Colossians 2:23

2:23 they provide no help: Not only are such rules rooted in the world rather than in Christ (2:19), they are also ineffective in conquering a person’s evil desires.

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

Col 2:23. Ἅτινα, which) An Anaphora [repetition of the same word in beginnings]: comp. ἅ, which, Col 2:22.—ἔστι, are) Construe, are—for, to the satisfying (ἐστιν—πρὸς πλησμονὴν), as Col 2:22, are for perishing (ἐστιν—εἰς φθορὰν); therefore resolve ἔχοντα into though (whereas) they have, that it may form a clause: ἔστι, are, and πρὸς, to, being disjoined, the sentence becomes appropriately (appositely) suspended.—λόγον) a name and a plausible appearance.—μὲν, indeed) The force of the particle δὲ, but, which makes an Apodosis, is concealed in the finite verb ἔστι, are.[18]—ἘΘΕΛΟΘΡΗΣΚΕΊᾼ, will-worship) ἐθελοθρησκεία, as well as humility of sentiment (ταπεινοφροσύνη), has a plausible appearance. For this word, as E. Schmidius well shows, denotes worship (whether right or wrong), performed willingly and with ready inclination: such ΕὐΠΕΊΘΕΙΑ, ready promptness or obsequiousness, has the appearance of wisdom: comp. Jas 3:17; for it seems to be removed from obstinacy, as humility of sentiment (ταπεινοφροσύνη) seems to be removed from pride.—ΤΑΠΕΙΝΟΦΡΟΣΎΝῌ, humility of sentiment) Col 2:18, note.—καὶ ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος, [Engl. Vers., neglecting of, etc.] and with severe treatment of [not sparing] the body) which is the case when many things are withheld from the body, which might be afforded to it, Col 2:21; nay, the body itself is purposely worn down [mortified]. This also looks plausible, for it becomes saints, 1Co 9:27; although ἀφειδία expresses something more odious, than ΤῸ ὙΠΩΠΙΆΖΕΙΝ ΚΑῚ ΔΟΥΛΑΓΩΓΕῖΝ, in the passage quoted from first Corinthians. These three things, plausible in appearance, involve a threefold relation: to God, to angels, to one’s own self; and therefore they have, when joined together, a perfect appearance.—ΟὐΚ ἘΝ ΤΙΜῇ ΤΙΝΙ, not in any price or estimation [honour]) This clause closely coheres with the preceding; and the latter, ἐν, in, is opposed to the preceding ἐν, in. The LXX. ἄνευ τιμῆς, i.e. without price, for nothing, Isa 55:1; Psa 44:13; Job 31:39. It becomes the man who is ennobled by faith, to have a just estimation of himself, not in himself, but in his Lord Jesus Christ alone, whereby he is not unworthily to degrade himself, inasmuch as having been redeemed at such a price, and striving for such a great reward, for example, through the appearance of ἐθελοθρησκείας, will-worship: Act 13:46; Rom 2:7; 1Co 6:15; 1Co 3:21; 1Co 7:23; 1Th 4:4. This estimation produces holy φιλοτιμίαν, ambition (φιλοτιμοῦμεν, we labour with ambition), 2Co 5:9; but it is restrained by true self-denial, and again is tarnished by the commandments of men [Col 2:20-21], which, because they bring to us nothing worth while, nothing worthy of estimation [nothing ἐν τιμῇ τινὶ], comp. Heb 13:9, have an entirely empty and vain appearance of wisdom and every good thing: comp. by all means, ΕἸΚῆ, vainly, Col 2:18. This passage is in consonance with Php 3:19, where see the note; and both accord with Hab 2:16, ΠΛΗΣΜΟΝΗΝ ΑΤΙΜΙΑΣ ἐκ δόξης, Κ.Τ.Λ., Thou hast filled thyself with shame for glory; drink thou therefore also, and let thy foreskin be uncovered. But true τίμη, price or estimation [‘honour’], is theirs who see the glory of the Lord, lb., Col 2:14.—πρὀς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκὸς) to the satisfying of the flesh: πλησμονὴ, satisfying to the full, satiety, generally denotes excess: σὰρξ, flesh, does not signify the body, but is put as at Col 2:18.[19] Hilarius the deacon, whose commentary on the thirteen epistles of Paul is found among the works of Ambrose, on this passage, says: “Sagina carnalis sensus, traditio humana est,” human tradition is the overloading (surfeiting) of the carnal sense or appetite. A golden sentence. Tradition puffs up; it clogs the sense of heaven (the perception of heavenly things). Ἐθελοθρησκεία, κ.τ.λ., and πλησμονὴ τῆς σαρκὸς, are therefore in antithesis, and yet joined together. They put away true τιμὴν, price, value, or estimation [‘honour’], that they may satisfy to the full the flesh; πρὸς denotes that which is regarded as the important concern, or the end, for the sake of which the other things (practices) are assumed (adopted).

[18] Which, though having indeed (μὲν) a name of wisdom, etc., yet (δὲ understood and implied in ἔστι) are to the mere satisfying of the flesh.—ED.

[19] τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, of his fleshly mind: i.e. flesh, not literally, but in the spiritual application carnality.—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_2:23. And of what nature and quality is that, which I have just termed τὰ ἐντάλματα κ. διδασκαλ. τῶν ἀνθρ.?

ἅτινα] quippe quae, i.e. ita comparata, ut (Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 30). The conception was different in ἅ of Col_2:22, where the thing in question was regarded purely objectively, as mere object.

ἐστί] belongs to ἔχοντα, without, however, being with this equivalent to ἔχει; it introduces what the ἅτινα are as regards their quality. If it belonged to οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι (Bähr), or to πρὸς πλησμ. τ. σ. (Bengel), or to ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ κ.τ.λ. (that which moves and has its being in ἐθελορ. κ.τ.λ.), as Hofmann thinks, taking λόγον μ. ἔχοντα σοφ. parentheticallywhy should it not have been actually placed beside that to which it would belong? Apart from this, Hofmanns connection of it with ἐν ἐθελοθρ. could alone deserve consideration, since from ἐν ἐθελοθρ. onwards all that follows is consecutive. But even this connection must be abandoned, because the sphere of subsistence indicated by ἐν ἐθελοθρ. κ.τ.λ. would be too wide for such special prohibitions, Col_2:21, as are conveyed by ἅτινα, and because we have no right to put aside from the connection, as a mere incisum, the important thought (comp. Col_2:8) expressed by λόγ. τ. ἔχ. σοφίας, which comes in with ἐστί so emphatically at the very head of the judgment, and appropriately, as regards meaning, attaches to itself all that follows.

λόγον ἔχειν, explained by many since Jerome approximately in the sense of speciem or praetextum habere (see Kypke, de Wette, Dalmer, and others; also Köster in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 318), may, according as we adopt for λόγος the signification ratio or sermo, mean either: to have ground (so in the passages from Demosth., Dionys. Hal., and Lesbonax in Kypke; from Plat, in Ast, Lex. II. p. 257; from Polyb. in Schweighäuser, Lex. p. 370[134]), in which case the ground may certainly be only an apparent one, a pretext (comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 36); further, to have an insight into something (often thus in Plato, e.g. Rep. p. 475 C), to have regard to (Herod. i. 62; Plat. Tim. p. 87 C); or: to have a reputation, so that one is in any relation the subject of discourse, of legend, of mention, of rumour, etc.; see e.g. Plat. Epin. p. 987 B: Ἑωσφόρος … Ἀφροδίτης εἶναι σχεδὸν ἔχει λόγον (dicitur), Herod. v. 56: λόγον ἔχει τὴν Πυθίην ἀναπεῖσαι, comp. 9:78; Xen. Oec. 11. 4 (the same thing conceived under another form: λόγος ἔχει τινα, Herod. vii. 5, and frequently). The latter signification is here to be adhered to, because the subsequent ΟὐΚ ἘΝ ΤΙΜῇ ΤΙΝΙ, when correctly rendered, accords with it as bearing on the matter in hand, and is in sense appropriately correlative. Hence: that which has a repute of wisdom, popularly passes for wisdom. Comp. ὄνομα ἔχειν (Rev_3:1) and ὈΝΟΜΆΖΕΣΘΑΙ (1Co_5:11).

ΜΈΝ] without a subsequent ΔΈ; there was before the apostles mind the contrast: repute, truly, but not the reality, οὐ δύναμιν, οὐκ ἀλήθειαν, Chrysostom. He omitted to express this, however, led aside by the progress of his discourse, so that instead of bringing in the antithesis of ΛΌΓΟΝ by ΔΈ, he makes ΟὐΚ ἘΝ ΤΙΜῇ ΤΙΝΙ follow without ΔΈ, and in contrast not to the ΛΌΓΟΝ, but to the ἘΝ ἘΘΕΛΟΘΡ. Κ. Τ. Λ.,from which we are to gather in substance, what in starting with ΛΌΓΟΝ ΜΈΝ it was intended to express. See Erasmus, Annot., and generally Winer, p. 534 f. [E. T. 719]; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 313 [E. T. 365]; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 656; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 153; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 163 f. The linguistic phenomenon of this μέν without an adversative word following is so common, that there is no ground for requiring before ΟὐΚ ἘΝ ΤΙΜῇ Τ. an ἈΛΛΆ (Hofmann), which might have been used (Baeumlein, p. 170), but not necessarily. Holtzmann also takes too much offence at the absence of a formal contrast, and finds in πρὸς πλησμ. τ. σαρκός an ill-inserted remnant of the original.

ἘΝ ἘΘΕΛΟΘΡΗΣΚΕΊᾼ] instrumental, specifying by what means it is brought about, on the part of those who lay down the commandments and doctrines referred to, that the latter have a repute of wisdom: through self-chosen worship, i.e. through a cultus, which is not divinely commanded, but is the work of their own self-determination. What was meant by this, the reader was aware; and Col_2:18 places it beyond doubt that the worship of angels formed an essential and chief part of it, though it need not, from the general character of the expression in our passage, have been meant exclusively; other forms of capricious cultus may have been included with it. The substantive ἐθελοθρ. does not occur elsewhere except in ecclesiastical writers; but the verb ἐθελοθρησκεῖν is explained by Suidas: ἸΔΊῼ ΘΕΛΉΜΑΤΙ ΣΈΒΕΙΝ ΤῸ ΔΟΚΟῦΝ, and Epiph. Haer. i. 16 explains the name Pharisees: διὰ τὸ ἀφωρισμένους εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων διὰ τὴν ἐθελοπερισσοθρησκείαν παρʼ αὐτοῖς νενομισμένην. Comp. ἘΘΕΛΟΔΟΥΛΕΊΑ (Plat. Symp. p. 184 C, Rep. p. 562 D), ἐθελοκάκησις, ἐθελοκίνδυνος, ἐθελόπορος, ἐθελοπρόξενος (Thuc. iii. 70. 2, where the scholiast explains: ἈΦʼ ἙΑΥΤΟῦ ΓΕΝΌΜΕΝΟς ΚΑῚ ΜῊ ΚΕΛΕΥΣΘΕῚς Κ. Τ. Λ.), and various others. Hofmann erroneously takes away from the word in itself the bad sense, and explains (after the analogy of ἘΘΕΛΟΠΟΝΊΑ and ἘΘΕΛΟΥΡΓΊΑ): worship, which one interests himself in. This view is prohibited by the evident retrospective reference of this word and the following one to Col_2:18, where, according to the right interpretation, the θρησκεία was certainly something bad. The unfavourable meaning, according to Hofmanns present explanation (he gave a different but also erroneous view in his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 72; see, in opposition to it, my third edition), is only got by the addition of σώματος, which belongs to all the three points, so that ἐθελοθρησκεία σώματος must be understood as a worship gladly and earnestly rendered, but which is rendered only with bodily demeanour. But σώματος does not suit either with ἘΘΕΛΟΘΡ. or ΤΑΠΕΙΝΟΦΡ.,[135] but only with ἀφειδίᾳ. For it is plain from ἈΦΕΙΔΊᾼ ΣΏΜΑΤΟς that ΣΏΜΑΤΟς is the genitive of the object, from which it follows that θρησκεία σώματος would yield the opposite sense: a ΘΡΗΣΚΕΊΑ rendered to the body (comp. θρησκ. τῶν ἀγγέλων in Col_2:18), which would come ultimately to the idea of the ΛΑΤΡΕΎΕΙΝ Τῇ ἩΔΟΝῇ (Lucian, Nigr. 15), comp. Plut. Mor. p. 107 C: λατρεία τοῦ σώματος, and on the matter conceived as ΘΡΗΣΚΕΊΑ, Php_3:19.

ΤΑΠΕΙΝΟΦΡΟΣ.] from the point of view of the false teachers (comp. Col_2:18), what they thus designated; although in fact it consisted in this, that, as in all false humility, they with spiritual conceit (comp. Col_2:18, and subsequently πρὸς πλησμον. τ. σαρκός) took pleasure in unduly undervaluing themselvesan ethical self-contempt, which involved in relation to God the ἘΘΕΛΟΘΡΗΣΚΕΊΑ, and towards the body an unsparingness through mistaken abstinence and mortifying asceticism, inconsistent with Christian liberty. On ἀφειδίᾳ, comp. Plat. Defin. p. 412 D; Plut. Mor. p. 762 D; further, ἀφειδεῖν βίου, Thuc. ii. 43. 3; ΨΥΧῆς, Soph. El. 968; σωμάτων, Lys. ii. 25, Diod. Sic. xiii. 60.

ΟὐΚ ἘΝ ΤΙΜῇ ΤΙΝΙ] not through anything whatever that is an honour, not through anything honourable, by which that repute would appear founded in truth and just. The expression is purposely chosen, in order to make the λόγος σοφίας appear as repute without honour, i.e. without any morally estimable substratum on the part of the persons concerned. The following πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός is also purposely chosen; in it ΠΛΗΣΜΟΝ. significantly glances back to ἈΦΕΙΔΊᾼ, and Τῆς ΣΑΡΚΌς to ΣΏΜΑΤΟς, and there is produced a thoughtful contrast, a striking ethical oxymoron: for the sake of fully satisfying the flesh. Those commandments and doctrines have a repute of wisdom, etc., in order to afford thereby full satisfaction to the material-psychical human nature. Thus, while the repute of wisdom is procured among other things by mortifying the body, the flesh is satisfied; the fleshly sinful lust of these men gets fully satisfying nourishment conveyed to it, when they see that their doctrines and commandments pass for wise. What lust of the flesh it is which Paul has in view, is placed beyond doubt by the case itself and also by Col_2:18, namely, that of religious conceit and pride, which through the λόγον σοφίας ἔχειν feels itself flattered and gratified in the fancy of peculiar perfection. This interpretation, which we have given of ΟὐΚ ἘΝ ΤΙΜῇ ΤΙΝΙ, ΠΡῸς ΠΛΗΣΜΟΝῊΝ Τῆς ΣΑΡΚΌς, is held in substance, following Hilary (sagina carnalis sensus traditio humana est), by Bengel, Storr, Flatt, Böhmer, Steiger, Bähr, Huther, Dalmer, Bleek, and others. Most, however, refer ἘΝ ΤΙΜῇ ΤΙΝΙ to the honour to be shown to the body (or the σάρξ, see Luther), and ΠΡῸς ΠΛΗΣΜ. Τ. ΣΑΡΚ. to bodily satisfaction, so that the sense results: not in some esteeming of the body to the satisfying of bodily wants;[136] sentit apost., sapientiam illam aut praecepta talia esse, per quae corpori debitus honor, pertinens ad expletionem, i.e. justam refectionem carnis, subtrahatur, Estius. So, in substance, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Oceumenius, Theophylact, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Musculus, Clarius, Zeger, Erasmus Schmid, Zanchius, Vatablus, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, Michaelis, Nösselt, Rosenmüller, and others, including de Wette and Baumgarten-Crusius. It is fatal to this view:(1) that ἐν τιμῇ τινι, as is shown by the repetition of ἘΝ, is the contrast not merely to ἘΝ ἈΦΕΙΔΊᾼ ΣΏΜΑΤΟς, but to the entire connected ἘΝ ἘΘΕΛΟΘΡΗΣΚΕΊᾼ … ΣΏΜΑΤΟς, and hence the reference to the honour to be shown to the body does not seem justified by the context;[137] (2) further, that for the designation of the mere satisfaction at this particular place, where Paul could only have had a πρόνοιαν τῆς σαρκός in view, as in Rom_13:14, the term ΠΛΗΣΜΟΝΉΝ would be very inappropriate, especially in contradistinction to the mortifications of the false teachers, since it denotes filling up, satisfying fully, even in Exo_16:3 (see generally the passages from the LXX. and Apocrypha quoted by Schleusner, Thes. IV. p. 375 f.); comp. Plat. Legg. viii. p. 837: Xen. Mem. iii. 11. 14, rep. Lac. 2. 5, Cyrop. iv. 2. 40, Ages. 5. 1; Lucian. Nigr. 33, Ep. Saturn. 28; Polyb. ii. 19. 4; (3) finally, that the interchange of σώματος and ΣΑΡΚΌς, in the event of the latter not being meant in an ethical character, would seem to be without a motive, while, according to our view, ΣΑΡΚΌς stands in as ingenious correlation with ΣΏΜΑΤΟς, as ΠΛΗΣΜΟΝΉΝ with ἈΦΕΙΔΊᾼ. These arguments apply also in opposition to Ewalds view; what seems very wise, but is in no value whatever, is rather quite useless for the satisfaction of the flesh, which yet also demands its rights, if man would not wantonly disorganize his earthly life or even destroy it (2Co_10:3). Hofmann finally takes πλησμονὴ τ. σαρκός rightly, but explains ΟὐΚ ἘΝ ΤΙΜῇ ΤΙΝΙ in such a way as to make ΤΙΝΙ masculine, and to attach it as appropriating dative to τιμῇ: not so that honour accrues to any one. This is to be rejected, because Paul, instead of simply and clearly writing τιμῇ τινος, would only have expressed himself in a way singularly liable to be misunderstood by ΤΙΝΊ, which every reader was led to join as a feminine with ΤΙΜῇ (in honore aliquo, Vulgate). Nor is it to be easily seen what subjects, beyond the teacher of the false wisdom himself, we should have to conceive to ourselves under τινί taken as masculine.

[134] So Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschr. 1870, p. 250, holding that what is rejected in the legal sense in ver. 22 is here permitted as voluntary asceticism. See, however, on the sequel, from which the impossibility of this interpretation is self-evident.

[135] According to Hofmann, namely, ταπεινοφροσύνη σώματος is a disposition of self-humiliation, which, however, only weakens the body by abstinences. But it would rather have the absurd sense: humility of the body; for τατεινοφροσύνη neither means humiliation nor self-humiliation, but humility, meekness, ver. 18, Col_3:12; Php_2:3.

[136] God will have the body honoured, i.e. it is to have its food, clothing, etc., for its necessities, and not to be destroyed with intolerable fasting, labour, or impossible chastity, as the doctrine of men would do, Luthers gloss.

[137] This applies also in opposition to Olshausen, who in the case of ἐν τιμῇ τινε follows the explanation of respect for the body, but with regard to πρὸς πλησμ. τ. σαρκ. follows our view.

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 2:23 . ἅτινα : i.e. , which commandments and teachings. λόγον σοφίας . This may be taken in the sense of “a word of wisdom,” but with no inner truth. Others translate “appearance of wisdom” (Beng., De W. and others). But this seems not to be a meaning of λόγ . Klöpper’s translation, “reason” or “ground,” yields no very good sense. It is best, with most recent commentators, to translate “a reputation for wisdom”. μέν is not followed by δε , but this is not uncommon (see Winer-Moulton, pp. 719 721). ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ καὶ ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος . It is impossible to connect σώμ . with all three datives (Hofm.), it can belong only to ἀφειδίᾳ , with which it is connected as an objective genitive, “severity to the body”. If καὶ is retained before ἀφ . the sense of the earlier datives is not affected. If, however, it is omitted their sense may be affected. It is possible to take ἀφ ., then, as an instrumental dative with λόγον ἔχοντα . But it is also possible to take it, with Haupt, as an explanatory apposition to the earlier datives. In this case ἐθελ . and ταπ . have both an ascetic meaning. Against this, however, is the fact that the words cannot be separated from the parallel expressions in Col 2:18 . This seems to fix the sense of ἐθελ . as a worship of angels, which was not required of them, and ταπ . will mean what it meant in Col 2:18 . ἐθελοθρ . occurs nowhere else, and was probably coined by Paul. Similar compounds were not unusual, and generally, though not invariably, had a bad sense. This is commonly supposed to attach to this word, but in any case it gets a bad sense from its context. ἀφ . σώμ . is the clearest assertion we have of the ascetic character of the false teachings. οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινί , πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός . These words, which constitute this verse one of the most difficult in the New Testament, have received very various explanations. It is disputed whether οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τ . should be connected with the preceding or following words, and also with what πρ . πλησ . τ . σαρκός should be connected. Sumner, followed by Conybeare and Evans on 1Co 7:2 , interpreted πρὸς as meaning “to check,” and translated “not in any value to check the indulgence of the flesh,” connecting οὐκ ἐν τ . τ . with the following words. This view was adopted by Lightfoot, and has been accepted by Moule and now by Ellicott. It has been inserted, with altogether insufficient warning, in R.V. It is a new explanation, and since propounded has found comparatively little favour. Lightfoot quotes numerous examples to prove that πρός after words denoting value, utility, sufficiency, etc., is used in the sense “to check” or “to prevent”. But in these cases the meaning does not lie in πρός , but in πρός after some word which imposes this sense upon it ( e.g. , φάρμακον ), and there is nothing of the kind here. Abbott, in his valuable criticism of this interpretation, points out that πρός means “with a view to,” and if the object is a word signifying action or the production of an effect it will mean with a view to (producing). “Hence it seems to follow that unless πλησμονή be taken in the sense of ‘a state of repletion,’ which would be unsuitable, πρὸς πλησμονήν could only mean to produce πλ .” A further question relates to the use of τιμῇ . Our word “value” is ambiguous, and τιμή may mean “value” in the sense of “price”. But in this interpretation it is used in the sense of “efficacy,” and this sense needs to be established. It seems necessary to reject this explanation on linguistic grounds. But the sense it yields is less good than appears at first sight. For what would be said would be that these things had a reputation for wisdom in “will-worship,” etc., but they had not a reputation for wisdom in any value against the indulgence of the flesh. But obviously this cannot be the meaning. The sense imposed “but have not any value” can only be got out of the words by straining them. Another view, which keeps the same connexion of words, is that the translation should be “not in any honour to it [ i.e. , the body] to satisfy the [reasonable] wants of the flesh”. This must be rejected because πλ . is not used in this good sense, and σαρκός cannot be used as equivalent to σώματος in a context where σώμ . has been used just before, for the terms must stand in emphatic contrast. Soden and Abbott translate “not in any honour for the full satisfaction of the flesh”. This means that there is no real honour, but what there is, is such as to satisfy the carnal nature. So Meyer, not in any honour, but serving to satiate the flesh. The objection to this view is that ἀλλά at least is required before πρὸς πλ . τ . σαρκός . Alford connects οὐκ ἐν τ . τ . with the preceding words, but πρ . πλ . τ . ς . with δογματίζεσθε . This gives a fairly good sense, and requires no necessary words to be supplied, but the parenthesis is incredibly long. A less lengthy parenthesis is involved in the interpretation of Bähr, Eadie and Weiss: “Which things, having indeed a reputation of wisdom in will-worship and humility and severity to the body, not in any honour, are for the indulgence of the flesh”. If the contrast is between severity to the body and honour to it, we should have expected αὐτοῦ after τιμῇ . It is also strange that ἐν should be placed before τιμῇ and not before ἀφειδ . And the meaning is not probable, for it is implied that Paul thought that a reputation for wisdom ought to rest on honour to the body, which is absurd. Findlay’s view, “not in any honour, against surfeiting of the flesh,” not only yields a thought most obscurely expressed, but must be rejected because of its translation of πρὸς . All these interpretations are open to serious if not fatal objections. It is therefore not unlikely that Hort is right in the suspicion, shared also by Haupt, that we have to do here with a primitive corruption, for which no probable emendation has been suggested. He thinks that the text of the Epistle, and especially of the second chapter, was badly preserved in ancient times.

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

A lively description of Monkery.

Seeing they stand in meat and drink, wherein the kingdom of God doth not stand.

The taking away of an objection. These things have a goodly show, because men by this means, seem to worship God with a good mind and humble themselves, and neglect the body, which the most part of men curiously pamper up and cherish: but yet notwithstanding the things themselves are of no value, for so much as they pertain not to things that are spiritual and everlasting, but to the nourishment of the flesh.

Which seem indeed to be some exquisite thing, and so wise devices as though they came from heaven.

Hence sprang the works of supererogation, as the Papists term them, that is to say, needless works, as though men performed more than is commanded them, which was the beginning and the very ground whereon Monks’ merits were brought in.

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

have--Greek, "are having"; implying the permanent characteristic which these ordinances are supposed to have.

show of wisdom--rather, "a reputation of wisdom" [ALFORD].

will-worship--arbitrarily invented worship: would-be worship, devised by man's own will, not God's. So jealous is God of human will-worship, that He struck Nadab and Abihu dead for burning strange incense (Lev 10:1-3). So Uzziah was stricken with leprosy for usurping the office of priest (Ch2 26:16-21). Compare the will-worship of Saul (Sa1 13:8-14) for which he was doomed to lose his throne. This "voluntary worship" is the counterpart to their "voluntary humility" (Col 2:18): both specious in appearance, the former seeming in religion to do even more than God requires (as in the dogmas of the Roman and Greek churches); but really setting aside God's will for man's own; the latter seemingly self-abasing, but really proud of man's self-willed "humility" (Greek, "lowliness of mind"), while virtually rejecting the dignity of direct communion with Christ, the Head; by worshipping of angels.

neglecting of the body--Greek, "not sparing of the body." This asceticism seems to have rested on the Oriental theory that matter is the source of evil. This also looked plausible (compare Co1 9:27).

not in any honour--of the body. As "neglecting of the body" describes asceticism positively; so this clause, negatively. Not paying any of that "honor" which is due to the body as redeemed by such a price as the blood of Christ. We should not degrade, but have a just estimation of ourselves, not in ourselves, but in Christ (Act 13:46; Co1 3:21; Co1 6:15; Co1 7:23; Co1 12:23-24; Th1 4:4). True self-denial regards the spirit, and not the forms of ascetical self-mortification in "meats which profit not those occupied therein" (Heb 13:9), and is consistent with Christian self-respect, the "honor" which belongs to the believer as dedicated to the Lord. Compare "vainly," Col 2:18.

to the satisfying of the flesh--This expresses the real tendency of their human ordinances of bodily asceticism, voluntary humility, and will-worship of angels. While seeming to deny self and the body, they really are pampering the flesh. Thus "satisfying of the flesh" answers to "puffed up by his fleshly mind" (Col 2:18), so that "flesh" is used in its ethical sense, "the carnal nature" as opposed to the "spiritual"; not in the sense, "body." The Greek for "satisfying" implies satiating to repletion, or to excess. "A surfeit of the carnal sense is human tradition" [HILARY THE DEACON, in BENGEL]. Tradition puffs up; it clogs the heavenly perceptions. They put away true "honor" that they may "satiate to the full THE FLESH." Self-imposed ordinances gratify the flesh (namely, self-righteousness), though seeming to mortify it.

Next: Colossians Chapter 3

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 23. Which things have indeed a show of wisdom] All these prescriptions and rites have indeed the appearance of wisdom, and are recommended by plausible reasons; but they form a worship which God has not commanded, and enjoin macerations of the body, accompanied with a humiliation of spirit, that are neither profitable to the soul, nor of any advantage to the body; so that the whole of their religion is nothing worth.

WHAT is here termed will-worship, εθελοθρησκεια, signifies simply a mode of worship which a man chooses for himself, independently of the revelation which God has given. The whole system of Deism is an εθελοθρησκεια, a worship founded in the will or caprices of man, and not in the wisdom or will of God; and it is just as profitable to body and soul as that of which the apostle speaks. God will be served in his own way; it is right that he should prescribe to man the truths which he is to believe, and the ordinances which he is to use. To refuse to receive his teaching in order to prefer our own fancies, is to light a farthing candle as a substitute for the noonday sun. From the beginning of the world God has prescribed the worship which was best pleasing to himself, and never left a matter of such moment to man. The nations which have either not had a revelation, or refused to receive that which God has given, show, by their diversity of worship, superstition, absurdity, and in many cases cruelty, what the state of the whole would have been, had not God, in his infinite mercy, blessed it with a revelation of his will. God has given directions concerning his worship; and he has appointed the seventh day for the peculiar exercises of spiritual duties: other times he has left to man's convenience; and they abuse the text who say that the appointment of particular times and places for religious service is will-worship. God prescribes the thing, and leaves it to man, except in the case of the Sabbath, to appoint the time and the place; nor is it possible to be too frequent in God's worship, any more than to be too fervent.

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

23. Which have indeed a show. Here we have the anticipation of an objection, in which, while he concedes to his adversaries what they allege, he at the same time reckons it wholly worthless. For it is as though he had said, that he does not regard their having a show of wisdom. But show is placed in contrast with reality, for it is an appearance, as they commonly speak, which deceives by resemblance.

Observe, however, of what colors this show consists, according to Paul. He makes mention of three — self-invented worship, humility, and neglect of the body. Superstition among the Greeks receives the name of ἐθελοβρησκεία — the term which Paul here makes use of. He has, however, an eye to the etymology of the term, for ἐθελοβρησκεία literally denotes a voluntary service, which men choose for themselves at their own option, without authority from God. Human traditions, therefore, are agreeable to us on this account, that they are in accordance with our understanding, for any one will find in his own brain the first outlines of them. This is the first pretext.

The second is humility, inasmuch as obedience both to God and men is pretended, so that men do not refuse even unreasonable burdens. And for the most part traditions of this kind are of such a nature as to appear to be admirable exercises of humility.

They allure, also, by means of a third pretext, inasmuch as they seem to be of the greatest avail for the mortification of the flesh, while there is no sparing of the body. Paul, however, bids farewell to those disguises, for

what is in high esteem among men is often an abomination in the sight of God. (Luke 16:15.)

Farther, that is a treacherous obedience, and a perverse and sacrilegious humility, which transfers to men the authority of God; and neglect of the body is not of so great importance, as to be worthy to be set forth to admiration as the service of God.

Some one, however, will feel astonished, that Paul does not take more pains in pulling off those masks. I answer, that he on good grounds rests contented with the simple term show. For the principles which he had taken as opposed to this are incontrovertible — that the body is in Christ, and that, consequently, those do nothing but impose upon miserable men, who set before them shadows. Secondly, the spiritual kingdom of Christ is by no means taken up with frail and corruptible elements. Thirdly, by the death of Christ such observances were put an end to, that we might have no connection with them; and, fourthly, God is our only Lawgiver. (Isaiah 33:22.) Whatever may be brought forward on the other side, let it have ever so much splendor, is fleeting show.

Secondly, he reckoned it enough to admonish the Colossians, not to be deceived by the putting forth of empty things. There was no necessity for dwelling at greater length in reproving them. For it should be a settled point among all the pious, that the worship of God ought not to be measured according to our views; and that, consequently, any kind of service is not lawful, simply on the ground that it is agreeable to us. This, also, ought to be a commonly received point — that we owe to God such humility as to yield obedience simply to his commands, so as not to lean to our own understanding, etc., (Proverbs 3:5,) — and that the limit of humility towards men is this — that each one submit himself to others in love. Now, when they contend that the wantonness of the flesh is repressed by abstinence from meats, the answer is easy — that we must not therefore abstain from any particular food as being unclean, but must eat sparingly of what we do eat of, both in order that we may soberly and temperately make use of the gifts of God, and that we may not, impeded by too much food and drink, forget those things that are God’s. Hence it was enough to say that these were masks, that the Colossians, being warned, might be on their guard against false pretexts.

Thus, at the present day, Papists are not in want of specious pretexts, by which to set forth their own laws, however they may be — some of them impious and tyrannical, and others of them silly and trifling. When, however, we have granted them everything, there remains, nevertheless, this refutation by Paul, which is of itself more than sufficient for dispelling all their smoky vapours; not to say how far removed they are from so honorable an appearance as that which Paul describes. The principal holiness of the Papacy, at the present day, consists in monkhood, and of what nature that is, I am ashamed and grieved to make mention, lest I should stir up so abominable an odour. Farther, it is of importance to consider here, how prone, nay, how forward the mind of man is to artificial modes of worship. For the Apostle here graphically describes the state of the old system of monkhood, which came into use a hundred years after his death, as though he had never spoken a word. The zeal of men, therefore, for superstition is surpassingly mad, which could not be restrained by so plain a declaration of God from breaking forth, as historical records testify.

Not in any honor. Honor means care, according to the usage of the Hebrew tongue. Honour widows, (1 Timothy 5:3,) that is, take care of them. Now Paul finds fault with this, that they teach to leave off care for the body. For as God forbids us to indulge the body unduly, so he commands that these be given it as much as is necessary for it. Hence Paul, in Romans 13:14, does not expressly condemn care for the flesh, but such as indulges lusts. Have no care, says he, for the flesh, to the gratifying of its lusts. What, then, does Paul point out as faulty in those traditions of which he treats? It is that they gave no honor to the body for the satisfying the flesh, that is, according to the measure of necessity. For satisfying here means a mediocrity, which restricts itself to the simple use of nature, and thus stands in opposition to pleasure and all superfluous delicacies; for nature is content with little. Hence, to refuse what it requires for sustaining the necessity of life, is not less at variance with piety, than it is inhuman.

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.

(23) Will worship, and humility . . .—It seems difficult to connect these words with the merely ceremonial observances immediately above; and, in fact, they are almost an exact repetition of the description of the superstitious worship of the angels given in Col_2:18. “Will worship” is, indeed, nearly what we call superstition—the constant craving for objects to which we may find some excuse for paying reverence. The prefix applies in sense, though not in grammatical form, to the “humility” also; a studied humility being either a pretence or a self-degradation. But in the words “neglecting of the body” (properly, being unsparing of it in hardship, and generally careless of it) we pass to the ceremonial ordinances. It is more than likely that the superstition and false asceticism were connected together—the latter being the condition of the supposed spiritual insight of the former.

Which things . . . flesh.—This passage is difficult. (1) Our version translates literally, and would seem to regard the last words as simply an explanation, from the point of view of the false teachers, of “neglecting of the body,” as “not honouring it for the satisfaction, or surfeiting of the flesh;” and we certainly find that the Jewish ascetics did brand the most necessary satisfaction of appetite as a “surfeiting of the flesh.” But there is a fatal objection to this interpretation—that, in that case, St. Paul would leave the false pretension without a word of contradiction, which is almost incredible. Hence (2) we must regard the “not in any honour” as antithetical to “the show of wisdom.” The ordinances, says St. Paul, have “a show of wisdom,” but “are in no honour,” i.e., are “of no value.” The common use of the word rendered “honour,” for “price,” or “pay” (see Mat_27:6; Act_7:16; Act_19:19; 1Co_6:20; 1Co_7:23; 1Ti_5:17), would readily lend itself to this sense. The only doubtful point (3) is the interpretation of the last words, “for the satisfying of the flesh.” There seems little doubt that the phrase is used in a bad sense. Hence we must dismiss all reference to a right honouring of the body by innocent satisfaction of its needs. We have therefore to choose between two interpretations. Some interpret “of no value against the satisfaction of the flesh.” But, though the Greek will bear this sense, it is certainly not the common sense of the preposition used; and its adoption would expose the whole phrase to the charge of ambiguity and obscurity. The other interpretation is “of no real value” (tending) “to the satisfaction of the flesh.” This is abrupt, but suits well the indignant and abrupt terseness of the passage. It gives (quite after St. Paul’s manner) not only a denial of the “neglecting of the body,” but a retort on the false teachers of the very charge they made against their opponents. (Comp. the use of the word “dogs,” in Php_3:2.) It conveys a most important truth. That “extremes meet” we know well; and that there is a satisfaction of the fleshly temper (see above, Col_2:18) in the attempt over much to curb the flesh, the whole history of asceticism bears witness. Moreover, this interpretation alone gives a completeness of antithesis. To “the show of wisdom” it opposes the “no real value;” to the pretended “neglecting of the body” the real” satisfaction of the flesh.”

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

23. which things] More precisely, if the word may be tolerated, which-like things; the prohibitions given above, Col_2:21, and all others which depend on the same principle.

have indeed] More precisely, do indeed have, with a slight emphasis on the admission. There was a specious and seductive “reasonableness” in the theory.

a shew] Greek, logos; “word, speech,” and so “repute;” with an implied contrast here between such repute and reality (ergon).

of wisdom] It was a characteristic of Jewish thought at the time to attempt to throw a glamour of philosophic fitness over Pharisaic doctrine and practice. See Introd., p. 32.

will worship] The Greek compound noun denotes a self-chosen, self-imposed, service (in the religious sense); a round of supererogatory observance; a parody on the genuine reverence and obedience of the Gospel.—The element in the compound represented by “worship” is the noun used Jas_1:27 (and see 26), and rendered “religion” in our Versions.

humility] See above, on Col_2:18. The special direction of this false humility here would be, perhaps, that of abject submission to Pharisaic “directors,” mistaken for a true surrender to the will of God.—“Who can submit our will to the will of God, save the Spirit of God?” (Quesnel).

neglecting of the body] Lit., unsparing (treatment) of the body; a severe and active physical asceticism.—Something of Oriental dualism may well have influenced this ascetic practice. Scarcely anywhere outside Scripture itself is the true honour of the body recognized in religious systems; the tendency to regard it as merely the burthen, or prison, of the soul appears almost everywhere. And this is a fruitful source of the asceticism which rather attacks than disciplines the body.—Cp. Wis_9:15 : “The corruptible body presseth down the soul.” The Pharisee Josephus (contra Apion., 2.24) says that “the soul, by its union with the body, is subject to miseries.” The Alexandrian Philo, a coeval, like Josephus, of the Apostles (as perhaps the author of Wisdom also was) calls the body, “a loathsome prison.” Twelve centuries later Francis of Assisi called his body, “my brother, the ass.” See Dr F. W. Farrar’s note on Wisdom 9, in the Speaker’s Commentary.—Contrast 1Co_6:13; 1Th_5:23, etc.

not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh] Better, as R.V., not of any value against the indulgence of the flesh. This explanation, fully sustained by the Greek grammar, was long ago advocated by Mr Conybeare (C. and Howson, Life etc. of St Paul, ch. 25, in a note to the translation of the Epistle), and had been suggested still earlier (as he says) by Abp Sumner. It satisfies the context as no other does, supplying just such a counterpart as might be expected (from the use of the word “indeed,” μὲν) to the admission that the system had “a shew of wisdom.” See Lightfoot’s note for full proof that the Greek preposition (πρὸς) is rightly rendered (perhaps we may better say explained) “against” in such a context.

Other interpretations are as follows; (a) “to satisfy the (reasonable) wants of the body.” But this gives a good meaning to the Greek word rendered by A.V. “satisfy,” whereas it has by usage a meaning of excess and indulgence.—In this explanation, the words “not in any honour” are taken as a clause apart, parallel with the words just previous; “not (holding the body) in any honour.”—(b) An explanation which supposes St Paul to put the case from his opponent’s view-point: “it being no worthy thing to regard the satisfaction of the flesh.” This is the hesitating exposition of Theodore of Mopsuestia (cent. 4–5).—(c) An explanation which, like (a), breaks the last clause into two: “not of any (real) value, (but) tending only to gratify the flesh,” i.e., to inflate the pride of unregenerate man. So, on the whole, many modern expositors. But the sentence is thus unnaturally dislocated, and a meaning given to the word “flesh” improbable in this context.

As explained above, the words are a pregnant warning against the delusive but specious hope that the human spirit is to be transfigured into moral harmony with the Divine purity through inflictions on the body. The sublime true secret of that transfiguration is given us in e.g. Rom_8:13; “If ye by the Spirit mortify the practices of the body, etc.” And see below on ch. Col_3:4-5.

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.

Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom,.... The authors of them set up for men of wisdom, and were esteemed such, and are often styled "wise men"; and their scholars that received their traditions, and explained and enforced them on others, , "the disciples of the wise men": and they pretended, that these constitutions of theirs were "a hedge for the law", and for the honour of it, and to preserve it, and keep men from transgressing it; and this carried in it some appearance of wisdom: and their pretensions to it lay in the following things,

in will worship; being what was over and above that which was commanded by God, and so, like the freewill offerings under the law, must be acceptable to him; this was one of their colours, which had some show of wisdom, religion, and zeal:

and humility: in worshipping of angels, and not coming directly, and with boldness, to God or Christ; or rather in subjecting themselves to the yoke of the law, and submitting to the decrees of the fathers and doctors of the church, who were more wise, and learned, and knowing than they, and so had the appearance of prudence, gentleness, and goodness:

and neglecting of the body; by fastings and watchings, whereby they seemed to be very religious and devout, holy and mortified persons, who kept under their bodies, subdued their unruly appetites, and fulfilled not the lusts of the flesh: but then this was only a show of wisdom and godliness; there was no truth nor reality in these things; they were only a mere form, an outside show, a mere pretence; there was no true devotion nor religion in them: and so

not in any honour; or to be had in any esteem; for if the rites of the ceremonial law itself were weak and beggarly elements, much more must these additions to it, and corruptions of it, be such; and at most only regarded things external, that were

to the satisfying, of the flesh; either the body, or the carnal mind, in which they were vainly pulled up: though some consider this last clause as explanative of the former, "neglecting of the body", or not sparing it, but afflicting it with austerities of life; depriving it of its proper right, what is necessary for it, not taking due care of it, so as to satisfy nature; whereby instead of honouring, they dishonoured it: for though the body is not to be pampered, and the lusts of it indulged, or luxury and intemperance to be encouraged; yet since the body is the work of God's hands, is the habitation of the soul, and by which it performs its offices, and is the purchase of Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit, and will be raised a glorious body at the last day, it ought not to be neglected and dishonoured; but should have a sufficiency of food and clothing, whereby it may be comfortably and honourably nourished and supported.

Next: Colossians Chapter 3

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

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

Ver. 23. And neglecting of the body] Gr. αφειδεια. Not sparing of it, as the old and new Baalites, these Flagellantes; and those also among us (good otherwise), that pinch their bodies too much with penury or excessive fasting, are blameworthy. The body is the soul’s servant, and that it may be Par negotio, neither supra nor infra negotium, it must have due honour and nourishment.

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.

Which things - Which scrupulous observance of the numerous precepts enjoining rites and ceremonies, the observance of days, and the distinctions between meats and drinks.

Have indeed a show of wisdom - Have a great appearance of piety and of regard for the will of God They have a show of “wisdom,” too, or of a deep acquaintance with divine things. They who insist on them appear to be learned in what constitutes religion, and to have a deep insight into its mysteries. Doubtless they who urged the obligation of these things laid claim to uncommon acquaintance with the nature of religion, and urged the observance of these things on the ground of their tendency to promote piety, just as they always do who insist much on the observance of religious rites and ceremonies.

In will-worship - Voluntary worship; i. e., worship beyond what God strictly requires-supererogatory service. Probably many of these things they did not urge as being strictly required, but as conducing greatly to piety. The plea doubtless was, that piety might be promot ed by service rendered beyond what was absolutely enjoined, and that thus there would be evinced a spirit of uncommon piety - a readiness not only to obey all that God required, but even to go beyond this, and to render him voluntary service. There is much plausibility in this; and this has been the foundation of the appointment of the fasts and festivals of the church; of penances and self-inflicted tortures; of painful vigils and pilgrimages; of works of supererogation, and of the merits of the “saints.” A large part of the corruptions of religion have arisen from this plausible but deceitful argument. God knew best what things it was most conducive to piety for his people to observe; and we are most safe when we adhere most closely to what he has appointed, and observe no more days and ordinances than he has directed. There is much apparent piety about these things; but there is much wickedness of heart at the bottom, and there is nothing that more tends to corrupt pure religion.

And humility - Notes, Col 2:18. There is a great show of reverence for divine things in the manner in which they pursue their investigations, and in their humble and meek compliance with painful rites and ceremonies; in fastings, abstinence, and penances. Under all this there lurks often the worst kind of pride; because:

“Pride may be pampered while the flesh grows lean.”

And neglecting the body - Putting on sackcloth and ashes; subjecting it to painful fastings and penances; appearing in a form of squalid poverty, as if the body were not worth regarding, and as if the attention were so much engrossed by the nobler care of the soul, as to be entirely regardless of the body. Yet, we may observe,

(1) God made the body as well as the soul, and has shown his care of it by its” being fearfully and wonderfully made,” and by all the provision which he has made for all its needs.

(2) Religion pertains to the body as well as the soul, and should teach a man properly to regard it. Man is bound so to take care of the body, as to have the most health and the longest life possible in the service of his Creator, and so as to be able to employ it in the best manner. There is no religion in ragged or squalid clothing, in a dirty face, in offensive personal habits, in filth and defilement, and in setting at defiance the decencies of life.

(3) Much affected sanctity may exist where there is a most proud and corrupt heart. A long face, a demure countenance, a studied disregard of the decencies of dress and the courtesies of life, as if they were unworthy of notice, may be the exponent of the most hateful pride, and of the basest purposes of the soul. A man should be on his guard always against one who, under pretence of extraordinary sanctity, professes to despise the ordinary dress and usages of society.

Not in any honour - That is, there is no real honor in these things; there is nothing to ennoble and elevate the soul; nothing that is to be commended.

To the satisfying of the flesh - The only effect is, to satisfy or please the flesh; that is, the carnal and corrupt nature, for so the word “flesh” is often used in the Scriptures. The effect of these observances, on which so much stress is laid as if they would promote piety, is merely to gratify pride, self-righteousness, the love of distinction, and the other carnal propensities of our nature. There seems to be a great deal of humility and piety in them; there is really little else than pride, selfishness, and ambition.

Remarks On Colossians 2

1. We should feel a deep interest for the welfare of other Christians, even those whom we have never seen; Col 2:1-2. All belong to the same family, have the same enemies to contend with, are engaged in the same warfare, are traveling to the same heaven. By our prayers and sympathy, we may often do much good to those whom we shall never see until we meet them in heaven.

2. We should be on our guard against the seductive arts of false teachers. They are often plausible; they can urge arguments which we may not be able to answer; they may have much more learning than we have; and they may put on the appearance of great humility and of real piety; Col 2:3-4.3. It is, in general, a safe rule for a Christian to abide by the views which he had on the great subjects of religion when he became converted; Col 2:6. Then the heart was tender and soft - like wax - and received the impression which the Spirit made on it. There are some things in which the heart judges better than the head; and in which we are quite as likely to go right if we follow the former as we are the latter. In relation to the performance of many of the duties of life - the duties of kindness and charity - the heart is often a more safe guide than the head; and so in many things pertaining more immediately to religion, a man is more likely to judge right if he follows the promptings of his feelings in the happiest moments of piety, than he is to wait for the more cool and cautious course of argument. The same thing may be true even of many of the doctrines of religion. When a poor sinner trembles on the verge of hell, he feels that none but an Almighty Saviour can deliver him, and he goes and commits himself to Jesus as God - and he is not in much danger of erring in that. He will be more likely to be drawn aside from the truth by the artful reasonings of the advocates of error, than he will by his feelings at that moment.

4. Our views of the “mystery of God” - of the divine nature, and especially of the rank and character of Christ, will determine all our views of theology; Col 2:2. This has been so in all ages; and however it may be accounted for, the fact is undoubted, that if at any time we can ascertain what are the prevalent views of Christ we can easily see what is the prevailing character of the theology of that age. The influence of this will be felt on the views which are held of the native character of man: of regeneration, the divine purposes, the nature of holiness, and the retributions beyond the grave. Hence, the reason why the apostle Paul insisted so much on this, and urged so earnestly the importance of adhering to just views of the Saviour.

5. Christ has laid us under the highest obligations to love and serve him; Col 2:11-15. He has enabled us to put off our sins; he has raised us from spiritual death to spiritual life; he has removed the old ordinances that were against us, and has made religion easy and pleasant; he has subdued our enemies, and triumphed over them. He achieved a glorious victory over “principalities and powers,” and has led our great enemy captive. He met the enemy of man when on earth, and overcame his power of temptation; expelled him from the bodies of men; laid the foundation for a permanent victory over him on the cross, and triumphed over him when he rose and ascended to heaven. Satan is now an humbled foe. His power is broken and limited, and the Lord Jesus will yet completely triumph over him. He will return from heaven; raise all the dead; and reascend, in the face of the universe, to his native skies, with all his ransomed hosts - the “spoils” of victory. We should not then fear what Satan can do to us; nor should we fear that the great enemy of the church will ever be triumphant:

Stand up, my soul, shake off thy fears,

And gird the gospel armor on;

March to the gates of endless joy,

Where thy great Captain Saviour’s gone.

Hell and thy sins resist thy course,

But hell and sin are vanquish’d foes;

Thy Jesus nail’d them to the cross,

And sung the triumph when he rose.

Then let my soul march boldly on,

Press forward to the heavenly gate;

There peace and joy eternal reign,

And glittering robes for conquerors wait.

Then shall I wear a starry crown,

And triumph in Almighty grace;

While all the armies of the skies.

Join in my glorious Leader’s praise.

6. No individual has a right to appoint ceremonies and ordinances in the church to be binding on the consciences of others; nor is this authority intrusted to any body of men; Col 2:16. What God has enjoined is to be obeyed. What man enjoins beyond that, is of no binding force on the conscience: and it is the solemn and sacred duty of all Christians to resist all such attempts to make ceremonial observances binding on the conscience. Christ has appointed a few ordinances of religion - and they are enough. They are simple, easily observed, and all adapted to promote piety. He appointed baptism and the Lord’s supper; but he appointed no stated festivals or fasts; no days in commemoration of the saints, or of his own birth or death; he enjoined no rites of religion but those which are most simple and which are easily observed. He well knew how those observances would be abused to the purposes of superstition, and obscure the great doctrine of justification by faith. He knew how ready men would be to rely on them rather than on the merits of the great Sacrifice, and hence he appointed no ordinance where that danger could exist.

7. Pride is often united with apparent humility; Col 2:18. It is easy to assume the appearance of humility in the outer deportment, but no such assumed appearance reaches the heart. That remains the same, whatever external appearance is assumed, until it is renewed by the grace of God.

8. A meek, modest, and candid demeanor is consistent with great boldness and daring in speculation; Col 2:18. The most daring speculators in religion; they who make the most reckless attacks on the truth, are often, to appearance, eminently candid, and even put on the aspect of angelic devotion. Yet they are bold “where angels fear to tread;” and they declaim with confidence on subjects which must be forever beyond the grasp of the human mind.

9. We should not infer, because a man is modest and humble, and because he appears to be endued with uncommon meekness and piety, that, therefore, he is a good man or a safe guide; Col 2:18. The teachers in Colossae, against whom Paul warned the Christians there, appear to have been men just of this stamp; and this is commonly assumed by those who would lead their fellow men into error. “Satan is often transformed into an angel of light.”

10. We should not attempt to penetrate into those things which lie beyond the grasp of the human mind; Col 2:18. We should not “intrude into those things which are unseen.” There is an outer limit to our investigations on all subjects, and we soon reach it. In life we are to act chiefly on facts; not on the reason why those facts exist. When we have ascertained or established a fact, our feet stand on a solid rock; and there we shall stand securely. We act safely and wisely if we act in view of that fact; we do not act safely or wisely if we disregard that, and act on theory or imagination.

11. Many real Christians are in danger of being “beguiled of the reward” which they might obtain; Col 2:18. They are allured by the world; they are drawn into error by the arts of philosophy; they obscure the lustre of their piety by conformity to the world, and thus they lose the high recompense which they might have obtained in heaven. For the rewards of heaven will be strictly in proportion to the measure of our religion here - the zeal, and faith, and love which we evince in the cause of our Master.

12. Many persons are in danger of losing the “reward” altogether - for the “reward” of a life of piety is set before all; Col 2:18. Heaven is offered freely to all, and there is no one who might not obtain it. But, alas! how many there are who are drawn aside by the allurements of error and of sin; who are led to defer to a future time the great subject of preparation for death; who spend their lives in disregard of the commands of God and the invitations of mercy, until it is too late to seek salvation, and they sink down to final ruin. Every impenitent sinner is in imminent danger of losing his soul. The great deceiver is endeavoring to blind him and decoy him down to death, and a thousand snares on every side are spread for his feet, into which he is in constant danger of falling. In a world of allurements, where the work of death from the beginning has been carried on chiefly by deception, with what solicitude should man guard himself lest he be “beguiled of heaven” and sink to a world where heaven will be offered no more!

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

Which things have indeed, (as such masters teach you) a shew of wisdom, in their nice superstitious ways, joined by some of them with extraordinary abstinences, and severities practised on the body in fasting, which they observe, without any honour or regard, even not to the satiating of the flesh; i.e. according to the common expression, with such an excess, as not to allow the body[8] what is sufficient or necessary to support nature, that a man may be able to labour and comply with his duties; but here is nothing against discreet fasting, and self-denials, so much recommended in the holy Scriptures. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Et non ad parcendum corpori, Greek: kai apheidia somatos, et in non parcentia corporis, vel in crudelitate erga corpus. --- Non in honore ad saturitatem, Greek: ouk en time pros plesmonen.

====================

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).

Which things have indeed a show of wisdom: by way of concession the apostle here grants that the precepts and doctrines of men about religious abstinences had a

show of wisdom; and it was but a mere show, a bare pretext, a specious appearance, a fair colour of wisdom, which is of no worth, not the reality and truth of Christian wisdom, however it might beguile those that were taken more with shadows than substance, Col 2:3,4,8,17.

In will-worship;

1. In arbitrary superstition, or human invention, or selfwilled religion, rather than Divine institutions; as all the ancients, and almost all the moderns, do interpret that word, it having no good, but an ill character; accounting the compound word here which we render will-worship, of no better import, as to the ordainers of worship, than the two simple words of which it is compounded, expressing human arbitrariness and worship, Col 2:18, (even as the apostle doth, by a compound word which signifies peace making, Col 1:20, understand the very same thing which he expressed by the two simple words of which it is compounded in another Epistle, Eph 2:15), it being rational to conceive, considering the apostle’s drift in the context, that by will-worship he doth connote the same here, that by willing in worship he doth asunder there. For though a performing those acts of worship willingly, which God himself hath commanded, be necessary, and commendable in his willing people, Psa 110:3, and they cannot be acceptable otherwise; yet when the will of man, in contradistinction to the will of God, is considered as constitutive of that worship which is offered to God of a man’s own brain and devising, without God’s warrant, then that will-worship is hateful to God, and the more voluntary the more abominable. It being most just, that not in what way we will and choose, but only in that way which he willeth and chooseth, we should worship him with acceptance; which should be our greatest care, 2Co 5:9. We know, amongst men, those persons of honour that give liveries to their servants, would discard such of them as should come to attend them in new ones of their own devising, though those servants might be so foolish as to conceit those of their own devising were more expressive of their humble respects. Much more is worship of man’s devising distasteful to the all-wise God, who sees through all colours, and though he loves a willing worshipper, yet he hates will-worship.

And humility; however it be palliated:

2. With a pretended demission of mind, or an affectation of humility, as if more self-abasement were designed in such an arbitrary way of worship; like those hypocrites in their fasts, who put on mortified looks and a neglected garb, with disguised contenances, Mat 6:16, showing themselves most submissive to the orders of their superiors in that way of man’s devising.

And neglecting of the body; wherein the more superstitiously devout do labour to outdo others:

3. In punishing, not sparing, neglecting, or afflicting the body; as some monks at this day in the papacy, in denying it that with which nature should be supplied.

Not in any honour, which a learned man thinks the apostle would have read as included in a parenthesis, as conceiving the series of his discourse requires these to be joined, viz. neglecting of the body as to what pertains to the satisfying of the flesh. So by not in any honour, is not here meant a sparing of the body in order to real sanctification, temperance and continence, in opposition to the dishonouring of the body by luxury, as Rom 1:26, with 1Co 6:18-20; 1Th 4:4; Heb 13:4. That honour of the body the apostle doth elsewhere require, he doth here oppose to the seducers’ pretended mortifications. For their religious abstinence was not from that which occasioned luxury, only from some certain sorts of meat, the use of which no way defiles the body, nor violates in any manner the holiness and honour it ought to be kept in. Others read, neglecting the body, which is in no esteem.

To the satisfying of the flesh; for pampering the flesh. Not in any esteem, i.e. with God, or not in any humour to God, but in a tendency only to make provision for the flesh, as Rom 13:14. Others take honour for regard; q.d. In no regard to the supplying of nature with that which is due to it. Others take hononr for having a care of, 1Ti 5:3; q.d. Neglecting the body in taking no care of it, or not at all valuing the things that are requisite to the due nourishment of it: this is somewhat generally received; having no care that the body may have that which will satisfy nature. And if the last phrase, which we translate to the satisfying of the flesh, seem not so well to express moderate satiety, we should consider it is said in a good sense, God filled the hungry with good things, Luk 1:53, and Christ filled the multitude, Joh 6:12; yea, the use of the word in authentic Greek authors may be found to note a moderate as well as immoderate filling, i.e. in a good sense, for a satiety (or enough) that is not vicious.

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

23. A show of wisdom—The reputed and real character of the sort of things spoken of are now put in final contrast. The system embraced will-worship, a voluntary, self-imposed service, called, in Col_2:18, worshipping of angels; a so-called humility which pretended a fear of drawing near to God, joined, in Col_2:18, with angel-worship; and a rigorous austerity of the body, abusing it under pretence of sanctity, and withholding from it its proper care. It purported to be a system of self-abnegation, and so before the popular eye it had the show, or reputation, of a true and profound wisdom, while, really, it was far from its substance. Not in any honour, but rather dishonour, of the body, which they affected to despise, but which, in St. Paul’s view, was to be cared for as a temple of the Holy Ghost. The true effect of the whole system was the satisfying of the flesh, the sinful nature, feeding it to satiety, and inflating it by the conceit and pride which it engendered.

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

Such as have (literally, are (things) having) word indeed of wisdom (vers. 4, 8; 1Co_2:1, 1Co_2:4, 13 12:8) The antecedent of "such as" is "command merits and teachings" (Meyer, Alford, Ellicott), not "decrees" (ver. 21). For ver. 22 supplies the immediate antecedent, and the wider sense thus given is necessary to support the comprehensive and summary import of ver. 23. The Greek "are having" brings into view the nature and qualities of the subject, in accordance with atina, such as, the qualitative relative (comp. htiv,. Col_3:5; see Moulton"s Winer, pp. 209, 210; also Meyer and Ellicott, on the grammatical point) A certain "word of wisdom" was ascribed to the false teachers in ver. 4 (note the play upon logov in St. Paul"s Greek). They were plausible dealers in words, and had the jargon of philosophy at their tongue"s end (ver. 8, compare note on ejmbateuwn, ver. 18). On this the apostle had first remarked in his criticism of their teaching, and to this he first, adverts in his final resume. "Word of wisdom" is one of the "gifts of the Spirit" in 1Co_12:8, but the disparaging me indeed, with the emphatic position of logon throwing sofiav into the shade, in view also of the censures already passed in vers. 4, 8, puts a condemnatory sense upon the phrase: "having word indeed of wisdom and nothing more, no inner truth, no pith and substance of wisdom" (so Chrysostom and OEcumenius). "Word and deed," "word and truth," form a standing antithesis (Col_3:17; Rom_15:18; 1Co_4:19, 1Co_4:20; 1Jn_3:18, etc.) the second member of which supplies itself to the mind; and the solitary men in such a connection is a well-established classical idiom (see Winer"s or A. Buttmann"s "Grammar;" also Meyer). It is superfluous, therefore, as well as confusing to the order of thought, to seek in the sequel for the missing half of the antithesis. Other renderings of logon (English A.V, Bengel, De Wette), "ground" or "reason" (Vulgate, Klopper), "reputation (Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot) are partly doubtful or exceptional in point of usage, and partly overlook the pointed reference of vers. 22, 23 to the language of vers. 4 and 8. And the combination of logon econta into a single phrase is scarcely justified here in face of the established Pauline association of "word" and "wisdom". (comp. 1Co_1:17-31; 1Co_2:1-16, as well as 1Co_12:8) Both in this Epistle and in 1 Corinthians the writer is contending against forms of error which found their account in the Greek love of eloquence and of dexterous word-play. While the first part of the predicate, therefore, explains the intellectual attractiveness of the Colossian error, the clause next following accounts for its religious fascination; and the third part of the verse strikes at the root of its ethical and practical applications. (Shown) in (or, with) devotion to (or, delight in) worship (or, voluntary worship) and lowliness of mind (ver. 18). The preposition "in" brings us into the moral and religious sphere of life in which this would be wisdom of doctrine had its range and found its application. The prefix ejqelo of ejqeloqrhskeia ordinarily connotes" willingness" rather than "wilfulness;" and the "delighting in worship" of ver. 18 (see note) points strongly in this direction. As against Ellicott and Lightfoot on the etymological point, see Hofmann, pp. 102, 103. Only so far as the worship in question (see note, ver. 18, on "worship") is evil, can the having a will to worship be evil. The other characteristics of the error marked in this verse seem to be recommendations, and "devotion to worship" is in keeping with them. This disposition, moreover, has an air of "humility," which does not belong to a self-imposed, arbitrary worship. There is a love of worship for mere worship"s sake which is a perversion of the religious instinct, and tends to multiply both the forms and objects of devotion. This spurious religiousness took the form, in the Colossian errorists, of worship paid to the angels. On this particular worship the apostle passed his judgment in ver. 18, and now points out the tendency from which it springs. In ver. 18 "humility" precedes; here it follows "worship," by way of transition from the religious to the moral aspect of tile now teaching. And (or, with) unsparing treatment of (the) bodynot in any honour (as) against surfeiting of the flesh (vers. 16, 21, 22; Php_3:19-21; 1Ti_4:3; 1Co_6:13-20 1Co_12:23-25; 1Th_4:4) The "and" linking this clause to the last under the government of "in," is textually doubtful; Lightfoot cancels it; Westcott and Hort give the omission as a secondary reading. Mr. Hort regards the passage, like ver. 18, as hopelessly corrupt a verdict which we would fain believe is too despairing. If kai be struck out, then ajfeideia must be attached, somewhat loosely, to the principal predicate ("are having") as an instrumental dative. On either construction, the sense appears to be that it was its combination of ascetic rigour with religious devotion that gave to the system in question its undoubted charm, and furnished an adequate field for the eloquence and philosophical skill of its advocate. "Afeideia, unsparingness, and plhsmonh, surfeiting both found only here in the New Testament and along with them "body" and "flesh," stand opposed to each other. This clause, therefore, contains a complete sense, and we must not look outside it for an explanation of the included words, "not in any honour." As we have seen, the first clause of the predicate ("having word indeed," etc.) needs no such complement. The clause "not .... flesh" is a comment on the words, "unsparing treatment of the body." On this topic the apostle had not yet expressed his mind sufficiently. He has in vers. 16, 20-22 denounced certain ascetic rules as obsolete, or as trifling and needless; but he has yet to expose the principle and tendency from which they sprang. He is the more bound to be explicit on this subject inasmuch as there were ascetic leanings in his own teaching, and passages in his earlier Epistles such as Rom_8:13 Rom_13:14; 1Co_7:1 1Co_9:27, which the "philosophical" party might net unnaturally wrest to their own purposes. He could not condemn severity to the body absolutely, and in every sense. The Colossian rigorism he does condemn

(1) as not in keeping with bodily self-respect, which is the safeguard of Christian purity; and

(2) as not in reality directed against sensual indulgence, the prevention of which is the proper end of rules of abstinence.

These two objections are thrown into a single terse, energetic negative clause, obscure, like so much in this chapter, from its brevity and want of connecting particles. In 1Th_4:4 the phrase, "in honour," occurs in a similar connection: "That each one of you know how to "gain possession of his own vessel" (i.e. "to become master of his body:" see Wordsworth and Alford on the passage; also Meyer"s reference on (Rom_1:24) "in sanctification and honor" (comp. 1Co_6:13-20) for the apostle"s teaching respecting the dignity of the human body; also. (Php_3:19-21) The contempt of Alexandrine theosophists for physical nature was fatal to morality, undermining the basis on which rests the government of the body as the "vessel" and vesture of the spiritual life. Their principles took effect, first, in a morbid and unnatural asceticism; then, by a sure reaction, and with equal consistency, in unrestrained and shocking licence. See, for the latter result, the Epistles to the seven Churches of Asia (Romans 2. and 3.); in the Pastoral Epistles, the two opposite effects are both signalized. The rendering "value" given by Lightfoot and the Revisers seems to us misleading; timh means "value" only in the sense of "price," as in 1Co_6:20, and this surely is not their meaning. Plhsmonh has been taken in a milder sense by the Greek commentators, Luther, and others: "satisfaction" (legitimate) gratification." So the apostle is made to charge the false teachers with "not honouring the body, so as to grant the flesh its due gratification." But this rendering confounds the "body" and the "flesh," here contrasted, and gives plhsmonh a meaning without lexical warrant (see Meyer and Lightfoot). And the sentiment it expresses errs on the anti-ascetic side, and comes into collision with Rom_13:14 and, Gal_5:16. Plhsmonh in the LXX and in Philo, as in earlier Greek, denotes "physical repletion," and is associated with drunkenness and sensual excess generally. Hence we cannot admit the interpretation of Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, who make the "flesh" here the sinful principle generally, and understand "surfeiting" figuratively, supposing the apostle to mean, that the ascetic rules in question, while they dishonour the body, tend to gratify the carnal mind." This gives an idea true in itself, and agreeing with the sense of "flesh" in vers. 11, 18, but out of place here, while it strains the meaning of plhsmonh (see Lightfoot"s exhaustive argument). The preposition prov does not help us, meaning "for" or "against," according to its connection. We combine Lightfoot"s interpretation of prov plhsmonhn thv sarkov with Wordsworth"s and Alford"s of oujk ejn timh tini. The saying of Php_3:19 ("whose god is their belly, and their glory in their shame contains the same opposition of "honour" to "fleshly indulgence" as that supposed here, possibly suggested by the phrase, "surfeiting of dishonor" (plhsmonhav), of the LXX in Hab_2:16. Here, then, the apostle lays hold of the root principle of the false teachers" whole scheme of morality, its hostility to the body as a material organism. Such a treatment, he declares, dishonours the body, while it fails, and for this very reason, to prevent that feeding of the flesh, the fostering of sensual appetency and habit, in which lies our real peril and dishonour in regard to this vessel of our earthly life.

Here we have a suitable starting-point for the exhortations of the next chapter, where the apostle, in vers. 1-4, shows the true path of deliverance from sensual sin, and in vers. 5-7 sets forth the Christian asceticism treatment" of the flesh indeed! The line of teaching adopted by the errorists may be illustrated by Philo"s doctrine in his third book of the "Allegories of the Sacred Law," saw that Er was wicked;" for he knows that this leathern burden of ours, the body for Er, being interpreted, is leathern is evil and always plotting against the soul; and it is ever under the power of death, indeed actually dead comp. (Rom_8:10) Yet this all do not see, but only God, and those he loves. For when the mind nouv comp. note, ver. 18 becomes engaged in sublime contemplations and is initiated into the mysteries of the Lord note, (Col_1:26) it judges the body to be evil and hostile;" again ("On the Change of Names," "Pale and wasted, and reduced to skeletons as it were, are the men devoted to instruction, having transferred to the powers of the soul their bodily vigour also, so that they have become, as we might say, dissolved into a single form of being, that of pure soul made bodiless by force of thought dianoia: see. Col_1:21, note. In them the earthly is destroyed and overwhelmed, when reason nouv: ver. 18, pervading them wholly, has see its choice on being well pleasing to God." The writer has attempted an elucidation of this verse in the Expositor, first series, vol. 12. pp. 289-303.

The failure of asceticism.

I ASCETICISM IS FASCINATING. It is remarkable to observe how readily the severest devotees of asceticism have found followers when the performance of the simpler duties of Christian charity has been left neglected. A St. Simeon, scorched by the blazing sun of noonday and chilled, by the cruel frosts of night on his pillar in the desert, finds enthusiastic imitators who would be slow in following Christ"s lowly work of going about to do good to his brethren.

1. Asceticism follows the notion that since indulgence of the lower nature is sinful, that nature itself must be evil. In this notion is the explanation of the inclination of many of the best men to asceticism.

2. Asceticism appears to be the readiest way of preventing sins of the flesh. It seems as though the flesh could not be tamed; therefore it is caged, chained, crushed, slain.

3. Asceticism aspires to the rare holiness of excessive purity. Thus, while professing humility, it is often guilty of great pride.

4. Asceticism is within our own power and is dependent on our own will. It is will worship. It is not the submission of our will to the will of God, but the assertion of our will though in self restraint. This is much easier and requires less humility and faith than spiritual obedience.

5. Asceticism is effective as a display of holiness. It would be unjust to accuse all ascetics of playing for the admiration of the world. But it is impossible to doubt that the Church has had her hypocrites, who "disfigure their faces, that they may be seen of men to fast.

II ASCETICISM FAILS IN ITS PROFESSED OBJECT. Not only can it be accused of setting up a false ideal; it does not even realize that ideal. Even from its own point of view it must be regarded as a monstrous failure. It is "not of any value against the indulgence of the flesh." History gives horrible proofs of this fearful fact. The monasteries of the Middle Ages were hotbeds of vice. No more immoral men could be found among the libertines of gay society than the celibate priests, bishops, and popes of the great age of professed asceticism. Literature confirms the testimony of history. The writings of ascetics are too commonly minted with an unwholesome flavour. Subjects which to ordinary men would call up no impure associations are suggestive of corrupt ideas to these saints. The most sacred relations of life are degraded by the ascetic handling of them. Marriage is regarded only.in its lowest character, and is lowered by being so treated. The finger of the monk leaves an unclean mark on the purest page of domestic life. This is what might be expected.

1. Asceticism is unnatural. Outraged nature avenges herself on the insult that is put upon her in the distortion of her life.

2. Asceticism is opposed to the sympathies of Christ. He sanctioned the ties of domestic life and sanctioned its joys.

3. Asceticism does not touch the seat of sin. This is not in the body. It is in the soul. So long as the heart is corrupt, no bodily restraints will make the life holy. The ascetic, like the Pharisee, cleanses only the outside of the cup. The stream must be cleansed at the fountain. The heart must be renewed. Then it will be found that "to the pure all things are pure. W.F.A.

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

Not sparing the body - Denying it many gratifications, and putting it to many inconveniences. Yet they are not of any real value before God, nor do they, upon the whole, mortify, but satisfy, the flesh. They indulge our corrupt nature, our self-will, pride, and desire of being distinguished from others.

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

not in any

Or, "which do not really honour God, but only satisfy the flesh" (i.e. by creating a reputation for superior sanctity).

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

23. Which things. The doctrines just condemned. Have a show of wisdom. But only a show. In will-worship. Self-imposed, arbitrary worship. And humility. Ostentatious humility. And severity to the body. By starving it and refusing proper food. This implies that these teachers demanded mortifications of the flesh, such as have been always commended in the Romish church. But are not of any value. They have no efficacy in overcoming the lusts of the flesh. In the first verse of the next chapter we are told the only way of overcoming the flesh. In this chapter can be discovered traces of the ascetic spirit which a few centuries later became so dominant in the church. It is well to note that it is placed under the condemnation of the Holy Spirit.

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.

23. [καὶ] ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος. καὶ is omitted by B Origint. Hil. Ambrst. Ambr.

Augustine gives a very remarkable exposition of this chapter in his Epistle to Paulinus (Ep. 149), §§ 23–30 (Migne, II. 639 sqq.).

23. ἅτινα, “which in fact.”

Referring primarily not to τὰ ἐντάλματα κ.τ.λ. but to the precepts included under δογματίζεσθε (of which Col 2:21 is an illustration). Observe the strict difference between ἅ (Col 2:22) in its direct and exclusive reference to Col 2:21, and ἅτινα including the whole class of such rules, and characterising them; cf. Col 3:5, Col 4:11. On ὅστις see Moulton, Gram. Proleg. 1906, pp. 91 sq.

ἐστιν … ἔχοντα. The periphrastic present, stronger than ἔχει, as marking “the prevailing character”; cf. 2Co 9:12; Gal 4:24. Cf. Blass, Gram. § 62. 2; Moulton, op. cit. p. 226. See further on ἐν τιμῇ τινι.

λόγον. For the phrase λόγον ἔχειν. cf. Hdt. 5. 66, Κλεισθένης … λόγον ἔχει τὴν Πυθίαν ἀναπείσαι, “Cleisthenes has the credit of having bribed the Pythia.”

μὲν qualifies λόγον, suggesting that the reputation is in some way mistaken, but St Paul does not here add the usual δέ, which in this case would directly indicate the imperfection. For a similar suppression cf. 1Th 2:18, where see Lightfoot’s note. Chrysostom says λόγον, οὐ δύναμιν, οὐκ ἀλήθειαν.

σοφίας, Col 1:9, note. Observe that the common Talmudic name for the Jewish teachers is Ḥǎkâmim, “the wise.” Compare even Jerome (Ep. ad Algosiam, § 10, Migne, XXII. 1034), “Doctores eorum σοφοί, hoc est sapientes vocantur. Et si quando certis diebus traditiones suas exponunt discipalis suis, solent dicere: οἱ σοφοὶ δευτερεύουσιν, h. e. sapientes docent traditiones.”

ἐν, not instrumental, but marking the sphere in which their reputation for wisdom was acquired.

ἐθελοθρησκίᾳ, “in self-chosen religious service.” Here only in the Greek Bible. On θρησκεία see Col 2:18.

The prefix ἐθελο- is found with more than a dozen roots, always laying stress on the voluntary character of the action suggested, and sometimes adding the notion of contempt, e.g. ἐθελοδουλεία, willing slavery; ἐθελοκάκησις, wilful neglect of duty; ἐθελοσοφία, would-be-wisdom; ἐθελοπρόξενος, one who voluntarily charges himself with the office of a πρόξενος. Here the suggestion is that the θρησκεία is gratuitous. The religious ceremonies so gladly and willingly undertaken are, after all, not asked for by the object of them.

καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ, Col 2:18 note.

[καὶ]. See notes on Textual Criticism. If omitted, ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος is a further definition of the two preceding substantives. They included it as inseparable from them. If inserted ἀφ. σώμ. is merely a further matter in which their reputation was acquired. In any case ἀφ. σώμ. is a very important addition as a transition to the crushing indictment of the last clause.

ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος, “and severity to the body.” R.V. Cf. Arist. Pol. 5 (8). 11. 31, ἀφειδῶς ἔχειν ἑαυτῶν, “to be unsparing of themselves.” For the thought compare Enoch § 108, 7–9 where mention is made of “those who afflict their bodies, and are (for that) recompensed by God … who gave over their bodies to torture, and who, since they came into being, longed not after earthly food” (Greek not extant). See too Hermas, Vis. III. 10, where Hermas is warned that further revelation may injure his flesh.

οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινὶ πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός. The text is almost certainly corrupt, the corruption lying probably in the words οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινί, but there is no various reading of importance (except the addition of et non after τινί in the Latin MS. gigas, see Hort), and no plausible emendation seems to have been suggested.

It will be best to consider the easier parts of the clause first.

πλησμονὴν. Here only in N.T. but often in the LXX., generally as a translation of parts of the root שׂבע “to be satisfied,” in the sense of “satiety.” It may have a perfectly good connotation, e.g. Isa 30:23; Jdt 7:21 but more frequently it suggests almost excess, as perhaps does our “repletion,” e.g. Exo 16:3; Exo 16:8; cf. Psalms 77 (78):25; Hos 13:6; Eze 16:49; Ecc 5:11, Sym. ἡ δὲ πλησμονὴ τοῦ πλουσίου οὐκ ἐᾷ καθεύδειν.

Cf. the half technical use of it in Galen, Op. XV. p. 113, as quoted in Lightfoot, πάντων εἰωθότων οὐ μόνον ἰατρῶν ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων Ἑλλήνων τὸ τῆς πλησμονῆς ὄνομα μᾶλλόν πως ἐπιφέρειν ταῖς ὑπερβολαῖς τῆς συμμέτρου ποσότητος. Also Philo, De Vit. Cont. § 4 (II. p. 476 sq.), ἐσθίουσι μὲν ὥστε μὴ τεινῇν, πίνουσι δὲ ὥστε μὴ διψῇν, πλησμονὴν ὠς ἐχθρόν τε καὶ ἐπίβουλον ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ἐκτρεπόμενοι (from Wetstein).

So also in our present passage it probably means more than “satisfying” A.V. and rather “repletion.” “Indulgence” R.V. is, strictly speaking, a paraphrase.

τῇς σαρκός, cf. Col 2:18, note. σῶμα is the bodily organisation, σάρξ the animal and material side of it in contrast to the spiritual. It is only the lower part of our nature that receives “repletion.”

πρὸς. Does this mean “against,” its neutral sense of “in relation to” being defined in a hostile sense by the context? So in Col 3:13; Col 3:19; Eph 6:11-12. Cf. Joh 6:52. So also many passages quoted in Lightfoot, e.g. Isocr. Phil. 16 (p. 85), πρὸς τοὺς βαρβάρους χρήσιμον; Arist. H.A. III. 21 (p. 522), συμφέρει πρὸς τὰς διαρροίας ἡ τοιαύτη μάλιστα; Galen, Op. XII. p. 430, συνέθηκαν … φάρμακα πρὸς ῥεούσας τρίχας. Our passage contains no such determination of equal certainty. If it exists at all it must lie in οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινί.

οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινὶ. It may be assumed that τινί agrees with and depreciates τιμῇ, and cannot be understood as the masculine attached as an appropriating dative to τιμῇ, “not so that honour accrues to anyone” (Hofmann, P. Ewald). εἰς τιμὴν τινί would have expressed this without ambiguity. Three interpretations may be considered.

(1) Lightfoot following out, as it appears, suggestions from seventeenth century writers recorded in Pole’s Synopsis, p. 922, ll. 60–70, translates “yet not really of any value to remedy indulgence of the flesh,” i.e. their teaching and practice failed in its chief aim, it was powerless to check indulgence of the flesh. For this sense of τιμή he compares Lucian, Merc. cond. 17, τὰ καινὰ τῶν ὑποδημάτων ἐν τιμῇ τινὶ καὶ ἐπιμελείᾳ ἐστίν, and Hom. Il. IX. 319, ἐν δὲ ἰῇ τιμῇ. But in these examples τιμή is hardly “value” but rather “honour,” “estimation.” Observe that τιμή as = “price” is not equivalent to “value,” 1Co 7:23; Isa 55:1; Psalms 43 (44):13; Job 31:39.

(2) The whole clause from οὐκ to σαρκός is joined closely to ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος, expanding it negatively; i.e. the body is treated in an unsparing way, not in any honour to the satisfaction of the flesh (viz. the reasonable demands of the body). So apparently Chrysostom and the later Greek commentators. But this (a) gives πλησμονήν an improbable meaning (vide supra); (b) fails to give sufficient reason for the change from σῶμα to σάρξ; (c) is at best a tame conclusion to what evidently is intended to be a forcible passage.

(3) The ἐν is regarded as parallel to the preceding ἐν, the repute for wisdom is acquired in ἐθελοθρησκίᾳ, etc., not in anything that is honourable.

And then the Apostle breaks off, contemptuously stating the result of it all—“for the repletion of the flesh.” That is the actual result of all their trouble and rules—the lower nature is pampered, or as Hilary the Deacon, i.e. “Ambrosiaster,” concisely but bitterly puts it, “Sagina carnalis sensus, traditio humana est,” in his Commentary to be found in Ambrose’s works (vide Bengel who adds “Aurea sententia. Traditio inflat: sensum coelestem impedit”).

This (essentially Meyer) appears to be the best interpretation of a probably corrupt passage.

Bengel and P. Ewald indeed would take πρὸς κ.τ.λ. closely with ἐστίν at the beginning of the verse, and Alford even with δογματίζεσθε, Col 2:20, but either ensuing parenthesis appears exceedingly improbable.

[In this obscure passage it may be permissible to suggest another interpretation. Paraphrase thus: “which in fact have a specious look of wisdom (where there is no true wisdom) by the employment of self-chosen acts of religion and humility (and) by treating the body with brutality instead of treating it with due respect, with a view to meeting and providing against over-indulgence of the flesh.” The antithesis is between the “ascetic” view which practically treats the body as an enemy, and the Pauline view which treats it as a potential instrument of a righteous life. The object of both methods is to provide against over-indulgence of the flesh: the former is a specious but wrong method: the latter by giving the body its due place in the economy of human nature is really wise and Christian. For this claim of τιμή for the body compare 1Th 4:4, Rom 1:24. G. E.]

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.

23. ἅτινά ἐστιν λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας. ἅτινα = “which are such things as,” or “which kind of things.” The position of ἐστιν seems to forbid our separating it from ἔχοντα, as Lightfoot and others do, joining it with οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ. Bengel connects it with πρὸς πλησμονήν, κ.τ.λ.

ἐστιν ἔχοντα is not quite the same as ἔχει; the former marks that the character of the precepts is such that a λόγος σοφίας belongs to them. Deu 31:11, οὐδὲ λόγον τὸ πρᾶγμʼ ἔχον ἐστί.

λόγον σοφίας = “the repute of wisdom.” For this sense of λόγον ἔχειν, compare Plato, Epinomis, p. 987 B, ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἑωσφόρος ἕσπερός τε ὢν αὑτὸς Ἀφροδίτης εἶναι σχέδον ἔχει λόγον: Herod. v. 66, Κλεισθένης … ὅσπερ δὴ λόγον ἔχει τὴν πυθίην ἀναπεῖσαι.

This repute is explained by the professed basing of these precepts on φιλοσοφία, ver. 8. The addition of μέν suggests at once that this repute was not well founded. The contrasted character which we expect to be introduced with δέ appears to be replaced by the negative characteristic οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ, κ.τ.λ. which, of course, implies the absence of true wisdom, but is not opposed to λόγον σοφίας, but to ἐν ἐθελοθρ. κ.Τ.λ. This use of μέν without the δέ clause following is frequent. See Jelf, § 766; Winer, § 63. 2. e.

ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ. ἐν indicating on what this repute for wisdom rests. The substantive ἐθελοθρησκεία is not found elsewhere (except in eccles. writers), but the verb ἐθελοθρησκεῖν is explained by Suidas, ἰδίῳ θελήματι σέβειν τὸ δοκοῦν. Epiphanius explains the name of the Pharisees: διὰ τὸ ἀφωρισμένους εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων διὰ τὴν ἐθελοπερισσοθρησκείαν παρʼ αὐτοῖς νενομισμένην (Haer. i. 16). Similar compounds, however, are frequent in Greek, as ἐθελοδουλεία (Plato, Conv. 184 C; Rep. 562 D); ἐθελοπρόξενος, Thuc. iii. 70. 2, where the Schol. explains: ἀφʼ ἑαυτοῦ γενόμενος καὶ μὴ κελευσθείς, κ.τ.λ. The meaning of ἐθελοθρ. is therefore clear; it is “self-imposed worship.”

καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ, viz. what the false teachers called so; see ver. 18. Lightfoot supposes the force of ἐθελο. to be carried on; but this seems unnecessary.

καὶ ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος. “And unsparing treatment of the body.” The substantive ἀφειδία occurs in the definition of ἐλευθερία in [Plato] Def. 412 D, ἀφειδία ἐν χρήσει καὶ ἐν κτήσει οὐσίας. The verb ἀφειδεῖν βίου occurs in Thuc. ii. 43; ἀφ. σωμάτων in Lys. Or. Fan. 25; ἀφειδῶς ἐχρῶντο τοῖς ἰδίοις σώμασιν εἰς τὴν κοινὴν Diod. Sic. xiii. 60. A frequent Latin rendering here was “vexatic,” but Vulg. has “ad non parcendum.” Augustine mentions both (Ep. 149).

After ταπεινοφροσύνῃ, τοῦ νοός is added in G d e f g Vulg. Syr-Harcl., Hil. al.

Καί before ἀφειδίᾳ is omitted by B m Origen (Latin transl. iv. 665), Hil. al. Lachmann and Lightfoot bracket it, the latter saying it should probably be omitted, ἀφειδίᾳ being then taken as an instrumental dative.

ἀφειδία is the spelling in א B* C D G L and most MSS.

οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινὶ πρὸς πλησμονὴν σαρκός. These words are among the most difficult in the Epistle. The Greek commentators understand ἐν τιμῇ τινι of the honour to be paid to the body (suggested by the preceding ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος), and πλησμ. τῆς ς. of the satisfaction of bodily appetites.

This view has been adopted by many modern expositors, including Corn. a Lapide, Calvin, De Wette, and Scholefield. Estius expresses it thus: “Sentit apostolus sapientiam illam aut praecepta talia esse, per quae corpori debitus honor, pertinens ad expletionem, i. e. justam refectionem carnis, subtrahatur.” It is a decisive objection to this interpretation that it assigns an impossible sense to πλησμονή, which is never used in the sense of moderate satisfaction, but always in that of “repletion” or “excessive indulgence.” It is expressly so defined by Galen, Op. xv. p. 113 (quoted by Lightfoot), who says that not only physicians but the other Greeks apply the word μᾶλλόν πως … ταῖς ὑπερβολαῖς τῆς συμμέτρου ποσότητος. Here, where it would stand in contrast to the asceticism of the false teachers, it would be particularly inappropriate. Moreover, this view supposes σάρξ be used in an indifferent sense as equivalent to σῶμα, and that in a context in which it has just occurred with an ethical meaning. The change from σώματος to σαρκός can be explained only by the latter having an ethical meaning here as in ver. 18.

Lightfoot (followed by RV. and Moule) adopts and ably defends the interpretation given by Conybeare (Life and Epistles of St. Paul), and before him by Sumner, viz. “yet not really of any value to remedy indulgence of the flesh,” or more literally as RV. “but are not of any value against the indulgence of the flesh.” St. Paul “allows that this πλησμονή is the great evil to be checked, … but he will not admit that the remedies prescribed have any substantial and lasting efficacy.”

But this interpretation is open to serious objection from the linguistic point of view. First, as to the meaning assigned to πρός. It is, no doubt, often convenient to translate it “against”; but the idea of hostility or opposition is not in the preposition itself, which only means “with a view to,” “looking to,” etc., but in the words with which it is joined, as in Act 6:1, 24:19; Eph 6:11.

Lightfoot shows also that it is frequently used by Aristotle, and especially by Galen, after words denoting utility, etc., to introduce the object, to check or prevent which the thing is to be employed. Thus Aristotle, Hist. An. iii. 21, συμφέρει πρὸς τὰς διαρροίας: De Respir. 8, βοηθεῖ πρὸς ταύτην τὴν φθοράν: Galen, De Comps. Medic., Opp. xii. p. 420, τοῦ δόντος αὐτὰ πρὸς ἀλωπεκίας φαλακρώσεις: p. 476, βραχυτάτην ἔχοντι δύναμιν ὡς πρὸς τὸ προκείμενον σύμπτωμα: and so very frequently. This use is very parallel (as Lightfoot indeed observes) to that of the English “for.” Compare “good for a cold, for a hurt.”

Here the sense of the preposition seems to be “with reference to,” the object being a state or condition. On the other hand, if the object is a word signifying action or the production of an effect, “for” and πρός still signifying “with reference to” can only suggest “with a view to (producing).” For example, “good for cutting, good for the satisfaction of thirst.”

Hence it seems to follow that unless πλησμονή be taken in the sense of “a state of repletion,” which would be unsuitable, πρὸς πλησμονήν could only mean “so as to produce πλ.”

Secondly, as to the sense of ἐν τιμῇ τινί, “of real value.” Lightfoot, after Wetstein, quotes Lucian, De Merc. Cond. 17, τὰ καινὰ τῶν ὑποδημάτων ἐν τιμῇ τινὶ καὶ ἐπιμελείᾳ ἐστίν, and Hom. Il. ix. 319, ἐν δὲ ἰῇ τιμῇ, κ.τ.λ. But in these and similar passages τιμή means “estimation,” not objectively “real value,” and ἐν τιμῇ εἶναι is to be “in esteem,” not to be “of value.” Hence also the use of τιμή in the sense of “price.” Sometimes the two ideas, “estimation” and “value,” may approximate, as, indeed, our word “value” is sometimes incorrectly used as “valuation.” But here the interpretation in question supposes τιμή to mean “real value,” as opposed to mere “estimation.” No instance has been produced which would justify such a supposition.

Thirdly, as to οὐ … τινί. This can hardly mean “not any” in the sense of “none,” i.e. οὐδεμία. τις means “aliquis,” not “ullus” (except in poetry). So here the Latin: “in honore aliquo.”

The οὐκ contradicts the combination ἐν τιμῇ τινί, implying that on the other side this had been said or assumed. Thus the words would mean: “not for some (supposed) τιμή.”

These last two objections are fatal to all interpretations which require οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινί to be understood as “not of any real value.” Eadie regards λόγον to τινί as participial, and joins ἐστιν with πρὸς πλ., which is very harsh.

Alford connects πρὸς πλησμ. κ.τ.λ. with δογματίζεσθε, treating all between as parenthetical, and understanding οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινί as = “not in any real honour done to the body.” “Why are ye suffering yourselves to be thus dogmatised, and all for the satisfaction of the flesh,” for the following out of a διδασκαλία, the ground of which is in the φυσιοῦσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκός, ver. 18. Then follow most naturally the exhortations of the next chapter, vv. 2, 5. To the objection that the antithesis presented by οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινί thus not to ἐθελοθρ. κ.τ.λ. but merely to ἀφειδίᾳ αώματος, he replies that “if the apostle wished to bring out a negative antithesis to these last words only, he could hardly do so without repeating the preposition, the sense of which is carried on to ἀφειδίᾳ.” This interpretation yields a very appropriate sense, and gives τινί its proper sense. But it is difficult to admit so long a parenthesis separating the verb from its qualification. It is not analogous to other Pauline parentheses.

It remains that we take τιμή in the sense of “honour,” and πρὸς πλ. τῆς σαρκός as = “for the full satisfaction of the flesh.” The words suggest that the observation of such precepts was supposed to bring honour, and in contradicting this St. Paul with abrupt and sharp irony declares that the only honour would be such as satisfied the carnal nature, and that their boasted ἀφειδία σώματος was in very truth πλησμονὴ τῆς σαρκός. and this striking contrast explains the adoption of πλησμονή in this unusual sense.

This is the view adopted by Soden and (nearly) by Meyer. Ellicott and Barry take a similar view of the connexion, but understand τιμή as “value.”

Syr-Harcl. The Harclean Syriac.

Ell Ellicott.

Tisch. Tischendorf.

Fuld. Cod. Fuldensis

Boh Bohairic. Cited by Tisch. as “Coptic,” by Tregelles as “Memphitic,” by WH. as “me.”

Syr-Pesh The Peshitto Syriac.

1 Mr. Charles compares Book of Enoch, 46. 3, “the Son of Man who reveals all the treasures of that which is hidden.”

Arm Armenian.

Eth Ethiopic.

1 A notion which, it may be remembered, was shared by the great astronomer Kepler.

2 In Test. Solomanis (Fabricius, Cod. Pseudep. Vet. Test. i. 1047) we read ἡμεῖς ἐσμὲν τὰ λεγόμενα στοιχεῖα, οἱ κοσμοκράτορες τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, ἀπάτη, ἔρις, κλώθων, ζάλη, πλάνη, δύναμις, κ.τ.λ. This, however, is a very late document.

1 The Text. Rec. there has παραδειγματίσαι,—a word which frequently occurs in Folyb. etc.; also Num 25:4; Isa. 4:17; Jer 13:22; Eze 28:17.

Treg. Tregelles.

WH Westcott and Hort.

De De Wette.

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

23. ‘All such teaching is worthless. It may bear the semblance of wisdom; but it wants the reality. It may make an officious parade of religious service; it may vaunt its humility; it may treat the body with merciless rigour; but it entirely fails in its chief aim. It is powerless to check indulgence of the flesh.’

ἅτινα] ‘which sort of things’. Not only these particular precepts, μὴ ἅψῃ κ.τ.λ., but all precepts falling under the same category are condemned. For this force of ἅτινα as distinguished from ἅ, see the notes on Gal. iv. 24, v. 19, Phil. iv. 3. The antecedent here is not ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας κ.τ.λ., but the prohibitions given in ver. 21.

λόγον μὲν κ.τ.λ.] ‘having a reputation for wisdom’, but not the reality. The corresponding member, which should be introduced by δέ, is suppressed; the oppositive clause being postponed and appearing later in a new form, οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι κ.τ.λ. Such suppressions are common in classical writers, more especially in Plato; see Kühner § 531, II. p. 813 sq., Jelf § 766, and comp. Winer § lxiii. p. 719 sq. St Jerome therefore is not warranted in attributing St Paul’s language here to ‘imperitia artis grammaticæ’ (Epist. cxxi, Op. II. p. 884). On the contrary it is just the license which an adept in a language would be more likely to take than a novice.

In this sentence λόγον ἔχοντα σοφίας is best taken as a single predicate, so that ἐστιν is disconnected from ἔχοντα. Otherwise the construction ἐστιν ἔχοντα (for ἔχει) would be supported by many parallels in the Greek Testament; see Winer § xlv. p. 437.

The phrase λόγον ἔχειν τινος, so far as I have observed, has four meanings. (A) Two as applied to the thinking subject. (i) ‘To take account of, to hold in account, to pay respect to’: e.g. Æsch. Prom. 231 βροτῶν δὲ τῶν ταλαιπώρων λόγον οὐκ ἔσχεν οὐδένα, Demosth. de Coron. § 199 )έιπερ ἢ δόξης ἢ προγόνων ἢ τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος εἶχε λόγον, Plut. Vit. Philop. 18 πῶς ἄξιον ἐκέινου λόγον ἔχειν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς κ.τ.λ. (ii) ‘To possess the reason or account or definition of’, ‘to have a scientific knowledge of’; Plato Gorg. p. 465 A τέχνην δὲ αὐτὴν οὔ φημι εἶναι ἀλλ’ ἐμπειρίαν, ὅτι οὐκ ἔχει λόγον οὐδένα hῶν προσφέρει, ὁποῖα ἄττα τὴν φύσιν ἐστίν, and so frequently. These two senses are recognised by Aristotle, Eth. Nic. i. 13 (p. 1102), where he distinguishes the meaning of the expressions ἔχειν λόγον τοῦ πατρὸς ἢ τῶν φίλων and ἔχειν λόγον τῶν μαθητικῶν. (B) Two as applied to the object of thought. (iii) ‘To have the credit or reputation of’, as here. This sense of ἔχειν λόγον, ‘to be reputed’, is more commonly found with an infinitive: e.g. Plato Epin. 987 B αὑτὸς Ἀφροδίτης εἶναι σχέδον ἔχει λόγον. (iv) ‘To fulfil the definition of, to possess the characteristics, to have the nature of’; e.g. Philo Vit. Cont. 4 (II. p. 477) ἑκάτερον δὲ πηγῆς λόγον ἔχον, Plut. Mor. p. 637 D τὸ δὲ ὢον οὔτε ἀρχῆς ἔχει λόγον, οὐ γὰρ ὑφίσταται πρῶτον, οὔτε ὅλου φύσιν, ἀτελὲς γάρ ἐστιν, ib. 640 F δεῖ πρὸς τὸ ἐμφυτεύομενον χώρας λόγον ἔχειν τὸ δεξόμενον. The senses of λόγον ἔχειν with other constructions, or as used absolutely, are very various, e.g. ‘to be reasonable’, ‘to hold discourse’, ‘to bear a ratio’, etc., but do not come under consideration here. Nor again does such an expression as Plut. Mor. p. 550 C μήτε τὸν λόγον ἔχων τοῦ νομοθέτου, ‘not being in possession of, not knowing, the intention of the legislator’; for the definite article removes it from the category of the cases considered.

ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ] ‘in volunteered, self-imposed, officious, supererogatory service’. One or both of these two ideas, (i) ‘excessive readiness, officious zeal,’ (ii) ‘affectation, unreality,’ are involved in this and similar compounds; e.g. ἐθελοδουλεία, ἐθελοκάκησις, ἐθελοκίνδυνος, ἐθελοκωφέιν, ἐθελορήτωρ, ἐθελοπρόξενος: these compounds being used most frequently, though not always (as this last word shows), in a bad sense. This mode of expression was naturalised in Latin, as appears from Augustine Epist. cxlix. 27 (II. p. 514) ‘Sic enim et vulgo dicitur qui divitem affectat thelodives, et qui sapientem thelosapiens, et cetera hujusmodi’. Epiphanius, when writing of the Pharisees, not content with the word here supplied by St Paul, coins a double compound ἐθελοπερισσοθρησκεία, Hær. i. 16 (p. 34).

ταπεινοφροσύνῃ] The word is here disparaged by its connexion, as in ver. 18 (see the note there). The force of ἐθελο- may be regarded as carried on to it. Real genuine ταπεινοφροσύνη is commended below; iii. 12.

ἀφειδείᾳ σώματος] ‘hard treatment of the body’. The expression ἀφειδεῖν τοῦ σώματος is not uncommon, being used most frequently, not as here of ascetic discipline, but rather of courageous exposure to hardship and danger in war, e.g. Lysias Or. Fun. 25, Joseph. B.J. iii. 7. 18, Lucian Anach. 24, Plut. Vit. Pericl. 10; in Plut. Mor. p. 137 C however of a student’s toil, and ib. p. 135 E, more generally of the rigorous demands made by the soul on the body. The substantive ἀφέιδεια or ἀφειδία does not often occur. On the forms in -εια and -ία derived from adjectives in -ης see Buttmann Ausf. Gramm. § 119, II. p. 416 sq. The great preponderance of manuscript authority favours the form ἀφειδείᾳ here: but in such questions of orthography the fact carries less weight than in other matters. The καὶ before ἀφειδείᾳ should probably be omitted; in which case ἀφειδείᾳ becomes an instrumental dative, explaining λόγον ἔχοντα σοφίας. While the insertion would naturally occur to scribes, the omission gives more point to the sentence. The ἐθελοθρησκεία καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνη as the religious elements are thus separated from the ἀφείδεια σώματος as the practical rule.

οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ κ.τ.λ.] ‘yet not really of any value to remedy indulgence of the flesh.’ So interpreted the words supply the oppositive clause to λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας, as the presence of the negative οὐκ naturally suggests. If the sentence had been undisturbed, this oppositive clause would naturally have been introduced by δέ, but the interposition of ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ κ.τ.λ. has changed its form by a sort of attraction. For this sense of ἐν τιμῇ comp. Lucian Merc. cond. 17 τὰ καινὰ τῶν ὑποδημάτων ἐν τιμῇ τινι καὶ ἐπιμελείᾳ ἐστίν: similarly Hom. Il. ix. 319 ἐν δὲ ἰῇ τιμῇ κ.τ.λ. The preposition πρός, like our English ‘for’, when used after words denoting utility, value, sufficiency, etc., not uncommonly introduces the object to check or prevent or cure which the thing is to be employed. And even though utility may not be directly expressed in words, yet if the idea of a something to be remedied is present, this preposition is freely used notwithstanding. See Isocr. Phil. 16 (p. 85) πρὸς τοὺς βαρβάρους χρήσιμον, Arist. H. A. iii. 21 (p. 522) συμφέρει πρὸς τὰς διαρῥοίας ἡ τοιάυτη μάλιστα, de Respir. 8 (p. 474) ἀνάγκη γίνεσθαι κατάψυξιν, εἰ μέλλει τεύξεσθαι σωτηρίας· τοῦτο γὰρ βοηθεῖ πρὸς τάυτην τὴν φθοράν, Lucian Pisc. 27 χρήσιμον γοῦν καὶ πρὸς ἐκέινους τὸ τοιοῦτον, Galen Op. XII. p. 399 χρωμένῳ γε τίνι πρὸς τὸ πάθος ἀρκτέιῳ στέατι, π. 420 [Γρεεκ: τοῦ δόντος αὐτὰ πρὸς ἀλωπεκίας φαλακρώσεις κ.τ.λ., p. 430 συνέθηκαν ... φάρμακα πρὸς ῥεούσας τρίχας, p. 476 βραχυτάτην ἔχοντι δύναμιν ὡς πρὸς τὸ προκέιμενον σύμπτωμα, p. 482 τοῦτο δὲ καὶ πρὸς τὰ ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ σώματι ἐξανθήματα σφόδρα χρήσιμόν ἐστιν, p. 514 χρηστέον δὲ πᾶσι τοῖς ἀναγεγραμμένοις βοηθήμασι πρὸς τὰς γινομένας δι’ ἕγκαυσιν κεφαλαλγίας, p. 601 κάλλιστον πρὸς αὐτὴν φάρμακον ἐγχέομενον νάρδινον μύρον. These examples from Galen are only a few out of probably some hundreds, which might be collected from the treatise in which they occur, the de Compositione Medicamentorum.

The language, which the Colossian false teachers would use, may be inferred from the account given by Philo of a Judaic sect of mystic ascetics, who may be regarded, not indeed as their direct, but as their collateral ancestors (see p. 86, note 246, p. 94), the Therapeutes of Egypt; de Vit. Cont. § 4 (II. p. 476 sq.) τρυφῶσιν ὑπὸ σοφίας ἑστίωμενοι πλουσίως καὶ ἀφθόνως τὰ δόγματα χορηγούσης, ὡς καὶ ... μόλις δι’ ἓξ ἡμερῶν ἀπογεύεσθαι τροφῆς ἀναγκαίας ... σιτοῦνται δὲ ... ἄρτον εὐτελῆ, καὶ ὄψον ἅλες ... πότον ὕδωρ ναματιαῖον αὐτοῖς ἐστίν ... πλησμονὴν ὡς ἐχθρόν τε καὶ ἐπίβουλον ἐκτρεπόμενοι ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος. St Paul apparently has before him some similar exposition of the views of the Colossian heretics, either in writing or (more probably) by report from Epaphras. In reply he altogether denies the claims of this system to the title of σοφία; he disputes the value of these δόγματα; he allows that this πλησμονή is the great evil to be checked, the fatal disease to be cured; but he will not admit that the remedies prescribed have any substantial and lasting efficacy.

The interpretation here offered is not new, but it has been strangely overlooked or despised. The passages adduced will I trust show the groundlessness of objections which have been brought against it owing to the use of the preposition; and in all other respects it seems to be far preferable to any rival explanation which has been suggested. The favourite interpretations in ancient or modern times divide themselves into two classes, according to the meaning assigned to πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός. (1) It is explained in a good sense: ‘to satisfy the reasonable wants of the body’. In this case οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινί is generally interpreted, ‘not holding it (the body) in any honour’. So the majority of the fathers, Greek and Latin. This has the advantage of preserving the continuity of the words οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι πρὸς πλησμονὴν κ.τ.λ.: but it assigns an impossible sense to πλησμονὴ τῆς σαρκός. For πλησμονή always denotes ‘repletion’, ‘surfeiting’, ‘excessive indulgence’, and cannot be used of a reasonable attention to the physical cravings of nature; as Galen says, Op. XV. p. 113 πάντων εἰωθότων οὐ μόνον ἰατρῶν ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων Ἑλλήνων τὸ τῆς πλησμονῆς ὄνομα μᾶλλόν πως ἐπιφέρειν ταῖς ὑπερβολαῖς τῆς συμμέτρου ποσότητος : and certainly neither the Apostle nor the Colossian ascetics were likely to depart from this universal rule. To the long list of passages quoted in Wetstein may be added such references as Philo Leg. ad. Cai. § 1 (II. p. 546), Clem. Hom. viii. 15, Justin Dial. 126, Dion. Alex. in Euseb. H.E. vii. 25; but they might be increased to any extent. (2) A bad sense is attached to πλησμονή, as usage demands. And here two divergent interpretations have been put forward. (i) The proper continuity of the sentence is preserved, and the words οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινὶ πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός are regarded as an exposition of the doctrine of the false teachers from their own point of view. So Theodore of Mopsuestia, οὐ τίμιον νομίζοντας τὸ διὰ πάντων πληροῦν τὴν σάρκα, ἀλλὰ γὰρ μᾶλλον αἱρουμένους ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν πολλῶν διὰ τὴν τοῦ νόμου παράδοσιν. This able expositor however is evidently dissatisfied, for he introduces his explanation with the words ἀσαφὲς μέν ἐστι, βούλεται δὲ εἰπεῖν κ.τ.λ.; and his explanation has not been adopted by others. Either the sentence, so interpreted, becomes flat and unmeaning, though it is obviously intended to clinch the whole matter; or the Apostle is made to confirm the value of the very doctrines which he is combating. (ii) The sentence is regarded as discontinuous; and it is interpreted, ‘not of any real value’ (or ‘not consisting in anything commendable’, or ‘not holding the body in any honour’) but ‘tending to gratify the carnal desires’ (or ‘mind’). This in some form or other is almost universally adopted by modern interpreters, and among the ancients is found in the commentator Hilary. The objections to it are serious. (α) The dislocation of the sentence is inexplicable. There is no indication either in the grammar or in the vocabulary that a separate and oppositive clause begins with πρὸς πλησμονὴν κ.τ.λ., but on the contrary everything points to an unbroken continuity. (β) The sense which it attaches to πλησμονὴ τῆς σαρκός is either forced and unnatural, or it makes the Apostle say what he could not have said. If πλησμονὴ τῆς σαρκός could have the sense which Hilary assigns to it, ‘sagina carnalis sensus traditio humana est’, or indeed if it could mean ‘the mind of the flesh’ in any sense (as it is generally taken by modern commentators), this is what St Paul might well have said. But obviously πλησμονὴ τῆς σαρκός conveys a very different idea from such expressions as τὸ φυσιοῦσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκός (ver. 18) or τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός (Rom. viii. 6, 7), which include pride, self-sufficiency, strife, hatred, bigotry, and generally everything that is earth-bound and selfish. On the other hand, if πλησμονὴ τῆς σαρκός be taken in its natural meaning, as applying to coarse sensual indulgences, then St Paul could not have said without qualification, that this rigorous asceticism conduced πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός. Such language would defeat its own object by its extravagance.

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.