Colossians 2:23

[καὶ] ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος. καὶ is omitted by B Origint. Hil. Ambrst. Ambr.

Augustine gives a very remarkable exposition of this chapter in his Epistle to Paulinus (Ep. 149), §§ 23–30 (Migne, II. 639 sqq.).

23. ἅτινα, “which in fact.”

Referring primarily not to τὰ ἐντάλματα κ.τ.λ. but to the precepts included under δογματίζεσθε (of which Colossians 2:21 is an illustration). Observe the strict difference between ἅ (Colossians 2:22) in its direct and exclusive reference to Colossians 2:21, and ἅτινα including the whole class of such rules, and characterising them; cf. Colossians 3:5; Colossians 4:11. On ὅστις see Moulton, Gram. Proleg. 1906, pp. 91 sq.

ἐστιν … ἔχοντα. The periphrastic present, stronger than ἔχει, as marking “the prevailing character”; cf. 2 Corinthians 9:12; Galatians 4:24. Cf. Blass, Gram. § 62. 2; Moulton, op. cit. p. 226. See further on ἐν τιμῇ τινι.

λόγον. For the phrase λόγον ἔχειν. cf. Hdt. 5. 66, Κλεισθένης … λόγον ἔχει τὴν Πυθίαν�, “Cleisthenes has the credit of having bribed the Pythia.”

μὲν qualifies λόγον, suggesting that the reputation is in some way mistaken, but St Paul does not here add the usual δέ, which in this case would directly indicate the imperfection. For a similar suppression cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:18, where see Lightfoot’s note. Chrysostom says λόγον, οὐ δύναμιν, οὐκ�.

σοφίας, Colossians 1:9, note. Observe that the common Talmudic name for the Jewish teachers is Ḥǎkâmim, “the wise.” Compare even Jerome (Ep. ad Algosiam, § 10, Migne, XXII. 1034), “Doctores eorum σοφοί, hoc est sapientes vocantur. Et si quando certis diebus traditiones suas exponunt discipalis suis, solent dicere: οἱ σοφοὶ δευτερεύουσιν, h. e. sapientes docent traditiones.”

ἐν, not instrumental, but marking the sphere in which their reputation for wisdom was acquired.

ἐθελοθρησκίᾳ, “in self-chosen religious service.” Here only in the Greek Bible. On θρησκεία see Colossians 2:18.

The prefix ἐθελο- is found with more than a dozen roots, always laying stress on the voluntary character of the action suggested, and sometimes adding the notion of contempt, e.g. ἐθελοδουλεία, willing slavery; ἐθελοκάκησις, wilful neglect of duty; ἐθελοσοφία, would-be-wisdom; ἐθελοπρόξενος, one who voluntarily charges himself with the office of a πρόξενος. Here the suggestion is that the θρησκεία is gratuitous. The religious ceremonies so gladly and willingly undertaken are, after all, not asked for by the object of them.

καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ, Colossians 2:18 note.

[καὶ]. See notes on Textual Criticism. If omitted, ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος is a further definition of the two preceding substantives. They included it as inseparable from them. If inserted ἀφ. σώμ. is merely a further matter in which their reputation was acquired. In any case ἀφ. σώμ. is a very important addition as a transition to the crushing indictment of the last clause.

ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος, “and severity to the body.” R.V. Cf. Arist. Pol. 5 (8). 11. 31, ἀφειδῶς ἔχειν ἑαυτῶν, “to be unsparing of themselves.” For the thought compare Enoch § 108, 7–9 where mention is made of “those who afflict their bodies, and are (for that) recompensed by God … who gave over their bodies to torture, and who, since they came into being, longed not after earthly food” (Greek not extant). See too Hermas, Vis. III. 10, where Hermas is warned that further revelation may injure his flesh.

οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινὶ πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός. The text is almost certainly corrupt, the corruption lying probably in the words οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινί, but there is no various reading of importance (except the addition of et non after τινί in the Latin MS. gigas, see Hort), and no plausible emendation seems to have been suggested.

It will be best to consider the easier parts of the clause first.

πλησμονὴν. Here only in N.T. but often in the LXX., generally as a translation of parts of the root שׂבע “to be satisfied,” in the sense of “satiety.” It may have a perfectly good connotation, e.g. Isaiah 30:23; Jdt 7:21 but more frequently it suggests almost excess, as perhaps does our “repletion,” e.g. Exodus 16:3; Exodus 16:8; cf. Psalms 77 (78):25; Hosea 13:6; Ezekiel 16:49; Ecclesiastes 5:11, Sym. ἡ δὲ πλησμονὴ τοῦ πλουσίου οὐκ ἐᾷ καθεύδειν.

Cf. the half technical use of it in Galen, Op. XV. p. 113, as quoted in Lightfoot, πάντων εἰωθότων οὐ μόνον ἰατρῶν�. Also Philo, De Vit. Cont. § 4 (II. p. 476 sq.), ἐσθίουσι μὲν ὥστε μὴ τεινῇν, πίνουσι δὲ ὥστε μὴ διψῇν, πλησμονὴν ὠς ἐχθρόν τε καὶ ἐπίβουλον ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ἐκτρεπόμενοι (from Wetstein).

So also in our present passage it probably means more than “satisfying” A.V. and rather “repletion.” “Indulgence” R.V. is, strictly speaking, a paraphrase.

τῇς σαρκός, cf. Colossians 2:18, note. σῶμα is the bodily organisation, σάρξ the animal and material side of it in contrast to the spiritual. It is only the lower part of our nature that receives “repletion.”

πρὸς. Does this mean “against,” its neutral sense of “in relation to” being defined in a hostile sense by the context? So in Colossians 3:13; Colossians 3:19; Ephesians 6:11-12. Cf. John 6:52. So also many passages quoted in Lightfoot, e.g. Isocr. Phil. 16 (p. 85), πρὸς τοὺς βαρβάρους χρήσιμον; Arist. H.A. III. 21 (p. 522), συμφέρει πρὸς τὰς διαρροίας ἡ τοιαύτη μάλιστα; Galen, Op. XII. p. 430, συνέθηκαν … φάρμακα πρὸς ῥεούσας τρίχας. Our passage contains no such determination of equal certainty. If it exists at all it must lie in οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινί.

οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινὶ. It may be assumed that τινί agrees with and depreciates τιμῇ, and cannot be understood as the masculine attached as an appropriating dative to τιμῇ, “not so that honour accrues to anyone” (Hofmann, P. Ewald). εἰς τιμὴν τινί would have expressed this without ambiguity. Three interpretations may be considered.

(1) Lightfoot following out, as it appears, suggestions from seventeenth century writers recorded in Pole’s Synopsis, p. 922, ll. 60–70, translates “yet not really of any value to remedy indulgence of the flesh,” i.e. their teaching and practice failed in its chief aim, it was powerless to check indulgence of the flesh. For this sense of τιμή he compares Lucian, Merc. cond. 17, τὰ καινὰ τῶν ὑποδημάτων ἐν τιμῇ τινὶ καὶ ἐπιμελείᾳ ἐστίν, and Hom. Il. IX. 319, ἐν δὲ ἰῇ τιμῇ. But in these examples τιμή is hardly “value” but rather “honour,” “estimation.” Observe that τιμή as = “price” is not equivalent to “value,” 1 Corinthians 7:23; Isaiah 55:1; Psalms 43 (44):13; Job 31:39.

(2) The whole clause from οὐκ to σαρκός is joined closely to ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος, expanding it negatively; i.e. the body is treated in an unsparing way, not in any honour to the satisfaction of the flesh (viz. the reasonable demands of the body). So apparently Chrysostom and the later Greek commentators. But this (a) gives πλησμονήν an improbable meaning (vide supra); (b) fails to give sufficient reason for the change from σῶμα to σάρξ; (c) is at best a tame conclusion to what evidently is intended to be a forcible passage.

(3) The ἐν is regarded as parallel to the preceding ἐν, the repute for wisdom is acquired in ἐθελοθρησκίᾳ, etc., not in anything that is honourable.

And then the Apostle breaks off, contemptuously stating the result of it all—“for the repletion of the flesh.” That is the actual result of all their trouble and rules—the lower nature is pampered, or as Hilary the Deacon, i.e. “Ambrosiaster,” concisely but bitterly puts it, “Sagina carnalis sensus, traditio humana est,” in his Commentary to be found in Ambrose’s works (vide Bengel who adds “Aurea sententia. Traditio inflat: sensum coelestem impedit”).
This (essentially Meyer) appears to be the best interpretation of a probably corrupt passage.
Bengel and P. Ewald indeed would take πρὸς κ.τ.λ. closely with ἐστίν at the beginning of the verse, and Alford even with δογματίζεσθε, Colossians 2:20, but either ensuing parenthesis appears exceedingly improbable.

[In this obscure passage it may be permissible to suggest another interpretation. Paraphrase thus: “which in fact have a specious look of wisdom (where there is no true wisdom) by the employment of self-chosen acts of religion and humility (and) by treating the body with brutality instead of treating it with due respect, with a view to meeting and providing against over-indulgence of the flesh.” The antithesis is between the “ascetic” view which practically treats the body as an enemy, and the Pauline view which treats it as a potential instrument of a righteous life. The object of both methods is to provide against over-indulgence of the flesh: the former is a specious but wrong method: the latter by giving the body its due place in the economy of human nature is really wise and Christian. For this claim of τιμή for the body compare 1 Thessalonians 4:4; Romans 1:24. G. E.]