Colossians 2:23

ἅτινα : i.e., which commandments and teachings. λόγον σοφίας. This may be taken in the sense of “a word of wisdom,” but with no inner truth. Others translate “appearance of wisdom” (Beng., De W. and others). But this seems not to be a meaning of λόγ. Klöpper's translation, “reason” or “ground,” yields no very good sense. It is best, with most recent commentators, to translate “a reputation for wisdom”. μέν is not followed by δε, but this is not uncommon (see Winer-Moulton, pp. 719 721). ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ καὶ ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος. It is impossible to connect σώμ. with all three datives (Hofm.), it can belong only to ἀφειδίᾳ, with which it is connected as an objective genitive, “severity to the body”. If καὶ is retained before ἀφ. the sense of the earlier datives is not affected. If, however, it is omitted their sense may be affected. It is possible to take ἀφ., then, as an instrumental dative with λόγον ἔχοντα. But it is also possible to take it, with Haupt, as an explanatory apposition to the earlier datives. In this case ἐθελ. and ταπ. have both an ascetic meaning. Against this, however, is the fact that the words cannot be separated from the parallel expressions in Colossians 2:18. This seems to fix the sense of ἐθελ. as a worship of angels, which was not required of them, and ταπ. will mean what it meant in Colossians 2:18. ἐθελοθρ. occurs nowhere else, and was probably coined by Paul. Similar compounds were not unusual, and generally, though not invariably, had a bad sense. This is commonly supposed to attach to this word, but in any case it gets a bad sense from its context. ἀφ. σώμ. is the clearest assertion we have of the ascetic character of the false teachings. οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινί, πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός. These words, which constitute this verse one of the most difficult in the New Testament, have received very various explanations. It is disputed whether οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τ. should be connected with the preceding or following words, and also with what πρ. πλησ. τ. σαρκός should be connected. Sumner, followed by Conybeare and Evans on 1 Corinthians 7:2, interpreted πρὸς as meaning “to check,” and translated “not in any value to check the indulgence of the flesh,” connecting οὐκ ἐν τ. τ. with the following words. This view was adopted by Lightfoot, and has been accepted by Moule and now by Ellicott. It has been inserted, with altogether insufficient warning, in R.V. It is a new explanation, and since propounded has found comparatively little favour. Lightfoot quotes numerous examples to prove that πρός after words denoting value, utility, sufficiency, etc., is used in the sense “to check” or “to prevent”. But in these cases the meaning does not lie in πρός, but in πρός after some word which imposes this sense upon it (e.g., φάρμακον), and there is nothing of the kind here. Abbott, in his valuable criticism of this interpretation, points out that πρός means “with a view to,” and if the object is a word signifying action or the production of an effect it will mean with a view to (producing). “Hence it seems to follow that unless πλησμονή be taken in the sense of ‘a state of repletion,' which would be unsuitable, πρὸς πλησμονήν could only mean to produce πλ.” A further question relates to the use of τιμῇ. Our word “value” is ambiguous, and τιμή may mean “value” in the sense of “price”. But in this interpretation it is used in the sense of “efficacy,” and this sense needs to be established. It seems necessary to reject this explanation on linguistic grounds. But the sense it yields is less good than appears at first sight. For what would be said would be that these things had a reputation for wisdom in “will-worship,” etc., but they had not a reputation for wisdom in any value against the indulgence of the flesh. But obviously this cannot be the meaning. The sense imposed “but have not any value” can only be got out of the words by straining them. Another view, which keeps the same connexion of words, is that the translation should be “not in any honour to it [i.e., the body] to satisfy the [reasonable] wants of the flesh”. This must be rejected because πλ. is not used in this good sense, and σαρκός cannot be used as equivalent to σώματος in a context where σώμ. has been used just before, for the terms must stand in emphatic contrast. Soden and Abbott translate “not in any honour for the full satisfaction of the flesh”. This means that there is no real honour, but what there is, is such as to satisfy the carnal nature. So Meyer, not in any honour, but serving to satiate the flesh. The objection to this view is that ἀλλά at least is required before πρὸς πλ. τ. σαρκός. Alford connects οὐκ ἐν τ. τ. with the preceding words, but πρ. πλ. τ. ς. with δογματίζεσθε. This gives a fairly good sense, and requires no necessary words to be supplied, but the parenthesis is incredibly long. A less lengthy parenthesis is involved in the interpretation of Bähr, Eadie and Weiss: “Which things, having indeed a reputation of wisdom in will-worship and humility and severity to the body, not in any honour, are for the indulgence of the flesh”. If the contrast is between severity to the body and honour to it, we should have expected αὐτοῦ after τιμῇ. It is also strange that ἐν should be placed before τιμῇ and not before ἀφειδ. And the meaning is not probable, for it is implied that Paul thought that a reputation for wisdom ought to rest on honour to the body, which is absurd. Findlay's view, “not in any honour, against surfeiting of the flesh,” not only yields a thought most obscurely expressed, but must be rejected because of its translation of πρὸς. All these interpretations are open to serious if not fatal objections. It is therefore not unlikely that Hort is right in the suspicion, shared also by Haupt, that we have to do here with a primitive corruption, for which no probable emendation has been suggested. He thinks that the text of the Epistle, and especially of the second chapter, was badly preserved in ancient times.