The joining of this clause to the following verse (Greek Fathers) is objectionable, because it obviously belongs to the antecedent context, and does not belong to ὑμᾶς.

Against superstitious worship of angels (Col_2:18-19).

Col_2:18. Let no man beguile you of your reward.—Μηδείς corresponds with μή τις Col_2:16, and introduces a warning. [Eadie remarks the uniform use of the singular in these warnings, as contrasted with the plural used in Galatians. “Either he marks out one noted leader, or he merely individualizes for the sake of emphasis.” Probably the latter.—R.] Here too the stress is laid upon the object ὑμᾶς, placed in an emphatic position. Καταβραβευέτω corresponds with κρινέτω (Col_2:16). The word is rare, but Attic (Demosthenes adv. Midiam, c. 25), hence not a Cilician provincialism (Jerome); βραβεύειν is to be a βραβευς [i. e., the awarder of prizes in the games.—R.], to perform such an office, παραβραβεύειν is to do this partially, unjustly, in favor of or against a competitor, καταβραβεύειν denotes definitely the hostile intent against one entitled to the prize. The prize (βραβεῖον, Php_3:14 : “of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus;” 1Co_9:24) is the imperishable crown (1Co_9:25) “of righteousness” (2Ti_4:8; 2Ti_2:5), “of life” (Jam_1:12), “of glory” (1Pe_5:4). Hence it is not to be interpreted as Christian freedom (Grotius) or the honor and prize of true Christian worship (De Wette), nor is the verb = κατακρίνειν (Baehr and others). The following thought is not remote from, but not in, the passage; Ne quis brabeutæ potestatem usurpans atque adeo potestate abutens, vos currentes moderetur perperamque præscribat, quid sequi; quid fugere debeatis, brabeum accepturi (Bengel—similarly Beza). Luther is incorrect: let no one frustrate you in your aim; Vulgate also: nemo vos seducat.

Arbitrarily in humility and worshipping of angels.—θέλων characterizes the design of the false teachers as to its ground. The participle denotes, what is joined to θρησκεία in the compound ἐθελοθρησκεία (Col_2:23): the wilful desiring, having pleasure in “humility and worshipping of angels.” θέλειν ἐν is =חָפֵץ־בְ 1Sa_18:22; 2Sa_15:26; Rom_10:9; 2Co_9:8; Psa_147:10. It is not to be complemented with τοῦτο or τοῦτο ποίειν(=καταβραβεύειν, Meyer). Nor is it to be explained cupide (Erasmus). The former is both a pleonasm and brachylogy at once: the latter is contrary to usage. To join it with ἐμβατεύων (Luther) is inadmissible. [Ellicott follows Meyer and renders: “desiring to do it,” but objects to any imputation of malice.—He characterizes the view supported by Braune (Augustine, Olshausen and many others) as distinctly untenable and contrary to all analogy of usage of θέλειν the New Testament; yet his own interpretation is open to the objections made above. Alford renders: “of purpose,” joining it with καταβραβευέτω, following Theophylact. The interpretation of Meyer, Ellicott, et al., he deems “flat and spiritless;” that of Braune, he terms “a harsh Hebraism—irrelevant.” If the view of θέλειν, given on p. 35, note, be correct, then Alford’s interpretation is inadmissible. Braune’s exegesis accords best with the distinction there made. They arbitrarily, spontaneously, from the evil impulses of their own nature, indulged in these things. This is relevant, for this made them dangerous.—R.] The context indicates that the first substantive, elsewhere used in a good sense (3:12; Eph_4:2; Php_2:3; Act_20:19; 1Pe_5:5), has here a bad sense : false, affected humility, behind which much spiritual pride may hide. The other substantive (θρησκείᾳ) means worship, adoration, James 6:26, 27; Act_26:5 [E. V. “religion.”—R.], the object of which is set forth by the genitive. Comp. Wis_14:27; Wis_11:16; 1Ma_5:6. Winer’s Gram. pp. 176, 233. In the Old Testament the angels repeatedly appeared as mediators between God and man, and as representatives of men with God (Job_5:1; Job_30:23; Zec_1:12; Tob_12:15). In the Testimony of the VII. Patriarchs (Philo) they appear as interceding, helping beings; among the later Jews the opinion is current, that the law was delivered to Moses through angels (Bleek on Heb_2:2). The Fathers refer to the fact that the Jews supplicated angels and councils declare themselves on this point34 (Böhmer in Herzog’s Realencyclop. 4. p. 31). [See Eadie in loco. It was at Colosse that special worship was given in after days to the archangel Michael, for an alleged miracle wrought by him, viz., opening a chasm to receive the river Lycus. And at a council held in the neighboring city of Laodicea, the practice referred to in the text was condemned.—(Conyb. and Hows. Am. ed. II. p. 390, note 2).—R.]—“Humility” is to be regarded as so connected with angel worship, that the latter is proof of the former, since the mediation of angels was claimed in approaching God (Theodoret), or because the Majesty of the Only Begotten demanded it (Chrysostom). It is a mistake to take “humility” in a good sense, but as irony (Steiger and others), or τῶν ἀγγέλων as genitive subjecti (Luther: spirituality of the angels, Schleiermacher, religion of the angels), or to weaken it to studium singularis sanctitatis, or to understand by it demons, demigods (Estius). [“The Catholic interpreters, Estius and A-Lapide, make a strong effort to exclude this passage from such as might be brought against the worship of the saints” (Eadie), but the connection of the two substantives gives it a direct application to this error.—R.]

Intruding into those things which he hath not seen, ἃ μὴ ἐώρακεν [ἐόρακεν] ἐμβατεύων, is a further definition of καταβραβευέτω. The verb [participle] occurs only here; to step upon a place, hence spiritual regions through speculation; it is used of the entrance of the gods and their seating themselves (Passow sub voce); in distinction from ἐμβαίνειν, it denotes a confident, immediate stepping up, which the description of the regions entered (ἃ μὴ ἐόρακεν)—the transcendental—emphatic from position—shows to be unjustifiable. [The E. V. “intruding” is sufficiently accurate, though Braune’s “sich versteigend” is more so.—R.] The negative μή instead of which οὐ occurs also, is correct in the relative clause after μηδείς (Winer’s Gram. p. 448). Without the negative it may be referred to ὁράματα (Act_20:10; Act_20:12; Act_10:3); or ὀράσεις (Act_2:17) with Meyer: but if ὀφθείς (Act_9:17) must also be so understood according to the context, still ἃ ἐόρακεν (comp. 1Jn_4:20) cannot be rightly referred to enthusiastic fancies. [These passages above cited speak of “visions;” to interpret thus would imply either that these visions were in themselves “illusions,” or in their influence became “delusions.” Alford renders: “standing on the things which he hath seen” i. e., “an inhabitant of the realm of light, not of faith;” which as Ellicott observes “is ingenious, but not very plausible or satisfactory.” The difficulty in such interpretations arises from following another than the true reading. The canon respecting lectiones difficiliores may be pushed too far.—R.]

Vainly puffed up by the mind of his flesh, is the third trait, more closely characterizing “humility.” Εἰκῇ, temere (Rom_13:4) or frustra (1Co_15:2; Gal_3:4; Gal_4:11), is here joined with φυαιούμενος in the former sense. [Ellicott: “bootlessly, without ground or reason.” So Braune: “ohne Ursache.” “Vainly” may imply vanity in the cause or the result; here the former.—R.] On account of its position it cannot be joined with ἐμβατεύων (Steiger and others). His obscurity is groundless, since it rests upon his own mind, is caused by his own spirit (ὑπὸ τοῦ νοός), and the more so, since “the mind” (νοῦς) is determined by, entirely in the service of and belonging to, “the flesh” (τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ), which while unredeemed serves evil (Rom_7:14; Rom_7:25), and commands the “mind,” possesses and rules it, instead of being possessed and ruled by it. Chrysostom: ύπὸσαρκικῆς διανοίας [followed by the E. V., “fleshly mind.”—Meyer: “It must be noticed that the matter is so represented that the σάρξ of the false teacher seems personified (comp. Rom_8:6), as though it had its own νοῦς, under the influence of which he is made proud. The pride of these people consisted in this, that with all their supposed humility, they allowed themselves to fancy, as is generally the case with fanatical tendencies, that they could not be satisfied with the simple knowledge and obeying of the gospel, but could attain to a peculiar, higher wisdom and sanctity.”—R.]

Col_2:19. And not holding the Head.—This is the fourth trait to be connected with the “worshipping of angels,” denying Christ and the church [die Christlichkeit und Kirchlichkeit.]—The object is Christ, to whom the false teachers did not hold fast as Head, hence as before and above all, angels as well. The negative οὐ, not μή as before, denotes a matter of fact (Winer’s Gram. p. 452). Bengel: Qui non unice Christum tenet, plane non tenet: but he may yet belong to the church.—From whom all the body [or the whole body.—R.]—According to the parallel passage, Eph_4:15, ἐξ οὗ refers to Christ, hence is masculine, not neuter. (Meyer) [So Eadie following Meyer: “not personally as Jesus, but really or objectively.” But “the following verse seems to imply distinctly the contrary” (Ellicott).—R.] The preposition which is to be joined with αὔξει denotes the cause from which proceeds what it predicated, viz., the growth, and not a remote one, only conditioning it from without, but indicating the most intimate vital connection between them. “All the body” includes the whole church (Gemeinde) without exception; there is no member that does not derive its growth from the Head. [It is a question whether the reference here is to the body in its entirety, or to the body as including every member. Ellicott and Eadie favor the former view, Alford and Braune the latter, which is preferable, as the whole passage is against false teachers, who did not deny the unity of the church, but slighted the fact that each member “must hold fast the Head for himself” (Alford). There is then the greater reason for taking “from whom” personally. Meyer, followed by Eadie, refers ἐξ οὗ both to the verb and the participles, which reference does not correspond so well with the above views.—R.]

By joints and bands being supplied and knit together, διὰ τῶν ἀφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων ἑπιχορηγούμενον καὶ συν βιβαζόμενον, characterizes the body, the church, as Eph_4:16. The first participle belongs to ἀφῶν, the second to συνδέσμῶν. Both substantives, joined without a repetition of the article, form a category. Ἀφαί are the nerves, σύνδεσμοι the muscles: the former alford help, the latter compactness, firmness. Wherein the assistance consists is not expressly stated, the context only intimating vital activity in general (Meyer), not “nourishment” [E. V.] however, (Grotius). Ἀφαί do not refer to faith (Bengel), σύνδεσμοι to prophets (Theodoret) or believers (Böhmer), for faith is the life and the persons are the members.—[The fact that the two substantives are joined without a repetition of the article, is against the assignment of a participle to each. As Ellicott remarks: “The distinctions adopted by Meyer, et al., according to which the ἁφαί are especially associated with ἐπιχορ., and referred to Faith, the συνδέσ. with συμβ., and referred to Love—are plausible, but perhaps scarcely to be relied upon. As in Eph. the passage does not seem so much to involve special metaphors, as to state forcibly and accumulatively a general truth.”—In the parallel passage, Eph_4:16, Braune seems to interpret ἀφαί, “joints.” To limit it specifically to “nerves,” seems to be incorrect. Eadie: “We may understand it not merely of joints in the strict anatomical sense, but generally of all those means, by which none of the parts or organs of the body are found in isolation.” He is not correct in giving a middle sense to ἐπιχορηγούμενον: “furnished with reciprocal aid.” Both participles are passive; as present they denote “that the process is now going on” (Alford).—R.]

Increaseth with the increase of God, αὔξει τὴν αν̓́ξησιν τοῦ θεοῦ—[lit., “increaseth the increase of God.” Accusative of cognate substantive and genitive auctoris.—R.] By this God is described as He who effects the growth from Christ (1Co_3:6; 1Co_3:12; 1Co_6:18; Winer’s Gram. p. 232). The most appropriate preposition for Christ in this figure is ἐξ, for God ὑπό. Hence it does not refer to growth well-pleasing to God (Calvin), [nor “godly growth,” Conybeare and Howson.—R.] But the folly and danger of the false teachers is sharply marked.

Comprehensive conclusion. Col_2:20-23.

Col_2:20. If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world.—Sketch of their Christian state, in accordance with the context and the preceding passage (Col_2:1-15). Bengel: continuatur illatio v. 16 coepta. Εἰ is a rhetorical “if, as is actually the case” (Winer’s Gram. p. 418). There are here two definitions of “being dead:” how? “with Christ;” to what ? “from the rudiments of the world.” The motive for “being dead” is given in Col_2:11-12, and for “with Christ” in Col_2:19 (the Head) and Col_2:10-15. For the sake of distinctness, and at the same time to mark the “dying” as an emancipation (Bengel: concise: mortui et sic liberati ab elementis), the preposition ἀπό is repeated from the verb, where otherwise the dative would be found (Gal_2:19; Rom_6:2). “The rudiments of the world” are here those rudiments in which they lived before they became “in Christ,” when they were still heathen; they should not fall away into such again, seduced by Judaistic false teachers. See on Col_2:8.—Meyer incorrectly supposes that Christ also was “dead from the rudiments;” he overlooks that Gentile Christians are referred to; Christ is indeed “the end of the law,” but has not to die to it.

Why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances?—“Why” introduces, emphatically in the form of a question, the conclusion that it was wrong. Comp. Gal_4:8-10. “As living in the world” like “when we were in the flesh” (Rom_7:5), describes their standpoint before conversion, to which they are returning; ὠς denotes the justifiable conclusion and comparison=quippe qui, “as though.” Δογματίζεσθε is the middle (Luther: why do ye allow yourselves to be caught with ordinances?); the verb is=δόγμα τιθέναι, like νομοθετεῖν. It can be neither: one decrees to you (Meyer);35 nor: you lay ordinances upon yourselves (Bleek); they did not do this, nor does it correspond with the situation, while the former does not correspond with the intention of the intensive question, as if it concerned only a sketch of the fact, and not a rousing of the readers against it.

These ordinances are now noted concretely as to their purport: Col_2:21. Touch not, taste not, handle not, μὴἄψῃ, μηδὲγεύαῃ, μήδὲθίγῃς.—The triple reference forming a climax, marks the urgency of the demand for abstinence (Meyer). The reference to Col_2:16 allows the omission of the objects, meat and drink, which are required by the second verb γεύσῃ. It is incorrect to apply “touch not” to sexual pleasure (Flatt); this cannot be justified by 1Co_7:1; 1Ti_4:3, against the context, viz., the former part of Col_2:22. The suppression of the object is not to be accounted for by the fear and dissimulation of the false teachers, who did not name it themselves (Steiger), nor thus: that Paul had not thought on any definite object. The objects he sets forth in paraphrase:

Col_2:22. Which all are for destruction in the consumption, ἄἐστινπά νταεἰςφθορὰντῇἀπο χρήσει—This relative clause sketches the forbidden objects, all of them (ἅ—πάντα); ἐστιν, placed first for emphasis, denotes that their nature is,—“appointed to destruction, perishable” (ἐιςφθοράν), by being used up (τῇἀποχρήσει). This verdict reminds us of Mat_15:17; Mar_7:18-19; 1Co_6:13. Hence these words must be considered the Apostle’s judgment to show, and that not without irony, the perversity of the notion, that through eating and drinking moral detriment originated (Chrysostom: εἰς κόπρον γὰρ ἄπαντα μεταβάλλεται). They cannot be regarded as the words of the false teachers (Vatable, Schenkel), who will not suffer them to be touched, nor as parenthesis36 (Meyer). Nor is ä to be referred to δόγματα, implied in σογματίζεσθε above (Augustine [Barnes] and others), nor is εἰς φθοράν to be explained as moral corruption (De Wette), since it merely describes destruction, decomposition, here of sensuous things. Although ἀποχρῇσει must not be taken as the simple noun, it must however be distinguished from παράχρησις and κατάχρησις, “abuse.” [The view Braune upholds is so generally adopted by modern commentators and so far preferable that it seems unnecessary to notice the others particularly. The practical bearing of the passage is obvious to any, who discover its true meaning. That this true meaning has not always been discovered by American Christians is evident from the fact that some still cite: “Touch not, taste not, handle not,” in support of “total abstinence” from beverages which can intoxicate. Whatever may be the expediency of such a principle, it is one against which, as a binding rule of universal application, this passage, rightly interpreted, might be used. To use it in its favor is contrary to all fair dealing with the word of God,—a wresting of the Scripture, excusable only on the ground of ignorance, if in these days such ignorance be not rather an aggravation.—R.]

After the commandments and doctrines of men, κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων, sets forth a modality of δογματίζεσθε, marking it as in contrast with God’s law and word in Christ, indeed with the law of Moses, beyond which they have gone. “Doctrines” is added in justification of “commandments;” the latter are more restricted, the former more extended; the latter are results, the former set forth the premises and consequences. Mat_15:7; Mar_7:7. [Ellicott: they were submitting to a δογματισμός not only in its preceptive, but even in its doctrinal aspects.—R.]

Col_2:23. Which things have indeed a repute of wisdom.—“Which things” refers to “commandments and doctrines of men,” and denotes, not single commandments, etc., but the whole category of human ordinances. Ἐατὶν λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας is a concession (μές), to which the antithesis (δέ) is wanting; still to the very significant λόγος we have the correlate τιμῇ, to λόγον ἔχοντα corresponds ἐν τιμῇ τινι, and on this account to μέν the following οὐκ corresponds. Hence λόγος here must mean “report,” as Luk_5:15; Joh_21:23; Act_11:22. So Herodot. 5, 66 (Grimm, Clavis, sub voce p. 260). Chrysostom: λόγον φησὶν, οὐ δύναμιν, ἄραοὐκ ἀλήθειαν. The Vulgate therefore: rationem habentia, and Luther: “appearance” [E. V.: “show”] are incorrect. [Alford; “possessed of a reputation,”—Ellicott: “do have the repute”—are enjoying the repute of wisdom.—R.] The omission of a clause introduced by δέ is an anacoluthon, but not strange, since the clause is unmistakable (Winer’s Gram. p. 535). ̔ Εστὶνἔχοντα is used instead of ἔχουσιν, to mark the weakness of men in permitting themselves to be so readily deceived and blinded, and contains a charge against such in general rather than against those in Colosse. Bengel improperly joins ἐστίν with πρὸς πλησμονήν, and resolves ἔχοντα into: cum habeant, ut sit incisum; so Schenkel also.

In will-worship, and humility, and unsparingness of the body, ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ καὶ ἀφειδίᾳ τοῦ σώματος.—“In,” standing only at the beginning, denotes that all three belong together. Compounds with ἐθελο are frequent (see Passow’s Lexicon) and describe, according to the word, something done freely, voluntarily, on one’s own responsibility, arbitrarily, factitiously, affectedly; ἐθελοθρησκεία is self-imposed, arbitrary worship (Col_2:18). The object is not added, because self-evident: God. The false teachers in question would worship Him through the mediation of the adoration of angels. Compare ἐθελοπερισσοθρησκεία, by which Epiphanius (haer. 1, 16) describes the piety of the Pharisees. Ταπεινοφροσύνη, as in Col_2:18, denotes the humility which appeared with ostentation, hence only apparent, external. Ἀφειδία σώματος denotes the unsparing austerity towards the body through ascetic abstinence. Such mortification is based upon contempt of the creatures, false views of matter as the seat of sin. The first substantive denotes the religious aspect of their conduct, the second, the moral in relation to men, the third, the same as respects earthly things. In such ways they gained a repute of wisdom.

In opposition to this repute, the Apostle adds his judgment: not in any honour, οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι. Here belongs έστίν, which follows ἄτινα, in order to contrast with “the repute of wisdom among the people,” the Apostle’s judgment, viz.: the repute is without honorable grounds, without true honor. This is strongly affirmed; there is nothing at all in it which is really honorable; hence “in any honor” is a sharp negation (οὐκ) of will-worship, humility and unsparingness of the body.—To this negative Paul adds a positive statement: [only] to the satisfying of the flesh, πρὸς πλησμοὴν τῆς σαρκός.—The former clause denies “the repute of wisdom” as a just repute; this gives a motive for the negation, in connexion with “unsparingness of the body.” The false doctrine tends (πρός) to a satisfying (in contrast with “unsparingness”) of the fleshly nature (τῆς σαρκός opposed to σώματος). It is incorrect to render: “not giving to the flesh the honor due to its necessities” (Luther and others). Πλησμονή implies blame (Bengel: fere excessum denotat) and cannot=πρόνοια (Rom_13:14). The distinction between τοῦ σώματος and τῆς σαρκός, and the omission of τοῦ σώματος after ἑν τιμῇ τινι must not be overlooked. Grotius singularly deduces praise from this: habent ista rationem non stultam, si adsint cautiones, si sponte ista suscipiantur non abominando ea, quæ deus creavit,—cum ea modestia animi, quæ alios aliter viventes non damnet,—si hoc sibt propositum habeant, dure tractare corpus neque carni obsequi ad saturitalem.—[Braune’s view is that of Meyer, and is to be preferred, 1) as least un-grammatical; 2) as giving the best correlate to μέν; 3) preserving the distinction between σε͂μα and σάρξ; 4) bringing out the bad sense of πλησμονήν and thus conveying the sharp condemnation, that asceticism, while it appears to subdue the body, serves only to gratify the flesh and its evil nature. For other interpretations see Eadie, Alford, Ellicott. The latter agrees most nearly with Braune.—R.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Fasts and Feasts are placed together by the Apostle (Col_2:16), while as a rule fasting and prayer occur together; Act_13:3 : “when they had fasted and prayed;” 14:23: “prayed with fasting;” 1Co_7:5 : “fasting and prayer” (A. B. however omit the former). He forbids the one or the other, as little as Christ (Mat_6:5; Mat_6:16); he does not annul the decree of the apostolic council (Act_15:20; Act_15:28), in which also the ethical and ritual are united. But he opposes first, asceticism which extends to “unsparingness of the body,” secondly, an arbitrary abstinence from the means of nourishment ordained for eating and drinking, demanded equally from all, thirdly, those fasts connected with certain arbitrarily chosen days in the year, month and week. He thus opposes that dualistic view of the world, which does not regard and treat matter as the creature of God, which undervalues the body and its life, and in spite of its “unsparingness of the body” serves only “to the satisfying of the flesh;” he demands the maintenance of individual freedom and would commit all abstinence to the free moral resolution (as Rom_14:2 sq., 1Co_8:1 sq., 1Ti_4:3), and—as far as such abstinence is justified, and may be occasioned or required by internal or external circumstances, by the discipline necessary for the individual, or occurrences that affect him,—he would not have it mechanically and arbitrarily bound to special days, least of all that it should be regarded as of moral merit or as a work of supererogation, transcending or retrieving the purely moral law and moral conduct of life. The Christian should not bind his conscience to men, but only to God’s word and God’s law. Holy days and seasons should be determined by the great facts of salvation and the great acts of God, and not arbitrarily chosen. Thus we must judge both the Romish worship overrun with fasts and saints’ days, and the Methodist and Baptist sects adhering to the Reformed Church. [The author, being a Lutheran, refers to the entire neglect of even such anniversaries as Christmas, Easter and Pentecost.—The special reference to the Methodists and Baptists must be confined to Germany,—and indeed’ in this country there is no applicability in his allusion to their adherence to the Reformed Church. It is true that until lately the prevailing practice of many churches in America would fall under the condemnation he hints at, and even now these historic days are observed socially rather than religiously, as holidays rather than holy days. The Lord’s Day has always been kept in a truer position. I may add that “fasting” is practically ignored as a Christian duty from extreme antagonism to arbitrary fast days, but while the American Church has allowed “no man to judge” “in eating,” it has permitted strict judgment “in drinking” to lay a burden on the conscience. Paul places both in the same category (Col_2:16). However expedient abstinence may be, this passage (Col_2:16; Col_2:20-23) forbids the infringement on Christian freedom which is quite common.—R.]

2. The distinction and the connexion of the Old and New Testament economy are here described. The former is “the shadow of things to come” (Col_2:17) and “the rudiments of the world” (Col_2:20), which are given in heathenism as well as Judaism; contrasted with the former, the New Testament economy is “the body,” with the latter it is “perfection” (τελείωσις). Christianity is called “the power of God and wisdom of God” (1Co_1:24), at once to distinguish it from Judaism and to describe it as pre-announced, pre-intimated, prepared for in the same. The law is done away, not because it is in itself of no value, but because man is unable to fulfil it, obtains only in Christ, what he cannot attain without Him through the law. See Schmid, Bibl. Theol. II. 233–235; 322–325. Catholic and Reformed confessions fail in this respect; they regard the gospel as a nova lex, and permit the distinction between the Old Testament and New Testament to fall into the background: the former is Pharisaical, the latter spiritualistic. [The position of the law in the Reformed confession does not seem to me to warrant this remark. See the Heidelberg Catechism, Ques. 2, 91, 92. Belgic conf., xxiv. xxv. Perhaps others are more open to this, charge. See also Form of Concord, VI.—R. ]

[3. The observance of the Lord’s Day cannot be affected by the warning of Paul (Col_2:16). It is certain that the persons who were judging them, were pressing the duty of observing the Jewish Sabbath, not the Christian Lord’s Day. It is equally certain that the observance of a weekly day of rest is written in God’s physical and social laws for man, as plainly as in the Decalogue. Nor can we escape the conclusion that the fourth Commandment is but a reminder of a previous institution, so that even those who might contend that the whole Mosaic law is abrogated, as a guide to Christian life, do not escape this enactment. But since the Christian would live gratefully, he still finds the rule in God’s “holy, just and good” moral law, and sees in his very frame as well as in the frame-work of society, an additional reason for appropriating to “rest in God’s service,” one day in seven, rejoicing therein, since it now marks the great fact of his Lord’s resurrection, and since his Master has Himself explained how it should be observed.—R.]

4. The importance of the doctrine respecting angels (Philippi: Kirchl. Glaubenslehre I. p. 279 sq.), without which the doctrine respecting Satan remains incomprehensible, is as great as the danger from the rationalistic denial of angels, springing from a Sadduceean view of the world, and the Romish adoration of angels, growing out of Essenic and dualistic heresy. The latter soon appeared in the Church. In Laodicea (at the council held between 343 and 381), it was forbidden in the 35th Canon. Ambrose first encouraged it (observandi sunt angeli). Augustine warns against it: imitandos eos potius, quam invocandos, and refers to the distinction between cultus religiosus and non religiosus. This, the second council of Nicæa (787) turned in favor of the adoration of angels, and the distinction established between λατρεία, invocation, and τιμητικὴ προσκύνησις, δουλεία, pious veneration, must now serve as a support for the heathenish adoration of angels and worship of the saints (Conc. trid. sess. 25. Cat. Rom_3:2; Rom_8:10). Our symbols maintain: angelos a nobis non esse invocandos, adorandos (Articles of Schmalkald ii. 2). [See Reformed Confessions and catechisms generally.—R.]

5. Christ the Head of the Church, is for her the foundation of all religious and moral life: she needs no other mediator with God.—

6. The Church is a living organism, not an establishment or institution, It is a unity of many members; it rests upon an act and work of God in Christ, is from God and to God, has as its end education for perfection and glory hereafter; and possesses, in the word and sacraments and the proper administration of the same, suitable means for the attainment of this end. As to its inmost being, it is a vital relation of the congregation [Gemeinde] to the ever present, spiritual-physically present Lord (Harless. Ethik. 6. Aufl. p. 564). [By “Ceistleiblich”—which is untranslatable, Braune means the presence of Christ in the eucharist according to the Lutheran view. Vital union with Christ the Head is not less insisted upon by those who hold the really Calvinistic view.—R.] It is an organization (but not the source), for the facilitating and furthering of Christliness [Christlichkeit,], and the sense of this fellowship founded and maintained by Christ with the corresponding conduct is Churchliness [Kirchlichkeit], which is indissolubly connected with Christliness. As Church and Churchdom [Kirche und Kirchenthum] are so distinguished, that the former, as a Divine act, legally and rightly, takes form in the latter, so there is a two-fold Churchliness; one holding fast to the revelation of grace and ordinance of salvation in Christ, the other adhering to the legal forms of a special Churchdom, which has been and is being humanly and historically developed. The former has its source in the invisible Church, the fellowship of the Spirit, the latter in the visible church, which is the fellowship of law, and hence only human, secondary, accessory; it is not the realization of the idea of the Church, but merely a help and external support (Stahl: Rechts-und Staats lehre, p. 164). All ecclesiastical canons non imprimunt credenda, sed exprimunt credita. But in thus distinguishing, rightly, the ordinances of salvation and of the Church, Christliness and Churchliness, and the latter again in this two-fold manner, care must be taken not to undervalue the latter, as well as not to overvalue it.

7. The principle of Christian liberty especially and of Christian life in general is, that one neither makes nor permits to be made an arbitrary law, and so exercises his Christianity upon all that is created, ordinances as well as gifts, that the creature is used in humble obedience to God’s will, without the fleshly nature exalting itself. Asceticism degenerates into mere mechanical morality, casuistic hair-splitting about the divine law, an externalizing of self-discipline and self-exertion, a stirring up of spiritual pride. Under austerity respecting externals is concealed effeminacy with regard to heart-emotions, and in the unsparing plaguing of the body the flesh is fondled.

[8. The connection of the two warnings. There is instruction in the connection of precepts in Paul’s writings. Here are two warnings, one against fleshly legality, the other against worship of angels, both condemned as having a “show of wisdom”—but tending only to the satisfying of the flesh. The connection is not obvious, yet side by side the two errors have existed with the same result. In germ at Colosse, in full flower in the medieval church, and in modern times, in America especially, fanatical binding of the conscience respecting articles of diet and drink, and “intruding into things not seen,” craving for other “spiritual manifestations” than those coming from the Head, have taken root and flourished in the same localities, together with “a show of wisdom” and an intense “satisfying of the flesh.” Error has its affinities and its unchanging law of development no less than truth.—R.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Christ wants no legal man, who through zeal in good works will earn the love of God, but a spiritual man, whose faith through grateful love to God is diligent in every good word and work.—In winter fruit trees look more alike than in spring, summer and autumn; where life and liberty are wanting, there is monotony in faith and walk; while lifeless liberty makes every diversity prominent.

Starke:—That is the devil’s way, to judge and make conscience where none should be made, and to make none where it should be. Let us hold to Christ alone, and put no man or creature as mediator with Him; but hold to Him truly too, so that we have His witness, whether we have received of His Spirit to abide in us.—Will worship is worthless.

Rieger:—Sincerity, which seeks God and clings to His Word, seizing salvation in Christ, as if it were I only in the world, whom it concerned; unity, joining itself to all who are called and pressing to the same goal with the same serviceableness; freedom, which binds and is bound by none in things that can neither hinder nor further me in the ordained course.—Each one has a corner in his heart where rash prejudices can hide, to break out swiftly in natural and spiritual things, so that we can quickly stumble at one thing, or thoughtlessly depreciate another.—[Self-will makes even humility, a vain puffing up.—R.]

Gerlach:—While one lives in the world, he serves its rudiments. Of these God made use in His law to typify in that time of childhood higher, eternal truths. But when the full light of truth has risen, to serve these is to be in bondage to the world. All this is renewed in Christendom, whenever Christ, as the only Mediator is supplanted or thrown into the background by other sub-mediators.

Schleiermacher:—The right way can only be the one way, in the likeness of the Divine Love to maintain the bond of love among each other, and in common with those who are our brethren to seek and to lead a spiritual life.—[The difficult wisdom of the gospel, which so few attain: rightly distinguishing the internal from the external, substance from shadow, spirit from letter.—R.]

Passavant:—Habit and custom, the regular return of religious exercises and festivals, regular Sabbaths, periodical communion seasons, even set hours of meditations, even family worship otherwise so necessary in addition to public worship,—how easily do all degenerate into empty form and external posture without spirit and life.—He who does not hold to the Head, but holds rather to the thoughts of his own wisdom and the dreams of his own fancy, relying upon systems of human philosophy, upon highly gifted minds or on the poesy of the human imagination, desiring to seek and find there all that is noble and exalted, salvation, joy, heaven itself, thereby denies and disowns the one great Reconciler and Redeemer, His Truth, His Love, His Right, and His Glory: he loses in his folly and ingratitude the whole wealth of the Word of God; he takes the shadow instead of the body, the sheen for the true light, a self-made life for the true Life, God’s Life in us.

Heubner:—The Christian should maintain freedom of conscience. He should not depend on others, but follow his own conscience, not permitting himself to be bound to non-essential exercises. A superstitious over-estimate of things indifferent always leads away from Christ.—Young Stilling, although indulging in many fancies about spirits, remained faithful to the biblical principle, that all such attempts to open up the invisible world about him are culpable and opposed to the present probationary state of man. A Christian, clinging to Christ is secure against all such foolery, which would divert him from his aim.

Wilhelm.—The holy simplicity of the Christian. It consists herein 1) that he keeps his goal uninterruptedly in view: 2) guards against all going according to his own choice: 3) studies true humility at heart.—Lehman:—Against what must we guard if we would not miss the mark of our heavenly calling? 1) Against our own choice in the matter of our blessedness; 2) against false humility; 3) against carnal mind. Claus:—Two great dangers on the path to the heavenly goal; 1) the error of human ordinances; 2) the pride of our own heart.

[Burkitt:—Abstinence is sinful when men abstain from some meats, upon pretence of holiness and conscience, as if some meats were unclean, or less holy in their own nature than others, or as if simple abstinence at any time were a thing acceptable to God in itself, without respect to the end for which it is sometimes required.—Men are most forward to that service of God, which is of man’s finding out and setting up; man likes it better to worship a God of his own making, than to worship the God that made him; and likes any way of worshipping God which is of his own framing, more than that which is of God’s appointing.—Henry: Col_2:19. 1) Jesus Christ is not only a Head of Government over the church, but a Head of vital influence to it. 2) The body of Christ is a growing body—R.]

[Eadie:

Col_2:16. Sensations of spiritual joy are not to be restricted to holy days, for they thrill the spirit every moment, and need not wait for expression till there be a solemn gathering, for every instant awakes to the claims and the raptures of religion.

Col_2:19. The church can enjoy neither life nor growth, if, misunderstanding Christ’s person or undervaluing His work, it have no vital union with Him.

Col_2:20. Christ is the Head and to Him alone do we owe subjection.

What mean they? Canst thou dream there is a power

In lighter diet at a later hour

To charm to sleep the threatenings of the skies,

And hide past folly from all-seeing eyes? (Cowper).

Col_2:23. When Diogenes lifted his foot on Plato’s velvet cushion and shouted “thus I trample on Plato’s pride,” the Athenian sage justly replied “but with still greater pride.” The Apostle utters a similar sentiment. These corporeal macerations, as history has shown tend to nurse licentiousness in one age, and a ferocious fanaticism in another.—R.]

[Barnes:

Col_2:16. It is the solemn and sacred duty of all Christians to remit all attempts to make ceremonial observances binding on the conscience.

Col_2:18. “Pride may be pampered while the flesh grows lean.”—Wordsworth: Col_2:18. Pride in its worst form; Pride dressed up in the disguise of lowliness. And this is the besetting sin of the human heart, which is more puffed up by false humility than by open, pride.—R.]

[Schenkel:—The danger of constituting oneself a judge of the consciences of others; 1) why it is so near us; 2) why it must be so earnestly contended against.—Christ the only mediator between God and man: It is not humility, but pride, if we seek another.—The officious seeking after revelations outside the Revelation: 1) how dangerous; 2) how foolish it is.—The danger of spiritual pride; 1) Its source—the flesh; 2) its effects—inflation.—Who has died with Christ, can no longer live in the world: 1)The reason, 2) the power of this truth.—Will-worship: 1) a self-deception, 2) a deceiving of others.—Interference with allowable enjoyment by ordinances of men: 1) the wrong inherent in such interference; 2) the impurity to which it leads.—R.]

Footnotes:

[24]Col_2:16.—[Βρώσει ἢ ἐνπόσει, the act of eating or of drinking. See Exeg. Notes. The reading is doubtful: א. A. C. D. F. K. L. Rec. most versions; Lachmann, Tischendorf (ed. 7), Ellicott, Wordsworth read ἤ. B. Tischendorf (ed. 2). Alford, Braune: καί. The critical defence of the former reading is: “the Common association of βρῶσις and πόσις would very naturally suggest the displacement of ἤ for the more usual καί”—of the latter: καί would readily be altered to ἤ to suit the rest of the sentence. Both are so plausible, that the reading ἤ can safely be adopted on uncial authority. As to the meaning as affected by the readings, see Exeg. Notes.—R.]

[25]Col_2:16.—[Σαββάτων, literally “sabbaths,” here=the singular.—R.]

[26]Col_2:17.—א. A. D. E. F. read ἅ; B. has ὅ, which is to be preferred as the more difficult reading. [So Lachmann, Meyer. Alford is undecided, but gives ὅ in his text. Ellicott considers the reading ὅ not improbable, but insufficiently attested. Here also it is best to follow the mass of uncial MSS., with Rec. Tischendorf, and others. E. V. “which are” is correct in that case.—The reading Χριστοῦ (τοῦ omitted), Tischendorf, Ellicott, is preferable. Hence “Christ’s,” poss. gen. Eadie, Ellicott, Rhemish, Lachmann and Alford insert τοῦ (א. A. B. C).—R.]

[27]Col_2:18.—[Θέλων. Braune renders “willkürlich.” There is such diversity in interpretation that nothing more definite could be given in the text, and this will serve to show the one point of agreement among our modern commentators, viz., that the E. V. is incorrect.—R.]

[28]Col_2:18.—Μή is added in א., where it was originally wanting, as in A. B. and others; but it is not to be omitted, [Οὐκ is also found, but μή is the proper form of the negative here. See Exeg. Notes. The reading of Rec, has preponderant external authority, 6 MSS. nearly all cursives: supported by most versions, Tischendorf, Ellicott. Lachmann, Meyer, Alford reject the negative,—and this view affects the exegesis of the latter two.—R.]

[29]Col_2:19.—[Ἐξ οὗ, masculine, Christ the Personal Head, hence “whom;” “which” in E. V. doubtless stands for “whom.”—R.]

[30]Col_2:20.—[Οὖν of Rec. and the article before Χρ. “have the authority of all the MSS. against them and are properly rejected by all modern editors” (Ellicott).—R.]

[31]Col_2:22.—[The E. V. is indistinct,—the rendering given above presents the interpretation of Braune, Eadie, Alford, Ellicott, Wordsworth. The parenthesis should perhaps include this last clause only.—R.]

[32]Col_2:23.—[Ἀφειδίᾳ, “unsparingness.” So Eadie, Ellicott (“unsparing treatment”), Alford, Davies, and older English versions similarly.—R.]

[33] Col_2:23.—[This is the interpretation of Braune, Meyer, Ellicott and others. See Exeg. Notes. More modifications might well be made, but this slight change sufficiently indicates the view upheld below.—R.]

[The text of this abort passage, containing not less than 9 ἅπαξ λεγόμενα, is remarkably well established and free from variations.—R.]

[34][Barnes erroneously asserts: there is no evidence that any class of false teachers would deliberately teach that angels were to be worshipped.—R.]

[35][Meyer (followed by Alford) regards the verb as passive, finding here, not a reproach but a warning of the readers, who have not yet been led away. In that case, “as living in the world” indicates the wrong view which the false teachers take of the Christian position. There is much force in his objection to the common view, as implying that they were living as if in the world, a reproach which does not correspond with the tone of the rest of the Epistle. However the implication may only be, that if they allowed this to continue, they would be returning to the world.—R.]

[36][The parenthesis of the E. V. seems unnecessary. It was probably designed to connect “ordinances” and “after the commandments of men” more closely. If any clause be parenthetical, it is this one, and Meyer, Alford and Ellicott so regard it, agreeing entirely, however, with the exegesis of Braune.—R.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 2 Part 6

WARNINGS AGAINST TWIN CHIEF ERRORS, BASED UPON PREVIOUS POSITIVE TEACHING

Col_2:16-19 (R.V.)

"Let no man therefore judge you." That "therefore" sends us back to what the Apostle has been saying in the previous verses, in order to find there the ground of these earnest warnings. That ground is the whole of the foregoing exposition of the Christian relation to Christ as far back as Col_2:9, but especially the great truths contained in the immediately preceding verses, that the cross of Christ is the death of law, and Gods triumph over all the powers of evil. Because it is so, the Colossian Christians are exhorted to claim and use their emancipation from both. Thus we have here the very heart and centre of the practical counsels of the Epistle-the double blasts of the trumpet warning against the two most pressing dangers besetting the Church. They are the same two which we have often met already-on the one hand, a narrow Judaising enforcement of ceremonial and punctilios of outward observance; on the other hand, a dreamy Oriental absorption in imaginations of a crowd of angelic mediators obscuring the one gracious presence of Christ our Intercessor.

I. Here then we have first, the claim for Christian liberty, with the great truth on which it is built. The points in regard to which that liberty is to be exercised are specified. They are no doubt those, in addition to circumcision, which were principally in question then and there. "Meat and drink" refers to restrictions in diet, such as the prohibition of "unclean" things in the Mosaic law, and the question of the lawfulness of eating meat offered to idols; perhaps also, such as the Nazarite vow. There were few regulations as to "drink" in the Old Testament, so that probably other ascetic practices besides the Mosaic regulations were in question, but these must have been unimportant, else Paul could not have spoken of the whole as being a "shadow of things to come"; The second point in regard to which liberty is here claimed is that of the sacred seasons of Judaism: the annual festivals, the monthly feast of the new moon, the weekly Sabbath.

The relation of the Gentile converts to these Jewish practices was an all-important question for the early Church. It was really the question whether Christianity was to be more than a Jewish sect-and the main force which, under God, settled the contest, was the vehemence and logic of the Apostle Paul.

Here he lays down the ground on which that whole question about diet and days, and all such matters, is to be settled. They "are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ." "Coming events cast their shadows before." That great work of Divine love, the mission of Christ, Whose "goings forth have been from everlasting," may be thought of as having set out from the Throne as soon as time was, travelling in the greatness of its strength, like the beams of some far off star that have not yet reached a dark world. The light from the Throne is behind Him as He advances across the centuries, and the shadow is thrown far in front.

Now that involves two thoughts about the Mosaic law and whole system. First, the purely prophetic and symbolic character of the Old Testament order, and especially of the Old Testament ritual. The absurd extravagance of many attempts to "spiritualise" the latter should not blind us to the truth which they caricature. Nor, on the other hand, should we be so taken with new attempts to reconstruct our notions of Jewish history and the dates of Old Testament books, as to forget that, though the New Testament is committed to no theory on these points, it is committed to the Divine origin and prophetic purpose of the Mosaic law and Levitical worship. We should thankfully accept all teaching which free criticism and scholarship can give us as to the process by which, and the time when, that great symbolic system of acted prophecy was built up; but we shall be further away than ever from understanding the Old Testament if we have gained critical knowledge of its genesis, and have lost the belief that its symbols were given by God to prophesy of His Son. That is the key to both Testaments; and I cannot but believe that the uncritical reader who reads his book of the law and the prophets with that conviction, has got nearer the very marrow of the book than the critic, if he have parted with it, can ever come. Sacrifice, altar, priest, temple spake of Him. The distinctions of meats were meant, among other purposes, to familiarise men with the conceptions of purity and impurity, and so, by stimulating conscience, to wake the sense of need of a Purifier. The yearly feasts set forth various aspects of the great work of Christ, and the sabbath showed in outward form the rest into which He leads those who cease from their own works and wear His yoke. All these observances, and the whole system, to which they belong, are like out riders who precede a prince on his progress, and as they gallop through sleeping villages, rouse them with the cry, "The king is coming!"

And when the king has come, where are the heralds? and when the reality has come, who wants symbols? and if that which threw the shadow forward through the ages has arrived, how shall the shadow be visible too? Therefore the second principle here laid down, namely the cessation of all these observances, and their like, is really involved in the first, namely their prophetic character. The practical conclusion drawn is very noteworthy, because it seems much narrower than the premises warrant. Paul does not say-therefore let no man observe any of these any more; but takes up the much more modest ground-let no man judge you about them. He claims a wide liberty of variation, and all that he repels is the right of anybody to dragoon Christian men into ceremonial observances on the ground that they are necessary. He does not quarrel with the rites, but with men insisting on the necessity of the rites.

In his own practice he gave the best commentary on his meaning. When they said to him, "You must circumcise Titus," he said, "Then I will not." When nobody tried to compel him, he took Timothy, and of his own accord circumcised him to avoid scandals. When it was needful as a protest, he rode right over all the prescriptions of the law, and "did eat with Gentiles." When it was advisable as a demonstration that he himself "walked orderly and kept the law," he performed the rites of purification and united in the temple worship.

In times of transition wise supporters of the new will not be in a hurry to break with the old. "I will lead on softly, according as the flock and the children be able to endure," said Jacob, and so says every good shepherd.

The brown sheaths remain on the twig after the tender green leaf has burst from within them, but there is no need to pull them off, for they will drop presently. "I will wear three surplices if they like," said Luther once. "Neither if we eat are we the better, neither if we eat not are we the worse," said Paul. Such is the spirit of the words here. It is a plea for Christian liberty. If not insisted on as necessary, the outward observances may be allowed. If they are regarded as helps, or as seemly adjuncts or the like, there is plenty of room for difference of opinion and for variety of practice, according to temperament and taste and usage. There are principles which should regulate even these diversities of practice, and Paul has set these forth, in the great chapter about meats in the Epistle to the Romans. But it is a different thing altogether when any external observances are insisted on as essential, either from the old Jewish or from the modern sacramentarian point of view. If a man comes saying, "Except ye be circumcised, ye cannot be saved," the only right answer is, Then I will not be circumcised, and if you are, because you believe that you cannot be saved without it, "Christ is become of none effect to you." Nothing is necessary but union to Him, and that comes through no outward observance, but through the faith which worketh by love. Therefore, let no man judge you, but repel all such attempts at thrusting any ceremonial ritual observances on you, on the plea of necessity, with the emancipating truth that the cross of Christ is the death of law.

A few words may be said here on the bearing of the principles laid down in these verses on the religious observance of Sunday. The obligation of the Jewish sabbath has passed away as much as sacrifices and circumcision. That seems unmistakably the teaching here. But the institution of a weekly day of rest is distinctly put in Scripture as independent of, and prior to, the special form and meaning given to the institution in the Mosaic law. That is the natural conclusion from the narrative of the creative rest in Genesis, and from our Lords emphatic declaration that the sabbath was made for "man"-that is to say, for the race. Many traces of the pre-Mosaic sabbath have been adduced, and among others we may recall the fact that recent researches show it to have been observed by the Accadians, the early inhabitants of Assyria. It is a physical and moral necessity, and that is a sadly mistaken benevolence which, on the plea of culture or amusement for the many, compels the labour of the few, and breaks down the distinction between the Sunday and the rest of the week.

The religious observance of the first day of the week rests on no recorded command, but has a higher origin, inasmuch as it is the out come of a felt want. The early disciples naturally gathered together for worship on the day which had become so sacred to them. At first, no doubt, they observed the Jewish sabbath, and only gradually came to the practice which we almost see growing before our eyes in the Acts of the Apostles, in the mention of the disciples at Troas coming together on the first day of the week to break bread, and which we gather, from the Apostles instructions as to weekly setting apart money for charitable purposes, to have existed in the Church at Corinth; as we know, that even in his lonely island prison far away from the company of his brethren, the Apostle John was in a condition of high religious contemplation on the Lords day, ere yet he heard the solemn voice and saw "the things which are."

This gradual growing up of the practice is in accordance with the whole spirit of the New Covenant, which has next to nothing to say about the externals of worship, and leaves the new life to shape itself. Judaism gave prescriptions and minute regulations; Christianity, the religion of the spirit, gives principles. The necessity, for the nourishment of the Divine life, of the religious observance of the day of rest is certainly not less now than at first. In the hurry and drive of our modern life, with the world forcing itself on us at every moment, we cannot keep up the warmth of devotion unless we use this day, not merely for physical rest and family enjoyment, but for worship. They who know their own slothfulness of spirit, and are in earnest in seeking after a deeper, fuller Christian life, will thankfully own, "the week were dark but for its light." I distrust the spirituality which professes that all life is a sabbath, and therefore holds itself absolved from special seasons of worship. If the stream of devout communion is to flow through all our days, there must be frequent reservoirs along the road, or it will be lost in the sand, like the rivers of higher Asia. It is a poor thing to say, keep the day as a day of worship because it is a commandment. Better to think of it as a great gift for the highest purposes; and not let it be merely a day of rest for jaded bodies, but make it one of refreshment for cumbered spirits, and rekindle the smouldering flame of devotion, by drawing near to Christ in public and in private. So shall we gather stores that may help us to go in the strength of that meat for some more marches on the dusty road of life.

II. The Apostle passes on to his second peal of warning, -that against the teaching about angel mediators, which would rob the Colossian Christians of their prize, -and draws a rapid portrait of the teachers of whom they are to beware.

"Let no man rob you of your prize." The metaphor is the familiar one of the race or the wrestling ground; the umpire or judge is Christ; the reward is that incorruptible crown of glory, of righteousness, woven not of fading bay leaves, but of sprays from the "tree of life," which dower with undying blessedness the brows round which they are wreathed. Certain people are trying to rob them of their prize-not consciously, for that would be inconceivable, but such is the tendency of their teaching. No names will be mentioned, but he draws a portrait of the robber with swift firm hand, as if he had said, If you want to know whom I mean, here he is. Four clauses, like four rapid strokes of the pencil, do it, and are marked in the Greek by four participles, the first of which is obscured in the Authorised Version. "Delighting in humility and the worshipping of angels." So probably the first clause should be rendered. The first words are almost contradictory, and are meant to suggest that the humility has not the genuine ring about it. Self-conscious humility in which a man takes delight is not the real thing. A man who knows that he is humble, and is self-complacent about it, glancing out of the corners of his downcast eyes at any mirror where he can see himself, is not humble at all. "The devils darling vice is the pride which apes humility."

So very humble were these people that they would not venture to pray to God! There was humility indeed. So far beneath did they feel themselves that the utmost they could do was to lay hold of the lowest link of a long chain of angel mediators, in hope that the vibration might run upwards through all the links, and perhaps reach the throne at last. Such fantastic abasement which would not take God at His word, nor draw near to Him in His Son, was really the very height of pride.

Then follows a second descriptive clause, of which no altogether satisfactory interpretation has yet been given. Possibly, as has been suggested, we have here an early error in the text, which has affected all the manuscripts, and cannot now be corrected. Perhaps, on the whole, the translation adopted by the Revised Version presents the least difficulty-"dwelling in the things which he hath seen." In that case the seeing would be not by the senses, but by visions and pretended revelations, and the charge against the false teachers would be that they "walked in a vain show" of unreal imaginations and visionary hallucinations, whose many-coloured misleading lights they followed rather than the plain sunshine of revealed facts in Jesus Christ.

"Vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind" is the next feature in the portrait. The self-conscious humility was only skin-deep, and covered the utmost intellectual arrogance. The heretic teacher, like a blown bladder, was swollen with what after all was only wind; he was dropsical from conceit of "mind," or, as we should say, "intellectual ability," which after all was only the instrument and organ of the "flesh," the sinful self. And, of course, being all these things, he would have no firm grip of Christ, from whom such tempers and views were sure to detach him. Therefore the damning last clause of the indictment is "not holding the Head." How could he do so? And the slackness of his grasp of the Lord Jesus would make all these errors and faults ten times worse.

Now the special forms of these errors which are here dealt with are all gone past recall. But the tendencies which underlay these special forms are as rampant as ever, and work unceasingly to loosen our hold of our dear Lord. The worship of angels is dead, but we are still often tempted to think that we are too lowly and sinful to claim our portion of the faithful promises of God. The spurious humility is by no means out of date, which knows better than God does whether He can forgive us our sins, and bend over us in love. We do not slip in angel mediators between ourselves and Him, but the tendency to put the sole work of Jesus Christ "into commission," is not dead. We are all tempted to grasp at others as well as at Him, for our love, and trust, and obedience, and we all need the reminder that to lay hold of any other props is to lose hold of Him, and that he who does not cleave to Christ alone does not cleave to Christ at all.

We do not see visions and dream dreams any more, except here and there some one led astray by a so-called "spiritualism," but plenty of us attach more importance to our own subjective fancies or speculations about the obscurer parts of Christianity than to the clear revelation of God in Christ. The "unseen world" has for many minds an unwholesome attraction. The Gnostic spirit is still in full force among us, which despises the foundation facts and truths of the gospel as "milk for babes," and values its own baseless artificial speculations about subordinate matters, which are unrevealed because they are subordinate, and fascinating to some minds because unrevealed, far above the truths which are clear because they are vital, and insipid to such minds because they are clear. We need to be reminded that Christianity is not for speculation, but to make us good, and that "He who has fashioned their hearts alike," has made us all to live by the same air, to be nourished by the same bread from heaven, to be saved and purified by the same truth. That is the gospel which the little child can understand, of which the outcast and the barbarian can get some kind of hold, which the failing spirit groping in the darkness of death can dimly see as its light in the valley-that is the all-important part of the gospel. What needs special training and capacity to understand is no essential portion of the truth that is meant for the world.

And a swollen self-conceit is of all things the most certain to keep a man away from Christ. We must feel our utter helplessness and need, before we shall lay hold on Him, and if ever that wholesome lowly sense of our own emptiness is clouded over, that moment will our fingers relax their tension, and that moment will the flow of life into our deadness run slow and pause. Whatever slackens our hold of Christ tends to rob us of the final prize, that crown of life which He gives.

Hence the solemn earnestness of these warnings. It was not only a doctrine more or less that was at stake, but it was their eternal life. Certain truths believed would increase the firmness of their hold on their Lord, and thereby would secure the prize. Disbelieved, the disbelief would slacken their grasp of Him, and thereby would deprive them of it. We are often told that the gospel gives heaven for right belief, and that that is unjust. But if a man does not believe a thing, he cannot have in his character or feelings the influence which the belief of it would produce. If he does not believe that Christ died for his sins, and that all his hopes are built on that great Saviour, he will not cleave to Him in love and dependence. If he does not so cleave to Him he will not draw from Him the life which would mould his character and stir him to run the race. If he do not run the race he will never win nor wear the crown. That crown is the reward and issue of character and conduct, made possible by the communication of strength and new nature from Jesus, which again is made possible through our faith laying hold of Him as revealed in certain truths, and of these truths as revealing Him. Therefore, intellectual error may loose our hold on Christ, and if we slacken that, we shall forfeit the prize. Mere speculative interest about the less plainly revealed corners of Christian truth may, and often do, act in paralysing the limbs of the Christian athlete. "Ye did run well, what hath hindered you?" has to be asked of many whom a spirit akin to this described in our text has made languid in the race. To us all, knowing in some measure how the whole sum of influences around us work to detach us from our Lord, and so to rob us of the prize which is inseparable from His presence, the solemn exhortation which He speaks from heaven may well come, "Hold fast that thou hast; let no man take thy crown."

III. The source and manner of all true growth are next set forth, in order to enforce the warning, and to emphasise the need of holding the Head.

Christ is not merely represented supreme and sovereign, when He is called "the head." The metaphor goes much deeper, and points to Him as the source of a real spiritual life, from Him communicated to all the members of the true Church, and constituting it an organic whole. We have found the same expression twice already in the Epistle; once as applied to His relation to "the body, the Church," {Col_1:18} and once in reference to the "principalities and powers." The errors in the Colossian Church derogated from Christs sole sovereign place as fountain of all life natural and spiritual for all orders of beings, and hence the emphasis of the Apostles proclamation of the counter truth. That life which flows from the head is diffused through the whole body by the various and harmonious action of all the parts. The body is "supplied and knit together," or in other words, the functions of nutrition and compaction into a whole are performed by the "joints and bands," in which last word are included muscles, nerves, tendons, and any of the "connecting bands which strap the body together." Their action is the condition of growth; but the Head is the source of all which the action of the members transmits to the body. Christ is the source of all nourishment. From Him flows the life blood which feeds the whole, and by which every form of supply is ministered whereby the body grows. Christ is the source of all unity. Churches have been bound together by other bonds, such as creeds, polity, or even nationality; but that external bond is only like a rope round a bundle of fagots, while the true, inward unity springing from common possession of the life of Christ is as the unity of some great tree, through which the same sap circulates from massive bole to the tiniest leaf that dances at the tip of the farthest branch.

These blessed results of supply and unity are effected through the action of the various parts. If each organ is in healthy action, the body grows. There is diversity in offices; the same life is light in the eyes, beauty in the cheek, strength in the hand, thought in the brain. The more you rise in the scale of life the more the body is differentiated, from the simple sac that can be turned inside out and has no division of parts or offices, up to man. So in the Church. The effect of Christianity is to heighten individuality, and to give each man his own proper "gift from God," and therefore each man his office, "one after this manner and another after that." Therefore is there need for the freest possible unfolding of each mans idiosyncrasy, heightened and hallowed by an indwelling Christ, lest the body should be the poorer if any members activity be suppressed, or any one man be warped from his own work wherein he is strong, to become a feeble copy of anothers. The perfect light is the blending of all colours.

A community where each member thus holds firmly by the Head, and each ministers in his degree to the nourishment and compaction of the members, will, says Paul, increase with the increase of God. The increase will come from Him, will be pleasing to Him, will be essentially the growth of His own life in the body. There is an increase not of God. These heretical teachers were swollen with dropsical self-conceit; but this is wholesome, solid growth. For individuals and communities of professing Christians the lesson is always seasonable, that it is very easy to get an increase of the other kind. The individual may increase in apparent knowledge, in volubility, in visions and speculations, in so-called Christian work; the Church may increase in members, in wealth, in culture, in influence in the world, in apparent activities, in subscription lists, and the like-and it may all be not sound growth, but proud flesh, which needs the knife. One way only there is by which we may increase with the increase of God, and that is that we keep fast hold of Jesus Christ, and "let Him not go, for He is our life." The one exhortation which includes all that is needful, and which being obeyed, all ceremonies and all speculations will drop into their right place, and become helps, not snares, is the exhortation which Barnabas gave to the new Gentile converts at Antioch-that "with purpose of heart they should cleave unto the Lord."

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

2:16-23 Paul repudiates the false teachers and their demands, explaining why their appeal comes from human teachings (see 2:8). They advocated various rules of conduct that had no basis in Christ.

2:16 what you eat or drink: Religious teachings that prohibited certain kinds of food and drink were widespread in the ancient world. The Old Testament does not prohibit drinking alcohol, but many pious Jews who lived in pagan cultures did abstain (cp. Dan 1:8-16). • Many ancient religious groups, including the Jews, celebrated the new moon with various ceremonies (see Num 10:10; Ps 81:3; Isa 1:13). • Jewish Sabbaths were set forth in the law of Moses and celebrated by Jews as an essential part of their religion. Christians could continue to observe the Sabbath if they wanted to, but Paul asserts that Christians have liberty on this matter (see Rom 14:5) and that it is wrong for anyone to insist on Sabbath observance as a necessary expression of Christian piety.

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

Col 2:16. οὖν, therefore) The therefore is deduced from Col 2:8-15. See Col 2:16 (comp. note on Col 2:20), ch. Col 3:1; Col 3:5; Col 3:12.—κρινέτω, let no man judge) A Metonymy of the antecedent for the consequent, i.e. attend to no one who attempts to judge you; so Col 2:18.—ἐν βρώσει, in meat) He says less than he wishes to be understood (Tapeinosis).[13]—ἘΝ ΜΈΡΕΙ ἙΟΡΤῆς, [in part or partly] in respect of a holiday) The expression, [in part or partly] in respect, here seems to have the power of separating. One might disturb believers on the subject of meat and drink (Col 2:21), another again about holidays. The holiday is yearly; the new moon, monthly; the sabbaths, weekly. Comp. Gal 4:10, note.—ἢ σαββάτων, or of sabbaths) The plural for the singular, Mat 12:1: but it is used here significantly [with express design]; for the several days of the week are called Sabbaths, Mat 28:1 [ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων. See Gnom. there]; therefore Paul intimates here that all distinction of days is taken away; for he never wrote more openly concerning the Sabbath. Christ, after that He Himself, the Lord of the Sabbath, had come, or else before His suffering, in no obscure language taught the liberty of the Sabbath; but He asserted it more openly by Paul after His resurrection. Nor has it yet been expressly defined what degree of obligation is to be assigned to the Sabbath, what to the Lord’s day; but this has been left to the measure of every one’s faith. The Sabbath is not cited as authoritative [laudatur], is not commanded; the Lord’s day is mentioned, not enjoined. An appointed [a definite and fixed] day is useful and necessary to those who are rather deeply immersed and engrossed in the concerns of the world. They who always sabbatize [they who keep a continual Sabbath], enjoy greater liberty. The Sabbath is a type even of eternal things, Heb 4:3-4; but yet its obligation does not on that account continue in the New Testament, otherwise the new moons should be retained, Isa 66:23.[14]

[13] See App.

[14] For there we find in a future state an antitype to the new moons as well as to the Sabbath, which would prove too much.—ED.

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

Col_2:16. Οὖν] since ye, according to Col_2:11-15, are raised to a far higher platform than that of such a legal system.

κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει] No one is to form a judgment (whether ye are acting allowably or unallowably, rightly or wrongly) concerning you in the point of eating (ἐν, comp. Rom_2:1; Rom_14:22; 1Pe_2:12). There is hereby asserted at the same time their independence of such judgments, to which they have not to yield (comp. Eph_5:6). With Paul, βρῶσις is always actio edendi, and is thus distinct from βρῶμα, cibus (Rom_14:17; 1Co_8:4; 2Co_9:10; also Heb_12:16), although it is also current in the sense of βρῶμα with John (Joh_4:32, Joh_6:27; Joh_6:55), and with profane authors (Hom. Il. xix. 210, Od. i. 191, x. 176, et al.; Plat. Legg. vi. p. 783 C; Hesiod, Scut. 396). This we remark in opposition to Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 200. The case is the same with πόσις (Rom_14:17) and πόμα (1Co_10:4; Heb_9:10).

ἐν πόσει] Since the Mosaic law contained prohibitions of meats (Lev_7:10 ff.), but not also general prohibitions of drinks, it is to be assumed that the false teachers in their ascetic strictness (Col_2:23) had extended the prohibition of the use of wine as given for the Nazarites (Num_6:3), and for the period of priestly service (Lev_10:9), to the Christians as such (as ἁγίους). Comp. also Rom_14:17; Rom_14:21. De Wette arbitrarily asserts that it was added doubtless in consideration of this, as well as of the Pharisaic rules as to drinks, Mat_23:24, and of the prohibition of wine offered to idols (οὖν does not point to such things), but still mainly on account of the similarity of sound (Rom_14:17; Heb_9:10, and Bleek in loc.).

ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς κ.τ.λ.] ἐν μέρει, with the genitive, designates the category, as very frequently also in classical authors (Plat. Theaet. p. 155 E, Rep. p. 424 D; Dem. 638. 5, 668. 24); comp. on 2Co_3:10, and see Wyttenbach, ad Plut. I. p. 65. The three elements: festival, new moon, and Sabbath, are placed side by side as a further classis rerum; in the point (ἐν) of this category also no judgment is to be passed upon the readers (if, namely, they do not join in observing such days). The elements are arranged, according as the days occur, either at longer unequal intervals in the year (ἑορτῆς), or monthly (νουμην.), or weekly (σαββάτ.). But they are three, co-ordinated; there would be only one thing with three connected elements, if καί were used instead of ἤ in the two latter places where it occurs. The three are given in inverted order in 1Ch_23:31; 2Ch_2:4; 2Ch_31:3. On the subject-matter, comp. Gal_4:10. Respecting the Jewish celebration of the new moon, see Keil, Archäol. I, § 78; Ewald, Alterth. p. 470 f.; and on σάββατα as equivalent to σάββατον, comp. Mat_12:1; Mat_28:1; Luk_4:16, et al. ἐν μέρει has been erroneously understood by others in the sense of a partial celebration (Chrysostom: ἐξευτελίζει λέγεν· ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς· οὐ γὰρ δὴ πάντα κατεῖχον τὰ πρότερα, Theodoret: they could not have kept all the feasts, on account of the long journey to Jerusalem; comp. Dalmer), or: vicibus festorum (Melanchthon, Zanchius), or, that the participation in the festival, the taking part in it is expressed (Otto, dekalog. Unters. p. 9 ff.), or that it denotes the segregatio, nam qui dierum faciunt discrimen, quasi unum ab alio dividunt (Calvin). Many, moreover inaccurately, hold that ἐν μέρει means merely: in respect to (Beza, Wolf, and most expositors, including Bähr, Huther, and de Wette); in 2Co_3:10; 2Co_9:3, it also denotes the category. Comp. Aelian. V. H. viii. Colossians 3 : κρίνοντες ἕκαστον ἐν τῷ μέρει φόνου.

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 2:16-23 . SINCE THE LAW HAS BEEN CANCELLED AND THE ANGELS DESPOILED, RITUAL OR ASCETIC ORDINANCES HAVE NO LONGER ANY MEANING FOR THOSE WHO IN CHRIST POSSESS THE SUBSTANCE, OF WHICH THESE ARE BUT THE SHADOW. THEY MUST NOT BE INTIMIDATED BY ANGEL WORSHIPPERS, WHO ARE PUFFED UP BY FLESHLY CONCEIT, AND ONLY LOOSELY HOLD THE HEAD, FROM WHOM THE BODY DRAWS ALL ITS SUPPLY. SINCE THEY HAVE DIED TO THE ELEMENTAL SPIRITS, THEY MUST NOT SUBMIT TO THE PRECEPTS OF ASCETICISM, WHATEVER REPUTATION FOR WISDOM THEY MAY CONFER.

Col 2:16 . The connexion with the preceding argument is this: Since the bond written in ordinances has been abolished, and the angelic powers spoiled and led in triumph, allow no one to criticise your action on the ground that it is not in harmony with the precepts of the Law, or cuts you off from communion with the angels. You have nothing to do with Law or angels. At best they were but the shadow, and in Christ you possess the substance. κρινέτω ἐν : “judge you in,” ἐν meaning on the basis of. Whether a man eats or drinks or not his conduct in this respect supplies no fit ground for a judgment of him. κρ . is not to “condemn,” though the context shows that unfavourable judgment is in Paul’s mind. βρώσει καὶ ἐν πόσει : “eating and in drinking,” not food and drink, for which Paul would have used βρῶμα and πόμα . The question is not altogether between lawful and unlawful food, but between eating and drinking or abstinence. Asceticism rather than ritual cleanness is in his mind. The Law is not ascetic in its character, its prohibitions of meats rest on the view that they are unclean, and drinks are not forbidden, save in exceptional cases, and then not for ascetic reasons. But these injunctions stand along with ordinances of the Law itself, partly, because they may have been regarded as extensions of its principles, partly, we may suppose, because, like the Law, they were attributed to the angels by the false teachers. In Heb 9:10 regulations as to drinks seem to be referred to as part of the Jewish Law. That the false teachers were ascetics is clear from ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος in Col 2:23 . ἐν μέρει : “in the matter of,” μέρ . expressing the category. Chrysostom and some others have taken it strangely to mean “in the partial observance of”. ἑορτῆς ἢ νεομηνίας ἢ σαββάτων : the Jewish sacred seasons enumerated as they occur yearly, monthly and weekly. The Sabbath is placed on the same footing as the others, and Paul therefore commits himself to the principle that a Christian is not to be censured for its non-observance. σαββ ., though plural in form, means a single Sabbath day.

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

16–19. Practical application of Col 2:6-15 and more especially Col 2:9-15

You have everything in Christ (Col 2:10), and have been joined to Him in all His redemptive acts (Col 2:11-13). He has too cancelled the ceremonial law, doing away with the law itself (Col 2:14), and has shown the relative uselessness of spiritual beings (Col 2:15)—therefore be not dependent on human criticism as regards ritual rules (Col 2:16-17), or by worship of spiritual powers have less direct relation to Christ and so be injured in your growth (Col 2:18-19).

(Col 2:16) When all this has been done in you and for yon you may disregard the criticism of any person whatever in matters of Jewish dietary laws and holy seasons; (Col 2:17) for all these are in themselves unsubstantial and only indicate the coming of what they represent—to mind them is to grasp the shadow and lose the substance, which is to be found only in Christ. (Col 2:18) I say “Christ”; disregard any decision made against you by one who takes pleasure in so-called “humility” and cult of the angels, exploring, as he does, the meaning of his visions, puffed up without any due cause by his intellect, which (whatever he may suppose) is governed by his flesh; (Col 2:19) slackening too, as he does, his hold on the Head, from whom the whole body of believers (all of whom have their necessary function in the body just as in a physical body bands and sinews are needful for vital supply and union) grows with growth from God and in conformity with His will.

16. καὶ ἐν πόσει. καὶ is read only by B Pesh. Boh. Origen (once). Tert. (once), ἢ is read by Text. Rec. with אACD, etc. In spite of the following threefold ἢ the juxtaposition ἐν βρώσει καὶ ἐν πόσει is so natural that καὶ is very suspicious.

16. οὖν refers at least as far back as Col 2:9, but with special stress on Col 2:14-15; cf. οὖν, Col 2:6, note. εἰ τοιούτων τετυτήχατε, φησὶ, τί τοῖς μικροῖς ὑπευθύνους ἑαυτοὺς ποιεῖτε; Chrys.

μή … τις, cf. Col 2:8. Anyone, whatever his position, or whatever his supposed claims; more deictic than μηδείς (Col 2:18).

ὑμᾶς κρινέτω. Let no one continue to judge; implying that some one is doing so. Observe that St Paul takes a far wider view than that of forbidding the observance of dietary laws and of festival seasons. He leaves the matter free for the individual person. What he says is that the observance (or, by implication, non-observance) is not to form a basis for any one to sit in judgment on the Colossians. So at length in Rom 14:3-23; cf. 1Co 8:8; 1Co 10:29.

ἐν βρώσει, “in eating.” For St Paul always carefully distinguishes βρῶσις from βρῶμα: cf. Rom 14:17; Heb 9:10. Contrast Joh 4:32; Joh 6:27; Joh 6:55.

The dietary laws formed, and still form, a very important part of Judaism. For the Pentateuch see Leviticus 11. || Deu 14:3-21, and for the way in which pious Jews abstained, in consequence, from food provided by heathen see Dan 1:8; Dan 1:12; Tob 1:10-12; Jdt 10:5; Jdt 12:2; Jdt 12:19; Esth. Add. 14:17; 2Ma 5:27. For the practice in N.T. times see e.g. Act 10:14; Act 11:3; cf. Mar 7:2. But it is probable that among the Colossians a still stronger form of the question arose in the form of frequent or stringent fasting, see on Col 2:23.

καὶ ἐν πόσει. See notes on Textual Criticism.

Similarly St Paul means by πόσις the action of drinking, not the thing drunk; contrast 1Co 10:4.

Although laws forbidding drink are only for special circumstances according to the Pentateuch (Lev 10:9; Lev 11:34; Lev 11:36; Num 6:3), yet in passages quoted in the last note from Daniel, Judith, and Esther Add., heathen wine was refused as well as solid food; and in post-Biblical times, and presumably at least as early as the time of St Paul (cf. Mat 23:24), strict laws about drink have been framed.

The prohibition against eating meat with milk by a deduction from Exo 23:19 || Exo 34:26, and Deu 14:21, is perhaps the most noticeable example. For elaborate rules on the subject see the Jewish Encyclopaedia, s.v. “Milk.” But wine also was forbidden if there was any suspicion of its being connected with idolatrous usage, and “even after the practice of idolatry lapsed, these prohibitions remained in force as rabbinic institutions; wherefore the wine of a non-Jew is forbidden,” ibid., s.v. “Dietary Laws,” IV. 598.

Lightfoot (Col. p. 104) sees Essene or Gnostic influence in prohibitions against drink, rather than Pharisaic or Jewish, but on this point Hort is right in opposing him (Jud. Christianity, p. 117).

ἢ ἐν μέρει. Apparently St Paul here changes from καί to ἤ because he is about to enter on a new group of subjects. But perhaps the reason is that the sentence is negative; see Winer, § LIII. 6; cf. Rom 4:13. Cf. also Blass, § 77. 11.

ἐν μέρει probably originally denoted the class, the category, but has become weakened to merely mean “in respect of,” so class., τὸ σὸν μέρος, “as to thee,” Soph., O. C., 1366. Cf. 2Co 3:10; 2Co 9:3.

ἑορτῆς. Since the monthly and weekly holy days are mentioned immediately after, this doubtless refers to the annual festivals. For the same gradation, though in reverse order, cf. 1Ch 23:31; 2Ch 2:3 (4), 2Ch 31:3; also Gal 4:10.

ἢ νεομηνίας. Here only in N.T. but frequent in LXX. The first day of the month, Num 10:10; Num 28:11, i.e. the first day that the new moon was seen. For its importance in O.T. times see Amo 8:5; Hos 2:11; Isa 1:13, and Ezek. often, e.g. Eze 26:1. For its observance in post-Biblical times see Isr. Abrahams in Hastings, D. B. III. 522.

ἢ σαββάτων, “or of a sabbath day.”

The Aramaic Shabbtha’ שַׁבְּתָא, fem. sing. (Dalman, Gram. 1894, p. 126, and Lexicon, s.v.), was transliterated into Greek as σάββατα and declined as a plural, a singular σάββατον, e.g. Joh 5:9, being even formed from it.

In Act 17:2, ἐτὶ σάββατα τρία, it has a plural meaning, but everywhere else, probably, in the N.T. still the singular, e.g. Mar 1:21, where see Swete. Cf. Jos. Antt. I. i. 1, ἡμεῖς σχολὴν ἀπὸ τῶν πόνων κατά ταύτην ἄγομεν τὴν ἡμέραν προσαγορεύοντες αὐτὴν σάββατα· δηλοῖ δὲ ἀνάπαυσιν κατὰ τὴν Ἑβραίων διάλεκτον τοὔνομα, and for a curious combination of the two forms, III. vi. 6, ἐν τῷ καλουμένῳ ὑφʼ ἡμῶν Σαββάτῳ· τὴν γὰρ ἑβδόμην ἡμέραν Σάββατα καλοῦμεν.

Observe

(1) Of the five points mentioned, σάββατα referred to exclusively Jewish days, and, so far as we know, νεομηνία also. Presumably therefore St Paul was thinking only of Jewish customs under the first three heads as well.

(2) The principle of St Paul’s “loosing” these laws has a wide application, not only to purely ecclesiastical laws about holy days, but even to the quasi-Biblical laws of fasting and the Sunday, The latter indeed is far the more important point, for the observance of a day of rest is certainly pre-Mosaic, and is indirectly enjoined in Genesis 2, besides being included in the entirely moral code of the Ten Commandments. The logical deduction from St Paul’s words would appear to be that to observe the Sunday solely for the reason that it is enjoined upon us (i.e. in the fourth commandment by a legitimate adaptation of the language) is to fall back to the position from which he was trying to keep the Colossians. But to observe it from other motives, e.g. the desire to glorify God and to make the best use of our time and to preserve to others the religious privileges that we possess, agrees completely with the liberty of the Christian. In these days of disregard of God’s will generally it is very hard to understand how a religious person can do anything to relax the religious observance of the Sunday. See Origen, c. Cels. VIII. 21–23. Compare also Rom 14:5; Gal 4:10-11. For a convenient summary of Talmudic laws on the Sabbath see Edersheim’s Life and Times, II. Append. XVII.

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.

The conclusion: wherein also he nameth certain kinds, as the difference of days and meats, and proveth by a new argument that we are not bond unto them: to wit, because those things were shadows of Christ to come but we possess him now exhibited unto us.

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

therefore--because ye are complete in Christ, and God in Him has dispensed with all subordinate means as essential to acceptance with Him.

meat . . . drink--Greek, "eating . . . drinking" (Rom. 14:1-17). Pay no regard to any one who sits in judgment on you as to legal observances in respect to foods.

holyday--a feast yearly. Compare the three, Ch1 23:31.

new moon--monthly.

the sabbath--Omit "THE," which is not in the Greek (compare Note, see on Gal 4:10). "SABBATHS" (not "the sabbaths") of the day of atonement and feast of tabernacles have come to an end with the Jewish services to which they belonged (Lev 23:32, Lev 23:37-39). The weekly sabbath rests on a more permanent foundation, having been instituted in Paradise to commemorate the completion of creation in six days. Lev 23:38 expressly distinguished "the sabbath of the Lord" from the other sabbaths. A positive precept is right because it is commanded, and ceases to be obligatory when abrogated; a moral precept is commanded eternally, because it is eternally right. If we could keep a perpetual sabbath, as we shall hereafter, the positive precept of the sabbath, one in each week, would not be needed. Heb 4:9, "rests," Greek, "keeping of sabbath" (Isa 66:23). But we cannot, since even Adam, in innocence, needed one amidst his earthly employments; therefore the sabbath is still needed and is therefore still linked with the other nine commandments, as obligatory in the spirit, though the letter of the law has been superseded by that higher spirit of love which is the essence of law and Gospel alike (Rom 13:8-10).

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 16. Let no man - judge you in meat, or in drink] The apostle speaks here in reference to some particulars of the hand-writing of ordinances, which had been taken away, viz., the distinction of meats and drinks, what was clean and what unclean, according to the law; and the necessity of observing certain holydays or festivals, such as the new moons and particular sabbaths, or those which should be observed with more than ordinary solemnity; all these had been taken out of the way and nailed to the cross, and were no longer of moral obligation. There is no intimation here that the Sabbath was done away, or that its moral use was superseded, by the introduction of Christianity. I have shown elsewhere that, Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, is a command of perpetual obligation, and can never be superseded but by the final termination of time. As it is a type of that rest which remains for the people of God, of an eternity of bliss, it must continue in full force till that eternity arrives; for no type ever ceases till the antitype be come. Besides, it is not clear that the apostle refers at all to the Sabbath in this place, whether Jewish or Christian; his σαββατων, of sabbaths or weeks, most probably refers to their feasts of weeks, of which much has been said in the notes on the Pentateuch.

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

16. Let no one therefore judge you. What he had previously said of circumcision he now extends to the difference of meats and days. For circumcision was the first introduction to the observance of the law, other things followed afterwards. To judge means here, to hold one to be guilty of a crime, or to impose a scruple of conscience, so that we are no longer free. He says, therefore, that it is not in the power of men to make us subject to the observance of rites which Christ has by his death abolished, and exempts us from their yoke, that we may not allow ourselves to be fettered by the laws which they have imposed. He tacitly, however, places Christ in contrast with all mankind, lest any one should extol himself so daringly as to attempt to take away what he has given him.

In respect of a festival-day. Some understand τὸ μέρος to mean participation. Chrysostom, accordingly, thinks that he used the term part, because they did not observe all festival days, nor did they even keep holidays strictly, in accordance with the appointment of the law. This, however, is but a poor interpretation. Consider whether it may not be taken to mean separation, for those that make a distinction of days, separate, as it were, one from another. Such a mode of partition was suitable for the Jews, that they might celebrate religiously the days that were appointed, by separating them from others. Among Christians, however, such a division has ceased.

But some one will say, “We still keep up some observance of days.” I answer, that we do not by any means observe days, as though there were any sacredness in holidays, or as though it were not lawful to labor upon them, but that respect is paid to government and order — not to days. And this is what he immediately adds.

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.

(16) Let no man therefore judge you.—That is, impose his own laws upon you. See Col_2:8. (Comp. Rom_14:3; Rom_14:10, “Why dost thou judge thy brother?” in this same connection.)

In meat, or in drink.—Or rather, in eating and drinking. We see by the context that the immediate reference is to the distinctions of meats under the Jewish law, now done away, because the distinction of those within and without the covenant was also done away (Act_10:11). (Comp. on this subject the half-ironical description of Heb_9:10.) But a study of Rom_14:2; Rom_14:20-21, written before this Epistle, and 1Ti_4:3, written after it—to say nothing of the tone of this passage itself, or of the known characteristics of the later Gnosticism of the ascetic type—show that these laws about eating and drinking were not mere matters of law, but formed significant parts of a rigid mystic asceticism. Of such, St. Paul declares indignantly (Rom_14:17), “The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.”

An holyday (feast), or of the new moon, or of the sabbath.—Comp. Isa_1:13-14, “the new moons and sabbaths . . . the new moons and the appointed feasts My soul hateth;” also Eze_45:17; Hos_2:13. The “feast” would seem to be one of the great festivals; the “new moon” the monthly, and the sabbath the weekly solemnity. With this passage it is natural to compare the similar passage in Gal_4:10, “Ye observe days and months and times (special seasons) and years.” But there the specially Judaic character is not so expressly marked; and, in fact, the passage has a wider meaning (like Rom. 14:56), showing the different position which even Christian festivals held in Apostolic days. Here it is the Jewish festivals, and they alone, which are noted. It is obvious that St. Paul gives no hint of any succession of the Lord’s Day to be, in any strict sense, a “Christian Sabbath.” We know, indeed, that the Jewish Sabbath itself lingered in the Church, as having a kind of sacredness, kept sometimes as a fast, sometimes as a festival. But its observance was not of obligation. No man was to “judge” others in respect of it.

(16-19) To the warning against speculative error succeeds a warning against two practical superstitions. The first is simply the trust in obsolete Jewish ordinances (the mere shadow of Christ) with which we are familiar in the earlier forms of Judaism. But the second presents much strangeness and novelty. It is the “worship of angels” in a “voluntary humility,” inconsistent with the belief in an intimate and direct union with Christ our Head.

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

16–23. Christian Liberty and Theories hostile to it

16. therefore] Such is the Christian’s position in this sacrificed and triumphant Saviour. He stands possessed of the full inheritance of which the Mosaic ritual institutions were at once the shadow and the veil. Now therefore, so far as those institutions are presented to him by any school of teaching as an obligation and bond on Christian practice, he must decline to receive them.

judge you] Take you to task (Lightfoot). Cp. Rom_14:3-4, for a close parallel, full of the principles of both liberty and duty in Christ. See also 1Co_10:29.

in meat, or in drink] Rather better, in eating and in drinking. For the Mosaic laws about food cp. Leviticus 11, 17; Deuteronomy 14, &c. Of allowed or forbidden drinks little is said in the Old Law; Lightfoot notices Lev_10:9 (the prohibition of wine to the priests at special times); Lev_11:34 (the prohibition to drink liquid from an “unclean” vessel); and the law of the Nazirite, Num_6:3. Cp. with the text, Heb_9:10.—Possibly the Colossian misleaders forbade wine in toto; not at all on modern philanthropic principles, but as a token of abjuration of social life.

in respect of] Lit., “in the portion of;” i.e. “in, or under, the class of;” and so, idiomatically, with regard to. The Latin Versions render literally, in parte diei festi; and so Wyclif, “in part of feest dai;” Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, “for a pece (peece) of an holy daye.”

holy day] feast day, R.V.—The Greek word denotes the yearly Jewish festivals; Passover, Pentecost, Atonement, Tabernacles, &c. It is used by the LXX. to translate the Hebrew mô’êd, rendered in A.V. (e.g. 1Ch_23:31) “set feast;” see Chronicles just quoted for an example of such a threefold enumeration as this of holy times.—Lightfoot refers to Gal_4:10 (“days, and months, and seasons, and years”) as a true parallel here; it only adds a fourth observance, the (sabbatic) year.

new moon] See Num_10:10; Num_28:11; Num_28:14; Num_28:16; and cp. 1Sa_20:5; 2Ki_4:23; Psa_81:3; Isa_1:13-14.

sabbath days] Better, sabbath. The original (sabbata) is a Greek plural in form and declination, but only as it were by accident. It is a transliteration of the Aramaic singular shabbâthâ (Hebrew, shabbâth).

It is plain from the argument that the Sabbath is here regarded not as it was primevally (Gen_2:3) “made for man” (Mar_2:27), God’s benignant gift, fenced with precept and prohibition only for His creature’s bodily and spiritual benefit; but as it was adopted to be a symbolic institution of the Mosaic covenant, and expressly adapted to relation between God and Israel (Exo_31:12-17); an aspect of the Sabbath which governs much of the language of the O.T. about it. In that respect the Sabbath was abrogated, as the sacrifices were abrogated, and the New Israelite enters upon the spiritual realities foreshadowed by it as by them. The Colossian Christian who declined the ceremonial observance of the Sabbath in this respect was right. An altogether different question arises when the Christian is asked to “secularize” the weekly Rest which descends to us from the days of Paradise, and which is as vitally necessary as ever for man’s physical and spiritual well-being.

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.

Let no man therefore judge you,.... Since they were complete in Christ, had everything in him, were circumcised in him; and particularly since the handwriting of the law was blotted out, and torn to pieces through the nails of the cross of Christ, the apostle's conclusion is, that they should be judged by no man; they should not regard or submit to any man's judgment, as to the observance of the ceremonial law: Christ is the prophet who was to be raised up like unto Moses, and who only, and not Moses, is to be heard; saints are to call no man master upon earth but him; they are not to be the servants of men, nor should suffer any yoke of bondage to be imposed upon them; and should they be suffered and condemned by others, as if they were transgressors of the law, and their state bad, for not observing the rituals of the former dispensation, they should not regard such censures, for the judaizing Christians were very censorious, they were ready to look upon and condemn a man as an immoral man, as in a state of damnation, if he did not keep the law of Moses; but such rigid censures were to be disregarded, "let no man judge", or "condemn you"; and though they could not help or hinder the judgment and condemnation of men, yet they could despise them, and not be uneasy with them, but set light by them, as they ought to do. The Syriac version renders it, "let no man trouble you", or make you uneasy, by imposing ceremonies on you: the sense is, that the apostle would not have them submit to the yoke they would lay upon them, nor be terrified by their anathemas against them, for the non-observation of the things that follow:

in meat or in drink; or on account of not observing the laws and rules about meats and drinks, in the law of Moses; such as related to the difference between clean and unclean creatures, to abstinence in Nazarites from wine and strong drink, and which forbid drinking out of an uncovered vessel, and which was not clean; hence the washing of cups, &c. religiously observed by the Pharisees. There was no distinction of meats and drinks before the law, but all sorts of herbs and animals, without limitation, were given to be food for men; by the ceremonial law a difference was made between them, some were allowed, and others were forbidden; which law stood only in meats and drinks, and such like things, but is now abolished; for the kingdom of God, or the Gospel dispensation, does not lie in the observance of such outward things, but in internal ones, in righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost; it is not any thing that goes into the man that defiles, nor is anything in its own nature common or unclean, but every creature of God is good, so be it, it be used in moderation and with thankfulness:

or in respect of an holyday; or feast, such as the feast of the passover, the feast of tabernacles, and the feast of Pentecost; which were three grand festivals, at which all the Jewish males were obliged to appear before the Lord; but were never binding upon the Gentiles, and were what the Christians under the Gospel dispensation had nothing to do with, and even believing Jews were freed from them, as having had their accomplishment in Christ; and therefore were not to be imposed upon them, or they condemned for the neglect of them. The phrase , which we render "in respect", has greatly puzzled interpreters; some reading it "in part of a feast"; or holyday; as if the sense was, that no man should judge or condemn them, for not observing some part of a festival, since they were not obliged to observe any at all: others "in the partition", or "division of a feast"; that is, in the several distinct feasts, as they come in their turns: some (c) think the apostle respects the Misna, or oral law of the Jews, in which are several treatises concerning a good day, or an holyday, the beginning of the new year, and the sabbath, which treatises are divided into sections or chapters; and that it is one of these sections or chapters, containing rules about these things, that is here regarded; and then the sense is, let no man judge you or condemn you, for your non-observance of feast days, new moons, and sabbaths, by any part, chapter, or section, of , or by anything out of the treatise "concerning a feast day"; or by any part, chapter, or section, of , the treatise "concerning the beginning of the year"; or by any part, chapter, or section, of the treatise "concerning the sabbath"; and if these treatises are referred to, it proves the antiquity of the Misna. The Syriac version renders it, , "in the divisions of the feast": frequent mention is made of , "the division", or "half of the feast", in the Jewish writings: thus for instance it is said (d),

"three times in a year they clear the chamber (where the half-shekels were put), "in the half", or middle of the passover, in the middle of Pentecost, and in the middle of the feast.

again (e).

"there are three times for tithing of beasts, in the middle of the passover, in the middle of Pentecost, and the middle of the feast;

that is, of tabernacles: and this, the Jewish commentators say (f), was fifteen days before each of these festivals: now whether it was to this, "middle", or "half space", before each and any of these feasts the apostle refers to, may be considered:

or of the new moon; which the Jews were obliged to observe, by attending religious worship, and offering sacrifices; see Num 28:11 Kg2 4:23.

Or of the sabbath days, or "sabbaths"; meaning the jubilee sabbath, which was one year in fifty; and the sabbath of the land, which was one year in seven; and the seventh day sabbath, and some copies read in the singular number, "or of the sabbath"; which were all peculiar to the Jews, were never binding on the Gentiles, and to which believers in Christ, be they who they will, are by no means obliged; nor ought they to observe them, the one any more than the other; and should they be imposed upon them, they ought to reject them; and should they be judged, censured, and condemned, for so doing, they ought not to mind it. It is the sense of the Jews themselves, that the Gentiles are not obliged to keep their sabbath; no, not the proselyte of the gate, or he that dwelt in any of their cities; for they say (g), that "it is lawful for a proselyte of the gate to do work on the sabbath day for himself, as for an Israelite on a common feast day; R. Akiba says, as for all Israelite on a feast day; R. Jose says, it is lawful for a proselyte of the gate to do work on the sabbath day for himself, as for an Israelite on a common or week day:

and this last is the received sense of the nation; nay, they assert that a Gentile that keeps a sabbath is guilty of death (h); see Gill on Mar 2:27. Yea, they say (i), that "if a Gentile sabbatizes, or keeps a sabbath, though on any of the days of the week, if he makes or appoints it as a sabbath for himself, he is guilty of the same.

It is the general sense of that people, that the sabbath was peculiarly given to the children of Israel; and that the Gentiles, strangers, or others, were not punishable for the neglect and breach of it (k); that it is a special and an additional precept, which, with some others, were given them at Marah, over and above the seven commands, which the sons of Noah were only obliged to regard (l); and that the blessing and sanctifying of it were by the manna provided for that day; and that the passage in Gen 2:3; refers not to the then present time, but , "to time to come", to the time of the manna (m),

(c) Vid. Casaubon. Epist. ep. 24. (d) Misn. Shekalim, c. 3. sect. 1. (e) Misn. Becorot, c. 9. sect. 5. (f) Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. (g) T. Bab. Ceritot, fol. 9. 1. Piske Tosaphot Yebamot. art. 84. Maimon. Hilch. Sabbat, c. 20. sect. 14. (h) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 58. 2. (i) Maimon. Hilch. Melachim, c. 10. sect. 9. (k) T. Bab. Betza, fol. 16. 1. Seder Tephillot, fol. 76. 1. Ed. Amtst. (l) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 56. 2. Seder Olam Rabba, p. 17. & Zuta, p. 101. Ed. Meyer. (m) Jarchi & Baal Hatturim in Gen. ii. 3. Pirke Eliezer, c. 18.

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

16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

Ver. 16. Let no man therefore judge you] That is, set not up any such for a judge over your consciences; or, if any usurp such an authority, slight him, according to that, Gal 5:1. Periculosum est in divinis rebus ut quis cedat iure suo, saith Cyprian. In things of God we should be tender of our liberty.

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.

Let no man, therefore, judge you - compare Rom 14:10, note, 13, note. The word judge here is used in the sense of pronouncing a sentence. The meaning is, “since you have thus been delivered by Christ from the evils which surrounded you: since you have been freed from the observances of the law, let no one sit in judgment on you, or claim the right to decide for you in those matters. You are not responsible to man for your conduct, but to Christ; and no man has a right to impose that on you as a burden from which he has made you free.”

In meat - Margin, or eating and drinking. The meaning is, “in respect to the various articles of food and drink.” There is reference here, undoubtedly, to the distinctions which the Jews made on this subject, implying that an effort had been made by Jewish teachers to show them that the Mosaic laws were binding on all.

Or in respect of a holy day - Margin, part. The meaning is, “in the part, or the particular of a holy day; that is, in respect to it” The word rendered “holy-day” - ἑορτὴ heortē - means properly a “feast” or “festival;” and the allusion here is to the festivals of the Jews. The sense is, that no one had a right to impose their observance on Christians, or to condemn them if they did not keep them. They had been delivered from that obligation by the death of Christ; Col 2:14.

Or of the new moon - On the appearance of the new moon, among the Hebrews, in addition to the daily sacrifices, two bullocks, a ram, and seven sheep, with a meat offering, were required to be presented to God; Num 10:10; Num 28:11-14. The new moon in the beginning of the month Tisri (October) was the beginning of their civil year, and was commanded to be observed as a festival; Lev 23:24, Lev 23:25.

Or of the Sabbath days - Greek, “of the Sabbaths.” The word Sabbath in the Old Testament is applied not only to the seventh day, but to all the days of holy rest that were observed by the Hebrews, and particularly to the beginning and close of their great festivals. There is, doubtless, reference to those days in this place, since the word is used in the plural number, and the apostle does not refer particularly to the Sabbath properly so called. There is no evidence from this passage that he would teach that there was no obligation to observe any holy time, for there is not the slightest reason to believe that he meant to teach that one of the ten commandments had ceased to be binding on mankind. If he had used the word in the singular number - “the Sabbath,” it would then, of course, have been clear that he meant to teach that that commandment had ceased to be binding, and that a Sabbath was no longer to be observed. But the use of the term in the plural number, and the connection, show that he had his eye on the great number of days which were observed by the Hebrews as festivals, as a part of their ceremonial and typical law, and not to the moral law, or the Ten Commandments. No part of the moral law - no one of the ten commandments could be spoken of as “a shadow of good things to come.” These commandments are, from the nature of moral law, of perpetual and universal obligation.

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

Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat or in drink. That is, for not abstaining from meats, called unclean, for drinking out of a cup without a cover, (see Numbers xix.) or for not keeping the Jewish festivals. For these were but shadows, types and figures of future things to be fulfilled in the new law of Christ: but the body is of Christ, (ver. 17.) i.e. was the body, the truth, the substance signified by these shadows and types. (Witham) --- He means with regard to the Jewish observations of the distinction of clean and unclean meats; and of the festivals, new moons, and sabbaths; as being no longer obligatory. (Challoner) --- Modern dogmatizers wilfully or ignorantly misapply this text of the apostle, to disprove the fasts and festivals observed in the Catholic Church; but it is evident, as St. Augustine observes, that the apostle is here condemning the legal distinction of clean and unclean meats, and the feasts of the new moon, to which false brethren wanted to subject the Colossians. (St. Augustine, ep. 59. ad Paulin. in solut. quæ. 7.)

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).

Let no man therefore judge you; he infers none should be condemned: none condemns another for exercising Christian liberty; none hath power to judge and censure herein: q.d. Suffer not any one (he excepts none) to impose upon you that, as necessary in the use and practice of it, which is not after Christ, Col 2:8, not warranted by his law of liberty, Rom 14:3,4; Ga 5:1; Jam 1:25. Paul himself would not be imposed on, 1Co 6:12; 7:23; Gal 2:5,11,14, &c.; he would not (as one of the words doth note) be domineered over by any, or suffer any to exercise authority over him, who held the Head, and owned Christ to be Lord of the conscience, and sole dictator of what way he will be served in.

In meat, or in drink; he therefore would not have the practice of ceremonials obtruded, instancing in some, as the difference of meats and drinks, in the use or not use of which (now after Christ had nailed those decrees to his cross) superstitious ones would, from the antiquated rites of the Jews and Pythagorean philosophers, place holiness in, and add them to the Christian institution.

Or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days; or the difference of festivals and sabbaths, whether annual, or monthly, or weekly, from the Levitical institutions.

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

Vers. 16-23. SECTION VI THE CLAIMS OF THE FALSE TEACHER.

Do not let any one, therefore, be judging you in eating or in drinking (vers. 21-23; 1Ti_4:1-5; Rom_14:17; Heb_9:10 Heb_13:9; Mar_7:14-19) The new teachers dictated to the Colossians in these matters from the philosophical, ascetic point of view (see notes on "philosophy," "circumcision," vers. 8, 11), condemning their previous liberty. (For the adverse sense of "judge". (comp. Rom_14:4, Rom_14:10, Rom_14:13) The scruples of the "weak brethren" at Rome (Romans 14) were partly of an ascetic character, but are not ascribed to any philosophic views. In 1Co_8:8 and 10 the question stands on a different footing, being connected with that of the recognition of idolatry. (comp. Act_15:29) In Heb_9:10 it is purely a point of Jewish law. In one form or other it was sure to be raised wherever Jewish and Gentile Christians were in social intercourse. Ver. 17 shows that such restrictions are "not according to Christ" (ver. 8), belonging to the system which he has superseded. "Therefore" bases this warning upon the reasoning of the previous context. Tertullian ("Against Marcion," 5:19) supplies the link connecting this verse with vers. 10, 15, 18, when he says, "The apostle blames those who alleged visions of angels as their authority for saying that men must abstain from meats." The abolishing of angel mediation (ver. 15) robs these restrictions of their supposed authority. The Essenes found in the Nazarite life and the rules for the ministering Jewish priest (Num_6:3; Lev_10:8-11; Eze_44:21) their ideal of holiness. Philo also attached a high moral value to abstinence from flesh and wine, and regarded the Levitical distinctions of meats as profoundly symbolic. Or in respect of feast, or new moon, or sabbath (Rom_14:5, Rom_14:6; Gal_4:9, Gal_4:10) The yearly feast, the monthly new moon, and the weekly sabbath (1Ch_23:31; Isa_1:13, Isa_1:14) cover the whole round of Jewish sacred seasons. These the Colossian Gentile Christians, disciples of St. Paul through Epaphras, had not hitherto observed. (Gal_4:9, Gal_4:10) Philosophic Judaists insisted on these institutions, giving them a symbolical and ethical interpretation (see Philo, "On the Number Seven;" also, "On the Migration of Abraham," 16, where he warns his readers lest, "because the feast is a symbol of the joy of the soul and of thanksgiving towards God," they should imagine they could dispense with it, or "break through any established customs which divine men have instituted").

Vers. 16-23. Sect. 6.

The claims of the false teacher.

The Colossian error is the earliest Christian heresy, understanding the word in its stricter sense as denoting a movement in the direction el" error, originating within the Church itself. It first answers to the terms of St. Paul"s prediction in Act_20:29-31. The powerful Judaizing reaction with which St. Paul and the Gentile Church had previously to struggle, and which drew from him the Galatian and Roman Epistles, was negative and retrograde in its character, originating from without rather than from within the Church, and stimulated by the increasing violence and desperation of Jewish national feeling. But here we discern the rise of a heterodox school of thought within Christianity itself. At this point, first of all, were those elements of error introduced, those seeds of division sown, which ripened into the wild and disastrous Gnostic apostasy of the second century; and that may be said to have persisted to the present day. For our inveterate and multiplied ecclesiastical divisions and our deeply rooted doctrinal differences, with the animosities and prejudices that attend them, show too plainly that the rents which then began to open in the Church"s unity are far from being closed. Accordingly, the Colossian error presents heresy in its germinal form. It contains and combines in itself the root principles and incipient forms of those errors which have most widely prevailed in after ages. It unites evil tendencies which afterwards parted asunder and became opposed to each other, which seem indeed to be radically inconsistent. But this was an age of eclecticism and amalgamation. Moreover, there is a latent contradiction inherent in falsehood and error. It must needs be inconsistent and witnesses against itself. Its principles, when carried forward and pushed to their issues in logic and practice, become mutually destructive; and the system built upon them and the party which has espoused them of themselves break up into contending fragments. Hence the shifting phases and combinations of religious error Protean, many headed under which the same elements constantly reappear, identical in essence, incessantly varying in form. "The truth as it is in Jesus" is alone self consistent, harmonious, and enduring. But who will assure himself that he has in all things, so far as he might, truly ascertained and followed it?

THE FIRST HERESY. We have distinguished in the Colossian heresy four elements of error, which may be roughly designated under the names of rationalism, ceremonialism, mysticism, and asceticism. They are the heresies, respectively, of the intellect, of the religious instinct, of the spiritual consciousness, and of the moral will, aberrations, each of them, of functions belonging to the highest and divinest part of man"s nature.

1. The false teachers are evidently rationalists. It is this characteristic which the apostle first expressly specifies (vers. 8, 23), and to which the whole tenor of the Epistle bears witness, (see especially, Col_1:9, 28 2:2-4 3:10, 16; and compare the introductory remarks in our homiletics, sect. 2, I and sect. 5, I) They construed Christianity in terms of their preconceived philosophic theory. They were philosophers first, and Christians afterwards, or only Christians so far as their philosophy permitted. Christ was not the centre of their thoughts, the Master of their intellect and heart; (Col_2:19 Col_3:11) but they made an idol of their intellectual system, and he must perforce be made to pay homage to it and fit himself into some limited and vacant space where it might he able to make room for him! Not in Christ, it appears, but in themselves and in "the tradition of men," were "the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," out of which the Christian teaching, in its uncultured crudeness and poverty of thought, must have its errors corrected and its deficiencies supplied! But the philosophy of these Colossian illuminati was clearly wrong in its views both of the world and of human nature; and no one would be found now to advocate it. Their attempts to recast and rationalize Christianity proved an utter failure, and bore fruit in the next age only in immorality and schism. Their wisdom was but a "wisdom of words" (vers. 2, 3); they were "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth". (2Ti_3:7) Every system of philosophy, every scheme of human life, which attempts to patronize and to pervert to its own purposes the Christian teaching, has, we may be sure, a like doom awaiting it. St. Paul does not seek to check the rationalistic movement at Colossae by mere repression, by discouraging intellectual inquiry. On the contrary, he impresses on his readers again and again the necessity of a better understanding, a deeper knowledge of "the mystery of God". (Col_1:6, Col_1:9, Col_1:10, 25-23 2:1-4 3:10, 16) It was their slight and imperfect Christian education which laid them open to the attacks of sophistry and a shallow philosophy. The letter is one that appeals to and stimulates Christian thought in an extraordinary degree, and is itself a theological discipline. The spurious and plausible guests, "the knowledge falsely so called", (1Ti_6:20) which was fascinating the Colossians, could be cast out only by the epignosis, the advanced and perfect knowledge (compare homiletics, sects. 1, III and 4, I, II). What Lord Bacon said of atheism may apply with equal truth to heresy: "A little philosophy inclineth men"s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men"s minds about to religion.

2. With their philosophical, a priori interpretation of Christianity, the false teachers of Colossae combined a love of ceremonialism and a devotion to the externals of worship. Here we note the Jewish element in their training, while their Greek sympathies and habits of thought betray themselves in their fundamental philosophic bias. The motive of their religiousness was, however, radically different from that of the traditional Jewish legalism, and St. Paul deals with it in quite another method from that which he follows in Galatians. The "philosophers" of Colossae valued Jewish ritual for its expressiveness and symbolic truth, and practised it as a means of spiritual self culture rather than in mere obedience to law. Hence they insisted much on the sacred seasons and feasts, on the distinctions of meats (vers. 16, 17), on circumcision (ver. 11), and studied greatly the art of worship (vers. 18, 23); while, like the Essenes, they attached little importance to the sacrificial system of Judaism. So, at least, we should infer from the apostle"s silence on these latter topics, as contrasted with the leading part they play in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Their system was Jewish in its materials, but wholly different from the Jewish in spirit and tendency. But their piety was wanting in spiritual depth and reality, or they could scarcely have failed to recognize in Christ "the Image of God", (Col_1:15) and the "new and living way" to the Father. God was to them so far off that they would not seek to approach him directly in the Person of his Son, but supposed a whole hierarchy of mediators necessary, to make worship possible. He was, in their view, a great abstract Infinitude, no "living Father," no listening, answering Presence. Their religion was an elaborate artifice, beneficial chiefly in its reaction on themselves; and their God was shrouded, like an Oriental monarch, behind a multitude of vague and fugitive mediators, whom practically they worshipped instead of him. A like result ensues wherever the idea of a personal God is obscured and weakened in the minds of men, whether by philosophical reflection making him a formula, or by superstitious ignorance treating him as a fetish. For true worship is the converse spirit and in truth", (Joh_4:23, Joh_4:24) of the human children with their living Father in heaven. And this cannot well be maintained where an ornate ceremonialism overpowers the senses and fills the imagination with its external pomp; or where the living God "in whom we live," and Christ the "one Mediator", (1Ti_2:5) are so distant from the realizations of faith, that angels, or departed saints, or the blessed virgin mother, or earthly priests and confessors, are thrust in to fill the void, and are made in reality to intercept the soul"s reverence and devotion. There may be a sincere "zeal for worship" in the anxious study of ecclesiastical dress and decoration, and under the sensuous impressiveness of a splendid and elaborate ritualism. But this is not what "the Father seeketh", (Joh_4:23, Joh_4:24) and such aids to devotion often hinder his children from seeking him. Our worship must, indeed, have its forms; and order and propriety (1Co_14:40) must he studied in their regulation, and in all the appointments of the house of God. And men of varying temperament and mental habit are aided by a greater or less degree, and by different kinds, of outward expression in their worship. But when the form is cultivated for its own sake, and the sensuous and the artistic predominate over and displace the spiritual, the end of worship itself is frustrated, and the service that professes to be rendered to the Most High becomes a mockery to him, and a blind to his worshippers that effectually hides him from them. Yet this tendency has often a strong attraction for devout and humble spirits, "delighting in humility" (vers. 18, 23); who love to worship, and readily bow before any superior influence, but are not so anxious to "worship what they know. (Joh_4:22) A multiplying of the objects of worship (ver. 18) very commonly attends the excessive elaboration of its forms; for both are due to the same cause, and are the manifestations of a religion weak in spiritual faith in God. The dissatisfaction and emptiness of soul which ensue on seeking God thus, lead to our making still more cumbrous and exacting the forms of devotion, and to our resorting to new mediators and new methods of approach to him, till Christian worship sinks into a round of ritual performance and semi-idolatry, and becomes an imposture in itself and an aversion to thoughtful, truth-seeking men.

3. There was, in the third place, a strong vein of false mysticism in the Colossian heresy. This element, in the nature of the case, is more difficult to distinguish and to delineate than those already set forth. The mysticism of Greece was chiefly derived and fed front Oriental sources. Pythagoras, in the latter half of the sixth century B.C., founded a school of mystical and ascetic philosophy, whose principles were largely adopted in the comprehensive system of Plato. The Pythagorean and Platonic mysticism was at this time greatly in vogue, especially in Asia Minor and in Egypt, where it found a congenial soil. The Alexandrine school of Philo imported its principles into Judaism. The Neo-Platonism, in which, in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., pagan philosophy made a last splendid struggle for existence, and which has left deep marks of its influence on the development of Christian thought, was a revival of Greek mysticism in a more intense and religious form. The Montanism of the second century, a product of the same Phrygian soil on which the Colossian heresy sprang up, attested the persistence of the mystic tendency within the Church. Its later manifestations, as allied now with pantheistic rationalism, now with devout ceremonialism, now with rigid asceticism, we cannot endeavour here to follow. There has always been in the Church a mystical school, side by side with the rationalistic, and the ritualistic or sacerdotal. And, within certain limits, the mystic principle has its rights, and must be recognized as essential to spiritual religion. To mysticism, the spiritual consciousness of the individual is the source and the test of truth. God is to be reached by intuition. Meditative contemplation, aided by suitable initiatory and disciplinary symbolic rites, is the way of salvation, whoso goal is absorption in the Divine nature. Such was the teaching of ancient mystics generally; and the esoteric doctrines introduced at Colossae were, doubtless, of the same stamp. That God, indeed, reveals himself by his Spirit to the individual consciousness, is the teaching of St. Paul, and, as we believe, of the whole Bible (Rom_8:16; Gal_1:16 Ps 139., etc.) But when the inner consciousness, the spiritual reason, is regarded as in itself the primary source of revelation, then error begins and hallucination supervenes. The mind turns itself in upon its own self-generated phantasies, instead of fixing its gaze on the historical revelation of God and seeking to comprehend and mirror its glory (2Co_3:18 2Co_4:6; Rom_1:20 Ps 19., etc.) The Colossian errorist, walking in the light of his self confident, self contemplating reason, saw visions of angels as he imagined, and heard messages and teachings that were but the echo of his own speculations. With these deceived and deceiving subjective imaginings the apostle confronts the actual historic Person and work of Christ, as the supreme Object of contemplation and of. (Col_1:13-15, Col_1:21, Col_1:22, 27-29 2:6, 7 3:11, 15-17) Only through "belief of the truth" come the testifying and sanctifying visitations of "the Spirit of the truth" (2Th_2:9-14; Eph_1:13 Eph_1:14; Act_2:33 Act_19:1-7) The objective revelation of God to the soul and the subjective attestation and experience of its power are reciprocally linked together, and advance pari passu. Compare the teaching of Christ in promising the Holy Spirit to his disciples. (Joh_14:15-24) The doctrine of the Holy Spirit was indirectly but vitally affected by the Colossian error; and this topic, though not brought forward in this Epistle, is prominent in the Ephesian letter, which is in many respects a complement to this and, in our belief, is "the letter" to be sent "from Laodicea" for the perusal of the Colossian Church. (Col_4:16) "Christ the Mystery of God," "Christ in you the hope of glory, this is the apostle"s mysticism, the true mystery that is to expel the false, unhallowed mysteries, that seek by self-directed intuitions and self-invented lustrations and incantations to penetrate the secrets of the spiritual world and to enter into union with the Infinite.

4. In the sphere of morals and practical life, the Colossian, errorists inculcated a strict asceticism. This part of their system is consistent with each of the other three, though it proceeded rather from its philosophical and mystical than from its Judaistic and ceremonial constituent factor. In the early Christian ages, asceticism was frequently associated with theoretic rationalism; in later times, it has been more frequently the ally of a sacerdotal type of Christianity. Asceticism was a thing foreign to Judaism. It was a religion too healthy and practical for that. Psalm cxxviii, expresses what has always been the true religious feeling of Israel in regard to the blessings of this life. The Pharisaic yoke was indeed "grievous to be borne, and pressed on the externals of life with the weight of a slavery; but, after all, it concerned matters which habit makes comparatively easy, and its spirit was that of a formal legalism, aiming at precision in the performance of all external acts, and by no means valuing hard treatment of the body in itself. But the latter was the distinguishing feature of the new Colossian ethics, as of the ethics of Eastern mysticism and of Christian monachism, and, in some sort, of Puritanism too.

(1) Asceticism is the perversion of a true and noble impulse. In it the maxim, Corruptio optimi pessima, has its saddest illustration. How natural it is for an earnest soul, striving after purity and fellowship with God, to fill into a hatred of the body and the material world! How all but irresistible must this tendency have been in the midst of the reeking impurities and the social dissolution of the pagan and barbarian worlds!

(2) Moreover, the very nature of religious language, with its necessities of figurative expression, lends itself to misconstruction of scriptural truth in this direction. Witness the interpretations still prevalent of St. Paul"s own terminology. It is difficult, both in thought and in practice, to distinguish always between the body, which Christ raised, which becomes the temple of his Spirit, whose members are to be instruments of righteousness, which is the symbol of the Church the bride of Christ, which nature itself teaches every man to nourish and to cherish (1Co_6:12-20; Rom_6:12-14 Rom_8:11; Eph_5:22-30) and the flesh, which has to be stripped off, to be put to death, to be crucified with its affections and lusts, by all who are "of Christ Jesus" (Col_2:11 Col_3:5; Gal_5:24)

(3) With the Colossian errorist, as in the Alexandrine theosophy, the body was the source of sin, the prison in which the soul is shut up and severed from God. To break the chains of sense, to cast off the burden of the flesh and become pure spirit, and thus to rise towards God, this was the aspiration of the ancient mystics. Matter and spirit were the two opposite poles of being; and the distinction between moral good and evil, for them, merged itself in this. They declared indiscriminate war against the physical life and natural enjoyment as itself sinful or tending to sin. Their conception of holiness it was, of course, impossible absolutely to realize; but he would approximate to it the most nearly who maintained himself in as feeble and impoverished a bodily condition as was consistent with active thought.

(4) Such doctrine was, we may be sure, more often preached than practised. But it took effect, within a little time, in the denunciation of marriage (1Ti_4:3; Heb_13:4) as among the Jewish Essenes, with the dishonouring of the family life and the weakening of social bonds which necessarily ensue. To this source we trace that false ideal of Christian purity which, before many centuries, became prevalent in the Church Catholic, and the rise of the gigantic and baleful institution of monasticism and the celibate priesthood, which, by withdrawing from the world the most powerful elements of Christian character and influence, and by the immorality and social disorganization which it engendered, has blighted the Church"s history and delayed indefinitely the conversion of mankind to the faith of Christ.

(5) Let us listen to our heavenly Intercessor, who asks the Father, "Not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from its evil!" who bids his disciples be "the salt of the earth," "the light of the world" (Joh_17:15; Mat_5:13, Mat_5:14) Let us have faith in the power of his Spirit, who can so sanctify our mortal body that "sin shall not reign in it" (Rom_6:12; 1Co_6:19, 1Co_6:20) and can so hallow the temperate and grateful use of the natural blessings God bestows upon us (1Ti_4:3-5; Col_3:21, Col_3:22) that, "whether we eat or drink or whatsoever we do," we shall "do all to the glory of God" (1Co_10:31; Col_3:17) Let us hear St. Paul, while he teaches us to "make not provision for the flesh to fulfil its lusts", (Rom_13:14) yet to "abide with God," each in that secular state "wherein he was called". (1Co_7:24)

(6) God"s Law regulates, does not suppress, the natural life. The home, the field, the mart, the senate, all that belongs to the natural fabric and constitution of human life, is his creation, the arena for the exercise of his superintending providence, and the field of probation in which he trains his children for their spiritual manhood. He sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world, not of the individual soul alone, but of human society in its widest sense, including business and politics, art and science, all the public interests and constituent elements of collective human life, which are to find their sanctification, that is, their perfection and their unity, as they are penetrated and ruled by "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus." So "the kingdom of the world" shall "become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ" (Rev_11:15)

(7) The Gospel puts high honour on the human body The fact that Christ was "born of a woman" redeems its birth from dishonour and contempt. The Incarnation is fatal to all theosophy based on the hostility of the material to the spiritual, and to the false spiritualism which would seek God by fleeing from the body. Christ has incorporated our flesh with his own Divinity, and in the body of his flesh (Col_1:22) be redeemed us, and reconciled the world to God. To the meanest human person there belongs an unspeakable dignity and sacredness as partaking of that "blood and flesh" in which he shared, (Heb_2:14) and through which he "poured out his soul unto death". (Isa_53:12) Christ"s work will be completed and "the travail of his soul satisfied" only by "the redemption of our body," which will consummate our "adoption" and will bring with it the deliverance of "the creation itself" from "the bondage of corruption. (Ge 8) For this end, we still "wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ," descending from heaven. (Php_3:20, 21) So waiting, we shall keep pure and clean this "earthly house of our tabernacle" (2Co_5:1; 1Jn_3:3) Nothing that belongs to it can we "call common or unclean", (Act_10:15) "body of humiliation" though. (Php_3:21) We occupy it for Christ our Master. It is the "temple of the Holy Spirit the Spirit of delicate purity, the Spirit of order and of beauty, the Spirit of health and unity, whose "communion" is the Church"s breath of life, and the secret, pervasive atmosphere and inspiration that brings all that is pure and healthful into the society of men.

Vers. 16, 17.

Condemnation of ritualistic observances and ascetic severities.

The apostle draws a practical inference from the view he had just given of the work of Christ. "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day, or of a new moon, or of a sabbath day: which things are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ"s.

I THE PROHIBITION. It is twofold, respecting first the distinction of meats and drinks, and then the observance of times.

1. The distinction of meats and drinks.

(1) This distinction was made in the Mosaic.Law as to things clean and unclean. There was no prohibition as to drinks, except in regard to Nazarites and priests during their ministration (Lev_10:9; Num_6:3) It is probable that the Colossian errorists, like the Essenes, forbade wine and animal food altogether; for they imposed a rigorous asceticism upon their disciples.

(2) The distinction is abolished by the gospel.

(a) Our Lord hinted at the approaching abolition. (Mar_7:14, 19)

(b) There was a formal annulment of the distinction in Peter"s vision, (Act_10:11, etc.) where the distinction between those within and those without the covenant was being done away.

(c) The abolition is implied in Heb_9:10, where the rule as "to meats and drinks" is said to have been "imposed until the time of reformation.

(d) It is also implied in the action of the Council of Jerusalem, and in the language of Peter respecting "the yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear". (Act_15:10)

(3) The attitude of Christians towards this distinction. "Let no man.., judge you in respect of" them.

(a) Christians are not justified now in making such a distinction or in imposing it upon others. Thus the Roman Catholics are condemned for their distinction of meats: "Commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving". (1Ti_4:3) It is not "that which teeth into the mouth that defileth the man". (Mat_15:2, Mat_15:11)

(b) Christians in apostolic times had a liberty in these matters which they were to exercise for edification.

(a) It was allowable for a believer neither "to eat flesh" nor to drink wine "so long as the world standeth". (1Co_8:13)

(b) It was allowable in the transition state of the Church, while, it consisted of two diverse elements Jews and Gentiles for liberty to be exercised in these matters, with a due regard to the rights of conscience. (Rom_14:2)

(c) But we in our different circumstances must resist any attempt to impose upon us a distinction of meats. "Let no man.., judge you in meat, or in drink." It is not in man"s power to make that a sin which God has not forbidden. "It is a very small thing that I should be judged of you or of man"s judgment". (1Co_4:3) "Why dost thou judge thy brother?". (Rom_14:3, Rom_14:10) Besides, we must remember the spiritual nature of Christianity: "The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost". (Rom_14:17) We must "stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made his people free". (Gal_5:1)

2. The observance of times and seasons. "Or in respect of a feast day, or of a new moon, or of a sabbath day." The apostle said to the Galatians, "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years". (Gal_4:10)

(1) There was a provisional and temporary discretion allowed likewise in the matter of days. "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own. (Rom_14:5, Rom_14:6) The apostle leaves the matter of days an open question.

(2) Yet no man was to be taken to task for refusing to observe them. The times were entirely Jewish.

(a) The "feast day" referred to the annual festivals, like Pentecost and Passover.

(b) The "new moon" referred to the monthly festival.

(c) The "sabbath day" referred to the Jewish sabbath, which was always observed on the Saturday. "But does the apostle not seem to strike at the obligation of maintaining the observance of one day in seven for the worship of God, and sunder the connection that exists between the Jewish sabbath and the Christian Sunday?" We answer that:

(a) The observance of the Lord"s day never came into question in apostolic times. It was universally observed from the beginning both by Jews and Gentiles. It cannot, therefore, be affected by anything said as to "days" in Rom_14:1-6 or in this passage.

(b) The devotion of a seventh part of our time to God rests on considerations as old as creation, for the sabbath was made for man even before sin entered the world.

(c) The sabbath of the Jews was typical, and therefore was abolished in Christ, and therefore, as well as for other reasons, the Lord"s day, which took its place from the beginning of the gospel dispensation, was changed from the last to the first day of the week. The sabbath day was so long and so deeply associated with the stated feasts, the sabbatical year, and the jubilee year of Judaism, that it partook of their typical character, and thus passed away with the other institutions of Judaism. But this was not the original aspect of the sabbath, which had nothing in it typical of redemption, for it began while there was no sin and no need of salvation. Thus, just as baptism is the Lord"s circumcision according to ver. 11, the Lord"s day is the sabbath of Christian times.

II THE REASON FOR THE PROHIBITION "Which things are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ"s." They were useful as shadows before the Substance came, but after it they were useless.

1. The shadow. The word implies:

(1) The dimness, the unsubstantiality of these Jewish ordinances or institutions. The light they projected forward into Christian times was obscure.

(2) Their temporary nature. The shadow disappears when the substance is come.

2. The substance. "The body is Christ"s;" that is, belongs to Christ. The reality is verified in Christ and the benefits of the new dispensation. The blessings they prefigured are to be realized by union with Christ. T. C.

Vers. 16-23.

Legalism exposed.

The apostle, having shown in the last section how much Christ is to the believer, proceeds in the verses now before us to expose the false use of ceremonies, or, in modem phraseology, ritualism. The false teachers were anxious to entangle the Gentile converts in a tedious round of ceremonies to make them, in fact, Old Testament ritualists. They could even adduce what seemed to them philosophic reasons for such practice. But Paul scatters their false philosophy to the winds by the magic power of his Redeemer"s cross.

I LEGALISM ANCIENT OR MODERN IS THE PRACTICE OF CEREMONIES WITHOUT THEIR TRUE MEANING BEING APPRECIATED. (Ver. 16.) The Judaizers insisted on the Gentiles entering into the scrupulosity of the Jews about meat and drink, about holy days and new moons, and about the seventh-day sabbath, for the word is singular as the Revised Version has it, and not plural as in the Authorized Version. Now, it was quite possible for Jews and Gentiles to enter upon the keeping of these ceremonies without ever considering their signification. A ceremony may be kept just to be able to congratulate ourselves upon the keeping of it; that is to say, a ceremony may be kept in a self righteous spirit instead of intelligently. When ceremonies minister to self righteousness, when they lead to pride, when they are entertained in order to furnish a fancied claim, they are mere superstitions. It is to be feared that no other rationale can be given of a large proportion of modern ceremonial. It is a mere blind and leads souls away from Christ to self righteousness. It may, indeed, have the appearance of great humility. There may be apparent awe and regard for the angels, and the visible may seem to so impress the soul as to secure deepest humiliation; but when the issue of the ritual is self congratulation and a fancied independence of Christ"s merits for acceptance, the whole process is simply a deceptive superstition. It matters not how aesthetic the ritual may seem: the Jew of the apostolic age could have pleaded aestheticism like his modern counterpart; but the true analysis of the whole process is that it is self righteousness cultivating superstition.

II THE LORD JESUS CHRIST MUST TEST THE MEANING OF ALL CEREMONIES, AS THE SUBSTANCE DETERMINES THE SHADOW. (Ver. 17.) If ceremonies cease to lead souls to Jesus, then they are meaningless and condemned. The ceremonial laws of Moses were so constructed as to lead the thoughtful worshipper on to the promised Messiah. Meat must be bloodless, because blood was to be the atonement for sin, when Messiah came. The blood was forbidden, because the blood of Jesus Christ was to be shed in due season. The regulations about drink and holy clays and new moons pointed, as may easily be shown, in some way or other to Christ. The seventh-day sabbath was the type of the spiritual rest to which Jesus conducts us. (Heb_4:9-12) Christ is the Substance, and these ceremonies simply shadowed forth some aspect of his mission. But when men kept the ceremonies without ever thinking of their relation to Christ, when they kept them and made saviours of them instead of seeing in Jesus their only Saviour, they became not only meaningless but prejudicial to the interests of souls. Let Christ, then, be our test forvery ceremony to which men summon us, If it is a substitute for Christ, or if it has no relation to Christ, then we are bound to dismiss it flora our thoughts as simple superstition.

III FELLOWSHIP WITH CHRIST IN CRUCIFIXION MAKES MEN FREE FROM THE OBLIGATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CEREMONIES. (Vers. 20-23.) When Jesus died upon the cross every ceremony was fulfilled. The ceremonial Law had no further claim upon him. In the same way, when the Gentile converts so appreciated the Crucifixion that they were able to say they were "crucified with Christ" and so "dead with Christ," then the ceremonies of circumcision and the like were no longer obligatory upon them. They had fulfilled them in their Substitute and so were free from them. It was this liberty for which Paul so earnestly contended.

IV ARE BELIEVERS IN CONSEQUENCE TO RENOUNCE ALL CEREMONY AND TURN CHRISTIANITY INTO QUAKERISM? Certainly not. The Gentile converts were not encouraged by the apostles to set all ceremony at defiance. Though taught that the ceremonies of Judaism were fulfilled in Christ, they were directed not to eat blood, not to eat things strangled; they were directed to celebrate baptism and the Lord"s Supper, and to keep the Lord"s day. But what kept them right in these ceremonies was what will keep us right in ceremonies the simple determination whether or no they foster reverence for and deepen our interest in the atoning work of our blessed Lord. What really conducts the soul to Jesus is safe; but what only nominally does so and really ministers to self righteousness is dangerous and deadly error. Let Jesus be our test continually, and we shall be kept safe. R.M.E.

Vers. 16-23.

Three errors.

I LEGALISM. "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day: which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ"s." There is a detailed reference here to Jewish institutions. Eating (rather than meat) was encompassed with regulations. There was a distinction drawn between clean and unclean animals. Certain parts of animals (the fat, the blood) were not to be eaten. God"s rights (firstborn, portions of the priests) were not to be infringed in eating. There was not so much binding down in regard to drinking. Priests were forbidden the use of wine before ministering in the tabernacle; and the Nazarite vow included entire abstinence from the use of wine. The sacred times are classed according to their frequency. There were the three great annual feasts (extending each over a week) of the Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. Every month commenced with a celebration. And the weekly sabbath (older than Jewish institutions) had its special services. The false teachers who sought to impose these institutions on the Colossian Christians were Essenes. These went far beyond the Pharisees. They ate no animal food, drank no wine. They would not light a fire, move a vessel, perform the most ordinary functions of life on the sabbath. Everything material was inherently evil and was not to be touched more than was absolutely necessary. The apostle claims, against these teachers, on behalf of the Colossians, that they were not to be judged in respect of their nonobservance of Jewish institutions. And the ground on which he does so is this. These institutions (in their purity, and not as exaggerated in Essenism)were only shadows of the things to come. They were connected with what was substantial (and therefore were channels of blessing so long as they lasted), but Christians, having got the substantial in Christ, are necessarily freed from the shadowy in the Law. No conclusion is to be drawn from this adverse to gospel institutions. "We may observe," says Alford, commenting on this passage, "that, if the ordinance of the sabbath had been in any form of lasting obligation on the Christian Church, it would have been quite impossible for the apostle to have used this language." This carried out would take the ground from under all gospel institutions. There would be no sign whatever now, connected with our religion, the reality having come.

Liberation from all form is not certainly the New Testament idea. An argument may be drawn from the context. Circumcision was a shadow of the coming reality, viz. the putting off of the body of the flesh (death to the old). This reality we have now in Christ, but it does not therefore follow that it is disconnected from all positive institution. On the other hand, it is the teaching of the apostle that the same reality has been put into the gospel institution of baptism. Another argument may be drawn from the text itself. One of the feasts referred to is the Passover. The Paschal lamb was a shadow of the coming reality, viz. the sacrifice of Christ. But that great gospel reality has not been disenshrined. On the contrary, it has been put into an institution, which is to last till the close of the earthly order of things. So with the sabbath. It foreshadowed the reality of rest in Christ. We have now got the substance, but still the substance has been put into the institution of the Lord"s day, in which it will remain till all earthly institutions are done away. Only there is this to be remembered, in connection with our use of gospel institutions. We are not to be legalistic in the use of them. We are not to feel as though baptism, or the Lord"s Supper, or the Lord"s day had any magical power in them. They simply serve to hold up gospel realities for our faith to grasp. And there is a freedom (as of sons) which belongs to us in the use of them, such as there was not connected with the Law.

II ANGEL WORSHIP. "Let no man rob you of your prize." The Colossian Christians are here compared to the contenders in the Grecian games. The prize for which they were contending, and which they were in the way of obtaining, was eternal life. The word translated "rob" might seem to point to the false teachers as showing hostility in the character of judges. But that is not in accordance with the Pauline conception, in which Christ is Judge. Rather are we to think of them as showing their hostility in interfering with them in one form or another, so as to bring it about that they, the Colossians, did not receive the prize from the judge. And this is required by the connection. For the false teachers are represented as putting an obstacle in the way of the Colossians to trip them up so that they lose the prize. The obstacle is angel worship.

1. Its spurious humility. "By a voluntary humility and worshipping of the angels, dwelling m the things which he hath seen, vainly puffed up by his flesh y mind. We have already described the Eastern doctrine of successive emanations. These the Essenes (with their Jewish tendencies) identified with the successive orders of angels. These orders at intervals filled up the distance between God and men. They were so familiarly known as to be named. There was an appearance of humility in that. For it went on the supposition of the unapproachableness of God. We are such insignificant beings that it is not for us to worship so great a being as God. It only becomes us to worship the beings that lie nearer to us (the angels), and who have had more immediately to do with our creation. Regarding this humility the apostle asserts that it had its ground in their own will, not in reality. The way in which he makes it out is this: The angel worshipper "dwells in the things which he hath seen." This must be held to be a great blot on the Revised translation. The meaning suggested is that the angel worshipper is an inhabitant of the world of sense. This is nothing less than grotesque. For the angel worshipper shows the spuriousness of his humility by confidently going across the boundary line of sense. "Dwelling in" is a most objectionable translation. The word is literally to step on, to step off one place on to another. The exact sense depends on the retention or non-retention of "not" in the text. The former makes the better sense, well brought out in the old translation, "intruding into those things which he hath not seen." The latter has a slight preponderance of authority in its favour, and may be understood as giving the sense stepping on to the domain of the visionary. The general meaning is undoubtedly this that, while professing (in his humility) that he is only fit to worship angels, he penetrates illegitimately into the invisible world, i.e. not in the way of faith and revelation. He makes the large assertion that the Divine Being does not care for our worship. And he names (as though he had actually seen) the different orders of angels. And so the apostle makes it out to be not humility at all. It is (when unbared) inflation. It is inflation with what is baseless, unreal. It is inflation from a bad principle the mind of the flesh (as distinguished from the mind of the Spirit). That is to say, there is in it fleshly discontent with the simple contents of revelation regarding the angel world. And there is the fleshly desire to appear to know more than is to be known. The lesson to be learned from this is that we are not to undervalue our humanity. We are all the greater beings that our Father in heaven is so great.

We look up in our littleness To thy majestic state; Our comfort is thou art so good, And that thou art so great.

As the angel worshipper said that it was not for us to worship God, so the agnostic says nowadays that it is not for us to know God. If there is a God, he is not to be known, and we are not at liberty to go beyond the known.

There is an appearance of humility in that, but if there is abundant evidence against holding the existence of God in suspense, then it is not really an indication of humility, but rather of proud dislike of God.

2. Its renunciation of the Head. "And not holding fast the Head, from whom all the body, being supplied and knit together through the joints and bands, increaseth with the increase of God." The apostle puts his objection to angel worship on a strong basis of truth. The parts of the body are jointed and banded. The joints and bands serve for the body being nourished and compacted. This takes place in connection with a common centre of vital energy. The result is the increase appointed for the body by God. So Christians in their relations to one another are as joints and bands. They form lines along which communications can be sent from Christ, by which the Church is nourished and compacted and has its appointed increase. But this is on condition of holding fast the Head. The angel worship, by which the false teachers would have tripped up the Colossians on their way to the goal, would have been a losing hold of Christ. It would have been a substituting for the mediation of Christ the mediation of inferior beings. It would have been fatal severance from him who does the whole work of mediation for men. And the same strong objection is to be taken to the regard paid to angels, to saints, especially to the Virgin Mary, in the Church of Rome. Whatever distinctions may be drawn by Roman Catholic theologians, whatever safeguards may be adapted, the practical result is what the apostle notes here, the letting go of the all sufficiency of the mediation of Christ and the paralyzing of the Church"s energies.

III ASCETICISM. The teaching of the apostle is that Christians are freed from mundane ordinances. "If ye died with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, do ye subject yourselves to ordinances?" One part of the truth of baptism is that we are sharers with Christ in his death. We not only die with Christ; but there is something to or from which we die. This is thought of sometimes as sin, sometimes as self, sometimes as the Law. It is here thought of as the world in its rudiments, that is to say, its teachings and rules (the latter prominent here), which are all rudimentary compared with the perfect form of Christianity. We have died to the world (God-forsaking) and its ordinances, why then, as though living in the world (as though we had not died, as though our former relations to the world were still maintained), should we subject ourselves to its ordinances?

1. These ordinances are prohibitory. "Handle not, nor taste, nor touch." Some, by a strange blunder, have supposed this to be an inculcation of abstinence by the apostle. He is, on the contrary, disparagingly giving the spirit of asceticism. It said, "Abstain, abstain, abstain." He gives the very words of asceticism, "Handle not, nor taste, nor touch." The words are given in the correct order in the Revised translation. With a descent of language, there is an ascent of superstition. The things referred to we are not to handle, nor are we to taste them, nor have the slightest contact with them. The error of asceticism is that it makes prohibition (negation) the essence of religion. The counteractive thought is that it is not by heaping up prohibitions that man"s spiritual need can be met.

2. These ordinances relate to the outward. "All which things are to perish with the using." The things are the foods and drinks which were prohibited. The apostle seems to direct a double argument against asceticism. The meats and drinks had a good property; they had also a defect.

(1) They were for use. "With the using" is his language. That is to say, they had no inherent evil (according to the ascetic idea). They were made to be handled, to be tasted, to be touched. They were made for consumption. They were made (with a certain heartiness in the expression used) to be used up.

(2) They were in the use of them to go to corruption. They could not be used over again. Decomposition set in which became complete (destruction). As they could not thus be the be all for man (not being eternal), so neither, on the other hand, was religion to be placed in mere abstinence from them.

1. These ordinances are humanly imposed. "After the precepts and doctrines of men." There were numerous ordinances of God before the perfect religion came. These had close connection with religion as Divine helps. They were laid down authoritatively by God, and by them God taught important lessons. But the ascetics were out of date with their ordinances (partly Jewish they were in Essenism). They were only (even the Jewish parts of them) the precepts and doctrines of men. There was no authority for imposing them on the consciences of men.

2. These ordinances are not in their contents entitled to be called wisdom. "Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in win-worship, and humility, and severity to the body; but are not of any value against the indulgence of the flesh." Ascetic observances were thought to be wisdom. They were intimately associated with worship. They were supposed to be based on the two great virtues of humility and self denial. The ascetics had the reputation of carrying these virtues even to excess. We have already referred to the practices of the Essenes. As an illustration of what the apostle means by humility and severity to the body, we may take the modern instance of Lacordaire. "Immediately after Mass, and while his face was yet lighted up with ineffable joy, he would seek the cell of one of his brethren, kneel humbly down, and beg for the full severities of discipline. Rising from it, all bleeding, he would press his lips on the feet of him who had chastised him, and overwhelm him with expressions of gratitude. Sometimes he would place himself under the monk"s feet, and remain there a quarter of an hour in silence; sometimes he would not be content without the bestowal of still ruder chastisement he must be boxed on the ears, be spit upon, be ordered about like a slave, "Go, wretch, brush my shoes, bring me this thing or that;" he must even be spurned like a dog. Once in the convent at Chalais, after having delivered an affecting sermon on humility, he felt irresistibly impelled to follow up precept by example. He came down from the pulpit, begged the assembled brethren to treat him with the severity he deserved, and, uncovering his shoulders, received from each of them twenty-five strokes. The community was a large one, and the ordeal lasted a long time. Brethren, novices, and fathers stood by in deep emotion until all was over, and Lacordaire rose up pale and exhausted. One Good Friday he made himself a cross, raised it in a subterranean chapel, and, bound to it by cords, remained on it three hours." The apostle teaches that ascetic observances have only a show of wisdom.

(1) They are voluntary. He points to this element in the worship with which they were associated. We are to have soul-humiliation before God. We are to have humiliation for sin. But there is no call for our demeaning ourselves or our demeaning the humanity which God has given us. And such demeaning is not to be taken as an indication of soul humiliation. In the same way, we have to deny ourselves. The apostle even notes severe treatment of his body, "I buffet my body, and bring it into bondage." But we are not wantonly to buffet the body, as though God had given it to be a plague to the spirit, or as though it were meritorious in itself to do so. Such severity is not to be taken as a true laying of self on the altar.

(2) They are ineffective. He finds no fault with the end. They are intended to check the indulgence of the flesh. But he denies them value as means toward that end. They have only a charm for the few; the many must be repelled. And even with the few they are no proper safeguards. There are often witnessed outbreaks of the flesh, and even, where there are not such outbreaks, there is not the proper condition of the spirit. The only proper safeguard is the positive of the risen life with Christ, and especially of attraction toward him, to the consideration of which the apostle proceeds. R.F.

Vers. 16-19.

Christian independence.

Remembering the evils in the Church at Colossal, namely, the ceremonialism, the asceticism, the appeal to angelic mediators, and at the same time recalling the theme of the paragraph preceding the verses now before us, the complete sufficiency of Christ as man"s Mediator, nature"s Lord and Consecrator, and the soul"s Deliverer from bondage to ceremonies, we are prepared to notice the result of Christ"s work for man and over man, as here suggested, and to consider the great theme of

Christian independence.

I THAT CHRISTIAN INDEPENDENCE IS A FREEDOM FROM THE BONDAGE OF CEREMONY AND OF SUPERSTITION. The sixteenth verse suggests what ceremony may bind men; the eighteenth what superstition may enslave them. We notice the Christian"s independence:

1. From the bondage of ceremonialism. The form of this bondage varies, but its spirit continues. The form of bondage in those days was

(1) bondage as to food. There were restrictions as to meat and drink, which were rigid as any moral code. They were mostly Jewish, and had wrongly been inserted in the Christian system.

(2) Bondage as to days. These were also mostly Jewish anniversaries, or monthly or weekly celebrations. The claim of their observance was so punctilious as to be a sore bondage. From both of these the Spirit of Christ frees men. As to meats, "nothing was common or unclean;" as to days, the shadow thrown in advance had given way to the substance.

2. From the bondage of superstition. A heathen superstition had intruded in the form of the worship of angels, which led to "a voluntary humility," that is, to an artificial, self-conscious affectation of humility, leading to the prostration of men before imaginary superior beings. From this parade of humility and morbidly fostered prostration Christ delivers by bringing each soul into conscious relationship with the Highest. That lofty relationship enjoyed, there will be no cringing before any who are inferior to him.

II THAT FALSE TEACHERS SEEK TO DEPRIVE MEN OF THIS INDEPENDENCE. So they did in Paul"s day, and so they do now. They "beguile" men, trip them up in the race, and hinder their attaining the prize. Two sets of false teachers so beguile men.

1. The sentimentalist those who foster among their adherents a pietism under the name of unworldliness.

2. The sacerdotalist those who exercise over their followers a priestism that makes the man a slave of the institution, instead of the institution being a servant of the man.

III THAT CHRISTIAN INDEPENDENCE IS DERIVED FROM AND NOURISHED BY UNION WITH CHRIST.

1. The right relationship with Christ gives independence because of the strength flowing from union with the Head, the Source of all power and control.

2. This right union with Christ gives independence because it involveshealthy relationship to the body, i.e. all fellow Christians. There is none of the ruptured relationship with Christ or the Church that some count liberty, but which is really only licence. There is rather the being healthily and perfectly united to Christ and to the Church by the ligaments of loving relationship ligaments these that hold all together and hold all to Christ, and give him the complete control of all. Each soul has liberty, just as the limbs of a healthy man have free play. Moreover, such a soul grows with the growth of God. U. R.T.

Vers. 16-19.

Two dangers to be avoided.

We find here two notes of warning no man judge you;" "Let no man rob you." Two dangers need to be guarded against.

I THE INFLUENCE OF UNJUST JUDGMENTS. The apostle has here in view the practical error of Judaizing ritualists. They had received from Moses regulations respecting meats and drinks and feasts, which they endeavoured to enforce on Gentile converts as necessary to salvation. (Act_15:1) If they did not always proceed to this extreme, they treated others as negligent of most important means of grace. They thus brought a strong pressure to bear on the consciences of new converts who had received no such instructions from apostles or other Christian teachers who had "begotten them through the gospel." It was no easy thing to resist such pressure exerted by men with all the sacred traditions of Judaism behind them; just as it must have been hard work for the early Reformers to resist the influence of the hostile opinions of all the leaders and Fathers of the Christian world. (Illustrate from the case of Cranmer.) Thus the Colossian converts were in danger of yielding to the censorious judgments of these teachers and conforming to their requirements. In so doing they might grasp at shadows which belonged to Moses and lose the substance which was Christ"s. Neither the twelve apostles nor Paul made light of Mosaic ordinances (Act_16:3 Act_18:18 Act_21:26) or sacred seasons. (Act_16:13 Act_18:21 Act_20:16 Act_24:11) But St. Paul earnestly protests against the yoke of bondage being imposed on Gentile converts. We too must beware of yielding to similar pressure from ritualizing Christians. So long as we endeavour to observe all things which Christ has commanded, we must be prepared to brave the judgments of those who would impose on our consciences observances and expedients which are not of Divine authority; e.g. the enforcing on the conscience of the observance of Good Friday, or of early communion, evening communion being denounced; the forbidding of marriage during Lent or Advent. There is peril in regarding any human appointments as taking rank with Divine ordinances: "I am afraid of you". (Gal_4:10, Gal_4:11) There is positive sin in enforcing them on the consciences of others. (Rom_14:1-6, Rom_14:13)

II THE LOSS OF OUR EXPECTED PRIZE. (Vers. 18, 19.) This danger arose from the theological errors of the advocates of a rudimentary Gnosticism. This heresy was more serious than the other, as we infer from the fact that to lose our expected prize is a far greater calamity than to endure the condemnation of narrow-minded brethren. By yielding to the temptation, even through the influence of false opinions, of robbing Christ of his glory as sole Mediator, we may ourselves be robbed of our prize, our "crown." False doctrines may be fatal when they have their roots in moral causes and bring forth "wild grapes." The element of error here chiefly condemned is the worship of angelic mediators. It had four sources.

(1) A spurious humility, as though we could not venture to have access to God except through the mediation of inferior beings.

(2) A vain pretence to know more than is revealed respecting the world of spirits ("Dwelling in the things which he hath seen," i.e. his assumed visions).

(3) Spiritual pride (which is a frequent source of heresy even in Christian. (1Co_8:1)

(4) An imperfect knowledge of or trust to Christ ("not holding the Head," etc.) This analysis of error applies, to a large extent, to the modern errors of the intercession and worship of angels, saints, and the Virgin Mary.

They arise from:

(1) Spurious humility; as though a child should appeal to his father through a domestic servant, when his elder brother was appointed as his tutor and counsellor (1Ti_2:5; Heb_1:14)

(2) Pretended knowledge; for whatever speculations we may indulge as to the employments of "the dead in Christ," we know nothing to authorize us to appeal to them as intercessors.

(3) Spiritual pride, which shows itself in declining to be satisfied or even in setting aside "the things which are revealed" respecting worship and mediation (1Jn_2:2; Rev_19:10, etc.) and exalting our own imaginations or the unsupported assertions of fellow sinners to the level of the true sayings of God. (Rev_2:14, Rev_2:15, Rev_2:20) In some respects Romanists and spiritualists are victims of similar delusions.

(4) A failure in "holding fast the Head," etc. Unhappy men! "If thou knewest the gift of God!" God is better to you than your servile fears or false humility would suggest. We have an Advocate, even Christ (Eph_2:18) We need no advocate with him. "I can speak more safely and cheerfully to my Jesus than to any of the holy spirits of God" (Augustine). The angels have not my nature, and I need no redeemed sinners as intercessors, since I have the Sinless One. (Heb_7:25, Heb_7:26) To admit any one to share with Jesus Christ the glory of the work of mediation is (to say the least) to "hold the Head," not "fast," but in a manner that is both lax and perilous. If we are "holding fast the Head," we must acknowledge him as the Image of God, in whom "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," as the Author and the End of all creation, as the Lord of the world and the supreme Ruler of his Church, as the great Reconciler between God and man by the blood of his cross, and as the believer"s only Hope cf glory. It is from him alone that his members receive spiritual supplies, are knit together and grow. False teachers, who would divert our faith or affections from him, may rob us of our reward. (Illustration: Racers diverted from the straight course toward the umpire at the goal, or persuaded to neglect one of the laws of the game (Gal_5:7; Php_3:12-14; 2Ti_2:5; Heb_12:1, Heb_12:2) To us the exhortations come home E.S.P. (Eph_4:14-16; Heb_3:12-14; Rom_3:11)

The rights of liberty.

At first sight the advice of St. Paul to the Colossians, not to let any one interfere with their private judgment in regard to meats, days, etc., may seem to conflict with the principle of generosity laid down in the First Epistle to the Corinthians: "If meat maketh my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh forvermore, that I make not my brother to stumble." But a closer examination of the two cases will show that they differ essentially.

I CONSIDERATION FOR THE SCRUPLES OF THE WEAK MUST BE DISTINGUISHED FROM YIELDING TO THE TYRANNY OF THE BIGOTED.

1. It is weak brethren whom St. Paul spares in his Epistle to the Corinthians. But, when writing to the Colossians, he has no such people in view, but a very different class censorious, bigoted enemies of Christian liberty. Such men should be firmly opposed.

2. In the former case St. Paul was considering the condition of the weakbrethren whom he wished to save from stumbling. In the present instance no such consideration is called for. It is not their imperfections that the Colossians are to deal gently with, but the interference of troublesome people who will not stumble the less because they have their own way in unlawful tyranny.

3. In the former case the concession was voluntary. St. Paul spoke of his own action, freely adopted. Here, however, it is not a case of generous concession on the part of the more liberal, but one of tyrannical assumption on that of the more bigoted. This case may be illustrated by St. Paul"s vigorous resistance to the attempts that were made by certain professed Christians at Jerusalem to compel the circumcision of Titus. (Gal_2:3-5)

II IT IS OUR POSITIVE DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE RIGHTS OF LIBERTY. We may be tempted to yield out of love of peace, or from an unselfish feeling of generosity. But this is more than a mistake; it is a fault. Several reasons concur to forbid us to yield to the judgment of the more bigoted in these matters.

1. The claims of truth. If we believe that our position is the right one, to renounce it will be to sacrifice truth. In maintaining our own rights in this instance we are upholding great principles.

2. The honour of Christ. If we renounce the freer, larger gospel for a cramped and mutilated one, we dishonour the Name of Christ. For his sake the broad generosity and liberal spirituality of Christianity must be maintained.

3. The performance of our own duty. We cannot serve God so well when our liberty is fettered by the interference of the narrower minded as when we follow our own conscience without such restraints.

4. The good of our fellow men. By permitting encroachments on the liberty of the gospel, we narrow the privileges which we should be offering to our fellow men. We are put in trust of the gospel. Let us beware of traitorous efforts to rob it of its richest treasures. (Gal_2:5)

Nevertheless, let us take home to ourselves a further lesson, and beware of judging our brother Christians in regard to sabbath observance and other external habits either way on the one hand, for too strict formalism in our eyes; or, on the other hand, for too free behaviour. "To his own Lord he standeth or falleth". W.F.A. (Rom_14:4)

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

Therefore - Seeing these things are so. Let none judge you - That is, regard none who judge you. In meat or drink - For not observing the ceremonial law in these or any other particulars. Or in respect of a yearly feast, the new moon, or the weekly Jewish sabbaths.

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

Warning against a false righteousness of works:

v. 16. Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath-days,

v. 17. which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

v. 18. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshiping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

v. 19. and not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

v. 20. Wherefore, if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

v. 21. (Touch not; taste not; handle not;

v. 22. which all are to perish with the using,) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

v. 23. Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honor to the satisfying of the flesh.

Having declared to the Colossians the glorious advantages which are theirs through conversion and Baptism, the apostle now names specific errors which threaten to deprive them of the blessings of the Gospel. Among these dangerous errors is that of Judaistic insistence upon the observance of certain days; Let no man, then, judge you in food or in drink; or in the matter of a festival, or new moon, or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of coming things; the body, however, is of Christ. This seems to have been one of the points upon which the Judaistic teachers insisted, that the precepts of the Ceremonial Law were still in force and must be kept. They wanted the distinction between clean and unclean foods maintained; they probably extended the vows which the Nazarites made voluntarily into laws binding upon the consciences of all men. See Lev 11:1-47; Lev 10:8-11; Num 6:1-4. They insisted that the great festivals of the Old Testament, the new moons, and all the Sabbaths must still be observed by divine command. In other words, they wanted the entire Church, or Ceremonial Law of the Old Testament continued for the time of the New Testament as well. These people are not without imitators in our day. Not only are there special denominations whose fundamental principle is that of the observance of the Jewish Ceremonial Law, but there are individual teachers in practically all denominations of our country that insist upon keeping at least the Sunday by divine command, believing that it has taken the place of the Old Testament Sabbath. But St. Paul’s comment on all such efforts is brief and to the point: Let no man pass an unfavorable judgment upon you, let no man criticize and condemn you for your attitude. For all the things comprised in the Jewish Ceremonial Law served merely as a shadow of coming things; they were merely types of the future, permanent values of the New Testament. The body is Christ’s, in Him all the types are fulfilled, and therefore no longer have any need to be observed. See Heb 9:8-12. He that chooses any day as fixed by divine command, he that confines his diet to certain articles of food and drink as being demanded by the Lord, is deceiving himself, placing himself under the yoke of the Ceremonial Law, and is in danger of losing his soul’s salvation. See Gal 4:9-11.

Another specific instance of Judaizing influence to which Paul finds occasion to refer is that of the superstitious worship of angels: Let no man defraud you (give judgment against you), taking pleasure in humility and cult of angels, intruding into the things which he has not seen vainly inflated by the mind of his flesh, and not holding the Head, from whom the whole body, through the joints and ligaments being supplied and held together, increases the increase of God. The apostle uncompromisingly designates this as another species of fraud, as another scheme to deprive the Christians of the glorious blessings of the Gospel. By their critical, supercilious attitude the false teachers were condemning the Colossian Christians for adhering to the simple truths of the Gospel; they were intimating and teaching that the way advocated by them was so much better, to be commended so much more highly. They took pleasure in exhibiting very ostentatiously what they wanted men to regard as humility; they were advocating a cult or worship of angels. They tried to make it appear as though man should consider himself as too lowly and insignificant for fellowship with God, that he should be satisfied with communing with angels. Under a show of meekness and lowliness, therefore, they had the audacity to intrude into the domain of spirits, into the transcendental regions. They thus became subject to delusions, which they nevertheless wanted to inflict upon others. Without the slightest ground they assumed an attitude of superiority, puffed up by the mind of their flesh, of their old sinful nature. The pride of these people, therefore, as of all their followers in our days, consisted in this, that with all their ostentatious humility they permitted themselves to believe that men could not be satisfied with the simple knowledge, obedience, and belief of the Gospel, but must strive to attain to a peculiar, higher wisdom and sanctity. This resulted, of course, in their not holding fast to Christ as the one Head of the Church. They severed themselves from connection with Christ. But, as Paul says, it is only from Him that the entire body of the Church in all its members receives power and strength to increase according to the will of God. It is just as in the case of the human organism, in which the various limbs and members are held together by joints and ligaments, this being the condition under which they are supplied with blood and nerve force from the centers of life, especially from the head. Note: No one can remain a member of the body of Christ unless he clings to that Redeemer and His Gospel in simple faith and rejects all the systems and methods that are offered as substitutes for the truth in our days.

The apostle concludes this section with some very pertinent and pointed remarks: If, then, you are dead with Christ, away from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you suffer decrees to be laid upon you, (such as) Touch not, taste not, handle not? all of which ordinances lead in their use to (spiritual) destruction, after the commandments and doctrines of men, which have a reputation for wisdom in arbitrary cult and humility and unsparingness of the body, not in any honor, but (only) to the satisfying of the flesh. Here the apostle makes the application to the Colossian Christians. When they learned to believe in Christ, they, with Him, died unto the rudiments, the precepts, of the world, all the ceremonial laws by which people hope to earn something in the sight of God. It is self-evident, therefore, that Christians will not permit false teachers to lay this unnecessary yoke of human ordinances upon them again, just as though they were still members of this present world, as though they had never yet heard of the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. Those precepts were indeed being taught by the false teachers, just as those of our day are characterized by their insistence upon such commands: You must not touch that food; you must not taste that drink; you must not be found indulging in this or that or another thing, all of which are things indifferent and therefore matters of Christian liberty. If a person persists in keeping such precepts as commandments of God, the word will apply to him: In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, Mat 15:9. The keeping of such ordinances will thus finally result in the spiritual destruction of those that insist upon them. For they are nothing but commandments and doctrines of men, which, indeed, have a great show and reputation of wisdom, as if they were of value in furthering people in knowledge of a holy life. But it is an arbitrary worship, a self-chosen cult, not based upon God’s Word and will. The attitude of such people, moreover, is one of false humility; they have a great show of meekness, but in the final analysis they will be found full of pride of self and unwilling to accept instruction. And finally, they practice an austerity toward their own bodies in ascetic abstinence which is without command and promise. Thus all their attempts to excel before God with a piety and righteousness not based upon the Word of God are vain and foolish. The apostle pronounces a simple judgment upon all such efforts: Their reputation is without real basis, without honor which will stand before God, And what is more: All these things are done only to the satisfying and gratifying of the flesh. The poor deluded errorists that are trying to lead other people astray by insisting upon works which are not commanded by God delude themselves more than anyone else, because, after all, they derive a great amount of self-satisfaction out of the practices which they advocate, in other words, they are deliberately trying to earn justification before God by works of their own choosing. The fact remains that all precepts, all doctrines, all schemes, all methods, all works that aim at merit in man thereby take away merit from Christ and must result in failure.

Summary

The apostle urges his readers to be steadfast in their faith in Christ and to beware of the philosophy of deceit of men; he pictures to them the riches of the blessings which have come to them in conversion and Baptism, by which they have become partakers of the triumph of Christ; he names some specific Judaistic errors by which the false teachers, under a guise of wisdom and humility, were preparing to kill their faith.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Here we have an inference or conclusion drawn by our apostle from the foregoing argument, that seeing the ceremonial law was now abolished, therefore none should take upon them to judge or condemn another for not observing any of the legal ceremonies, either those that related to meats, that is, the difference to be observed in meats, or the other relating to the difference to be observed in days.

Here note, That the days observed amongst the Jews, were of three sorts: Anniversary, which returned every year, called here an holy day; Lunary which returned every month, the first day of every new moon; Weekly, which returned every week, and on the seventh day of every week: All which are abrogated, even the Jewish seventh-day sabbath; and the Lord’s day, or the Christian’s first-day sabbath, substituted in its place, 1Co 16:2.

Observe here, 1. That there is both a sinful and a lawful abstinence from meats; that abstinence is sinful, when men abstain from some meats, under pretence of holiness and conscience, as if some meats were unclean, or less holy in their own natures than others, 1Ti 4:4 or as if simple abstinence at any time were a thing acceptable to God in itself, without respect had to the end for which it is sometimes required.

But there is a three-fold abstinence from meats, which is lawful; Political, enjoined by the magistrate for civil ends; Medicinal, prescribed by the physician for health’s preservation; Ecclesiastical, when God by his providence, and the voice of his church, calls his people to fasting.

Observe, 2. The reason alledged by the apostle, why Christians should not judge one another, with respect to meats and drinks, times and seasons, namely, because those legal ceremonies were but dark shadows of things to come; but the body and substance, represented by those shadows, is Christ come in the flesh: And consequently, to observe the ceremonies, and regard these shadows under the gospel, is in effect to say, That Christ the body is not yet come.

Here note, 1. The title given to the ceremonial worship, it is styled a shadow, because it was a dark and imperfect representation of the truth: What is a shadow, but the coming of a thick body posed between Christ the true light and us, and so casts a shadow of him.

Note, 2. The title given to Christ with respect to the shadows of the ceremonial law, he is the body and the substance of them; now as the shadow vanishes when the substance is come, so these ceremonial ordinances were to cease upon the coming of Christ; and to observe them now, under the gospel, is in effect to say, that Christ is not yet come in the flesh.

Note, 3. That the Jewish sabbath was a ceremonial ordinance, and a part of that handwriting of ordinances which was to be blotted out by Christ; and consequently the Christian is not obliged to observe it.

As the distinction of meats and drinks and the observation of the new moons were confessedly ceremonial; so was also the Jewish sabbath, which with the rest was equally cancelled by Christ as a part of the handwriting of ordinances; so that to observe the Jewish sabbath, or to condemn the Christian for not observing it, is as much a denial, that Christ is come in the flesh as to observe circumcision, or any other part of the ceremonial law.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

ARGUMENT 12

VISIBLE RELIGIONS: CARNAL AND COUNTERFEIT

16. “Let no one judge you in meat or in drink, or in participation of a feast, or of the new moon or of Sabbaths.” The old law of restriction on meats was nailed to the cross, universal liberty peculiar to the gospel dispensation, the typical significations of “clean” and “unclean” superseded in the spiritual dispensation of entire sanctification; meanwhile we are to live hygienically and harmonically with the endless diversity of variant constitutions and climates. On the drink problem we should all be Nazarites unto the Lord, as they were the holiness people of the old dispensation, and most radical teetotalers relative to all intoxicants. Coffee and tea are admissible under hygienical restrictions. I much enjoy the privilege of abstinence from all nervines. As to festivals, be sure that you follow the Lord. Do not hold them in the house of God. (1Co 11:22.) “Sabbaths,” in the original, is in the plural number, having prophetic reference doubtless to the controversy now prevailing on that subject. In Mat 18:1, the Greek reads, “At the dawn toward the first of the Sabbaths,” confirming the conclusion that both days were recognized at the time of the writing; i.e., the Jewish Sabbath, which was the last day of the week, and the Christian Sabbath; the first day of the week, so memorialized by our Lord’s resurrection as ever afterward to be denominated the Lord’s day. The Christian Church began all Jews, in a century eliminating the Jewish element and becoming Gentiles. Of course the apostles and pentecostal converts kept the Jewish Sabbath as well as the Lord’s day, till the Jewish element evanesced after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, A.D. 73. There are fundamental reasons arising out of the genius of the gracious economy, which justify the change from the last to the first day. The law says, “Work first, and then rest,” and if you do not finish your work, you shall not rest. Hence, the pertinency of the last day under the law dispensation. The gospel says, “Rest first, and then you will be in good fix to do your work,” as a well rested man will do about ten times as much work as a tired man. Besides, we have clear and positive proof of the change, and the observance of the first day by the primitive Christians. The bloody persecution inaugurated by Nero, in which Paul lost his head and Peter was crucified, lasted three hundred years, during which martyrs’ blood flowed like rivers. When a student in college, I read the Roman historians, Sallust, Pliny, and Seutonius, who lived and wrote during those bloody centuries. As they were heathens, having no sympathy with Christianity, they are certainly impartial witnesses to the current events of the times. In their simplicity and candor they chronicle their historic sketches of the Christians, describing them as a strange, bigoted, fanatical sect, the followers of one Jesus, who was crucified under the reign of Tiberius and the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate at Jerusalem, whom they certify to have risen from the dead, and they worship him as a God, though the good emperors had done their utmost to reconcile these fanatical people, even proposing to confer the apotheosis upon Jesus Christ, thus adopting him as one of their own gods, to be worshipped along with Jupiter, Apollo, Mercury, Venus, Minerva, and Diana. But these incorrigible fanatics treat with utter contempt all of the good old Roman gods, obstinately refusing to worship any god except Jesus Christ. In their simplicity they described the persistent efforts of the emperors to correct and loyalize this disturbing element in the empire.

Then they proceed to describe the arraignment, trial, and martyrdom of the Christians. When persons were suspected of being Christians, they were arrested and arraigned before a civil magistrate. Then they asked them the question, “Dominicum servasti?” “Have you kept the Lord’s day?” The answer came promptly, “Christianus sum,” “I am a Christian,” “Intermittere non possum,” “I am not able to omit it.” This is positive and unequivocal proof that they kept the first day of the week, which, from the apostles, was called the Lord’s day. If Saturday had been the day, they would have asked them, “Sabbaticum servasti,” “Have you kept the Sabbath day?” The very fact that they never asked them if they had kept the Sabbath day, but always, “Have you kept the Lord’s day?” is unequivocal proof that they kept the first day of the week. While we have this clear and unequivocal assurance of the change from the seventh to the first day, simultaneously with the change from the Jewish to the Christian dispensation, we would subjoin,

“If you have any conscientious scruples that you ought to keep Saturday as a holy Sabbath, we exhort you to satisfy those convictions in the observance of that day. In that case, you will keep both days, as you must keep Sunday, conservatively of the conscience of Christendom.” (1Co 8:12.)

Thus you will keep both days, the former pursuant to your own conscience and the latter the conscience of the Lord’s people. An easy way to settle the whole matter, and sweep controversy from the field, is for you to get sanctified wholly, and walk with Jesus in the beauty of holiness. Then you will have seven Sabbaths in the week, instead of one. The history of the apostolic Church during the early centuries utterly upsets the allegation that the Emperor Constantine, who was not converted till the fourth century, made the change from the seventh to the first day; while the fiction that the popes did it is still more at random, as there never was a pope till the seventh century. Doubtless, Constantine and the popes, like all other ecclesiastical leaders, frequently sent out edicts exhorting the people to keep the Christian Sabbath. There is no more reason why we should Judaize on the Sabbath dogma than that we should go back to the Jewish dispensation on other things. God wants holy hearts. In that case, all days will be holy. It is the wildest fanaticisrn to magnify holy days, instead of holy hearts.

17. “Which things are a shadow of the things to come.” These Old Testament institutions all symbolize the glorious spiritual experiences of the pentecostal dispensation. Sabbath is a Hebrew word, and means rest. It symbolizes the perfect repose of the sanctified soul in Jesus. It is an awful mistake to keep the eye always on the shadow and miss the substance, like Aesop’s dog in the fable, walking through the creek with a piece of meat in his mouth, and, seeing his shadow in the water, thinking it was another dog carrying a piece of meat, leaped at the shadow, dropping his meat to get the other, and, losing all, came out of the water meatless and hungry. If you have perfect rest in Jesus, you have an everlasting Sabbath in your soul. If you have not got the soul-Sabbath, the devil will get after all of your zeal about days.

“But the body is of Christ”— that is the thing for you to settle—is that you are a bona fide member of the New Testament Church; i.e., the Divine Ecclesia, who, responsive to the call of the Holy Ghost, have come out of the world, and separated themselves unto God. This blood-washed Church of the First-born is called the body of Christ. If you are saved and sanctified, and thus a bona fide member of the body of Christ, the day problem, along with all other symbolisms, will take care of itself.

18. “Let no one, pursuant to his own will, rob you of your crown in humiliation and worship of the angels.” Then the Church, which had been kept pure by martyr blood and fire three hundred years, during which she pushed her conquest to the ends of the earth, and soon would have prepared the world for her Lord’s return, received the sudden uplift into power and riches through the conversion of Constantine, the Roman Emperor, she soon plunged headlong into the darkness and secularism of Roman Catholicism, and set up the worship of angels, to which Paul alludes: “Thrusting in those things which he has seen, being vainly puffed by the mind of his depravity.” Here we see a sweeping condemnation against all visible religions as consequently carnal, the true being invisible and spiritual. Not a solitary apostle ever preached in a church edifice, the Jews and pagans throughout the world making a great pomp and show with fine buildings. One hundred and fifty years rolled away before the Christians erected a house of worship. I sometimes feel that they made a mistake in ever building a house, and localizing the worship of God. Solomon’s temple signified the sanctified heart. Jesus certifies that neither at Jerusalem nor in Samaria is the true worship, but in the humble, sanctified heart. The first trend into apostasy and idolatry is always through a materialistic religion. Christendom is this day flooded with the idolatry of materialism, spirituality being more and more superseded by materiality, as the Churches, like Judaism and Romanism, go deeper into apostasy. All the paganistic Churches of the present day, with a thousand millions of souls, are the apostasy of the patriarchal dispensation; Jews and Mohammedans, two hundred and fifty millions; of the modern Roman Catholics two hundred and sixty millions; while one hundred and fifty millions of Protestants are following them at racehorse speed on the downward way to idolatry and diabolism. They all traveled the same way, originally deflecting from a purely spiritual and invisible into material and visible forms, ceremonies, temples, shrines, musical instruments, etc.

19. “Not holding the head.” Here the prophetic eye of Paul sees a great man at the head of the Church, leading the people in the pompous rites and ceremonies of a visible worship, with fine house, splendid choir, pipe- organ, and Official Board, and utterly destitute of salvation. “Not holding the head;” i.e., has no connection with Christ, and utterly ignorant of his saving power. Ecclesiastical leaders on this line are too many to be counted. Their name is legion. O how the present age is flooded with the fulfillment of these wonderful latter-day prophecies, which flashed continually from Paul’s inspired pen! How deplorable to see myriads of preachers blindly and ignorantly fulfilling these prophecies! “From which the whole body, through joints and ligaments supplied and cemented together, increaseth the increase of God.” Here we have a beautiful affirmation of the universal oneness of the Lord’s Church. There is no harmony in Satan’s kingdom. The miseries of the damned are constantly augmented and awfully intensified by the universal disharmony, perturbation, and bitter conflicts in hell. It is equally true on earth; war, bloodshed, strife, and disharmony universally characterize the kingdom of Satan. The world is belted with sectarian Churches, rivaling each other in visible pomp and pageantry, and material power and aggrandizement, amid universal rivalry, competition, and disharmony; while the Church of God is an invisible spiritual entity, consisting of blood-washed souls dispersed in all the earth and millions in heaven, all not only perfectly harmonious but identical in spirit, each individual identified with Christ as the branch in the vine, and all receiving the same life-blood flowing out from the heart of Jesus. Union there can never be, unless that we be one in Jesus,—one as he is one in God, in spirit, and in disposition. This the Holy Scriptures teach. It is plain without an exposition.

20. “If you are dead along with Christ from the institutions of the world, why are you dogmatized as living in the world?” There is no reference here to Church ordinances, as you might conclude from E.V., but to human institutions indiscriminately and independently of Divine authority. So fast as Churches lose the Holy Spirit and backslide, they always depart from New Testament simplicity, and go off into human institutions, laying heavy burdens on the people, and depending on their own works instead of the Holy Ghost. Jesus came to break all of these yokes off our necks, and make us free as angels. For this he died, nailing all human creeds, institutions, and authorities to the cross. How inconsistent for people whom God has made free, to still live encumbered by these human burdens! If you are a Christian, you have come out of the world. Then, why do you live like the people of the world, still wearing the yokes of worldly people? How few people, who claim to be the Lord’s, really enjoy the glorious freedom which Jesus purchased on the cross?

21. “Touch not, taste not, handle not.” What is here referred to under this sweeping prohibition? Why, all human institutions, inventions, customs, and laws, laying on you a thousand heavy burdens. You have come out of the world. Then how inconsistent that you be enslaved, contaminated, and encumbered like people of the world!

22. “All which are for destruction by the use, according to the commandments and teachings of men.” Every age has had its methods, institutions, and customs, by which the people were burdened and enslaved. They have all vanished away with the revolving centuries, leaving not a trace. Our life in Christ is invisible, spiritual, and immortal. Is it possible we can not rise above transitory things, and even here live the life of God and eternity, remembering that all these human fashions, customs, laws, and usages perish with the fleeting moment?

23. “Whatsoever things are indeed having a manifestation of wisdom in will worship, humiliation, and deprivation of the body, are not of any value against the indulgence of the flesh.” The heathen in all ages have tortured the body to get rid of sin. The Roman Catholics have long preached the doctrine of remedial suffering in this life and in purgatory. The apostatizing Protestant Churches are fast going away in the track of their predecessors, losing sight of the great Bible truth of justification and sanctification by the free grace of God in Christ, received and appropriated by faith alone. It takes a preacher on Sunday morning nearly as long to announce his appointments as to preach his little sermonette. These appointments are a concatenation of work for all of his members every day, in cooperation with a great catalogue of human institutions, which give no relief to the heart aching for purity, and to the immortal soul longing for victory over the world, the flesh, and the devil. The week is spent in toil and drudgery, and no victory for Jesus. A little filthy lucre is gathered up, which is of no value, for our God is infinitely rich. John Wesley was a great man for institutions, establishing the class meeting, for the conversion of penitents; the holiness band, for the sanctification of Christians; and the select societies, for the establishment of the sanctified; all these being strictly the institutions of the Holy Ghost. Let us still have them, instead of wearing ourselves out in “will worship;” i.e., worshipping the will of preachers and leaders, and perhaps our own will, instead of worshipping the sweet will of God. In a Western town I met a young man from Kentucky, who, when a boy, had been converted in my meeting. Fearing that he was on a downward trend spiritually, I requested his pastor to look after him. “Yes, that I will; I must hunt up some work for Joe to do.” The poor fellow was about to starve to death. He needed a Benjamin’s mess, instead of a job. But that is the way the blind pastors are doing. They starve and work their members to death. Paul says that “all this is of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.”

You may torture, toil, pay your money, and suffer bodily privation till the judgment-day, and find old Adam in you big as a rhinoceros, gripping you by the throat and dragging you into hell. Salvation does not come in this way. It is not by works, but by faith. Stay at the feet of Jesus till you get saved to the uttermost, and filled with the Holy Ghost. Then go and work for God and souls, with victory in your heart and heaven in your life.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16–19. Let no man therefore judge you. As the law was nailed to the cross (verse 14), let no man compel you to keep its ordinances. In meat, or in drink. By requiring you to eat only what the Jewish law prescribes (Lev. 7:10–27). See Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 8:8; Heb. 9:10. Compare 1 Tim. 4:3. Or in respect of a holy day. Such as the Passover, Pentecost, etc. Or of the new moon. The monthly observances (Num. 28:11). Or of the Sabbath day. The Jewish Sabbath had passed away with the law.

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.

in eating or in drinking

The law of Moses included what one can eat and drink. "for what you eat or what you drink"

about a feast day or a new moon, or about Sabbath days

The law of Moses specified the days to celebrate, to worship, and to offer sacrifice. "for the way you celebrate feast days or new moons or the Sabbath"

a shadow of the things to come

A shadow gives only a vague idea of the shape and nature of an object. In a similar way, religious traditions such as the law of Moses can only partially show the reality of Jesus Christ. (See: Metaphor)

the substance

Here this means "the reality," the thing that casts the "shadow."

translationWords

feast

Sabbath

Christ

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

16-23.] More specific warning against false teachers (see summary on ver. 1), and that first (vv. 16, 17) with reference to legal observances and abstinence.

16.] Let no one therefore (because this is so—that ye are complete in Christ, and that God in Him hath put away and dispensed with all that is secondary and intermediate) judge you (pronounce judgment of right or wrong over you, sit in judgment on you) in (reff.) eating (not, in St. Paul’s usage, meat (βρῶμα), see reff.; in Joh 4:32; Joh 6:27, Joh 6:55, it seems to have this signification. Mey. quotes Il. τ. 210, Od. α. 191, Plato, Legg. vi. p. 783 c, to shew that in classical Greek the meanings are sometimes interchanged. The same is true of πόσις and πόμα) and (or or) in drinking (i.e. in the matter of the whole cycle of legal ordinances and prohibitions which regarded eating and drinking: these two words being perhaps taken not separately and literally,—for there does not appear to have been in the law any special prohibition against drinks,—but as forming together a category in ordinary parlance. If however it is desired to press each word, the reference of πόσις must be to the Nazarite vow, Num 6:3) or in respect (reff.: Chrys. and Thdrt. give it the extraordinary meaning of ‘in part,’—ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς· οὐ γὰρ δὴ πάντα κατεῖχον τὰ πρότερα: Mey. explains it, ‘in the category of—which is much the same as the explanation in the text) of a feast or new-moon or sabbaths (i.e. yearly, monthly, or weekly celebrations; see reff.),

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

16-23. Practical application of these principles to the ascetic precepts and the angel-worship of the false teachers. With their precepts about eating and drinking and observance of days, they would have you attach yourselves to the shadow, whereas you are in possession of the reality. The cult of angels is inculcated as a becoming exercise of humility; but this is a false humility, and is really the fruit of carnal pride, vaunting itself in the pretended knowledge o f these angelic powers, and is derogatory to Christ the Head, on whom alone we depend for spiritual health and growth

16. Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω. “Therefore,” seeing that the law of ordinances has been done away with, “let not any one,” not μηδείς, but μή τις, as in ver. 8, pointing to some definite persons; κρινέτω, not “condemn,” but “judge you, take you to task.” Compare Rom 14:3, Rom 14:4; 1Co 10:29.

ἐν βρώσει ἢ ἐν πόσει. “In eating or in drinking,” i.e. in the matter of eating or drinking. Compare Rom 14:17, οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ βρῶσις καὶ πόσις. βρῶσις in St. Paul is always the action of eating (1Co 8:4; 2Co 9:10), not the thing eaten (βρῶμα, 1Co 6:13, 1Co 8:8, 1Co 10:3, al.; Heb 9:10). In Homer, indeed, βρῶσις is used for “food” (Il. i. 210, al.); and so in St. Joh 4:32; cf. 34, 6:27, 55. There is a similar difference between πόσις and πόμα.

The Mosaic Law contained no prohibition respecting drinks except in special cases, namely, those of Nazirite vows and of priests ministering in the tabernacle (Num 6:3; Lev 10:9). There was also a prohibition of drinking from vessels rendered unclean by the dead bodies of unclean animals (Lev 11:34). We know, however, that the Essenes, the prototypes of the Colossian false teachers, went far beyond the Mosaic code, abstaining wholly from wine and from animal food (see Lightfoot, p. 86).

Lightfoot reads καὶ ἐν πόσει, with B, Syr-Pesh, Boh., Tertull., Origen. Tertullian, however, reads et in all four places, therefore his evidence in this instance is valueless. The Syriac also has “and” in three of the four places, “or” only in the second; its evidence also, therefore, counts for nothing. The apostle might have written καί not ἤ, because and βρῶσις and πόσις naturally belong together (but so, indeed, do the following three), and the occurrence of ἤ in the other three clauses would easily lead a copyist to substitute it here. But the authority for και is too slight.

Compare 1Co 11:27, ἐσθίῃ τὸν ἄρτον ἢ πίνῃ τὸ ποτήριον, κ.τ.λ., where A, some cursives, Syr-Pesh, Boh., Eth., Origen, al. have καί.

ἢ ἐν μέρει, “in the matter of”; compare ἐν τουτῷ τῷ μέρει, 2Co 3:10, 2Co 3:9:3; μέρος often denotes the class or category, especially with verbs like τιθέναι, as in Plato, Rep. i. 348 E, ἐν ἀρετῆς καὶ̀ σοφίας τίθης μέρει τὴν ἀδικίαν. Chrys. and Theodoret take it here in the sense “part,” οὐ γὰρ δὴ πάντα κατεῖχον τὰ πρότερα, Chrys.

ἑορτῆς ἢ νουμηνίας ἢ σαββάτων. The words specify the annual, monthly, and weekly celebrations; cf. Gal 4:10.

σάββατα, though plural, means “a Sabbath day,” being, in fact, a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic, and from its form mistaken for a plural. Thus Josephus distinctly, Ant. iii. 10. 1, ἑβδόμην ἡμέραν ἥτις σάββατα καλεῖται; also ib. i. 1. 1. Compare Hor. Sat i. 9. 69, “hodie tricesima Sabbata.” See on Luk 4:31.

B G have the spelling νεομηνίας, and so the Vulg.

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

Therefore. Conclusion from the canceling of the bond. The allusions which follow (vers. 16 - 19) are to the practical and theoretical forms of the Colossian error, as in vers. 9 - 15; excessive ritualism, asceticism, and angelic mediation.

Judge [κρινετω] . Sit in judgment.

Meat - drink [βρωσει - ποσει] . Properly, eating, drinking, as 1Co 8:4; but the nouns are also used for that which is eaten or drunk, as Joh 4:32 (see note); Joh 6:27, 55; Rom 14:17. For the subject - matter compare Rom 14:17; 1Co 8:8; Heb 9:10, and note on Mr 7:19. The Mosaic law contained very few provisions concerning drinks. See Lev 10:9; Lev 11:34, 36; Num 6:3. Hence it is probable that the false teachers had extended the prohibitions as to the use of wine to all Christians. The Essenes abjured both wine and animal food. In respect [εν μερει] . See on 2Co 3:10. Lit., in the division or category.

Holyday [εορτης] . Festival or feast - day. The annual festivals. The word holyday is used in its earlier sense of a sacred day.

New moon [νουμηνιας] . Only here in the New Testament. The monthly festivals. The festival of the new moon is placed beside the Sabbath, Isa 1:13; Eze 46:1. The day was celebrated by blowing of trumpets, special sacrifices, feasting, and religious instruction. Labor was suspended, and no national or private fasts were permitted to take place. The authorities were at great pains to fix accurately the commencement of the month denoted by the appearance of the new moon. Messengers were placed on commanding heights to watch the sky, and as soon as the new moon appeared, they hastened to communicate it to the synod, being allowed even to travel on the Sabbath for this purpose. The witnesses were assembled and examined, and when the judges were satisfied the president pronounced the words it is sanctified, and the day was declared new moon.

Sabbath days [σαββατων] . The weekly festivals. Rev., correctly, day, the plural being used for the singular. See on Luk 4:31; Act 20:7. The plural is only once used in the New Testament of more than a single day (Act 17:2). The same enumeration of sacred seasons occurs 1Ch 33:31; 2Ch 2:4; 2Ch 31:3; Eze 45:17; Hos 2:11.

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

θριαμβεύσας] ‘leading them in triumph’, the same metaphor as in 2 Cor. ii. 14 τῷ πάντοτε θριαμβεύοντι ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ κ.τ.λ., where it is wrongly translated in the A. V. ‘causeth us to triumph’. 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. This is the proper meaning and construction of θριαμβεύειν, as found elsewhere. This verb takes an accusative (1) of the person over whom the triumph is celebrated, e.g. Plut. Vit. Arat. 54 τοῦτον Αἰμίλιος ἐθριάμβευσε, Thes. et Rom. Comp. 4 βασιλεῖς ἐθριάμβευσε: (2) of the spoils exhibited in the triumph, e.g. Tatian c. Græc. 26 παύσασθε λόγους ἀλλοτρίους θριαμβεύοντες καί, ὥσπερ ὁ κολοιός, οὐκ ἰδίοις ἐπικοσμούμενοι πτεροῖς: (3) more rarely of the substance of the triumph, e.g. Vit. Camill. 30 ὁ δὲ Κάμιλλος ἐθριάμβευσε ... τὸν ἀπολωλυίας σωτῆρα πατρίδος γενόμενον, i.e. ‘in the character of his country’s saviour’. The passive θριαμβεύεσθαι is ‘to be led in triumph’, ‘to be triumphed over’, e.g. Vit. C. Marc. 35. So the Latins say ‘triumphare aliquem’ and ‘triumphari’.

ἐν αὐτῷ] i.e. τῷ σταυρῷ: comp. Ephes. ii. 16 ἀποκαταλλάξῃ τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους ... διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ. The violence of the metaphor is its justification. The paradox of the crucifixion is thus placed in the strongest light—triumph in helplessness and glory in shame. The convict’s gibbet is the victor’s car.

16–19. ‘Seeing then that the bond is cancelled, that the law of ordinances is repealed, beware of subjecting yourselves to its tyranny again. Suffer no man to call you to account in the matter of eating or drinking, or again of the observance of a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are only shadows thrown in advance, only types of things to come. The substance, the reality, in every case belongs to the Gospel of Christ. The prize is now fairly within your reach. Do not suffer yourselves to be robbed of it by any stratagem of the false teachers. Their religion is an officious humility which displays itself in the worship of angels. They make a parade of their visions, but they are following an empty phantom. They profess humility, but they are puffed up with their vaunted wisdom, which is after all only the mind of the flesh. Meanwhile they have substituted inferior spiritual agencies for the One true Mediator, the Eternal Word. Clinging to these lower intelligences, they have lost their hold of the Head; they have severed their connexion with Him, on whom the whole body depends; from whom it derives its vitality, and to whom it owes its unity, being supplied with nourishment and knit together in one by means of the several joints and attachments, so that it grows with a growth which comes from God Himself.’

16 sq. The two main tendencies of the Colossian heresy are discernible in this warning (vv. 16–19), as they were in the previous statement (vv. 9–15). Here however the order is reversed. The practical error, an excessive ritualism and ascetic rigour, is first dealt with (vv. 16, 17); the theological error, the interposition of angelic mediators, follows after (vv. 18, 19). The first is the substitution of a shadow for the substance; the second is the preference of an inferior member to the head. The reversal of order is owing to the connexion of the paragraphs; the opening subject in the second paragraph being a continuation of the concluding subject in the first, by the figure called chiasm: comp. Gal. iv. 5.

κρινέτω] not ‘condemn you’, but ‘take you to task’; as e.g. Rom. xiv. 3 sq. The judgment may or may not end in an acquittal; but in any case it is wrong, since these matters ought not to be taken as the basis of a judgment.

ἐν βρώσει κ.τ.λ.] ‘in eating and in drinking’; Rom. xiv. 17 οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ βρῶσις καὶ πόσις, ἀλλὰ δικαιοσύνη κ.τ.λ., Heb. ix. 10 ἐπὶ βρώμασιν καὶ πόμασιν καὶ διαφόροις βαπτισμοῖς, δικαίωματα σαρκός, comp. 1 Cor. viii. 8 βρῶμα δὲ ἡμᾶς οὐ παραστήσει τῷ Θεῷ κ.τ.λ. The first indication that the Mosaic distinctions of things clean and unclean should be abolished is given by our Lord Himself: Mark vii. 14 sq. (the correct reading in ver. 19 being καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα). They were afterwards formally annulled by the vision which appeared to St Peter: Acts x. 11 sq. The ordinances of the Mosaic law applied almost exclusively to meats. It contained no prohibitions respecting drinks except in a very few cases; e.g. of the priests ministering in the tabernacle (Lev. x. 9), of liquids contained in unclean vessels etc. (Lev. xi. 34, 36), and of Nazarite vows (Num. vi. 3). These directions, taken in connexion with the rigid observances which the later Jews had grafted on them (Matt. xxiii. 24), would be sufficient to explain the expression, when applied to the Mosaic law by itself, as in Heb. l.c. The rigour of the Colossian false teachers however, like that of their Jewish prototypes the Essenes, doubtless went far beyond the injunctions of the law. It is probable that they forbad wine and animal food altogether: see the introduction pp. 86, 104 sq. For allusions in St Paul to similar observances not required by the law, see Rom. xiv. 2 ὁ δὲ ἀσθενῶν λάχανα ἐσθίει, ver. 21 καλὸν τὸ μὴ φαγεῖν κρέα μηδὲ πιεῖν οἶνον κ.τ.λ., 1 Tim. iv. 2, 3 κωλυόντων ... ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων ἃ ὁ Θεὸς ἔκτισεν κ.τ.λ., Tit. i. 14 μὴ προσέχοντες ... ἐντολαῖς ἀνθρώπων ... πάντα καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς. The correct reading seems to be καὶ ἐν πόσει, thus connecting together the words between which there is a natural affinity. Comp. Philo Vit. Moys. i. § 33 (II. p. 110) δεσποίναις χαλεπαῖς συνεζευγμένου βρώσει καὶ πόσει, Ign. Trall. 2 οὐ γὰρ βρωμάτων καὶ ποτῶν εἰσὶν διάκονοι.

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.