Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 2:23 - 2:23
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Col_2:23. And of what nature and quality is that, which I have just termed τὰ ἐντάλματα κ . διδασκαλ . τῶν ἀνθρ .?
ἅτινα ] quippe quae, i.e. ita comparata, ut (Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 30). The conception was different in ἅ of Col_2:22, where the thing in question was regarded purely objectively, as mere object.
ἐστί ] belongs to ἔχοντα , without, however, being with this equivalent to ἔχει ; it introduces what the ἅτινα are as regards their quality. If it belonged to οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι (Bähr), or to πρὸς πλησμ . τ . σ . (Bengel), or to ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ κ . τ . λ . (that which moves and has its being in ἐθελορ . κ . τ . λ .), as Hofmann thinks, taking λόγον μ . ἔχοντα σοφ . parenthetically—why should it not have been actually placed beside that to which it would belong? Apart from this, Hofmann’s connection of it with ἐν ἐθελοθρ . could alone deserve consideration, since from ἐν ἐθελοθρ . onwards all that follows is consecutive. But even this connection must be abandoned, because the sphere of subsistence indicated by ἐν ἐθελοθρ . κ . τ . λ . would be too wide for such special prohibitions, Col_2:21, as are conveyed by ἅτινα , and because we have no right to put aside from the connection, as a mere incisum, the important thought (comp. Col_2:8) expressed by λόγ . τ . ἔχ . σοφίας , which comes in with ἐστί so emphatically at the very head of the judgment, and appropriately, as regards meaning, attaches to itself all that follows.
λόγον ἔχειν , explained by many since Jerome approximately in the sense of speciem or praetextum habere (see Kypke, de Wette, Dalmer, and others; also Köster in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 318), may, according as we adopt for λόγος the signification ratio or sermo, mean either: to have ground (so in the passages from Demosth., Dionys. Hal., and Lesbonax in Kypke; from Plat, in Ast, Lex. II. p. 257; from Polyb. in Schweighäuser, Lex. p. 370[134]), in which case the ground may certainly be only an apparent one, a pretext (comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 36); further, to have an insight into something (often thus in Plato, e.g. Rep. p. 475 C), to have regard to (Herod. i. 62; Plat. Tim. p. 87 C); or: to have a reputation, so that one is in any relation the subject of discourse, of legend, of mention, of rumour, etc.; see e.g. Plat. Epin. p. 987 B: Ἑωσφόρος … Ἀφροδίτης εἶναι σχεδὸν ἔχει λόγον (dicitur), Herod. v. 56: λόγον ἔχει τὴν Πυθίην ἀναπεῖσαι , comp. 9:78; Xen. Oec. 11. 4 (the same thing conceived under another form: λόγος ἔχει τινα , Herod. vii. 5, and frequently). The latter signification is here to be adhered to, because the subsequent ΟὐΚ ἘΝ ΤΙΜῇ ΤΙΝΙ , when correctly rendered, accords with it as bearing on the matter in hand, and is in sense appropriately correlative. Hence: that which has a repute of wisdom, popularly passes for wisdom. Comp. ὄνομα ἔχειν (Rev_3:1) and ὈΝΟΜΆΖΕΣΘΑΙ (1Co_5:11).
ΜΈΝ ] without a subsequent ΔΈ ; there was before the apostle’s mind the contrast: repute, truly, but not the reality, οὐ δύναμιν , οὐκ ἀλήθειαν , Chrysostom. He omitted to express this, however, led aside by the progress of his discourse, so that instead of bringing in the antithesis of ΛΌΓΟΝ by ΔΈ , he makes ΟὐΚ ἘΝ ΤΙΜῇ ΤΙΝΙ follow without ΔΈ , and in contrast not to the ΛΌΓΟΝ , but to the ἘΝ ἘΘΕΛΟΘΡ . Κ . Τ . Λ .,—from which we are to gather in substance, what in starting with ΛΌΓΟΝ ΜΈΝ it was intended to express. See Erasmus, Annot., and generally Winer, p. 534 f. [E. T. 719]; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 313 [E. T. 365]; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 656; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 153; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 163 f. The linguistic phenomenon of this μέν without an adversative word following is so common, that there is no ground for requiring before ΟὐΚ ἘΝ ΤΙΜῇ Τ . an ἈΛΛΆ (Hofmann), which might have been used (Baeumlein, p. 170), but not necessarily. Holtzmann also takes too much offence at the absence of a formal contrast, and finds in πρὸς πλησμ . τ . σαρκός an ill-inserted remnant of the original.
ἘΝ ἘΘΕΛΟΘΡΗΣΚΕΊᾼ ] instrumental, specifying by what means it is brought about, on the part of those who lay down the commandments and doctrines referred to, that the latter have a repute of wisdom: through self-chosen worship, i.e. through a cultus, which is not divinely commanded, but is the work of their own self-determination. What was meant by this, the reader was aware; and Col_2:18 places it beyond doubt that the worship of angels formed an essential and chief part of it, though it need not, from the general character of the expression in our passage, have been meant exclusively; other forms of capricious cultus may have been included with it. The substantive ἐθελοθρ . does not occur elsewhere except in ecclesiastical writers; but the verb ἐθελοθρησκεῖν is explained by Suidas: ἸΔΊῼ ΘΕΛΉΜΑΤΙ ΣΈΒΕΙΝ ΤῸ ΔΟΚΟῦΝ , and Epiph. Haer. i. 16 explains the name Pharisees: διὰ τὸ ἀφωρισμένους εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων διὰ τὴν ἐθελοπερισσοθρησκείαν παρʼ αὐτοῖς νενομισμένην . Comp. ἘΘΕΛΟΔΟΥΛΕΊΑ (Plat. Symp. p. 184 C, Rep. p. 562 D), ἐθελοκάκησις , ἐθελοκίνδυνος , ἐθελόπορος , ἐθελοπρόξενος (Thuc. iii. 70. 2, where the scholiast explains: ἈΦʼ ἙΑΥΤΟῦ ΓΕΝΌΜΕΝΟς ΚΑῚ ΜῊ ΚΕΛΕΥΣΘΕῚς Κ . Τ . Λ .), and various others. Hofmann erroneously takes away from the word in itself the bad sense, and explains (after the analogy of ἘΘΕΛΟΠΟΝΊΑ and ἘΘΕΛΟΥΡΓΊΑ ): worship, which one interests himself in. This view is prohibited by the evident retrospective reference of this word and the following one to Col_2:18, where, according to the right interpretation, the θρησκεία was certainly something bad. The unfavourable meaning, according to Hofmann’s present explanation (he gave a different but also erroneous view in his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 72; see, in opposition to it, my third edition), is only got by the addition of σώματος , which belongs to all the three points, so that ἐθελοθρησκεία σώματος must be understood as a worship gladly and earnestly rendered, but which is rendered only with bodily demeanour. But σώματος does not suit either with ἘΘΕΛΟΘΡ . or ΤΑΠΕΙΝΟΦΡ .,[135] but only with ἀφειδίᾳ . For it is plain from ἈΦΕΙΔΊᾼ ΣΏΜΑΤΟς that ΣΏΜΑΤΟς is the genitive of the object, from which it follows that θρησκεία σώματος would yield the opposite sense: a ΘΡΗΣΚΕΊΑ rendered to the body (comp. θρησκ . τῶν ἀγγέλων in Col_2:18), which would come ultimately to the idea of the ΛΑΤΡΕΎΕΙΝ Τῇ ἩΔΟΝῇ (Lucian, Nigr. 15), comp. Plut. Mor. p. 107 C: λατρεία τοῦ σώματος , and on the matter conceived as ΘΡΗΣΚΕΊΑ , Php_3:19.
ΤΑΠΕΙΝΟΦΡΟΣ .] from the point of view of the false teachers (comp. Col_2:18), what they thus designated; although in fact it consisted in this, that, as in all false humility, they with spiritual conceit (comp. Col_2:18, and subsequently πρὸς πλησμον . τ . σαρκός ) took pleasure in unduly undervaluing themselves—an ethical self-contempt, which involved in relation to God the ἘΘΕΛΟΘΡΗΣΚΕΊΑ , and towards the body an unsparingness through mistaken abstinence and mortifying asceticism, inconsistent with Christian liberty. On ἀφειδίᾳ , comp. Plat. Defin. p. 412 D; Plut. Mor. p. 762 D; further, ἀφειδεῖν βίου , Thuc. ii. 43. 3; ΨΥΧῆς , Soph. El. 968; σωμάτων , Lys. ii. 25, Diod. Sic. xiii. 60.
ΟὐΚ ἘΝ ΤΙΜῇ ΤΙΝΙ ] not through anything whatever that is an honour, not through anything honourable, by which that repute would appear founded in truth and just. The expression is purposely chosen, in order to make the λόγος σοφίας appear as repute without honour, i.e. without any morally estimable substratum on the part of the persons concerned. The following πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός is also purposely chosen; in it ΠΛΗΣΜΟΝ . significantly glances back to ἈΦΕΙΔΊᾼ , and Τῆς ΣΑΡΚΌς to ΣΏΜΑΤΟς , and there is produced a thoughtful contrast, a striking ethical oxymoron: for the sake of fully satisfying the flesh. Those commandments and doctrines have a repute of wisdom, etc., in order to afford thereby full satisfaction to the material-psychical human nature. Thus, while the repute of wisdom is procured among other things by mortifying the body, the flesh is satisfied; the fleshly sinful lust of these men gets fully satisfying nourishment conveyed to it, when they see that their doctrines and commandments pass for wise. What lust of the flesh it is which Paul has in view, is placed beyond doubt by the case itself and also by Col_2:18, namely, that of religious conceit and pride, which through the λόγον σοφίας ἔχειν feels itself flattered and gratified in the fancy of peculiar perfection. This interpretation, which we have given of ΟὐΚ ἘΝ ΤΙΜῇ ΤΙΝΙ , ΠΡῸς ΠΛΗΣΜΟΝῊΝ Τῆς ΣΑΡΚΌς , is held in substance, following Hilary (“sagina carnalis sensus traditio humana est”), by Bengel, Storr, Flatt, Böhmer, Steiger, Bähr, Huther, Dalmer, Bleek, and others. Most, however, refer ἘΝ ΤΙΜῇ ΤΙΝΙ to the honour to be shown to the body (or the σάρξ , see Luther), and ΠΡῸς ΠΛΗΣΜ . Τ . ΣΑΡΚ . to bodily satisfaction, so that the sense results: not in some esteeming of the body to the satisfying of bodily wants;[136] “sentit apost., sapientiam illam aut praecepta talia esse, per quae corpori debitus honor, pertinens ad expletionem, i.e. justam refectionem carnis, subtrahatur,” Estius. So, in substance, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Oceumenius, Theophylact, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Musculus, Clarius, Zeger, Erasmus Schmid, Zanchius, Vatablus, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, Michaelis, Nösselt, Rosenmüller, and others, including de Wette and Baumgarten-Crusius. It is fatal to this view:—(1) that ἐν τιμῇ τινι , as is shown by the repetition of ἘΝ , is the contrast not merely to ἘΝ ἈΦΕΙΔΊᾼ ΣΏΜΑΤΟς , but to the entire connected ἘΝ ἘΘΕΛΟΘΡΗΣΚΕΊᾼ … ΣΏΜΑΤΟς , and hence the reference to the honour to be shown to the body does not seem justified by the context;[137] (2) further, that for the designation of the mere satisfaction at this particular place, where Paul could only have had a πρόνοιαν τῆς σαρκός in view, as in Rom_13:14, the term ΠΛΗΣΜΟΝΉΝ would be very inappropriate, especially in contradistinction to the mortifications of the false teachers, since it denotes filling up, satisfying fully, even in Exo_16:3 (see generally the passages from the LXX. and Apocrypha quoted by Schleusner, Thes. IV. p. 375 f.); comp. Plat. Legg. viii. p. 837: Xen. Mem. iii. 11. 14, rep. Lac. 2. 5, Cyrop. iv. 2. 40, Ages. 5. 1; Lucian. Nigr. 33, Ep. Saturn. 28; Polyb. ii. 19. 4; (3) finally, that the interchange of σώματος and ΣΑΡΚΌς , in the event of the latter not being meant in an ethical character, would seem to be without a motive, while, according to our view, ΣΑΡΚΌς stands in as ingenious correlation with ΣΏΜΑΤΟς , as ΠΛΗΣΜΟΝΉΝ with ἈΦΕΙΔΊᾼ . These arguments apply also in opposition to Ewald’s view; “what seems very wise, but is in no value whatever, is rather quite useless for the satisfaction of the flesh, which yet also demands its rights, if man would not wantonly disorganize his earthly life or even destroy it” (2Co_10:3). Hofmann finally takes πλησμονὴ τ . σαρκός rightly, but explains ΟὐΚ ἘΝ ΤΙΜῇ ΤΙΝΙ in such a way as to make ΤΙΝΙ masculine, and to attach it as appropriating dative to τιμῇ : “not so that honour accrues to any one.” This is to be rejected, because Paul, instead of simply and clearly writing τιμῇ τινος , would only have expressed himself in a way singularly liable to be misunderstood by ΤΙΝΊ , which every reader was led to join as a feminine with ΤΙΜῇ (“in honore aliquo,” Vulgate). Nor is it to be easily seen what subjects, beyond the teacher of the false wisdom himself, we should have to conceive to ourselves under τινί taken as masculine.
[134] So Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschr. 1870, p. 250, holding that what is rejected in the legal sense in ver. 22 is here “permitted as voluntary asceticism.” See, however, on the sequel, from which the impossibility of this interpretation is self-evident.
[135] According to Hofmann, namely, ταπεινοφροσύνη σώματος is a disposition of self-humiliation, which, however, only weakens the body by abstinences. But it would rather have the absurd sense: humility of the body; for τατεινοφροσύνη neither means humiliation nor self-humiliation, but humility, meekness, ver. 18, Col_3:12; Php_2:3.
[136] “God will have the body honoured, i.e. it is to have its food, clothing, etc., for its necessities, and not to be destroyed with intolerable fasting, labour, or impossible chastity, as the doctrine of men would do,” Luther’s gloss.
[137] This applies also in opposition to Olshausen, who in the case of ἐν τιμῇ τινε follows the explanation of respect for the body, but with regard to πρὸς πλησμ . τ . σαρκ . follows our view.