Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Colossians 2:16 - 2:23
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
(2:16–23.)
Col_2:16. Let no man therefore judge you.—Since the personality of the readers is strongly emphasized by the position of the words: ôéò ὑìᾶò . in sharp contrast, “therefore” refers to what was said above (Col_2:1-15), especially to their endowments and position in Christ: not merely however to the doing away of the Mosaic law (Meyer and others). Bengel: ex. v. 8–15 deducitur igitur. Êñßíåéí means “to judge;” the connexion defines it more closely : allow no one the right to judge and to condemn you, if you do not respond to such demands. The warning is found in this,—permitting their action to be determined by this (Bleek). Neminem, qui vos judicare conatur, audiatis (Bengel). He treats of Christian, gospel freedom. Luther: Let no one make conscience for you (see also Rom_14:22). It is not therefore= êáôáêñéíÝôù (Baehr).
In eating or in drinking.—, Ἐí denotes the sphere, the point where the judgment was exercised, as Rom_2:1. Âñþóåé . and ðüóåé set forth the act of eating and drinking—food is âñῶìá ; drink, ðüìá (Rom_14:17; 2Co_9:10; 1Co_8:4; 1Co_10:4; Heb_11:10). As the Mosaic law had (Lev_7:10-27) prohibitions respecting food alone, and forbade wine only to the Nazarites (Num_6:3), and during the time of priestly service (Lev_10:9), the false teachers had certainly gone beyond this and heightened asceticism for Christians (Mat_23:24; Rom_14:21). It is a false view, that there is here only a consonance without further significance (De Wette). Whether all indulgence in meat (Olshausen) or in wine (Schenkel) was forbidden, does not appear from the context.
Or in respect of a holyday, or of the new moon, or of sabbaths.—After “eating and drinking,” joined with the copulative êáß , 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.] ἘíìÝñåé , in respect of, in the point of (2Co_3:10; 2Co_9:8; comp. Winer’s Gram. p. 571), denotes the category, which includes the species: ἑïñôῆò , festum annum, íïìçíßáò , in mense, óáââÜôùí , in hebdomade (Bengel); the diversity is indicated by ἤ instead of êáß . The threefold order of 1Ch_23:31; 2Ch_2:4; 2Ch_31:3, is transposed. Comp. Gal_4:10. It is incorrect to apply it to partial observances of festivals (Chrysostom and others), or to make it=vicibus festorum (Melanchthon), or=ne ulla quidem eorum ex parte (Suicer); Beza and others inexactly interpret by respectu. [The E. V. “in respect of” is exact enough, as it certainly suggests the idea of a category,=in the matter of.—R.] Christians should not permit themselves to be bound to Jewish festivals in their worship of God; neither to the three great annual feasts, nor the new moons, nor the Sabbath; óÜââáôá = óÜââáôïí , Mat_12:1; Luk_4:16; Act_13:14; Act_16:13; it does not refer to the triple Sabbath (jubilee year, Sabbatic year, weekly Sabbath, Heumann [Barnes). Bengel: hic significanter positus; nam sabbata dicuntur dies singuli hebdomados. Thus Ignatius contends against the óáââáôßæåéí 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: “ óáââÜôùí , the Seventh day Sabbath, the Jewish Sabbath, which as far as it was the seventh day Rest, had been filled by Christ resting in the grave. The position of the day is changed, but the proportion remains unchanged, and has received new strength and sanction by its consecration to Christ under the gospel in the Lord’s Day.”—R.].
Col_2:17. Which are a shadow of things to come.—This verse is a proof of the warning. “O [see critical notes; the meaning is the same if the reading a be adopted.—R.] comprises all as a unit, and means: this (eating, drinking, feasts according to the precepts of the laws of Moses) is “a shadow of things to come.” ÓçéÜ , umbra vitæ expers (Bengel), is not= óêéáãñáößá , sketched in outline with charcoal, “silhouette” (Calvin and others), since its antithesis here is not åἰêþò , but óῶìá . It denotes the typical in the Mosaic law, not exactly the unsubstantialness (Meyer) or the transitoriness (Spener), and not at all the darkness (Musculus); for it gives certain intimation of the substance of the reality, and truth of the “things to come” (Heb_8:5; Heb_10:1). Ἐóôßí denotes the permanent nature of the former things; it is not= ἧí , but the commands and institutions have and retain a typical meaning. Ôὰ ìÝëëïíôá are future things, the things of áἰὼí ìÝëëùí , not like this (Schenkel), nor is ἀãáèῶí to be supplied, from Heb_10:1. These things cast a shadow into the áἰὼí ïὗôïò , so that the light, as well as the ìÝëëïíôá , standing in the light, are before us. So long as one walks in the shadow, holds to it, he is not in the áἰὼí ìÝëëùí , 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 áἰὼí ìÝëëùí , which had already entered. However, he, who still holds to the ordinances of the law, and allows himself to be governed by erring and erroneous men, not by Christ, does not hold to Him, is not yet in the Messianic kingdom and age, as he may and should be. The passage treats of a point of view rather than a point of time. See 1Jn_2:8 [Lange, Comm. p. 53.] “But the body” is in contrast with “shadow,” fulfilment, full substance and life of “the things to come.” Ἐóôßí is to be joined to ×ñéóôïῦ ; to Him as Head and Lord (Col_2:6; Col_2:19) it belongs; He has the direction of the “things to come,” is the antithesis of ôéò (Col_2:16). It is neither: ad Christum pertinet, ab eo solo petenda est (Grotius), ex Christo pendet (Storr), appeared in Christ (Huther), nor is óῶìá to be repeated with ×ñéóôïῦ (Bengel), certainly it is not=the Christian Church (Schenkel); as little is óêéÜ the Jewish Church. [Wordsworth: óῶìÜ 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 ὑìᾶò .
Against superstitious worship of angels (Col_2:18-19).
Col_2:18. Let no man beguile you of your reward.— Ìçäåßò corresponds with ìÞ ôéò Col_2:16, and introduces a warning. [Eadie remarks the uniform use of the singular in these warnings, as contrasted with the plural used in Galatians. “Either he marks out one noted leader, or he merely individualizes for the sake of emphasis.” Probably the latter.—R.] Here too the stress is laid upon the object ὑìᾶò , placed in an emphatic position. ÊáôáâñáâåõÝôù corresponds with êñéíÝôù (Col_2:16). The word is rare, but Attic (Demosthenes adv. Midiam, c. 25), hence not a Cilician provincialism (Jerome); âñáâåýåéí is to be a âñáâåõò [i. e., the awarder of prizes in the games.—R.], to perform such an office, ðáñáâñáâåýåéí is to do this partially, unjustly, in favor of or against a competitor, êáôáâñáâåýåéí denotes definitely the hostile intent against one entitled to the prize. The prize ( âñáâåῖïí , Php_3:14 : “of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus;” 1Co_9:24) is the imperishable crown (1Co_9:25) “of righteousness” (2Ti_4:8; 2Ti_2:5), “of life” (Jam_1:12), “of glory” (1Pe_5:4). Hence it is not to be interpreted as Christian freedom (Grotius) or the honor and prize of true Christian worship (De Wette), nor is the verb = êáôáêñßíåéí (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.— èÝëùí characterizes the design of the false teachers as to its ground. The participle denotes, what is joined to èñçóêåßá in the compound ἐèåëïèñçóêåßá (Col_2:23): the wilful desiring, having pleasure in “humility and worshipping of angels.” èÝëåéí ἐí is = çָôֵõÎáְ 1Sa_18:22; 2Sa_15:26; Rom_10:9; 2Co_9:8; Psa_147:10. It is not to be complemented with ôïῦôï or ôïῦôï ðïßåéí (= êáôáâñáâåýåéí , 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 ἐìâáôåýùí (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 èÝëåéí the New Testament; yet his own interpretation is open to the objections made above. Alford renders: “of purpose,” joining it with êáôáâñáâåõÝôù , 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 èÝëåéí , given on p. 35, note, be correct, then Alford’s interpretation is inadmissible. Braune’s exegesis accords best with the distinction there made. They arbitrarily, spontaneously, from the evil impulses of their own nature, indulged in these things. This is relevant, for this made them dangerous.—R.] The context indicates that the first substantive, elsewhere used in a good sense (3:12; Eph_4:2; Php_2:3; Act_20:19; 1Pe_5:5), has here a bad sense : false, affected humility, behind which much spiritual pride may hide. The other substantive ( èñçóêåßᾳ ) means worship, adoration, James 6:26, 27; Act_26:5 [E. V. “religion.”—R.], the object of which is set forth by the genitive. Comp. Wis_14:27; Wis_11:16; 1Ma_5:6. Winer’s Gram. pp. 176, 233. In the Old Testament the angels repeatedly appeared as mediators between God and man, and as representatives of men with God (Job_5:1; Job_30:23; Zec_1:12; Tob_12:15). In the Testimony of the VII. Patriarchs (Philo) they appear as interceding, helping beings; among the later Jews the opinion is current, that the law was delivered to Moses through angels (Bleek on Heb_2:2). The Fathers refer to the fact that the Jews supplicated angels and councils declare themselves on this point (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 ôῶí ἀããÝëùí 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 ìὴ ἐþñáêåí [ ἐüñáêåí ] ἐìâáôåýùí , is a further definition of êáôáâñáâåõÝôù . 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 ἐìâáßíåéí , it denotes a confident, immediate stepping up, which the description of the regions entered ( ἃ ìὴ ἐüñáêåí )—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 ìÞ instead of which ïὐ occurs also, is correct in the relative clause after ìçäåßò (Winer’s Gram. p. 448). Without the negative it may be referred to ὁñÜìáôá (Act_20:10; Act_20:12; Act_10:3); or ὀñÜóåéò (Act_2:17) with Meyer: but if ὀöèåßò (Act_9:17) must also be so understood according to the context, still ἃ ἐüñáêåí (comp. 1Jn_4:20) cannot be rightly referred to enthusiastic fancies. [These passages above cited speak of “visions;” to interpret thus would imply either that these visions were in themselves “illusions,” or in their influence became “delusions.” Alford renders: “standing on the things which he hath seen” i. e., “an inhabitant of the realm of light, not of faith;” which as Ellicott observes “is ingenious, but not very plausible or satisfactory.” The difficulty in such interpretations arises from following another than the true reading. The canon respecting lectiones difficiliores may be pushed too far.—R.]
Vainly puffed up by the mind of his flesh, is the third trait, more closely characterizing “humility.” Åἰêῇ , temere (Rom_13:4) or frustra (1Co_15:2; Gal_3:4; Gal_4:11), is here joined with öõáéïýìåíïò 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 ἐìâáôåýùí (Steiger and others). His obscurity is groundless, since it rests upon his own mind, is caused by his own spirit ( ὑðὸ ôïῦ íïüò ), and the more so, since “the mind” ( íïῦò ) is determined by, entirely in the service of and belonging to, “the flesh” ( ôῆò óáñêὸò áὐôïῦ ), which while unredeemed serves evil (Rom_7:14; Rom_7:25), and commands the “mind,” possesses and rules it, instead of being possessed and ruled by it. Chrysostom: ýðὸóáñêéêῆò äéáíïßáò [followed by the E. V., “fleshly mind.”—Meyer: “It must be noticed that the matter is so represented that the óÜñî of the false teacher seems personified (comp. Rom_8:6), as though it had its own íïῦò , under the influence of which he is made proud. The pride of these people consisted in this, that with all their supposed humility, they allowed themselves to fancy, as is generally the case with fanatical tendencies, that they could not be satisfied with the simple knowledge and obeying of the gospel, but could attain to a peculiar, higher wisdom and sanctity.”—R.]
Col_2:19. And not holding the Head.—This is the fourth trait to be connected with the “worshipping of angels,” denying Christ and the church [die Christlichkeit und Kirchlichkeit.]—The object is Christ, to whom the false teachers did not hold fast as Head, hence as before and above all, angels as well. The negative ïὐ , not ìÞ as before, denotes a matter of fact (Winer’s Gram. p. 452). Bengel: Qui non unice Christum tenet, plane non tenet: but he may yet belong to the church.—From whom all the body [or the whole body.—R.]—According to the parallel passage, Eph_4:15, ἐî ïὗ 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 áὔîåé 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 ἐî ïὗ 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, äéὰ ôῶí ἀöῶí êáὶ óõíäÝóìùí ἑðé÷ïñçãïýìåíïí êáὶ óõí âéâáæüìåíïí , characterizes the body, the church, as Eph_4:16. The first participle belongs to ἀöῶí , the second to óõíäÝóìῶí . Both substantives, joined without a repetition of the article, form a category. Ἀöáß are the nerves, óýíäåóìïé 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). Ἀöáß do not refer to faith (Bengel), óýíäåóìïé 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 ἁöáß are especially associated with ἐðé÷ïñ ., and referred to Faith, the óõíäÝó . with óõìâ ., and referred to Love—are plausible, but perhaps scarcely to be relied upon. As in Eph. the passage does not seem so much to involve special metaphors, as to state forcibly and accumulatively a general truth.”—In the parallel passage, Eph_4:16, Braune seems to interpret ἀöáß , “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 ἐðé÷ïñçãïýìåíïí : “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, áὔîåé ôὴí áí ̓́ îçóéí ôïῦ èåïῦ —[lit., “increaseth the increase of God.” Accusative of cognate substantive and genitive auctoris.—R.] By this God is described as He who effects the growth from Christ (1Co_3:6; 1Co_3:12; 1Co_6:18; Winer’s Gram. p. 232). The most appropriate preposition for Christ in this figure is ἐî , for God ὑðü . Hence it does not refer to growth well-pleasing to God (Calvin), [nor “godly growth,” Conybeare and Howson.—R.] But the folly and danger of the false teachers is sharply marked.
Comprehensive conclusion. Col_2:20-23.
Col_2:20. If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world.—Sketch of their Christian state, in accordance with the context and the preceding passage (Col_2:1-15). Bengel: continuatur illatio v. 16 coepta. Åἰ is a rhetorical “if, as is actually the case” (Winer’s Gram. p. 418). There are here two definitions of “being dead:” how? “with Christ;” to what ? “from the rudiments of the world.” The motive for “being dead” is given in Col_2:11-12, and for “with Christ” in Col_2:19 (the Head) and Col_2:10-15. For the sake of distinctness, and at the same time to mark the “dying” as an emancipation (Bengel: concise: mortui et sic liberati ab elementis), the preposition ἀðü is repeated from the verb, where otherwise the dative would be found (Gal_2:19; Rom_6:2). “The rudiments of the world” are here those rudiments in which they lived before they became “in Christ,” when they were still heathen; they should not fall away into such again, seduced by Judaistic false teachers. See on Col_2:8.—Meyer incorrectly supposes that Christ also was “dead from the rudiments;” he overlooks that Gentile Christians are referred to; Christ is indeed “the end of the law,” but has not to die to it.
Why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances?—“Why” introduces, emphatically in the form of a question, the conclusion that it was wrong. Comp. Gal_4:8-10. “As living in the world” like “when we were in the flesh” (Rom_7:5), describes their standpoint before conversion, to which they are returning; ὠò denotes the justifiable conclusion and comparison=quippe qui, “as though.” Äïãìáôßæåóèå is the middle (Luther: why do ye allow yourselves to be caught with ordinances?); the verb is= äüãìá ôéèÝíáé , like íïìïèåôåῖí . It can be neither: one decrees to you (Meyer); nor: you lay ordinances upon yourselves (Bleek); they did not do this, nor does it correspond with the situation, while the former does not correspond with the intention of the intensive question, as if it concerned only a sketch of the fact, and not a rousing of the readers against it.
These ordinances are now noted concretely as to their purport: Col_2:21. Touch not, taste not, handle not, ìὴἄøῃ , ìçäὲãåýáῃ , ìÞäὲèßãῃò .—The triple reference forming a climax, marks the urgency of the demand for abstinence (Meyer). The reference to Col_2:16 allows the omission of the objects, meat and drink, which are required by the second verb ãåýóῃ . It is incorrect to apply “touch not” to sexual pleasure (Flatt); this cannot be justified by 1Co_7:1; 1Ti_4:3, against the context, viz., the former part of Col_2:22. The suppression of the object is not to be accounted for by the fear and dissimulation of the false teachers, who did not name it themselves (Steiger), nor thus: that Paul had not thought on any definite object. The objects he sets forth in paraphrase:
Col_2:22. Which all are for destruction in the consumption, ἄἐóôéíðÜ íôáåἰòöèïñὰíôῇἀðï ÷ñÞóåé —This relative clause sketches the forbidden objects, all of them ( ἅ — ðÜíôá ); ἐóôéí , placed first for emphasis, denotes that their nature is,—“appointed to destruction, perishable” ( ἐéòöèïñÜí ), by being used up ( ôῇἀðï÷ñÞóåé ). This verdict reminds us of Mat_15:17; Mar_7:18-19; 1Co_6:13. Hence these words must be considered the Apostle’s judgment to show, and that not without irony, the perversity of the notion, that through eating and drinking moral detriment originated (Chrysostom: åἰò êüðñïí ãὰñ ἄðáíôá ìåôáâÜëëåôáé ). They cannot be regarded as the words of the false teachers (Vatable, Schenkel), who will not suffer them to be touched, nor as parenthesis (Meyer). Nor is ä to be referred to äüãìáôá , implied in óïãìáôßæåóèå above (Augustine [Barnes] and others), nor is åἰò öèïñÜí to be explained as moral corruption (De Wette), since it merely describes destruction, decomposition, here of sensuous things. Although ἀðï÷ñῇóåé must not be taken as the simple noun, it must however be distinguished from ðáñÜ÷ñçóéò and êáôÜ÷ñçóéò , “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, êáôὰ ôὰ ἐíôÜëìáôá êáὶ äéäáóêáëßáò ôῶí ἀíèñþðùí , sets forth a modality of äïãìáôßæåóèå , marking it as in contrast with God’s law and word in Christ, indeed with the law of Moses, beyond which they have gone. “Doctrines” is added in justification of “commandments;” the latter are more restricted, the former more extended; the latter are results, the former set forth the premises and consequences. Mat_15:7; Mar_7:7. [Ellicott: they were submitting to a äïãìáôéóìüò not only in its preceptive, but even in its doctrinal aspects.—R.]
Col_2:23. Which things have indeed a repute of wisdom.—“Which things” refers to “commandments and doctrines of men,” and denotes, not single commandments, etc., but the whole category of human ordinances. Ἐáôὶí ëüãïí ìὲí ἔ÷ïíôá óïößáò is a concession ( ìÝò ), to which the antithesis ( äÝ ) is wanting; still to the very significant ëüãïò we have the correlate ôéìῇ , to ëüãïí ἔ÷ïíôá corresponds ἐí ôéìῇ ôéíé , and on this account to ìÝí the following ïὐê corresponds. Hence ëüãïò here must mean “report,” as Luk_5:15; Joh_21:23; Act_11:22. So Herodot. 5, 66 (Grimm, Clavis, sub voce p. 260). Chrysostom: ëüãïí öçóὶí , ïὐ äýíáìéí , ἄñáïὐê ἀëÞèåéáí . 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 äÝ is an anacoluthon, but not strange, since the clause is unmistakable (Winer’s Gram. p. 535). ̔ Åóôὶíἔ÷ïíôá is used instead of ἔ÷ïõóéí , 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 ἐóôßí with ðñὸò ðëçóìïíÞí , and resolves ἔ÷ïíôá into: cum habeant, ut sit incisum; so Schenkel also.
In will-worship, and humility, and unsparingness of the body, ἐí ἐèåëïèñçóêåßᾳ êáὶ ôáðåéíïöñïóýíῃ êáὶ ἀöåéäßᾳ ôïῦ óþìáôïò .—“In,” standing only at the beginning, denotes that all three belong together. Compounds with ἐèåëï are frequent (see Passow’s Lexicon) and describe, according to the word, something done freely, voluntarily, on one’s own responsibility, arbitrarily, factitiously, affectedly; ἐèåëïèñçóêåßá is self-imposed, arbitrary worship (Col_2:18). The object is not added, because self-evident: God. The false teachers in question would worship Him through the mediation of the adoration of angels. Compare ἐèåëïðåñéóóïèñçóêåßá , by which Epiphanius (haer. 1, 16) describes the piety of the Pharisees. Ôáðåéíïöñïóýíç , as in Col_2:18, denotes the humility which appeared with ostentation, hence only apparent, external. Ἀöåéäßá óþìáôïò 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, ïὐê ἐí ôéìῇ ôéíé . Here belongs Ýóôßí , which follows ἄôéíá , 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 ( ïὐê ) of will-worship, humility and unsparingness of the body.—To this negative Paul adds a positive statement: [only] to the satisfying of the flesh, ðñὸò ðëçóìïὴí ôῆò óáñêüò .—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 ( ðñüò ) to a satisfying (in contrast with “unsparingness”) of the fleshly nature ( ôῆò óáñêüò opposed to óþìáôïò ). It is incorrect to render: “not giving to the flesh the honor due to its necessities” (Luther and others). ÐëçóìïíÞ implies blame (Bengel: fere excessum denotat) and cannot= ðñüíïéá (Rom_13:14). The distinction between ôïῦ óþìáôïò and ôῆò óáñêüò , and the omission of ôïῦ óþìáôïò after ἑí ôéìῇ ôéíé 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 ìÝí ; 3) preserving the distinction between óå ͂ ìá and óÜñî ; 4) bringing out the bad sense of ðëçóìïíÞí 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.]
2. The distinction and the connexion of the Old and New Testament economy are here described. The former is “the shadow of things to come” (Col_2:17) and “the rudiments of the world” (Col_2:20), which are given in heathenism as well as Judaism; contrasted with the former, the New Testament economy is “the body,” with the latter it is “perfection” ( ôåëåßùóéò ). Christianity is called “the power of God and wisdom of God” (1Co_1:24), at once to distinguish it from Judaism and to describe it as pre-announced, pre-intimated, prepared for in the same. The law is done away, not because it is in itself of no value, but because man is unable to fulfil it, obtains only in Christ, what he cannot attain without Him through the law. See Schmid, Bibl. Theol. II. 233–235; 322–325. Catholic and Reformed confessions fail in this respect; they regard the gospel as a nova lex, and permit the distinction between the Old Testament and New Testament to fall into the background: the former is Pharisaical, the latter spiritualistic. [The position of the law in the Reformed confession does not seem to me to warrant this remark. See the Heidelberg Catechism, Ques. 2, 91, 92. Belgic conf., xxiv. xxv. Perhaps others are more open to this, charge. See also Form of Concord, VI.—R. ]
[3. The observance of the Lord’s Day cannot be affected by the warning of Paul (Col_2:16). It is certain that the persons who were judging them, were pressing the duty of observing the Jewish Sabbath, not the Christian Lord’s Day. It is equally certain that the observance of a weekly day of rest is written in God’s physical and social laws for man, as plainly as in the Decalogue. Nor can we escape the conclusion that the fourth Commandment is but a reminder of a previous institution, so that even those who might contend that the whole Mosaic law is abrogated, as a guide to Christian life, do not escape this enactment. But since the Christian would live gratefully, he still finds the rule in God’s “holy, just and good” moral law, and sees in his very frame as well as in the frame-work of society, an additional reason for appropriating to “rest in God’s service,” one day in seven, rejoicing therein, since it now marks the great fact of his Lord’s resurrection, and since his Master has Himself explained how it should be observed.—R.]
4. The importance of the doctrine respecting angels (Philippi: Kirchl. Glaubenslehre I. p. 279 sq.), without which the doctrine respecting Satan remains incomprehensible, is as great as the danger from the rationalistic denial of angels, springing from a Sadduceean view of the world, and the Romish adoration of angels, growing out of Essenic and dualistic heresy. The latter soon appeared in the Church. In Laodicea (at the council held between 343 and 381), it was forbidden in the 35th Canon. Ambrose first encouraged it (observandi sunt angeli). Augustine warns against it: imitandos eos potius, quam invocandos, and refers to the distinction between cultus religiosus and non religiosus. This, the second council of Nicæa (787) turned in favor of the adoration of angels, and the distinction established between ëáôñåßá , invocation, and ôéìçôéêὴ ðñïóêýíçóéò , äïõëåßá , pious veneration, must now serve as a support for the heathenish adoration of angels and worship of the saints (Conc. trid. sess. 25. Cat. Rom_3:2; Rom_8:10). Our symbols maintain: angelos a nobis non esse invocandos, adorandos (Articles of Schmalkald ii. 2). [See Reformed Confessions and catechisms generally.—R.]
5. Christ the Head of the Church, is for her the foundation of all religious and moral life: she needs no other mediator with God.—
6. The Church is a living organism, not an establishment or institution, It is a unity of many members; it rests upon an act and work of God in Christ, is from God and to God, has as its end education for perfection and glory hereafter; and possesses, in the word and sacraments and the proper administration of the same, suitable means for the attainment of this end. As to its inmost being, it is a vital relation of the congregation [Gemeinde] to the ever present, spiritual-physically present Lord (Harless. Ethik. 6. Aufl. p. 564). [By “Ceistleiblich”—which is untranslatable, Braune means the presence of Christ in the eucharist according to the Lutheran view. Vital union with Christ the Head is not less insisted upon by those who hold the really Calvinistic view.—R.] It is an organization (but not the source), for the facilitating and furthering of Christliness [Christlichkeit,], and the sense of this fellowship founded and maintained by Christ with the corresponding conduct is Churchliness [Kirchlichkeit], which is indissolubly connected with Christliness. As Church and Churchdom [Kirche und Kirchenthum] are so distinguished, that the former, as a Divine act, legally and rightly, takes form in the latter, so there is a two-fold Churchliness; one holding fast to the revelation of grace and ordinance of salvation in Christ, the other adhering to the legal forms of a special Churchdom, which has been and is being humanly and historically developed. The former has its source in the invisible Church, the fellowship of the Spirit, the latter in the visible church, which is the fellowship of law, and hence only human, secondary, accessory; it is not the realization of the idea of the Church, but merely a help and external support (Stahl: Rechts-und Staats lehre, p. 164). All ecclesiastical canons non imprimunt credenda, sed exprimunt credita. But in thus distinguishing, rightly, the ordinances of salvation and of the Church, Christliness and Churchliness, and the latter again in this two-fold manner, care must be taken not to undervalue the latter, as well as not to overvalue it.
7. The principle of Christian liberty especially and of Christian life in general is, that one neither makes nor permits to be made an arbitrary law, and so exercises his Christianity upon all that is creat