Κωλυόντων
γαμεῖν
] Since even the Essenes and Therapeutae made abstinence from marriage a necessary condition of a holy life, there is no ground whatever for supposing that this description proves the heretics to have been followers of the later Christian gnostics (especially of Marcion, according to Baur).
ἀπέχεσθαι
βρωμάτων
] similar construction in 1Ti_2:12; 1Co_14:34; the infinitive is dependent on the
κελευόντων
implied in
κωλυόντων
(=
κελευόντων
μή
); see Winer, p. 578 [E. T. p. 777]; Buttmann, p. 343. Isidor of Pelusium unnecessarily corrects
ἀπέχεσθαι
into
ἀντέχεσθαι
. In the Epistle to the Romans (chap. 14) the apostle speaks of weak brethren’s anxiety in regard to the enjoyment of many meats, and the heretics combated in the Epistle to the Colossians are distinctly described as forbidding the enjoyment of certain meats; but neither here nor in these passages is it said what kinds of meat were forbidden, nor why (comp. also Tit_1:14-15). It is, however, not improbable—if we follow the analogy of later gnostics—that animal food, and perhaps also wine (Col_2:6 :
ἐν
βρώσει
ἢ
ἐν
πόσει
), are specially meant. There is no indication that the prohibition was founded on gnostic dualism (van Oosterzee); it is more probable that the false asceticism of the heretics was connected with the Mosaic distinction between clean and unclean (comp. Tit_1:15); so also Wiesinger.[155]
In the Epistle to the Colossians (Col_2:22) the apostle indicates the perversity of such a prohibition in a brief relative clause; and so also here.
ἃ
ὁ
Θεὸς
ἔκτισεν
εἰς
μετάληψιν
κ
.
τ
.
λ
.] Different answers have been given to the question why only the second, and not also the first error is refuted. It may have been that the heretics did not make abstinence from marriage, as they made abstinence from certain meats, a command laid on all. It may have been, too, “that the prohibition to marry stood in manifest contradiction with the divine order of creation, whereas the prohibition of certain meats might appear less objectionable because of its analogy with the prohibition in the law of Moses” (Hofmann). Besides, the apostle has already indicated in 1Ti_2:15 the opposition of the gospel to this prohibition to marry.
The word
μετάληψις
occurs only here, though in Act_27:33 we find
μεταλαβεῖν
τροφῆς
.
The apostle does not content himself with saying that God made food to be enjoyed, but he shows at the same time how God meant it to be enjoyed, viz.:
μετὰ
εὐχαριστίας
(comp. on this 1Co_10:31). He then limits the general thought by a special reference to believers:
τοῖς
πιστοῖς
καὶ
ἐπεγνωκόσι
τὴν
ἀλήθειαν
, as those in whom the purpose of creation is fulfilled, solis filiis suis Deus totum mundum et quicquid in mundo est destinavit, qua ratione etiam vocantur mundi heredes (Calvin). The apostle’s thought is distorted by adding “also” before
τοῖς
πιστοῖς
, as is done by some expositors.
Heydenreich rightly says that the words are equivalent to
ἵνα
οἱ
πιστοὶ
καὶ
οἱ
ἐπεγνωκότες
τὴν
ἀληθ
.
μεταλαβῶσιν
αὐτῶν
μετὰ
εὐχαριστίας
. Hofmann unjustifiably takes exception to this, and—in spite of
ὅτι
beginning a new sentence—seeks to connect
τοῖς
πιστοῖς
not with what goes before, but with what follows (!). The added words:
τοῖς
πιστοῖς
κ
.
τ
.
λ
., show most clearly the perverse conduct of the heretics in forbidding the enjoyment, and to believers of all people.
Πιστοί
are “believers,” and not “those convinced that enjoyment is permitted to them;”
ἐπεγν
.
τ
.
ἀλήθ
. also does not denote a special class of the
πιστῶν
: “the Christians who have come to the true gnosis” (as Heydenreich thinks probable), but the
πιστοί
themselves, as those who, in contrast to the heretics, have recognised the truth, i.e. the divine truth.
Καί
is epexegetical; comp. 1Ti_2:4.
[155] Hofmann, with no good reason, declares, on the other hand, that attention is directed here to the Essenes and Therapeutae, and to the weak Christians mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans, as well as to the heretics at Colosse.