Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 2:22 - 2:22
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Col_2:22. We are not to put in a parenthesis μὴ ἅψῃ … ἀποχρήσει (Erasmus Schmid, Heinrichs, and others), but merely ἅ ἐστιν … ἀποχρ . (Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, Ewald); for the construction proceeds uninterruptedly to θίγῃς , is then only broken by the judgment ἅ ἐστι π . εἰς φθ . τ . ἀποχρ ., and thereafter runs on with κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλμ . κ . τ . λ .
ἅ ἐστι … ἀποχρ . is an inserted[131] judgment of the apostle anent that which the false teachers interdicted by μὴ ἅψῃ κ . τ . λ .: which all are destined to destruction[132] through the using,—from which it is to be rendered palpably apparent, how preposterous it is to make such things a condition of eternal bliss by urging abstinence from them. We have here a similar line of argument to that in Mat_15:17. Comp. 1Co_6:13. Hence φθορά is meant to denote the perishing which takes place through the natural dissolution (digestion) of the meats and drinks; and with this conception quite accords the purposely-chosen compound τῇ ἀποχρήσει , which, like abusus, indicates the using up, the consuming (Plut. Mor. p. 267 E; Davis, ad Cic. N. D. iv. 60). So it is unanimously explained by Chrysostom, Theodoret ( εἰς κόπρον γὰρ ἅπαντα μεταβάλλεται ), Oecumenius ( φθορᾷ γὰρ , φησιν , ὑπόκειται ἐν τῷ ἀφεδρῶνι ), Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Wolf, Grotius, Michaelis, and many others, including Bähr, Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald, Bleek, Hofmann. But, according to others, who likewise regard ἅ … ἀποχρ . as a parenthetical judgment, the ἅ is to be referred to the prohibitions, ἀποχρ . to the use, i.e. the following of them, and φθορά (comp. Gal_6:8) to the destruction of the persons who follow them: all which δόγματα by their use tend to (eternal) destruction. So Ambrosiaster, Augustine, Cornelius a Lapide, Calixtus, Heumann, Junker. Erroneously; because ἀπόχρησις never means merely use, and even the simple χρῆσις , in the sense of τήρησις , would be an unsuitable designation; in fact, the entire addition, “by the use,” would be utterly superfluous. On account of ἀποχρ ., the expedient must also be rejected, on linguistic grounds, that ἅ … ἀποχρ . are still words of the false teachers, which Paul repeats with irony: “omnia haec (vetita) usu suo perniciem afferunt,” Heinrichs, comp. Schenkel. By others, who, like Tischendorf, have deleted the marks of parenthesis, the whole down to ἀνθρώπων is taken together: all this, which the false teachers forbid, tends through the using to (“moral,” de Wette) destruction, “si sc. ex doctorum Judaicorum praeceptis et doctrinis hac de re judicium feratur,”[133] Kypke; so also Vatablus, Storr, Flatt, Böhmer, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius (Huther is undecided between this explanation and ours). But in opposition to this it may be urged, that the compound ἀποχρήσει would be entirely without a motive, since not the consumption, but the use at all would be soul-destroying according to the maxims of those people. Our view alone supplies a motive for the use of ἀποχρήσει , and that through the point of its connection with εἰς φθοράν , in which case, however, the object affected by ἈΠΟΧΡ . and ΕἸς ΦΘΟΡ . must be the same (the things forbidden). De Wette’s objections are irrelevant, since the thought of the parenthesis ἅ … ἀποχρ . is expressed not strangely, but with Pauline ingenuity, the words ΚΑΤᾺ ΤᾺ ἘΝΤΆΛΜ . Κ . Τ . Λ . annexed to ΔΟΓΜΑΤΊΖΕΣΘΕ are by no means superfluous (see below), nor does this annexation require us to begin the parenthesis with ΜῊ ἍΨῌ and thereby to include heterogeneous elements together; for ΜῊ ἍΨῌ Κ . Τ . Λ . still belongs closely to ΔΟΓΜΑΤ ., of which it is the contents, and ΚΑΤᾺ ΤᾺ ἘΝΤΆΛΜ . Κ . Τ . Λ . is then annexed, after the brief incidentally inserted remark, to ΔΟΓΜΑΤ . and its contents ( μὴ ἅψῃ κ . τ . λ .).
ΚΑΤᾺ ΤᾺ ἘΝΤΆΛΜΑΤΑ Κ . Τ . Λ .] The article before ἘΝΤΆΛΜ ., and extending also to ΔΙΔΑΣΚΑΛ ., is generic. The μὴ ἅψῃ κ . τ . λ . was decreed by the false teachers conformably to the commandments and doctrines of men, not in consequence of what God had commanded and taught. This element, annexed to δογματίζ ., is by no means superfluous (in opposition to de Wette), since, in fact, ΔΌΓΜΑ in itself is a command generally, and may be one based upon divine authority; it rather serves to bring out with perfect clearness the conflicting relation, in which that δογματίζεσθαι stands to the ἈΠΕΘΆΝΕΤΕ ΣῪΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ Κ . Τ . Λ . For what the false teachers decreed was not the prohibitions of meats contained in the law of Moses as such, and these alone (although they too would have been incompatible with the ἈΠΕΘΆΝΕΤΕ ΣῪΝ Χ . Κ . Τ . Λ .), but such as consisted in the human (Essene) definitions, expansions, and amplifications of the former ( ΚΑΤᾺ ΤῊΝ ΠΑΡΆΔΟΣΙΝ ΤῶΝ ἈΝΘΡΏΠΩΝ , Col_2:8). It was in this, and not in the mere setting up again of the Mosaic law abolished through Christ (Chrysostom and many others), that the ΔΟΓΜΑΤΊΖΕΣΘΑΙ was regulated by human standard, without the divine authority and warrant. Moreover, διδασκ . is not synonymous with ἐντάλμ ., but has a wider sense (in Mat_15:9 and Mar_6:7, the narrower idea comes after as a more precise definition), so that the two together specify the preceptive and generally ( καί ) the doctrinal standard. Comp. Isa_29:13.
[131] For it is only an incidental observation in opposition to the above δογματίζεσθαι ; the main ground of opposition to the latter lies in εἰ ἀπεθάν . σὺν Χ .
[132] ἐστὶν εἰς φθοράν , it serves for destruction, i.e. it serves for the purpose of being destroyed. See generally Winer, p. 173 [E. T. 229]; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 131 [E. T. 150 f.]. Comp. Wis_4:18; Sir_34:10; Jdt_5:21; Jdt_5:24; Jdt_8:22.
[133] Similarly Dalmer, who, however, takes τῇ ἀποχρ . in the sense of abuse, joining it immediately to κατὰ τὰς διδασκ . κ . τ . λ . But while ἀποχρῆσθαι (Dem. 215. 8; Herodian, v. 1. 13) is found in the sense of abuse ( καταχρῆσις , παραχρῆσις ), ἀποχρῆσις is not, though it was so taken by Erasmus Schmid, Schoettgen, Zachariae, as also by Grimm in his Lexicon.