Colossians 2:23

Colossians 2:23. Which things, a ‘set of things which' (Ellicott), have indeed a show of wisdom, have the reputation of wisdom, but lack the reality; this being obviously the meaning. The Apostle thus describes the entire class of human precepts, to which the Colossian prohibitions belonged.

In, governing all three following nouns, points to the sphere in which this reputed wisdom manifests itself.

Will-worship; self-imposed arbitrary worship; comp. Colossians 2:18.

And humility; external, ostentatious humility, hence only apparent.

And harsh treatment of the body; through ascetic practices. ‘Such mortification is based upon contempt of the creatures, or false views of matter as the seat of sin. The first substantive denotes the religious aspect of their conduct; the second, the ethical in relation to men; the third, the same as respects earthly things. In such ways they gained a repute of wisdom' (Braune).

But are not of any value against the satiety of the flesh, i.e., to check its desires after full indulgence. This is, on the whole, the least objectionable explanation of this difficult passage. But ‘flesh' must be taken in its full ethical sense, without limiting the phrase to grosser forms of sensual indulgence. For while chap. Colossians 4:5 suggests these, Colossians 2:2 points to earthly things in general as the objects of the ‘flesh.' Ascetic rules cannot restrain these desires. The view above presented preserves a simple construction of the Greek, and is not open to serious lexical objections. ‘Value' is a frequent sense of the word thus rendered, and the preposition (lit., ‘to'), in this connection, may mean directed towards, i.e., ‘ against' Another view, favored by Meyer and many others is: ‘not in any honor, serving - only to the satiety of the flesh.' This cannot be objected to properly as too strong, since experience shows that asceticism fosters carnality, in the wide Pauline sense. But it accepts a harsh construction, and makes an unnecessary ellipsis. Still more harsh is the view of Alford, who explains ‘not in any honor' (to the body); and connecting the last clause with Colossians 2:20: ‘subjected to ordinances to the satiety of the flesh. All interpretations are false which take ‘body' and ‘flesh' in the same sense, and give a good meaning to ‘satiety,' i.e., a satisfying of the proper needs of the flesh. (The E. V. apparently gives this sense.) Nor can the clause be regarded as part of the View of the false teachers, since their words (in Colossians 2:21) are too remote. Accepting the first view, and giving ‘flesh' its full sense, we find here an appropriate close to the polemical portion of the Epistle: You died with Christ from the rudiments of the world, do not be subject to ordinances, which have no authority from Christ, and which with all their appearance of religion and morality, utterly fail to hinder the empire of the flesh. Depravity, sensuous always, and so often sensual, in its manifestations, is not checked thus. How and why it is overcome the Apostle proceeds to show in the next chapter. ‘Asceticism degenerates into mere mechanical morality, casuistic hair-splitting about the divine law, an externalizing of self-discipline and self-exertion, a stirring up of spiritual pride. Under austerity respecting externals is concealed effeminacy with regard to heart-emotions, and in the unsparing treatment of the body the flesh is fondled' (Braune). The history of monasticism is a sufficient commentary. The connection between asceticism and the worship of angels seems a natural one. Monasticism and the adoration of the saints flourished together; and the devotees of modern ‘spiritism' are not far removed, in locality and thought, from the fanatics about food and drink. Both alike minister to spiritual pride.