Colossians 2:16-23

5. Two special warnings

(2:16–23.)

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

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

The first warning, against a fleshly legality. Colossians 2:16-17.

Colossians 2:16. Let no man therefore judge you.—Since the personality of the readers is strongly emphasized by the position of the words: τις ὑμᾶς. in sharp contrast, “therefore” refers to what was said above (Colossians 2:1-15), especially to their endowments and position in Christ: not merely however to the doing away of the Mosaic law (Meyer and others). Bengel: ex. v. 8–15 deducitur igitur. Κρίνειν means “to judge;” the connexion defines it more closely : allow no one the right to judge and to condemn you, if you do not respond to such demands. The warning is found in this,—permitting their action to be determined by this (Bleek). Neminem, qui vos judicare conatur, audiatis (Bengel). He treats of Christian, gospel freedom. Luther: Let no one make conscience for you (see also Romans 14:22). It is not therefore=κατακρινέτω (Baehr).

In eating or in drinking.—, Ἐν denotes the sphere, the point where the judgment was exercised, as Romans 2:1. Βρώσει. and πόσει set forth the act of eating and drinking—food is βρῶμα; drink, πόμα (Romans 14:17; 2Co 9:10; 1 Corinthians 8:4; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Hebrews 11:10). As the Mosaic law had (Leviticus 7:10-27) prohibitions respecting food alone, and forbade wine only to the Nazarites (Numbers 6:3), and during the time of priestly service (Leviticus 10:9), the false teachers had certainly gone beyond this and heightened asceticism for Christians (Matthew 23:24; Romans 14:21). It is a false view, that there is here only a consonance without further significance (De Wette). Whether all indulgence in meat (Olshausen) or in wine (Schenkel) was forbidden, does not appear from the context.

Or in respect of a holyday, or of the new moon, or of sabbaths.—After “eating and drinking,” joined with the copulative καί, the disjunctive union with ἤ follows, because the Apostle passes over to another matter. [It is true that eating and drinking may form one category, but in view of the doubtful reading, there is no sufficient critical or exegetical ground for preferring to make the above distinction.—R.] Ἐνμέρει, in respect of, in the point of (2 Corinthians 3:10; 2 Corinthians 9:8; comp. Winer’s Gram. p. 571), denotes the category, which includes the species: ἑορτῆς, festum annum, νομηνίας, in mense, σαββάτων, in hebdomade (Bengel); the diversity is indicated by ἤ instead of καί. The threefold order of 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2Ch 2:4; 2 Chronicles 31:3, is transposed. Comp. Galatians 4:10. It is incorrect to apply it to partial observances of festivals (Chrysostom and others), or to make it=vicibus festorum (Melanchthon), or=ne ulla quidem eorum ex parte (Suicer); Beza and others inexactly interpret by respectu. [The E. V. “in respect of” is exact enough, as it certainly suggests the idea of a category,=in the matter of.—R.] Christians should not permit themselves to be bound to Jewish festivals in their worship of God; neither to the three great annual feasts, nor the new moons, nor the Sabbath; σάββατα σάββατον, Matthew 12:1; Luke 4:16; Acts 13:14; Acts 16:13; it does not refer to the triple Sabbath (jubilee year, Sabbatic year, weekly Sabbath, Heumann [Barnes). Bengel: hic significanter positus; nam sabbata dicuntur dies singuli hebdomados. Thus Ignatius contends against the σαββατίζειν as well as against Judaism in the Epistle to the Magnesians, 9. [The passage reads in English: “no longer observing Sabbaths, but keeping the Lord’s day.”—Eadie:—“nor were they to hallow the ‘Sabbaths,’ for these had served their purpose, and the Lord’s Day was now to be a season of loftier joy, as it commemorates a more august event than either the creation of the universe, or the exodus from Egypt. The new religion is too free and exuberant to be trained down to ‘times and seasons’ like its tame and rudimental predecessor. Its feast is daily, for every day is holy; its moon never wanes, and its serene tranquility is an unbroken Sabbath.” The Jewish Sabbath was kept by the early Christians as well as the Lord’s Day. The practice was condemned finally at a council in the neighboring city of Laodicea.—Wordsworth: “σαββάτων, the Seventh day Sabbath, the Jewish Sabbath, which as far as it was the seventh day Rest, had been filled by Christ resting in the grave. The position of the day is changed, but the proportion remains unchanged, and has received new strength and sanction by its consecration to Christ under the gospel in the Lord’s Day.”—R.].

Colossians 2:17. Which are a shadow of things to come.—This verse is a proof of the warning. “O [see critical notes; the meaning is the same if the reading a be adopted.—R.] comprises all as a unit, and means: this (eating, drinking, feasts according to the precepts of the laws of Moses) is “a shadow of things to come.” Σηιά, umbra vitæ expers (Bengel), is not=σκιαγραφία, sketched in outline with charcoal, “silhouette” (Calvin and others), since its antithesis here is not εἰκώς, but σῶμα. It denotes the typical in the Mosaic law, not exactly the unsubstantialness (Meyer) or the transitoriness (Spener), and not at all the darkness (Musculus); for it gives certain intimation of the substance of the reality, and truth of the “things to come” (Hebrews 8:5; Hebrews 10:1). Ἐστίν denotes the permanent nature of the former things; it is not=ἧν, but the commands and institutions have and retain a typical meaning. Τὰ μέλλοντα are future things, the things of αἰὼν μέλλων, not like this (Schenkel), nor is ἀγαθῶν to be supplied, from Hebrews 10:1. These things cast a shadow into the αἰὼν οὗτος, so that the light, as well as the μέλλοντα, standing in the light, are before us. So long as one walks in the shadow, holds to it, he is not in the αἰὼν μέλλων, which began with the appearing of Christ, not to begin first with His parousia (Meyer); for there is added:

But the body is Christ’s (Winer’s Gram. p. 495).—This refers to the presence of the αἰὼν μέλλων, which had already entered. However, he, who still holds to the ordinances of the law, and allows himself to be governed by erring and erroneous men, not by Christ, does not hold to Him, is not yet in the Messianic kingdom and age, as he may and should be. The passage treats of a point of view rather than a point of time. See 1 John 2:8 [Lange, Comm. p. 53.] “But the body” is in contrast with “shadow,” fulfilment, full substance and life of “the things to come.” Ἐστίν is to be joined to Χριστοῦ; to Him as Head and Lord (Colossians 2:6; Colossians 2:19) it belongs; He has the direction of the “things to come,” is the antithesis of τις (Colossians 2:16). It is neither: ad Christum pertinet, ab eo solo petenda est (Grotius), ex Christo pendet (Storr), appeared in Christ (Huther), nor is σῶμα to be repeated with Χριστοῦ (Bengel), certainly it is not=the Christian Church (Schenkel); as little is σκιά the Jewish Church. [Wordsworth: σῶμά is substantial reality. Alford incorrectly asserts that the Apostle could not thus have spoken, if the ordinance of the Sabbath had been, in any form, of lasting obligation in the Christian Church. Against this view, see Ellicott in loco and his references, also Wordsworth, Sermon 44, Christian Sunday.—R.] The joining of this clause to the following verse (Greek Fathers) is objectionable, because it obviously belongs to the antecedent context, and does not belong to ὑμᾶς.

Against superstitious worship of angels (Colossians 2:18-19).

Colossians 2:18. Let no man beguile you of your reward.—Μηδείς corresponds with μή τις Colossians 2:16, and introduces a warning. [Eadie remarks the uniform use of the singular in these warnings, as contrasted with the plural used in Galatians. “Either he marks out one noted leader, or he merely individualizes for the sake of emphasis.” Probably the latter.—R.] Here too the stress is laid upon the object ὑμᾶς, placed in an emphatic position. Καταβραβευέτω corresponds with κρινέτω (Colossians 2:16). The word is rare, but Attic (Demosthenes adv. Midiam, c. 25), hence not a Cilician provincialism (Jerome); βραβεύειν is to be a βραβευς [i. e., the awarder of prizes in the games.—R.], to perform such an office, παραβραβεύειν is to do this partially, unjustly, in favor of or against a competitor, καταβραβεύειν denotes definitely the hostile intent against one entitled to the prize. The prize (βραβεῖον, Philippians 3:14 : “of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus;” 1 Corinthians 9:24) is the imperishable crown (1 Corinthians 9:25) “of righteousness” (2 Timothy 4:8; 2 Timothy 2:5), “of life” (James 1:12), “of glory” (1 Peter 5:4). Hence it is not to be interpreted as Christian freedom (Grotius) or the honor and prize of true Christian worship (De Wette), nor is the verb = κατακρίνειν (Baehr and others). The following thought is not remote from, but not in, the passage; Ne quis brabeutæ potestatem usurpans atque adeo potestate abutens, vos currentes moderetur perperamque præscribat, quid sequi; quid fugere debeatis, brabeum accepturi (Bengel—similarly Beza). Luther is incorrect: let no one frustrate you in your aim; Vulgate also: nemo vos seducat.

Arbitrarily in humility and worshipping of angels.—θέλων characterizes the design of the false teachers as to its ground. The participle denotes, what is joined to θρησκεία in the compound ἐθελοθρησκεία (Colossians 2:23): the wilful desiring, having pleasure in “humility and worshipping of angels.” θέλειν ἐν is =חָפֵץ־בְ 1 Samuel 18:22; 2 Samuel 15:26; Romans 10:9; 2 Corinthians 9:8; Psalms 147:10. It is not to be complemented with τοῦτο or τοῦτο ποίειν(=καταβραβεύειν, Meyer). Nor is it to be explained cupide (Erasmus). The former is both a pleonasm and brachylogy at once: the latter is contrary to usage. To join it with ἐμβατεύων (Luther) is inadmissible. [Ellicott follows Meyer and renders: “desiring to do it,” but objects to any imputation of malice.—He characterizes the view supported by Braune (Augustine, Olshausen and many others) as distinctly untenable and contrary to all analogy of usage of θέλειν the New Testament; yet his own interpretation is open to the objections made above. Alford renders: “of purpose,” joining it with καταβραβευέτω, following Theophylact. The interpretation of Meyer, Ellicott, et al., he deems “flat and spiritless;” that of Braune, he terms “a harsh Hebraism—irrelevant.” If the view of θέλειν, given on p. 35, note, be correct, then Alford’s interpretation is inadmissible. Braune’s exegesis accords best with the distinction there made. They arbitrarily, spontaneously, from the evil impulses of their own nature, indulged in these things. This is relevant, for this made them dangerous.—R.] The context indicates that the first substantive, elsewhere used in a good sense (3:12; Ephesians 4:2; Philippians 2:3; Acts 20:19; 1 Peter 5:5), has here a bad sense : false, affected humility, behind which much spiritual pride may hide. The other substantive (θρησκείᾳ) means worship, adoration, James 6:26, 27; Acts 26:5 [E. V. “religion.”—R.], the object of which is set forth by the genitive. Comp. Wis 14:27; Wis 11:16; 1Ma 5:6. Winer’s Gram. pp. 176, 233. In the Old Testament the angels repeatedly appeared as mediators between God and man, and as representatives of men with God (Job 5:1; Job 30:23; Zechariah 1:12; Tob 12:15). In the Testimony of the VII. Patriarchs (Philo) they appear as interceding, helping beings; among the later Jews the opinion is current, that the law was delivered to Moses through angels (Bleek on Hebrews 2:2). The Fathers refer to the fact that the Jews supplicated angels and councils declare themselves on this point34 (Böhmer in Herzog’s Realencyclop. 4. p. 31). [See Eadie in loco. It was at Colosse that special worship was given in after days to the archangel Michael, for an alleged miracle wrought by him, viz., opening a chasm to receive the river Lycus. And at a council held in the neighboring city of Laodicea, the practice referred to in the text was condemned.—(Conyb. and Hows. Am. ed. II. p. 390, note 2).—R.]—“Humility” is to be regarded as so connected with angel worship, that the latter is proof of the former, since the mediation of angels was claimed in approaching God (Theodoret), or because the Majesty of the Only Begotten demanded it (Chrysostom). It is a mistake to take “humility” in a good sense, but as irony (Steiger and others), or τῶν as genitive subjecti (Luther: spirituality of the angels, Schleiermacher, religion of the angels), or to weaken it to studium singularis sanctitatis, or to understand by it demons, demigods (Estius). [“The Catholic interpreters, Estius and A-Lapide, make a strong effort to exclude this passage from such as might be brought against the worship of the saints” (Eadie), but the connection of the two substantives gives it a direct application to this error.—R.]

Intruding into those things which he hath not seen, ἃ μὴ ἐώρακεν [ἐόρακεν] ἐμβατεύων, is a further definition of καταβραβευέτω. The verb [participle] occurs only here; to step upon a place, hence spiritual regions through speculation; it is used of the entrance of the gods and their seating themselves (Passow sub voce); in distinction from ἐμβαίνειν, it denotes a confident, immediate stepping up, which the description of the regions entered (ἃ μὴ ἐόρακεν)—the transcendental—emphatic from position—shows to be unjustifiable. [The E. V. “intruding” is sufficiently accurate, though Braune’s “sich versteigend” is more so.—R.] The negative μή instead of which οὐ occurs also, is correct in the relative clause after μηδείς (Winer’s Gram. p. 448). Without the negative it may be referred to ὁράματα (Acts 20:10; Acts 20:12; Acts 10:3); or ὀράσεις (Acts 2:17) with Meyer: but if ὀφθείς (Acts 9:17) must also be so understood according to the context, still ἃ ἐόρακεν (comp. 1 John 4:20) cannot be rightly referred to enthusiastic fancies. [These passages above cited speak of “visions;” to interpret thus would imply either that these visions were in themselves “illusions,” or in their influence became “delusions.” Alford renders: “standing on the things which he hath seen” i. e., “an inhabitant of the realm of light, not of faith;” which as Ellicott observes “is ingenious, but not very plausible or satisfactory.” The difficulty in such interpretations arises from following another than the true reading. The canon respecting lectiones difficiliores may be pushed too far.—R.]

Vainly puffed up by the mind of his flesh, is the third trait, more closely characterizing “humility.” Εἰκῇ, temere (Romans 13:4) or frustra (1 Corinthians 15:2; Galatians 3:4; Galatians 4:11), is here joined with φυαιούμενος in the former sense. [Ellicott: “bootlessly, without ground or reason.” So Braune: “ohne Ursache.” “Vainly” may imply vanity in the cause or the result; here the former.—R.] On account of its position it cannot be joined with ἐμβατεύων (Steiger and others). His obscurity is groundless, since it rests upon his own mind, is caused by his own spirit (ὑπὸ τοῦ νοός), and the more so, since “the mind” (νοῦς) is determined by, entirely in the service of and belonging to, “the flesh” (τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ), which while unredeemed serves evil (Romans 7:14; Romans 7:25), and commands the “mind,” possesses and rules it, instead of being possessed and ruled by it. Chrysostom: ύπὸσαρκικῆς διανοίας [followed by the E. V., “fleshly mind.”—Meyer: “It must be noticed that the matter is so represented that the σάρξ of the false teacher seems personified (comp. Romans 8:6), as though it had its own νοῦς, under the influence of which he is made proud. The pride of these people consisted in this, that with all their supposed humility, they allowed themselves to fancy, as is generally the case with fanatical tendencies, that they could not be satisfied with the simple knowledge and obeying of the gospel, but could attain to a peculiar, higher wisdom and sanctity.”—R.]

Colossians 2:19. And not holding the Head.—This is the fourth trait to be connected with the “worshipping of angels,” denying Christ and the church [die Christlichkeit und Kirchlichkeit.]—The object is Christ, to whom the false teachers did not hold fast as Head, hence as before and above all, angels as well. The negative οὐ, not μή as before, denotes a matter of fact (Winer’s Gram. p. 452). Bengel: Qui non unice Christum tenet, plane non tenet: but he may yet belong to the church.—From whom all the body [or the whole body.—R.]—According to the parallel passage, Ephesians 4:15, ἐξ οὗ refers to Christ, hence is masculine, not neuter. (Meyer) [So Eadie following Meyer: “not personally as Jesus, but really or objectively.” But “the following verse seems to imply distinctly the contrary” (Ellicott).—R.] The preposition which is to be joined with αὔξει denotes the cause from which proceeds what it predicated, viz., the growth, and not a remote one, only conditioning it from without, but indicating the most intimate vital connection between them. “All the body” includes the whole church (Gemeinde) without exception; there is no member that does not derive its growth from the Head. [It is a question whether the reference here is to the body in its entirety, or to the body as including every member. Ellicott and Eadie favor the former view, Alford and Braune the latter, which is preferable, as the whole passage is against false teachers, who did not deny the unity of the church, but slighted the fact that each member “must hold fast the Head for himself” (Alford). There is then the greater reason for taking “from whom” personally. Meyer, followed by Eadie, refers ἐξ οὗ both to the verb and the participles, which reference does not correspond so well with the above views.—R.]

By joints and bands being supplied and knit together, διὰ τῶν , characterizes the body, the church, as Ephesians 4:16. The first participle belongs to ἀφῶν, the second to συνδέσμῶν. Both substantives, joined without a repetition of the article, form a category. Ἀφαί are the nerves, σύνδεσμοι the muscles: the former alford help, the latter compactness, firmness. Wherein the assistance consists is not expressly stated, the context only intimating vital activity in general (Meyer), not “nourishment” [E. V.] however, (Grotius). Ἀφαί do not refer to faith (Bengel), σύνδεσμοι to prophets (Theodoret) or believers (Böhmer), for faith is the life and the persons are the members.—[The fact that the two substantives are joined without a repetition of the article, is against the assignment of a participle to each. As Ellicott remarks: “The distinctions adopted by Meyer, et al., according to which the ἁφαί are especially associated with ἐπιχορ., and referred to Faith, the συνδέσ. with συμβ., and referred to Love—are plausible, but perhaps scarcely to be relied upon. As in Eph. the passage does not seem so much to involve special metaphors, as to state forcibly and accumulatively a general truth.”—In the parallel passage, Ephesians 4:16, Braune seems to interpret ἀφαί, “joints.” To limit it specifically to “nerves,” seems to be incorrect. Eadie: “We may understand it not merely of joints in the strict anatomical sense, but generally of all those means, by which none of the parts or organs of the body are found in isolation.” He is not correct in giving a middle sense to ἐπιχορηγούμενον: “furnished with reciprocal aid.” Both participles are passive; as present they denote “that the process is now going on” (Alford).—R.]

Increaseth with the increase of God, αὔξει τὴν αν̓́ξησιν τοῦ θεοῦ—[lit., “increaseth the increase of God.” Accusative of cognate substantive and genitive auctoris.—R.] By this God is described as He who effects the growth from Christ (1Co 3:6; 1 Corinthians 3:12; 1 Corinthians 6:18; Winer’s Gram. p. 232). The most appropriate preposition for Christ in this figure is ἐξ, for God ὑπό. Hence it does not refer to growth well-pleasing to God (Calvin), [nor “godly growth,” Conybeare and Howson.—R.] But the folly and danger of the false teachers is sharply marked.

Comprehensive conclusion. Colossians 2:20-23.

Colossians 2:20. If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world.—Sketch of their Christian state, in accordance with the context and the preceding passage (Colossians 2:1-15). Bengel: continuatur illatio v. 16 coepta. Εἰ is a rhetorical “if, as is actually the case” (Winer’s Gram. p. 418). There are here two definitions of “being dead:” how? “with Christ;” to what ? “from the rudiments of the world.” The motive for “being dead” is given in Colossians 2:11-12, and for “with Christ” in Colossians 2:19 (the Head) and Colossians 2:10-15. For the sake of distinctness, and at the same time to mark the “dying” as an emancipation (Bengel: concise: mortui et sic liberati ab elementis), the preposition ἀπό is repeated from the verb, where otherwise the dative would be found (Galatians 2:19; Romans 6:2). “The rudiments of the world” are here those rudiments in which they lived before they became “in Christ,” when they were still heathen; they should not fall away into such again, seduced by Judaistic false teachers. See on Colossians 2:8.—Meyer incorrectly supposes that Christ also was “dead from the rudiments;” he overlooks that Gentile Christians are referred to; Christ is indeed “the end of the law,” but has not to die to it.

Why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances?—“Why” introduces, emphatically in the form of a question, the conclusion that it was wrong. Comp. Galatians 4:8-10. “As living in the world” like “when we were in the flesh” (Romans 7:5), describes their standpoint before conversion, to which they are returning; ὠς denotes the justifiable conclusion and comparison=quippe qui, “as though.” Δογματίζεσθε is the middle (Luther: why do ye allow yourselves to be caught with ordinances?); the verb is=δόγμα τιθέναι, like νομοθετεῖν. It can be neither: one decrees to you (Meyer);35 nor: you lay ordinances upon yourselves (Bleek); they did not do this, nor does it correspond with the situation, while the former does not correspond with the intention of the intensive question, as if it concerned only a sketch of the fact, and not a rousing of the readers against it.

These ordinances are now noted concretely as to their purport: Colossians 2:21. Touch not, taste not, handle not, μὴἄψῃ, μηδὲγεύαῃ, μήδὲθίγῃς.—The triple reference forming a climax, marks the urgency of the demand for abstinence (Meyer). The reference to Colossians 2:16 allows the omission of the objects, meat and drink, which are required by the second verb γεύσῃ. It is incorrect to apply “touch not” to sexual pleasure (Flatt); this cannot be justified by 1 Corinthians 7:1; 1 Timothy 4:3, against the context, viz., the former part of Colossians 2:22. The suppression of the object is not to be accounted for by the fear and dissimulation of the false teachers, who did not name it themselves (Steiger), nor thus: that Paul had not thought on any definite object. The objects he sets forth in paraphrase:

Colossians 2:22. Which all are for destruction in the consumption, ἄἐστινπά νταεἰςφθορὰντῇἀπο χρήσει—This relative clause sketches the forbidden objects, all of them (ἅ—πάντα); ἐστιν, placed first for emphasis, denotes that their nature is,—“appointed to destruction, perishable” (ἐιςφθοράν), by being used up (τῇἀποχρήσει). This verdict reminds us of Matthew 15:17; Mark 7:18-19; 1 Corinthians 6:13. Hence these words must be considered the Apostle’s judgment to show, and that not without irony, the perversity of the notion, that through eating and drinking moral detriment originated (Chrysostom: εἰς κόπρον γὰρ ἄπαντα μεταβάλλεται). They cannot be regarded as the words of the false teachers (Vatable, Schenkel), who will not suffer them to be touched, nor as parenthesis36 (Meyer). Nor is ä to be referred to δόγματα, implied in σογματίζεσθε above (Augustine [Barnes] and others), nor is εἰς φθοράν to be explained as moral corruption (De Wette), since it merely describes destruction, decomposition, here of sensuous things. Although ἀποχρῇσει must not be taken as the simple noun, it must however be distinguished from παράχρησις and κατάχρησις, “abuse.” [The view Braune upholds is so generally adopted by modern commentators and so far preferable that it seems unnecessary to notice the others particularly. The practical bearing of the passage is obvious to any, who discover its true meaning. That this true meaning has not always been discovered by American Christians is evident from the fact that some still cite: “Touch not, taste not, handle not,” in support of “total abstinence” from beverages which can intoxicate. Whatever may be the expediency of such a principle, it is one against which, as a binding rule of universal application, this passage, rightly interpreted, might be used. To use it in its favor is contrary to all fair dealing with the word of God,—a wresting of the Scripture, excusable only on the ground of ignorance, if in these days such ignorance be not rather an aggravation.—R.]

After the commandments and doctrines of men, κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας τῶν , sets forth a modality of δογματίζεσθε, marking it as in contrast with God’s law and word in Christ, indeed with the law of Moses, beyond which they have gone. “Doctrines” is added in justification of “commandments;” the latter are more restricted, the former more extended; the latter are results, the former set forth the premises and consequences. Matthew 15:7; Mark 7:7. [Ellicott: they were submitting to a δογματισμός not only in its preceptive, but even in its doctrinal aspects.—R.]

Colossians 2:23. Which things have indeed a repute of wisdom.—“Which things” refers to “commandments and doctrines of men,” and denotes, not single commandments, etc., but the whole category of human ordinances. Ἐατὶν λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας is a concession (μές), to which the antithesis (δέ) is wanting; still to the very significant λόγος we have the correlate τιμῇ, to λόγον ἔχοντα corresponds ἐν τιμῇ τινι, and on this account to μέν the following οὐκ corresponds. Hence λόγος here must mean “report,” as Luke 5:15; John 21:23; Acts 11:22. So Herodot. 5, 66 (Grimm, Clavis, sub voce p. 260). Chrysostom: λόγον φησὶν, οὐ δύναμιν, ἄραοὐκ . The Vulgate therefore: rationem habentia, and Luther: “appearance” [E. V.: “show”] are incorrect. [Alford; “possessed of a reputation,”—Ellicott: “do have the repute”—are enjoying the repute of wisdom.—R.] The omission of a clause introduced by δέ is an anacoluthon, but not strange, since the clause is unmistakable (Winer’s Gram. p. 535). ̔ Εστὶνἔχοντα is used instead of ἔχουσιν, to mark the weakness of men in permitting themselves to be so readily deceived and blinded, and contains a charge against such in general rather than against those in Colosse. Bengel improperly joins ἐστίν with πρὸς πλησμονήν, and resolves ἔχοντα into: cum habeant, ut sit incisum; so Schenkel also.

In will-worship, and humility, and unsparingness of the body, ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ καὶ .—“In,” standing only at the beginning, denotes that all three belong together. Compounds with ἐθελο are frequent (see Passow’s Lexicon) and describe, according to the word, something done freely, voluntarily, on one’s own responsibility, arbitrarily, factitiously, affectedly; ἐθελοθρησκεία is self-imposed, arbitrary worship (Colossians 2:18). The object is not added, because self-evident: God. The false teachers in question would worship Him through the mediation of the adoration of angels. Compare ἐθελοπερισσοθρησκεία, by which Epiphanius (haer. 1, 16) describes the piety of the Pharisees. Ταπεινοφροσύνη, as in Colossians 2:18, denotes the humility which appeared with ostentation, hence only apparent, external. Ἀφειδία σώματος denotes the unsparing austerity towards the body through ascetic abstinence. Such mortification is based upon contempt of the creatures, false views of matter as the seat of sin. The first substantive denotes the religious aspect of their conduct, the second, the moral in relation to men, the third, the same as respects earthly things. In such ways they gained a repute of wisdom.

In opposition to this repute, the Apostle adds his judgment: not in any honour, οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι. Here belongs έστίν, which follows ἄτινα, in order to contrast with “the repute of wisdom among the people,” the Apostle’s judgment, viz.: the repute is without honorable grounds, without true honor. This is strongly affirmed; there is nothing at all in it which is really honorable; hence “in any honor” is a sharp negation (οὐκ) of will-worship, humility and unsparingness of the body.—To this negative Paul adds a positive statement: [only] to the satisfying of the flesh, πρὸς πλησμοὴν τῆς σαρκός.—The former clause denies “the repute of wisdom” as a just repute; this gives a motive for the negation, in connexion with “unsparingness of the body.” The false doctrine tends (πρός) to a satisfying (in contrast with “unsparingness”) of the fleshly nature (τῆς σαρκός opposed to σώματος). It is incorrect to render: “not giving to the flesh the honor due to its necessities” (Luther and others). Πλησμονή implies blame (Bengel: fere excessum denotat) and cannot=πρόνοια (Romans 13:14). The distinction between τοῦ σώματος and τῆς σαρκός, and the omission of τοῦ σώματος after ἑν τιμῇ τινι must not be overlooked. Grotius singularly deduces praise from this: habent ista rationem non stultam, si adsint cautiones, si sponte ista suscipiantur non abominando ea, quæ deus creavit,—cum ea modestia animi, quæ alios aliter viventes non damnet,—si hoc sibt propositum habeant, dure tractare corpus neque carni obsequi ad saturitalem.—[Braune’s view is that of Meyer, and is to be preferred, 1) as least un-grammatical; 2) as giving the best correlate to μέν; 3) preserving the distinction between σε͂μα and σάρξ; 4) bringing out the bad sense of πλησμονήν and thus conveying the sharp condemnation, that asceticism, while it appears to subdue the body, serves only to gratify the flesh and its evil nature. For other interpretations see Eadie, Alford, Ellicott. The latter agrees most nearly with Braune.—R.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Fasts and Feasts are placed together by the Apostle (Colossians 2:16), while as a rule fasting and prayer occur together; Acts 13:3 : “when they had fasted and prayed;” 14:23: “prayed with fasting;” 1 Corinthians 7:5 : “fasting and prayer” (A. B. however omit the former). He forbids the one or the other, as little as Christ (Matthew 6:5; Matthew 6:16); he does not annul the decree of the apostolic council (Acts 15:20; Acts 15:28), in which also the ethical and ritual are united. But he opposes first, asceticism which extends to “unsparingness of the body,” secondly, an arbitrary abstinence from the means of nourishment ordained for eating and drinking, demanded equally from all, thirdly, those fasts connected with certain arbitrarily chosen days in the year, month and week. He thus opposes that dualistic view of the world, which does not regard and treat matter as the creature of God, which undervalues the body and its life, and in spite of its “unsparingness of the body” serves only “to the satisfying of the flesh;” he demands the maintenance of individual freedom and would commit all abstinence to the free moral resolution (as Romans 14:2 sq., 1 Corinthians 8:1 sq., 1 Timothy 4:3), and—as far as such abstinence is justified, and may be occasioned or required by internal or external circumstances, by the discipline necessary for the individual, or occurrences that affect him,—he would not have it mechanically and arbitrarily bound to special days, least of all that it should be regarded as of moral merit or as a work of supererogation, transcending or retrieving the purely moral law and moral conduct of life. The Christian should not bind his conscience to men, but only to God’s word and God’s law. Holy days and seasons should be determined by the great facts of salvation and the great acts of God, and not arbitrarily chosen. Thus we must judge both the Romish worship overrun with fasts and saints’ days, and the Methodist and Baptist sects adhering to the Reformed Church. [The author, being a Lutheran, refers to the entire neglect of even such anniversaries as Christmas, Easter and Pentecost.—The special reference to the Methodists and Baptists must be confined to Germany,—and indeed’ in this country there is no applicability in his allusion to their adherence to the Reformed Church. It is true that until lately the prevailing practice of many churches in America would fall under the condemnation he hints at, and even now these historic days are observed socially rather than religiously, as holidays rather than holy days. The Lord’s Day has always been kept in a truer position. I may add that “fasting” is practically ignored as a Christian duty from extreme antagonism to arbitrary fast days, but while the American Church has allowed “no man to judge” “in eating,” it has permitted strict judgment “in drinking” to lay a burden on the conscience. Paul places both in the same category (Colossians 2:16). However expedient abstinence may be, this passage (Colossians 2:16; Colossians 2:20-23) forbids the infringement on Christian freedom which is quite common.—R.]

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

[3. The observance of the Lord’s Day cannot be affected by the warning of Paul (Colossians 2:16). It is certain that the persons who were judging them, were pressing the duty of observing the Jewish Sabbath, not the Christian Lord’s Day. It is equally certain that the observance of a weekly day of rest is written in God’s physical and social laws for man, as plainly as in the Decalogue. Nor can we escape the conclusion that the fourth Commandment is but a reminder of a previous institution, so that even those who might contend that the whole Mosaic law is abrogated, as a guide to Christian life, do not escape this enactment. But since the Christian would live gratefully, he still finds the rule in God’s “holy, just and good” moral law, and sees in his very frame as well as in the frame-work of society, an additional reason for appropriating to “rest in God’s service,” one day in seven, rejoicing therein, since it now marks the great fact of his Lord’s resurrection, and since his Master has Himself explained how it should be observed.—R.]

4. The importance of the doctrine respecting angels (Philippi: Kirchl. Glaubenslehre I. p. 279 sq.), without which the doctrine respecting Satan remains incomprehensible, is as great as the danger from the rationalistic denial of angels, springing from a Sadduceean view of the world, and the Romish adoration of angels, growing out of Essenic and dualistic heresy. The latter soon appeared in the Church. In Laodicea (at the council held between 343 and 381), it was forbidden in the 35th Canon. Ambrose first encouraged it (observandi sunt angeli). Augustine warns against it: imitandos eos potius, quam invocandos, and refers to the distinction between cultus religiosus and non religiosus. This, the second council of Nicæa (787) turned in favor of the adoration of angels, and the distinction established between λατρεία, invocation, and τιμητικὴ προσκύνησις, δουλεία, pious veneration, must now serve as a support for the heathenish adoration of angels and worship of the saints (Conc. trid. sess. 25. Cat. Romans 3:2; Romans 8:10). Our symbols maintain: angelos a nobis non esse invocandos, adorandos (Articles of Schmalkald ii. 2). [See Reformed Confessions and catechisms generally.—R.]

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

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

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

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

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Eadie:

Colossians 2:16. Sensations of spiritual joy are not to be restricted to holy days, for they thrill the spirit every moment, and need not wait for expression till there be a solemn gathering, for every instant awakes to the claims and the raptures of religion.

Colossians 2:19. The church can enjoy neither life nor growth, if, misunderstanding Christ’s person or undervaluing His work, it have no vital union with Him.

Colossians 2:20. Christ is the Head and to Him alone do we owe subjection.

What mean they? Canst thou dream there is a powerIn lighter diet at a later hourTo charm to sleep the threatenings of the skies,And hide past folly from all-seeing eyes? (Cowper).

Colossians 2:23. When Diogenes lifted his foot on Plato’s velvet cushion and shouted “thus I trample on Plato’s pride,” the Athenian sage justly replied “but with still greater pride.” The Apostle utters a similar sentiment. These corporeal macerations, as history has shown tend to nurse licentiousness in one age, and a ferocious fanaticism in another.—R.]

[Barnes:

Colossians 2:16. It is the solemn and sacred duty of all Christians to remit all attempts to make ceremonial observances binding on the conscience.

Colossians 2:18. “Pride may be pampered while the flesh grows lean.”—Wordsworth: Colossians 2:18. Pride in its worst form; Pride dressed up in the disguise of lowliness. And this is the besetting sin of the human heart, which is more puffed up by false humility than by open, pride.—R.]

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

Footnotes:

Colossians 2:16; Colossians 2:16.—[Βρώσει ἢ ἐνπόσει, the act of eating or of drinking. See Exeg. Notes. The reading is doubtful: א. A. C. D. F. K. L. Rec. most versions; Lachmann, Tischendorf (Exodus 7:0), Ellicott, Wordsworth read ἤ. B. Tischendorf (Exodus 2:0). Alford, Braune: καί. The critical defence of the former reading is: “the Common association of βρῶσις and πόσις would very naturally suggest the displacement of ἤ for the more usual καί”—of the latter: καί would readily be altered to ἤ to suit the rest of the sentence. Both are so plausible, that the reading ἤ can safely be adopted on uncial authority. As to the meaning as affected by the readings, see Exeg. Notes.—R.]

Colossians 2:16; Colossians 2:16.—[Σαββάτων, literally “sabbaths,” here=the singular.—R.]

Colossians 2:17; Colossians 2:17.—א. A. D. E. F. read ἅ; B. has ὅ, which is to be preferred as the more difficult reading. [So Lachmann, Meyer. Alford is undecided, but gives ὅ in his text. Ellicott considers the reading ὅ not improbable, but insufficiently attested. Here also it is best to follow the mass of uncial MSS., with Rec. Tischendorf, and others. E. V. “which are” is correct in that case.—The reading Χριστοῦ (τοῦ omitted), Tischendorf, Ellicott, is preferable. Hence “Christ’s,” poss. gen. Eadie, Ellicott, Rhemish, Lachmann and Alford insert τοῦ (א. A. B. C).—R.]

Colossians 2:18; Colossians 2:18.—[Θέλων. Braune renders “willkürlich.” There is such diversity in interpretation that nothing more definite could be given in the text, and this will serve to show the one point of agreement among our modern commentators, viz., that the E. V. is incorrect.—R.]

Colossians 2:18; Colossians 2:18.—Μή is added in א., where it was originally wanting, as in A. B. and others; but it is not to be omitted, [Οὐκ is also found, but μή is the proper form of the negative here. See Exeg. Notes. The reading of Rec, has preponderant external authority, 6 MSS. nearly all cursives: supported by most versions, Tischendorf, Ellicott. Lachmann, Meyer, Alford reject the negative,—and this view affects the exegesis of the latter two.—R.]

Colossians 2:19; Colossians 2:19.—[Ἐξ οὗ, masculine, Christ the Personal Head, hence “whom;” “which” in E. V. doubtless stands for “whom.”—R.]

Colossians 2:20; Colossians 2:20.—[Οὖν of Rec. and the article before Χρ. “have the authority of all the MSS. against them and are properly rejected by all modern editors” (Ellicott).—R.]

Colossians 2:22; Colossians 2:22.—[The E. V. is indistinct,—the rendering given above presents the interpretation of Braune, Eadie, Alford, Ellicott, Wordsworth. The parenthesis should perhaps include this last clause only.—R.]

Colossians 2:23; Colossians 2:23.—[Ἀφειδίᾳ, “unsparingness.” So Eadie, Ellicott (“unsparing treatment”), Alford, Davies, and older English versions similarly.—R.]

[33] Colossians 2:23.—[This is the interpretation of Braune, Meyer, Ellicott and others. See Exeg. Notes. More modifications might well be made, but this slight change sufficiently indicates the view upheld below.—R.]

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

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

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

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