Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Colossians 2:20

Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

20. Wherefore ] The word is certainly to be omitted on documentary evidence. A new and separate theme is now in view, the doctrines of the intruding teachers about duty and morals.

if ye be dead ] Lit. and better, with R.V., if ye died. See on Col 2:11-12. “ If ” assumes the “death” as a fact.

with Christ ] To whom they were vitally joined, through faith, sealed by baptism, for all the purposes of His redeeming work.

from the rudiments of the world ] See above on Col 2:8.

living in the world ] Not merely “ being,” but “ living;” having your life-power and life-interests of and in the world. Their true “life was hid with Christ” (Col 3:3), and so could not be truly thus conditioned.

are ye subject to ordinances? ] R.V. “ do ye subject yourselves to ordinances? ” Lightfoot, “ are ye overridden with precepts, ordinances? ” The latter rendering is slightly too strong; but both indicate the main point of the Greek. The religion of the Colossians was becoming one of mechanical rule and measure, a round of ordered “practices,” imposed by directors, to expiate or purify by their performance. The life of faith and love was giving way to an arbitrary discipline, far different from the obedience of the heart to the will of God in Christ.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Wherefore – In view of all that has been said. If it be true that you are really dead to the world, why do you act as if you still lived under the principles of the world?

If ye be dead with Christ – If you are dead to the world in virtue of his death. The apostle here, as elsewhere, speaks of a very close union with Christ. We died with him; that is, such was the efficacy of his death, and such is our union with him, that we became dead also to the world; Notes, Rom 6:2, note, 4, note, 8, note, 11, note.

From the rudiments of the world – Margin, elements. The elements or principles which are of a worldly nature, and which reign among worldly men; see the notes at Gal 4:3.

Why, as though living in the world – Why do you allow them to influence you, as though you were living and acting under those worldly principles? They ought no more to do it, than the things of this world influence those who are in their graves.

Are ye subject to ordinances – The rites and ceremonies of the Jewish religion; see the notes at Gal 5:1-4.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Col 2:20-23

If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world.

Two final tests of the false teaching

I. The Christians death with Christ.

1. To Paul the Cross of Christ was the altar on which the oblation had been offered which took away his sin, and because of that the law of his own life, and the power which assimilated him to his Lord.

(1) We talk of an old man being dead to youthful follies and passions and ambitions, and we mean that they have ceased to interest him, that he is separated from, and insensible to them. So if we have got hold of Christ as our Saviour, that will deaden us to all which was our life.

(2) Strong emotion, too, makes us insensible to things around. Many a man amid the excitement of the battlefield receives, but recks not of the wound. Absorption of thought and interest leads to absence of mind when surroundings are entirely unfelt. Higher tastes drive out lower ones, as some great stream turned into a new channel will sweep it clear of mud. So if we arc joined to Christ He will fill our souls with strong emotions and interests which will deaden our sensitiveness to things around.

2. To what shall we die if we are Christians?

(1) To sin (Rom 6:11).

(2) To self (2Co 5:14-15).

(3) To the law (Rom 7:6).

(4) To the world (Gal 6:14).

Here it is to the rudiments of the world (Col 2:8). Elementary precepts, fit for babes, moving in the region of the material. Why then, triumphantly asks Paul, do you subject yourselves to ordinances (Col 2:4) such as handle not, nor taste, nor touch, vehement reiterations of the ascetic teachers with an increasing intolerance–dont lay hold of, dont touch with the tip of your finger. So asceticism grows by indulgence. And, then, the whole thing is out of date, and a misapprehension of the genius of Christianity. Mans work in religion is ever to confine it to the surface. Christs work is to focus it on the inner man of the heart, knowing that if that be right the visible will come right.

3. Paul goes on to show (Col 2:22) that these meats and drinks, of which so much is said, are perishable. You cannot use them without using them up. Is it fitting for men who lave died with Christ to this perishable world to make so much of its perishing things? But we may widen the thought so as to make it include sybaritic luxury as well as asceticism. Dives in his purple and the monk in his hair shirt, both make too much of what they should put on. The one with his feasts and the other with his fasts, both think too much of what they shall eat and drink. The man who lives on high with his Lord puts all these things in their right place. There are things which do not perish with the using. All Christlike graces grow with exercise.

4. The final inconsistency between the Christian position and these practical errors is glanced at in after the commandments of men, A quotation, used by our Lord, from Isa 29:13. It is not fitting for those in union with Christ to be under the authority of men. Here is the true democracy of the Christian society–Ye were redeemed with a price; be not servants of men. We are bound to take our orders from one Master.

II. The failure of the false teaching to attain its end (verse 23).

1. The apostle admits that it had a show of wisdom, and was very fascinating. It had the look–

(1) Of devotion and zealous worship; but on closer examination it is the indulgence of the will and not surrender to God. They are not worshipping Him as He has appointed, and therefore not at all. Whether offered in a cathedral or a barn, in a cope or a fustian jacket, such service is not accepted.

(2) Of humility. It looked very humble to say, We cannot suppose that such flesh-encompassed creatures can have fellowship with God; but it was a great deal more humble to take Him at His word and allow him to settle possibilities.

(3) Of discipline. Any asceticism is a great deal more to mens taste than abandoning self. They will rather stick hooks in their backs than give up their sins or yield up their wills. Our poor human nature travesties Christs solemn command to deny ourselves into doing something unpleasant to recommend ourselves to God.

2. The conclusive condemnation, however, lies in the fact that they are not of any value against the indulgence of the flesh (see on verse 18). This is one great end of all moral and spiritual discipline, and if practical regulations do not secure it they are worthless. By flesh is meant the entire unrenewed self which thinks, and feels, and wills apart from God. To indulge and satisfy it is to die, to slay and suppress it is to live. A man may be keeping the whole round of ordinances and seven devils may be in his heart. They distinctly tend to foster some of the works of the flesh, such as self-righteousness and uncharitableness, and they as distinctly fail to subdue any of them. A man may stand on a pillar like Simon Stylites for years and be none the better. The world and the flesh are willing that Christianity should shrivel into a religion of prohibitions and ceremonials, because all manner of vices and meannesses may thrive and breed under them like scorpions under stones. There is only one thing that will put the collar on the neck of the animal within us, and that is the power of the indwelling Christ. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)

Ritualism described and condemned

I. The appeal–

1. Was to their position and profession as Christians. They had died with Christ, and, therefore, to that which was ful filled in His death.

2. Was based upon their Christian liberty. What had they to do with those things from which they were delivered by Christs death–the mere material alphabet of religion? It was as ridiculous as if an educated man should go back to his spelling book; or a liberated slave fear his task master.

3. Described the character of the bondage of which they were in danger. Touch not, etc., are not Pauls words, but the mottoes of the heretical teachers, and refer to distinctions in meats and drinks. True Christians ought to be far above the region of such carnal commandments, for to them all things are pure, and every creature of God good. Moreover, they perish in the using, and how then can they benefit the soul? (Rom 14:17; 1Co 8:8). And lastly they are based on human authority, whereas the Christian owes allegiance to none but Christ.

II. The argument.

1. The ordinances are pretentious. They have a show of wisdom.

(1) In will worship, or some mode of worship God has not required.

(2) In humility. But it is an affectation of lowliness which cannot look up directly to God in Christ, but thinks it necessary to find some subordinate mediators. Such prevails now.

(3) In neglecting the body. The fleshly tabernacle may indeed be weakened without the slightest effect in conquering any sinful tendency in the soul.

(4) How these rudiments of the world had a show of wisdom is not difficult to see. To go beyond the Divine requirement in self-denial, and do works of supererogation has the appearance of magnanimity.

2. These ordinances are really worthless.

(1) Negatively–Not in any honour–they are of no spiritual efficacy.

(2) Positively–they gratify the flesh, and prop up the fleshly mind with notions of its self righteousness and sufficiency. Lessons:

1. The vanity and error of asceticism.

2. The sacredness of Christian liberty. (J. Spence, D. D.)

The ceremonial in religion

I. Is simply elementary. The rudiments of the world. It is in its nature transitory and imperfect. It conveys knowledge but in part; and when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part is done away.

II. Is unworthy the submission of the Christian believer. The believer is liberated from the slavery of the ceremonial.

III. In its main features is universally the same.

1. It is the same in its dictatorial prohibitions. Touch not, etc.

2. It is the same in its undue exaltation of the external and the transitory, Which perish, etc.

3. It is the same in its human origin. After the commandments and doctrines of men. The ceremonial in religion is an accumulation of the commandments and doctrines of men. Depending on human authority, it has no value in itself; and when it is made obligatory in order to salvation, it is an insult to Christ, and an intolerable servitude to man.

IV. Can never satisfy the many-sided wants of humanity.

1. It pretends to a wisdom it does not possess.

(1) In self-imposed methods of worship. The enthusiast for the ceremonial argues that he who only does what God positively demands does only what is common; but he who goes beyond reaches a higher degree of saintliness.

(2) In the affectation of a spurious humility. It is a pretence of wisdom to renounce all worldly splendour, and profess to live in poverty and seclusion.

(3) In an unjustifiable indifference to bodily wants. The body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, and is to be honoured, and all its just wants satisfied, in order that its best powers may be employed in the service of God. But the abuse of the body in starvation and neglect is a folly and a sin.

2. It is of no value in preventing the indulgence of the flesh. Not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. The radical error of the ascetic lies in his belief that evil resides in matter. Not the body, but in the soul is the source of sin. (G. Barlow.)

Religion does not consist, in bodily neglect

John Wesley, before his conversion, anxiously seeking rest for his soul, proposed to himself a solitary life in one of the Yorkshire dales. His wise mother interposed, admonishing him prophetically that God had better work for him to do. He travelled some miles to consult a serious man. The Bible knows nothing of a solitary religion, says this good man, and Wesley turned about his face toward that great career which was to make his history a part of the history of his country and of the world. (R. Stevens.)

The souls true freedom in Christ alone

Let me tell you again my old story of the eagle. For many months it pined and drooped in its cage, and seemed to have forgotten that it was of the lineage of the old plumed kings of the forest and the mountain; and its bright eye faded, and its strong wings drooped, and its kingly crest was bowed, and its plumes were torn and soiled amid the bars and dust of its prison-house. So, in pity of its forlorn life, we carried its cage out to the open air, and broke the iron wire and flung wide the lowly door; and slowly, falteringly, despondingly, it crept forth to the sultry air of that cloudy summer noon and looked listlessly about it. But just then, from a rift in an overhanging cloud, a golden sunbeam flashed upon the scene. And it was enough. Then it lifted its loyal crest, the dim eye blazed again, the soiled plumes unfolded and rustled, the strong wings moved themselves, with a rapturous cry it sprang heavenward. Higher, higher, in broader, braver circles it mounted toward the firmament, and we saw it no more as it rushed through the storm-clouds and soared to the sun. And would, O ye winged spirits! who dream and pine in this poor earthly bondage, that only one ray from the blessed Sun of Righteousness might fall on you this hour! for then would there be the flash of a glorious eye and a cry of rapture, and a sway of exulting wings, as another redeemed and risen spirit sprang heavenward unto God! (C. Wadsworth, D. D.)

.

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 20. If ye be dead with Christ] See the notes on Ro 6:3; Ro 6:5.

From the rudiments of the world] Ye have renounced all hope of salvation from the observance of Jewish rites and ceremonies, which were only rudiments, first elements, or the alphabet, out of which the whole science of Christianity was composed. We have often seen that the world and this world signify the Jewish dispensation, or the rites, ceremonies, and services performed under it.

Why, as though living in the world] Why, as if ye were still under the same dispensation from which you have been already freed, are ye subject to its ordinances, performing them as if expecting salvation from this performance?

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world: here the apostle doth further argue against all impositions of superstitious observances, obtruded as parts of Divine worship, whether in reviving those abrogated, or setting up new ones, upon supposition of their union with Christ their Head, and their being dead in him as to all beggarly elements from which he had freed them by his death, Rom 6:3,5; 7:4,6; Ga 4:9,10,11, with Col 2:19; no uncommanded worship or way of worship being after Christ, Col 2:8, in whom they were complete, Col 2:10, being buried with him in baptism, Col 2:12, having nailed those ritual ordinances to his cross, as antiquated or out-dated, Col 2:14.

Why, as though living in the world, are ye are subject to ordinances? Why should they, who held the Head, Col 2:19, as if they lived in the old world with those children in bondage, Gal 4:3, before Christ came, be subject to ceremonial observances? q.d. It is most injurious that they should impose this yoke upon you, {Act 15:10} ye are most foolish if ye submit your necks; for God would not have a ceremonial worship which he himself instituted to be abrogated, that a new one should be invented by men. If the Head of the church like not the reviving that worship he hath laid aside, be sure he will not approve of any new one which he never appointed. The apostle is not here speaking of the magistrates ordinances about things indifferent in their use, for the real good of the civil government, but of the way of worshipping God by religious abstinences, &c.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

20. WhereforeThe oldestmanuscripts omit “Wherefore.”

if ye be deadGreek,“if ye died (so as to be freed) from,” c. (compare Rom 6:2Rom 7:2; Rom 7:3;Gal 2:19).

rudiments of the world(Col 2:8). Carnal, outward,worldly, legal ordinances.

as though livingasthough you were not dead to the world like your crucified Lord, intowhose death ye were buried (Gal 6:14;1Pe 4:1; 1Pe 4:2).

are ye subject toordinancesBy do ye submit to be made subject to ordinances?Referring to Col 2:14: you areagain being made subject to “ordinances,” the “handwriting”of which had been “blotted out” (Col2:14).

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ,…. Or “seeing ye are dead with Christ”; for these words do not signify any doubt about it, but suppose it, and press what is taken for granted. They were dead with Christ by virtue of union to him; they being one with him, and considered in him as their head and representative, died in him, and with him; they were crucified with him, as they are said to be buried with him, and risen with him; they were dead with him, by having communion with him in his death; they partook of the benefits of it, as redemption, pardon, justification, and reconciliation; and they were planted together with him in the likeness of his death, not merely partakers of his sufferings, or suffered with him, and were conformable unto his death, by undergoing such like things as he did, but as he died unto sin, and lived unto God, so did they; and through the virtue and efficacy of his death were dead to sin, so as that it was not imputed to them, so as to be freed and discharged from it, that it could not damn and destroy them; yea, so as that itself was crucified with him, and destroyed by him: and also to the law, to the moral law; not but that they lived according to it, as in the hands of Christ, in their walk and conversation, but did not seek for life, righteousness, and salvation by it; they were dead unto it as to justification by it, and even to obedience to it in a rigorous and compulsive way; and to all its terrors and threatenings, being moved to a regard to it from a principle of love to Christ; and to all its accusations and charges, its curses and condemnation, and as a ministration of death, fearing neither a corporeal, nor an eternal one: they were dead also to the ceremonial law, and were free

from the rudiments, or “elements”

of the world: the ordinances of a worldly sanctuary, the rites and ceremonies of the world, or state of the Jews, in opposition to, and distinction from, the Gospel dispensation, or times of the Messiah, called, and that by them, , “the world to come”: these were like letters to a language, or like the grammar, which contains the rudiments of it; these were the first principles of the oracles of God, which led to Christ, and had their accomplishment and end in him; and so believers were dead unto them, and delivered from them, as they were also to the world, the Jewish state, and were entered into the world to come; and even to this present evil world, and to the men and things of it, being by Christ crucified to it, and that to them: upon all which the apostle thus reasons,

why, as though living in the world; since ye are dead unto it, and from the rudiments of it, why should ye be as though ye lived in it? his meaning is not, that they should not live in the world, nor among the men of it, for then they must needs go out of the world; saints may live in the world, though they are not of it, and among the inhabitants of it, though they do not belong to them, but to another and better country: nor does he suggest, that they lived according to the course of the world, as they did in their unregenerate state; but what he seems to blame them for, and reason with them about, was, that they acted as if they sought for life and righteousness in the rudiments of the world, or by their obedience to ceremonial rites, or human inventions: for he adds,

are ye subject to ordinances? not civil and political ones, which are for the better and more orderly government of kingdoms, states, and cities, for these the saints ought to be subject to, both for the Lord’s sake, and conscience sake; nor Gospel ordinances, as baptism, and the Lord’s supper, for such all believers ought to submit unto; but either legal ones, the weak and beggarly elements, the yoke of bondage, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, the handwriting of ordinances, which some were desirous of conforming to; or rather the ordinances and appointments of the Jewish fathers, the traditions of the elders, their constitutions and decrees, which are collected together, and make up their Misna, or oral law; and so the argument is from the one to the other, from the greater to the less, that if they were delivered by Christ from the burdensome rites of the ceremonial law, which were originally appointed by God, it must be great weakness in them to be subject to the ordinances of men; or both the institutions of the ceremonial law, and the decrees of the Jewish doctors about them, which were devised by them, and added to them, and imposed as necessary to be observed, may be intended; of which the apostle gives some particulars in Col 2:21.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

If ye died ( ). Condition of the first class, assumed as true, and second aorist active indicative of , to die. He is alluding to the picture of burial in baptism (2:12).

From the rudiments of the world ( ). See 2:8.

As though living in the world ( ). Concessive use of the participle with . The picture is that of baptism, having come out (F. B. Meyer) on the other side of the grave, we are not to act as though we had not done so. We are in the Land of Beulah.

Why do ye subject yourselves to ordinances? ( ?). Late and rare verb (three examples in inscriptions and often in LXX) made from , decree or ordinance. Here it makes good sense either as middle or passive. In either case they are to blame since the bond of decrees (2:14) was removed on the Cross of Christ. Paul still has in mind the rules of the ascetic wing of the Gnostics (2:16ff.).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Ye be dead [] . Rev., more correctly, ye died; the aorist tense indicating a definite event. Paul uses the word died in many different relations, expressing that with which death dissolves the connection. Thus, died unto sin, unto self, unto the law, unto the world.

Rudiments of the world. Elementary teachings and practices the peculiar sphere of which is the world. World [] has its ethical sense, the sum – total of human life in the ordered world, considered apart from, alienated from, and hostile to God, and of the earthly things which seduce from God. See on Joh 1:9.

Are ye subject to ordinances [] . Only here in the New Testament. Rev., subject yourselves. Better passive, as emphasizing spiritual bondage. Why do ye submit to be dictated to? See on 1Co 1:22, where the imperious attitude of the Jews appears in their demanding credentials of the Gospel as sole possessors of the truth. The ordinances include both those of the law and of philosophy.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

WARNING AGAINST ASCETICISM V. 20-23

1) “Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ” (ei apethaneto sun Christo) “If ye died with Christ;” Paul recalls the Colossian brethren to memories of their conversion, which liberated them from the slavery of eternal death, the law and its ordinances and ceremonies, and legalism.

2) “From the rudiments of the world,” (apo ton stoicheion tou kosmou) “From the elements of the world: from allegiance to the world order of things, even their apostate practice of angel worship. They died to and were separated from these things in their salvation or union with Christ, by grace thru faith. Rom 5:1; Rom 6:10-11.

3) “Why, as though living in the world,” (ti hos zontes en kosmo) “why as (if) living in (the) world;” or in the world order of things, with its lusts, pleasures, and vain hopes, 1Jn 2:15-17; Gal 5:1; Gal 5:25. The world is under dominion of fallen angels and the Devil, prince of the power of the air, and to be a servant-slave to the world is tantamount to serve as a slave to the devil, Joh 14:30; Eph 2:2; Rom 6:16.

4) “Are ye subject to ordinances,” (dogmatizesthe) are ye subject to (its) decrees?” or dogmas. To turn back to such bondage, fear, and vanity is an offence to God, Gal 1:6-8; Gal 2:21; Gal 3:1-5; Gal 4:8-11; Gal 6:14-15; Rom 8:15.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

20. If ye are dead. He had previously said, that the ordinances were fastened to the cross of Christ. (Col 2:14.) He now employs another figure of speech — that we are dead to them, as he teaches us elsewhere, that we are dead to the law, and the law, on the other hand, to us. (Gal 2:19.) The term death means abrogation, (416) but it is more expressive and more emphatic, ( καὶ ἐμφατικώτερον.) He says, therefore, that the Colossians, have nothing to do with ordinances. Why? Because they have died with Christ to ordinances; that is, after they died with Christ by regeneration, they were, through his kindness, set free from ordinances, that they may not belong to them any more. Hence he concludes that they are by no means bound by the ordinances, which the false apostles endeavored to impose upon them.

(416) “ Et abolissement;” — “And abolishment.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES

Col. 2:20. Dead from the rudiments of the world.Such as are given in Col. 2:21. Subject to ordinances.Why do you consent to receive these burdens grievous to be borne?

Col. 2:21. Touch not; taste not; handle not.These three prohibitions apply probably

(1) to marriage,
(2) to the use of certain foods,
(3) to contact with material objects (Godet). The rigour of the prohibitions is greatest in the last of the three. Note the change in R.V: handle not, nor taste, nor TOUCH.

Col. 2:23. Neglecting of the body.A.V. margin, punishing or not sparing. R.V. text, severity to the body. No doubt the apostle felt that on this subject he would need to tread cautiously, for he himself had beaten his body into subjection (1Co. 9:27). Not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.The R.V. gives light on the obscurity: not of any value against the indulgence of the flesh. This is the evidence which for ever disqualifies asceticism in its many forms. We can understand how a Lenten fast or a hair-shirt may make a man irritable. If they are of any value in themselves, monastic annals need revision and expurgation, and the Christian finds himself far outdone by the dervish.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Col. 2:20-23

The Ceremonial in Religion Transitory and Unsatisfying.

The apostle returns again to the question of outward observances. He saw the extreme danger with which the Colossians were threatened from that source, and before turning to other matters in his epistle he lifts up a warning voice as for the last time.
I. That the ceremonial in religion is simply elementary.The rudiments of the world (Col. 2:20). The ceremonial in religion is the alphabetical stage, suited only to the worlds infancy and to the crudest condition in human development. It is the childish period which, with all its toys and pictures and gewgaws, is put away when spiritual manhood is attained. It is in its nature transitory and imperfect. It conveys knowledge but in part; and when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part is done away.

II. The ceremonial in religion is unworthy the submission of the Christian believer.

1. The believer is liberated from the slavery of the ceremonial. He is dead with Christ (Col. 2:20). As Christ by His death cancelled the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, and vanquished Satan and all his hosts, so the believer, united with Christ in His death, shares in the triumph of that death. He is free; he rises into a new life, not under the tyranny of the old law, with its demands and penalties, but in allegiance to Christ. He has passed into another sphere of existence. Worldly ordinances have ceased to have any value for him, because his worldly life is ended. They belong to the realm of the transitory and perishable; he has been translated into the realm of the free and the eternal.

2. To return to the ceremonial is to forfeit Christian liberty.Why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances? (Col. 2:20). It is to ignore all progress, to impugn the reality of the change wrought in the soul by spiritual baptism, to close ones eyes to the altered state of things into which he has been introduced, and to submit again to the galling yoke of legal observances and human traditions which never had divine sanction and from which he had been emancipated. It is a denial of his Christianity to subject himself again to their tyrannyto return once more to the dominion of the world. It is giving up the substance for the shadow. It is a deliberate self-degradation to the most abject and pitiable slavery. It is supposed that many of the ascetic practices of the false teachers at Coloss were borrowed from the Pythagoreans. Their philosophy was all on the side of prohibitions, abstinences, a forced celibacy, the unlawfulness of animal food, the possibility of attaining perfection by neglecting the body, under the delusion that evil resided in matter.

III. The ceremonial in religion, in its main features, is universally the same.

1. It is the same in its dictatorial prohibitions. Touch not; taste not; handle not (Col. 2:21). Such is the arrogant language of a narrow, bigoted, and imperious superstition. It is an instruction to observe the gradual and insidious manner in which it obtains the mastery over the human conscience. Touch not: it prohibits even a light partaking of some meat or drink. Taste not: the prohibition is extended, so that it becomes a crime even to taste, though refusing to eat. Handle not: to come in contact with the forbidden object, even in the handling, is a dreadful sacrilege. So is it ever with the clamorous demands of a proud, assumptious ritualism. There is no end to the unauthorised prohibitions with which it seeks to bind the conscience.

2. It is the same in its undue exaltation of the external and the transitory.Which all are to perish with the using (Col. 2:22). The very eating and drinking of them destroys them. They are consumed in the using; and in order to nourish us they themselves perisha plain proof that all the benefit we receive from them respects only our physical and mortal life. What folly is it to insist on a scrupulous avoidance or observance of externals in order to salvation! You claim an affinity with the eternal, and it is unworthy of your glorious destiny to be absorbed with the worship of the perishable.

3. It is the same in its human origin.After the commandments and doctrines of men (Col. 2:22). A commandment is a precept; a doctrine is the principle or truth on which it is based. The one furnishes a direction, the other the reason on which the direction rests. The ceremonial in religion is an accumulation of the commandments and doctrines of men. Depending on human authority, it has no value in itself; and when it is made obligatory in order to human salvation, it is an impious insult to Christ and an intolerable servitude to man. The commandments of men, having no solid doctrines to rest upon, are transitory and illusory.

IV. The ceremonial in religion can never satisfy the many-sided wants of humanity.

1. It pretends to a wisdom it does not possess.

(1) In self-imposed methods of worship. Which things have, indeed, a show of wisdom in will-worship (Col. 2:23). It insists on certain distinctions of meats and drinks; on abstinence from this or that kind of food; on certain ritual observances as necessary in order to render due homage to God. The enthusiast for the ceremonial argues that he who only does what God positively demands does only what is common; but he who goes beyond, and submits to additional observances, reaches a higher degree of saintliness. This is will-worship, which has peculiar charms for the corrupt tendencies of our depraved nature. The works of supererogation it invents are pleasanter than the holy, humble, adoring worship of God through the blood of the cross.

(2) In the affectation of a spurious humility. In humility (Col. 2:23). It is a pretence of wisdom to renounce all worldly splendour and profess to live in poverty and seclusion. But at the root of this profession the most pernicious pride may lurk. A self-conscious and dramatically acted humility is the most degrading and detestable.

(3) In an unjustifiable indifference to bodily wants. And neglecting of the body (Col. 2:23). The body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, and is to be honoured and cherished, and all its just wants satisfied, in order that its best powers may be employed in the service of God. But the abuse of the body in starvation, painful macerations, and squalid neglect is a folly and a sin.

2. It is of no value in preventing the indulgence of the flesh.Not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh (Col. 2:23). The radical error of the ascetic lies in his belief that evil resides in matter. Not the body, but the soul, is the source of sin: the body is depraved because the soul is depraved. Sin exists as a thought and conception of the heart before it exists as an act of the flesh. No amount of outward flagellation, or of abstinence from needful food, will satisfy the natural wants of the body, or destroy its sinful tendencies. The attempt to be virtuous by afflicting the body is like battering the outwork while the main citadel remains untouched. The outward can never satisfy the complicated needs of mans nature. First bring the soul into a right relation to God, and, with the aid of divine grace, it will control all the outgoings of the flesh.

Lessons.

1. The ceremonial has its place in religion, and therefore should not be despised.

2. The believer is raised above the power of the ceremonial in religion, and therefore should not be subject to it.

GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES

Col. 2:20. Principles above Rules; or, Wheat is better than Bread.Bread may feed us for the moment, but when once eaten it is gone for ever. Wheat on the contrary will bear seed, increase, and multiply. Every rule is taken from a principle, as a loaf of bread is made from wheat. It is right to enforce the principle rather than the action, because a good principle is sure of producing good actions. Seeming goodness is not better than religion; precept is not better than principle.A. W. Hare.

Col. 2:21-23. Asceticism

I. Multiplies unnecessary restrictions.

II. Is a species of self-worship.

III. Is unjust to the body.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

20. If ye died with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, do ye subject yourselves to ordinances, 21. Handle not, nor taste, nor touch 22. (all which things are to perish with the using), after the precepts and doctrines of men?

Translation and Paraphrase

20. If you died with Christ (as indeed you did when you were baptized, and were thus made free) from (bondage to) the rudimentary things of the world, (then) why, as if (you were still) living in the world, do you subject yourselves to (this worlds religious) ordinances?

21. (I refer to such ordinances as) Touch not, and Taste not, and Handle not(ordinances commanding celibacy and abstinence from food and drink).
22. (These ordinances of) which (I speak) are all (leading people) unto corruption (and eternal misery) by (their) misuse according to the precepts and teachings of men. (Conceivably they might have some use, but as they are being used, they are an abuse.)
(NoteSee two alternate paraphrases of this verse in the following notes, section 11.)

Notes

1.

Col. 2:20-22 contains Pauls warning against asceticism. (Asceticism is the voluntary self-denial or abuse of the body for religious reasons.)

2.

The reason for which we should disregard all rules about self-denial of the body is that all of these are man-made, and we Christians have died to all the rudiments of this world. We hold only to the things Christ has commanded. (Isa. 29:13; Mat. 15:9).

3.

We died to sin and to mens ordinances when we repented and were baptized. See notes on Col. 2:12.

4.

Once again here in Col. 2:20 (as in Col. 2:8) all the religious ordinances in the world (excepting, of course, those given through Christ, and in harmony with Christ) are called rudiments. No matter how wise, mystical, and benevolent these ordinances may sound, they are like the A.B.C.s, mere rudimentary concepts, when compared to the unsearchable riches of Christ (Eph. 3:8).

5.

The ordinances Paul refers to in Col. 2:20 are the ordinances like those listed in Col. 2:21 : Handle not, nor taste, nor touch. Paul is not here referring to the ordinances of the law of Moses, as he was back in Col. 2:14.

6.

Some people have quoted Col. 2:21 without referring to the verses before and after it. Such a use of the verse might make it sound like we were indeed to Touch not; taste not; handle not. But Paul meant that these were the type of ordinances which we were to shun. We have no laws that forbid us to handle, taste, nor touch wholesome normal things.

7.

The command Handle not (KJV, Touch not; Gr. hapto) may refer to sexual relationships and marriage. It is from the same word as touch in 1Co. 7:1, which obviously refers to this. Sex within marriage is approved of God, necessary, and desirable. (1Co. 7:1-5; Pro. 5:18-20; 1Pe. 3:7). Any religion that forbids marriage and normal sex relations is a doctrine of devils. (1Ti. 4:1-3).

8.

The difference between handle and touch in Col. 2:21 is not great. Handle (hapto) is the stronger term, indicating to lay hold of or hold fast. Touch (thiggano) is a more delicate term, signifying to touch, particularly as a means of knowledge, or for some purpose.

9.

Col. 2:22 is a difficult verse, and has been variously interpreted. The difficulty lies in the fact that we are not sure what the all which at the start of the verse refers back toto the ordinances, or to the food and drink involved in the ordinances?

Also we cannot be certain whether Col. 2:22 is a continuation of the quotation of the false teachers, started in Col. 2:21, or whether it is all Pauls parenthetical observation concerning the ordinances referred to in Col. 2:21.

10.

We must observe here that the word using in Col. 2:22 (both in KJV and ASV) comes from the Gr. apochresis, which actually means abuse or misuse. The translation using represents an interpretation (maybe a legitimate one) of the text, rather than a precise translation.

Also the term perish is from the Gr. noun phthora, which is usually translated corruption, and refers variously to: (1) decay and decomposition of material things (as in 1Co. 15:42); (2) to moral decay and corruption (2Pe. 1:4); or (3) to the loss of salvation and to eternal misery (Gal. 6:8; Col. 2:22).

11.

Our own interpretation of Col. 2:22 may be seen in the translation and paraphrase given above. To us it appears that it is the ordinances of men that are leading people into corruption and misery, because of the abuse of them after the teachings of men.

We give here two alternative paraphrases of Col. 2:22, and leave the matter to the reader to consider which seems to him to be correct. Undoubtedly the Colossians, who had heard the false teachers give their speeches, knew exactly what Paul referred to in Col. 2:22. To us it is somewhat indefinite.

Alternate Paraphrase A: (These ordinances deal only with physical things like food and drink) which are all (soon digested) unto destruction by the (normal) using (of them. And furthermore these ordinances are only) according to the commandments and teachings of men.

(This interpretation is similar to the idea expressed in Mat. 15:7; 1Co. 6:13.)

Alternate Paraphrase B: (Paul speaking: To quote the false teachers, they say,) Touch not (food or women), Taste not, Handle not; (for these things which you touch and taste and handle are things) which are (doomed) unto corruption by (their) abuse (and you cannot use them without it being an abuse). (With reference to all of this, I say it is only) according to the commandments and teachings of men.

Study and Review

55.

When did we die with Christ? (Col. 2:20)

56.

From what did we die? (Col. 2:20)

57.

What are the rudiments of the world which Paul refers to? (Col. 2:20; Cf. Col. 2:8)

58.

What were the Colossians submitting themselves to? What did this make them look like they were living in?

59.

Are the commands stated in Col. 2:21 approved or disapproved?

60.

What specifically do the commands in Col. 2:21 forbid?

61.

To what may the all which at the beginning of Col. 2:22 refer back?

62.

What is to be the end or fate of things associated with human ordinances?

63.

Where did the ordinances originate? (Col. 2:22)

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(20) If ye be dead with Christ.The whole idea of the death with Christ and resurrection with Him is summed up by St. Paul in Rom. 6:3-9, in direct connection (as also here, see Col. 2:12) with the entrance upon Christian life in baptism, We are buried with Him by baptism unto death . . . we are dead with Christ . . . we are planted together in the likeness of His death . . . that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we also should walk in newness of life . . . planted together in the likeness of His resurrection . . . alive to God through Jesus Christ our Lord. The death with Christ is a death unto the life of the flesh. But this may be (as in Rom. 6:1-2; Rom. 6:6-7; Rom. 6:11) the life of sin; or it may be the outward and visible life of the world. The latter is the sense to be taken here. This outward life is under ordinances (see Col. 2:1), under the rudiments of the world (see Col. 2:8), or, generally, under law. Of such a life St. Paul says (in Gal. 2:19), I through the Law died to the Law, that I might live unto God. There (Gal. 4:9), as here, he brands as unspiritual the subjection to the weak and beggarly elements of mere ordinances. Of course it is clear that in their place such ordinances have their value, both as means to an end, and as symbols of an inner reality of self-devotion. The true teaching as to these is found in our Lords declaration to the Pharisees as to spiritual things and outward ordinances, These things (the spiritual things) ought ye to have done, and not to leave the others (the outward observances) undone (Mat. 23:23). In later times St. Paul declared with Judicial calmness, The Law is good if a man use it lawfully (1Ti. 1:8). But to exalt these things to the first place was a fatal superstition, which, both in its earlier and later phases, he denounces unsparingly.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

(20-23) In this and the succeeding section, St. Paul, starting from the idea of union with the Head, draws out the practical consequences of partaking of the death of Christ and the resurrection of Christ. In virtue of the former participation, he exhorts them to be dead to the law of outward ordinances; in virtue of the latter, to have a life hid with Christ in God.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

c. Caution against asceticism, Col 2:20-23 .

20. Dead with Christ Better, if ye died with him, in your baptism; see on Col 2:12. The rudiments of the world, here and in Col 2:8, are identical with the handwriting in Col 2:14, which was claimed to be still in force. It died with Christ, and you so share in his death that you are removed from its authority.

Why The expostulation is very pertinent. As

living in the world In things outside of Christ.

Are ye subject Literally, why do ye allow yourselves to be dogmatized to? St. Paul thus shows the arrogance of the attempt to bring them under the old wiped-out system, and rebukes the Colossians for listening to it. While they were in imminent danger, it is not clear that any of them had as yet fallen.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘If you died with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourself to ordinances, “handle not, nor taste, nor touch”, (all which things are to perish with the using) after the precepts and doctrines of men?’. Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will worship and humility and severity to the body, but are not of any value against the excessive indulgence of the flesh.’

Paul here points out that asceticism, abstaining from certain food and drinks and such like, has no value in the fight against sin. These are earthly ideas, not heavenly ideas. But Christians no longer live in the world. They live with Christ in the spiritual realm, in what in Ephesians he calls ‘the heavenlies’. They are seated with Christ above (Col 3:1). Thus their minds should be fixed on heavenly things. That is how to defeat the flesh, not by fighting it with earthly weapons.

‘If you died with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why as though living in the world do you subject yourself to ordinances?’ In His death Christ was freed from all the basic things of the world and all its basic principles. He was no longer bound by them because he was in Heaven. He now partakes of the things of Heaven, and is subject to the conditions of Heaven. So we too, having died with Christ, are dead to those basic things, those basic principles of earth, those ordinances of men. We too are bound by the requirements of Heaven. But to indulge in asceticism is precisely to be bound by the principles of the world. There is no asceticism in Heaven. Thus having died with Christ, and having risen with Him (Col 3:1) we are freed from such things. We can have no part in them.

It hardly needs to be stressed that this is not a licence for over-indulgence. Precisely because we live with Christ in the heavenlies we will live accordingly, touching earthly things lightly and concerned with heavenly things. We will seek first His kingdom and His righteousness (Mat 6:33). We are still to deny the flesh. But this is to be by being caught up in heavenly things, not by making use of weapons invented by men, such as asceticism (‘touch not, taste not, handle not’), which are themselves fleshly, and are thus actually not able to do anything about the flesh. Indeed they deal with earthly things, which, once used, perish (see 1Co 6:13). They have no permanent value. Nothing is really achieved by them.

‘Which things have indeed a show (literally ‘word’) of wisdom in will worship and humility and severity to the body, but are not of any value against the indulgence of the flesh.’ Asceticism is a show of earthly wisdom. It makes proclamation of wisdom and gives a great show of defeating the flesh. It demonstrates a powerful will and a great humility. But it is concentrating on the very thing it seeks to escape from. It is totally negative and worldly. It does not achieve anything spiritually. It is simply another way of indulging the flesh.

‘Will worship.’ The word is found nowhere else. It can mean ‘self-made religion’, ‘self imposed religious service’, a demonstration of the power of the will in achieving a religious position of denial and humility which is purely earthly. It is accompanied by an equally false humility. It wins the admiration of the world which sees it as achieving some kind of purity of soul. It seems to overcome the flesh by denying it. But it in fact indulges another aspect of the flesh, by making its adherent an object of admiration and stimulating a sense of self-achievement, resulting in false pride and self-satisfaction. And it is regularly accompanied by mistreatment of the body, which accomplishes nothing except the same.

‘Are not of any value against the excessive indulgence of the flesh.’ The problem is that these great efforts are useless in what they seek to achieve. Instead of releasing people from the grip of the flesh they tie them more closely into it, for they are simply indulging the ‘desires of the flesh’ in another way. There is only one way to break the grip of the flesh on the mind and that is by setting the mind on things above (Col 3:2), not by direct attack on the flesh. In the set of the mind on things above alone lies hope.

It should be noted that Paul’s words are not an attack on sensible self-discipline and self-control and self-denial. They are not arguing for indulging oneself. For that too indulges the flesh. Rather Paul is stressing the development of the mind of the Spirit, set on things above and refusing all fleshly indulgence, and thus concentrating totally on living a heavenly life. The Christian does abstain from fleshly indulgence. He may thus appear somewhat of an ascetic. He does hold this world’s goods lightly and not indulge himself. But this is because he is involved in Heaven’s affairs, and uses all earthly things solely for that purpose, not wanting to be gripped by them but wanting to use them with the greatest efficiency and usefulness in God’s service. He uses them to make friends for himself among those who will be in eternal habitations (Luk 16:9).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Col 2:20. Wherefore, if ye be dead with Christ Mr. Peirce and some others have considered this as the beginning of a new paragraph, addressed particularly to the Jewish zealots at Colosse; and they plead in support of this opinion, that the subjection to ordinances, which the Apostle here reproves, is inconsistent with the applauses that he had before bestowed on the Colossians. But it seems most natural to suppose that he addresses the society in general, and leaves it to their own consciences to determine which of them deserved the censure. Instead of, Why are ye subject to ordinances, Peirce reads, Why do ye still dogmatize? ; that is, “require such a compliance as you do, with the injunctions and ritual precepts of the law?”

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Col 2:20 f. After these warnings, Col 2:16-19 , which were intended to secure his readers against the seduction threatening them, the apostle now returns for the same purpose once more to the two main foundations of the Christian life, to the fellowship with Christ in death (Col 2:20 ), and fellowship with Him also in resurrection (Col 3:1 ). His aim is to show, in connection with the former, the groundlessness and perversity of the heretical prohibitions of meats (Col 2:20-23 ), and to attach to the latter to the fellowship of resurrection the essence of Christian morality in whole and in detail, and there with the paraenetic portion of the Epistle (Col 3:1 to Col 4:6 ), the tenor of which thereby receives the character of the holiest moral necessity .

. . .] the legal abstinence required by the false teachers (see below) stands in contradiction with the fact, that the readers at their conversion had entered into the fellowship of the death of Christ , and thereby had become loosed from the (see on Col 2:8 ), i.e . from the ritual religious elements of non-Christian humanity, among which the legal prohibition of meats and the traditional regulations founded thereon are included. How far the man who has died with Christ has passed out of connection with these elementary things, is taught by Col 2:14 , according to which, through the death of Christ, the law as to its debt-obligation has been abolished. Consequently, in the case of those who have died with Christ, the law, and everything belonging to the same category with it, have no further claim to urge, since Christ has allowed the curse of the law to be accomplished on Himself, and this has also taken place in believers in virtue of their fellowship of death with Him, whereby the binding relation of debt which had hitherto subsisted for them has ceased. Comp. Gal 2:19 ; Gal 4:3 ; Gal 4:9 ; Rom 7:4 , et al .

, with , meaning to die away from something, moriendo liberari a (Porphyr. de abstin. ab esu anim. i. 41), is only met with here in the N. T.; elsewhere it is used with the dative, as in Gal 2:19 , Rom 6:2 , whereby the same thing is otherwise conceived in point of form. It is, moreover, to be observed, that Christ Himself also is by death released from the , since He was made under the law, and, although sinless, was destined to take upon Himself the curse of it; hence it was only by His death in obedience to the Father (Phi 2:8 ; Rom 5:19 ), that He became released from this relation. Comp. on Gal 4:4 . Huther erroneously denies that such an can be predicated of Christ, and therefore assumes (comp. Schenkel and Dalmer) the brachylogy: “if, by your dying with Christ, ye are dead from the .”

. . .] why are ye, as though ye were still alive in the world, commanded: Touch not , etc. Such commands are adapted to those who are not, like you, dead, etc. As . . . . ., ye are no longer alive in the domain of the non-Christian , but are removed from that sphere of life (belonging to the heavenly , Phi 3:20 ). The word , only found here in the N. T., but frequently in the LXX. and Apocrypha, and in the Fathers and decrees of Councils (see Suicer, Thes . I. p. 935), means nothing more than to decree (Diod. Sic. iv. 83; Diog. L. iii. 51; Anth. Pal. ix. 576. 4; Arrian. Epict , iii. 7; Est 3:9 ; Est 3 Esdr. 6:34; 2Ma 10:8 ; 2Ma 15:36 ; 3Ma 4:11 ), and is passive: why are ye prescribed to, why do men make decrees for you ( vobis )? so that it is not a reproach (the censure conveyed by the expression affects rather the false teachers ), but a warning to those readers (comp. Col 2:16 ; Col 2:18 ) who were not yet led away (Col 1:4 , Col 2:5 ), and who ought not to yield any compliance to so absurd a demand. That the readers are the passive subject , is quite according to rule, since the active has the dative along with it, ( 2Ma 10:8 ); comp. also Hofmann and Beza. The usual rendering takes . as middle , and that either as: why do ye allow commands to be laid down for you (Huther), rules to be imposed upon you , (de Wette), yourselves to be entangled with rules (Luther)? and such like; [130] or even: why do ye make rules for yourselves (Ewald)? comp. Vulgate: decernitis . This, however, would involve a censure of the readers , and would express the unsuitableness of their conduct with their Christian standing a reproach, which would be altogether out of harmony with the other contents of the Epistle. On the contrary, . indicates the erroneous aspect in which the Christian standing of the readers was regarded by the false teachers , who took up such an attitude towards them, as if they were not yet dead from the world, which nevertheless (comp. Col 2:11 f.) they are through their fellowship with Christ (Col 3:3 ; Gal 2:19 f.; 2Co 5:14 f.). The , moreover, is entirely misunderstood by Bhr: “as if one could at all attain to life and salvation through externals. ” Comp., on the contrary, the thought of the in Rom 7:5 and Gal 6:14 . Observe, further, that this is not one and the same thing with (Hofmann, by way of establishing his explanation of in the sense of the material things of the world ); but the . is the more general , to which the special . . . is subordinate . If the former is the case, the latter also takes place by way of consequence.

. . .] a vivid concrete representation of the concerned, in a “compendiaria mimesis” (Flacius). The triple description brings out the urgency of the eager demand for abstinence, and the relation of the three prohibitions is such, that both times means nor even; in the second instance, however, in the sense of ne quidem , so that the last point stands to the two former together in the relation of a climax: thou shalt not lay hold of, nor even taste, nor once touch! What was meant as object of this enjoined (1Ti 4:3 ) the reader was aware , and its omission only renders the description more vivid and terse. Steiger’s view, that the object was suppressed by the false teachers themselves from fear and hypocrisy, is quite groundless. From the words themselves, however ( ), and from the subsequent context (see Col 2:23 ), it is plain that the prohibitions concerned certain meats and drinks (comp. Col 2:16 ); and it is entirely arbitrary to mix up other things, as even de Wette does, making them refer also to sexual intercourse ( , Eur. Hipp . 1044, et al .; see Monck, ad Eur. Hipp . 14; Valckenaer, ad Phoen . 903), while others distinguish between and in respect of their objects, e.g . Estius: the former refers to unclean objects, such as the garments of a menstruous woman, the latter to the buying and selling of unclean meats; Erasmus, Zanchius: the former concerns dead bodies, the latter sacred vessels and the like; Grotius: the former refers to meats, the latter to the “vitandas feminas,” to which Flatt and Dalmer, following older writers, make refer (1Co 7:1 ). Others give other expositions still; Bhmer arbitrarily makes refer to the oil , which the Essenes and other theosophists regarded as a labes . That Paul in and . had no definite object at all in view, is not even probable (in opposition to Huther), because stands between them, and Col 2:23 points to abstinence from meats, and not at the same time to anything else.

Following the more forcible , lay hold of , the more subtle , touch , is in admirable keeping with the climax: the object was to be even (Soph. O. C . 39). Comp. on the difference between the two words, Xen. Cyrop . i. 3. 5: , ( ), (these dainty dishes) , , also v. 1. 16. In an inverted climax, Eur. Bacch . 617: . See also Exo 19:12 , where the LXX. delicately and aptly render , to touch the outer border of the mountain , by the free translation , but then express the general by the stronger . Hofmann erroneously holds that expresses rather the motion of the subject grasping at something, rather his arriving at the object . In opposition to this fiction stands the testimony of all the passages in the Gospels (Mat 8:3 ; Mat 9:20 ; Joh 20:17 , and many others), in which signifies the actual laying hold of , and, in Paul’s writings, of 1Co 7:1 , 2Co 6:17 , as also the quite common Grecian usage in the sense of contrectare ( attingere et inhaerere ), and similarly the signification of the active to fasten to, to make to stick (Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj . 698; Duncan, Lex. Hom . ed. Rost, p. 150). The mere stretching out the hand towards something , in order to seize it, is never . Hofmann, moreover, in order to establish a climax of the three points, arbitrarily makes the subtle gloss upon , that this might even happen more unintentionally , and upon , that this might happen involuntarily .

Respecting the aorist (a present instead of can nowhere be accepted as certain), see Schaefer, ad Greg. Cor . p. 990, Ellendt, Lex. Soph . I. p. 804; Khner, I. p. 833.

[130] Comp. Chrysostom: ; similarly Theodoret, Beza; and recently, Bhr, Bhmer, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, and others.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

Ver. 20. Are ye subject to ordinances ] Why do ye dogmatize; or be burdened with rites or traditions, as they now are in the Papacy? John Aunt, a Roman Catholic, in his humble appeal to King James, in the sixth chapter of that pamphlet, thus blasphemeth God, -The God of the Protestants (whom he knows to be the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) is the most uncivil and evil mannered God of all those who have borne the names of God upon earth; yea, worse than Pan, god of the clowns, which can endure no ceremonies nor good manners at all.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

20 .] Warning against asceticism . If ye died (in your baptism, as detailed above, Col 2:11 if.) with Christ from (a pregnant construction: ‘died, and so were set free from:’ not found elsewhere in N. T.: cf. Rom 6:2 ; Gal 2:19 , where we have the dative) the elements (cf. Col 2:8 ; the rudimentary lessons, i.e. ritualistic observances) of the world (see on Col 2:8 ; Christ Himself was set free from these, when, being made under the law, He at His Death bore the curse of the law, and thus it was antiquated in Him), why, as living (emphatic, as though you had not died , see Gal 6:14 ) in the world, are ye being prescribed to (the active use of the verb, ‘ to decree ,’ is common in the later classics, and occurs in the LXX, and Apocrypha. The person to whom the thing is decreed or prescribed is put in the dative ( 2Ma 10:8 ), so that, according to usage, such person may become the subject of the passive verb: cf. Thuc. i. 82, ( ), Herod. vii. 144, ( ), and see Khner, Gram. ii. p. 35. Some, as Bernhardy, p. 346, and Ellicott, prefer considering this form as middle , and give it the sense of “doceri vos sinitis.” It seems to be of very little consequence which we call it; the meaning in either case is almost identical: “why is the fact so?” or, “why do you allow it?” To my mind, the passive here carries more keen, because more hidden, rebuke. The and of 1Co 6:7 rest on somewhat different ground. There, the voluntary element comes into emphasis, and the middle sense is preferable. See note there. I cannot see, with Meyer, why we should be so anxious to divest the sentence of all appearance of blaming the Colossians, and cast all its blame on the false teachers. The passive (see above) would demand a reason for the fact being so ‘Cur ita siti estis, ut ,’ which is just as much a reproach as the middle ‘Cur, sinitis, ut ’ The active renderings, ‘ decreta facitis ,’ Melancth. (in Eadie), ‘ decernitis ,’ Ambrst. (ib.), are wrong both in grammar and in fact. The reference to Col 2:14 is plain. They were being again put under that . which was wiped out and taken away) “Handle not, neither taste, nor even touch” (it will be understood that these words follow immediately upon without a stop, as ; just as the inf. in 2Ma 10:8 . Then as to the meaning, I agree with Calv., Beza, Beng., and Meyer in referring all the three to meats , on account mainly of Col 2:22-23 (see below), but also of coming as a defining term between the two less precise ones and . Others have referred the three to different objects and variously to meats, or unclean objects, or women: universally to meats. Mey. remarks of the negatives, the relation of the three prohibitions is, that the first is ‘ nec ,’ the second ‘ ne quidem .’ This would not be necessary from the form of the sentence, but seems supported by the word introducing a climax. Wetst. and the Commentators illustrate and as applied to meats, by Xen. Cyr. i. 3. 5, , ( ) , , ) which things (viz. the things forbidden) are set ( emphatic, ‘whose very nature is ’) all of them for destruction (by corruption, see reff.) in their consumption (i.e. are appointed by the Creator to be decomposed and obliterated with their consumption by us. So Thdrt. , , . ; : and similarly c. , , Thl., Erasm., Luth., Beza, Calv., Grot., Wolf, Olsh., Mey., al. The argument in fact is similar to that in Mat 15:17 , and 1Co 6:13 .

Two other lines of interpretation have been followed: 1) that which carries the sense on from the three verbs, “ Handle not, &c. things which tend to (moral) corruption in their use .” De W., Baum.-Crus., al. But this suits neither the collocation of the words, nor , the ‘ using up ,’ ‘ consumption ,’ which should thus rather be . 2) that which makes refer to , and renders ‘ which all tend to ( everlasting ) destruction in their observance ;’ but this is just as much against the sense of , and would rather require , if indeed be not superfluous altogether. See these same objections urged at greater length in Meyer’s note) according to (connects with : the subsequent clause being a parenthetical remark; thus defining the general term to consist in human, not divine commands) the commands and systems ( is the wider term comprising many . In reff., the wider term is prefixed: here, where examples of separate have been given, we rise from them to the system of doctrine of which they are a part) of men (not merely , bringing out the individual authors of them, but . describing them generically as human , not divine. This I would press as against Ellic., who views the as the art. of correlation, rendered necessary by . But even if this usage were to be strictly pressed with such a word as , the substantive nearest to it, , has no article), such as ( brings us from the general objective, human doctrines and systems, to the specific subjective, the particular sort of doctrines and systems which they were following: q. d., ‘and that, such sort of . . . as ’) are possessed of ( does not exactly = , but betokens more the abiding attribute of these ‘enjoy,’ as we say) a reputation ( occurs in various meanings. Absolutely, it may signify ‘ avoir raison ,’ as Demosth. adv. Lept. p. 461, , which meaning is obviously out of place here: as is also ‘ to take account of ,’ Herod. i. 62, , . But the meaning ‘ to have the repute of ,’ found Herod. v. 66, (‘is said to have influenced the Pythia’), and Plato, Epinomis, p. 987 b, (‘Veneris esse dicitur,’ as Ficinus), manifestly fits the context here, and is adopted by most Commentators) indeed (the solitarium leaves the to be supplied by the reader, or gathered from what follows. It is implied by it, not by the mere phrase (see the examples above), that they had the repute only without the reality) of wisdom in (element of its repute) voluntary worship (words of this form are not uncommon: so we have , a volunteer or self-constituted proxenus, in Thuc. iii. 70 , to pretend to be deaf, Strabo i. p. 36, , voluntary slavery, Plato Symp., p. 184 c, &c. &c.; see Lexx., and Aug., Ep. 149 (59, cited above on Col 2:17 ), says ‘sic et vulgo dicitur qui divitem affectat thelodives, et qui sapientem thelosapiens, et ctera hujusmodi.’ Mey. cites Epiphan. Hr.xvi. p.34, explaining the name Pharisees, . See many more examples in Wetst. The . was mainly that of angels , see above, Col 2:18 ; but the generality of the expression here may take in other voluntary extravagancies of worship also) and humility (see Col 2:18 ) and unsparingness of the body (Plato defines , . , Def. p. 412 D: Thuc. ii. 43 has : Diod. Sic. xiii. 60, , &c. &c., see Wetst.), not in any honour of it (on the interpretations, see below. is used by St. Paul of honour or respect bestowed on the body, in 1Co 12:23-24 ; of honourable conduct in matters relating to the body, 1Th 4:4 (see note there: cf. also Rom 1:24 ): and such is the meaning I would assign to it here these have the repute of wisdom for (in) &c., and for (in) unsparingness of the body, not in any real honour done to it its true honour being dedication to the Lord, 1Co 6:13 ), to the satiating of the flesh? I connect these words not with the preceding clause, but with above ‘ why are ye suffering yourselves (see on the passive above) to be thus dogmatized (in the strain &c. according to &c., which are &c.), and all for the satisfaction of the flesh ’ for the following out of a , the ground of which is the , Col 2:18 ? then after this follow most naturally the exhortations of the next chapter; they are not to seek the not , but . The ordinary interpretation of this difficult passage has been, as E. V. ‘ not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh ,’ meaning thereby, that such commands do not provide for the honour which we owe to the body in the supply of the proper refreshment to the flesh. But two great objections lie against this, and are in my judgment fatal to the interpretation in every shape: 1) that cannot be used in this indifferent sense as equivalent to , in a sentence where it occurs together with , and where it has before occurred in an ethical sense: 2) that will not bear this meaning of mere ordinary supplying, ‘satisfying the wants of:’ but must imply satiety, ‘satisfying to repletion.’ The children of Israel were to eat the quails , Exo 16:8 ; cf. also Deu 33:23 ; Lam 5:6 ; Hab 2:16 ; also . , Polyb. ii. 19. 4.

Meyer renders ‘ these commands have a repute for wisdom , &c., not for any thing which is really honourable (i.e. which may prove that repute to be grounded in truth), but in order thereby to the satiation of men’s sensual nature :’ and so, nearly, Ellicott. The objections to this are, 1) the strained meaning of , 2) the insertion of ‘ but ’ before , or as in Ellic. ‘ only ’ after it, both which are wholly gratuitous. This same latter objection applies to the rendering of Beza, al., ‘nec tamen ullius sunt pretii, quum ad ea spectant quibus farcitur caro,’ besides that this latter paraphrase is unwarranted. See other renderings still further off the point in Mey. and De W. Among these I fear must be reckoned that of Conyb., ‘are of no value to check (?) the indulgence of fleshly passions,’ and that of Bhr and Eadie, regarding as participial, and joining with a harshness of construction wholly unexampled and improbable. The interpretation above given seems to me, after long consideration, the simplest, and most in accord with the context. It is no objection to it that the antithesis presented by is thus not to . . . ., but merely to : for if the Apostle wished to bring out a negative antithesis to these last words only, he hardly could do so without repeating the preposition, the sense of which is carried on to .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Col 2:20 . The Apostle, recalling them to the time of their conversion, points out how inconsistent with a death to the elemental spirits any submission to ordinances belonging to their sphere would be. The death of the believer with Christ is a death to his old relations, to sin, law, guilt, the world. It is a death which Christ has Himself undergone (Rom 6:10 ). Here it is specially their death to the angels, who had ruled their old life, and under whose charge the Law and its ceremonies especially stood. They had died with Christ to legalism, how absurd then for ordinances to be imposed upon them. : “if, as is the case, you died in union with Christ”. The aorist points to the definite fact, which took place once for all. It was in union with Christ, for thus they were able to repeat Christ’s own experience. . The use of with . expresses more strongly than the dative (as in Rom 6:2 ) the completeness of the severance, and adds the idea of escape from the dominion of the personal powers. On . . . see note on Col 2:8 . . For the death of the Christian with Christ includes his crucifixion to the world (Gal 6:14 ). The world is ruled by these angels; but Christians belong to the world to come ( cf. . , Col 2:17 ), which, as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us, has not been made subject to the angels. Since they were still living in the physical world . has evidently an ethical sense. may be middle, “subject yourselves to ordinances,” or passive. Since Paul nowhere says that the readers had accepted the false teaching, the latter is better: “Why are ye prescribed to?” (Mey., Winer, Hofm., Findl., Haupt.) Alford also takes it as a passive, but thinks it implies a keener rebuke than the middle. The middle asserts rather that they had submitted, the passive need only imply, not their submission, but that their resistance might have been more energetic. If there is blame it seems to be slighter. The verb . is chosen with reference to in Col 2:14 .

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Col 2:20 to Col 3:4

20If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21″Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22(which all refer to things destined to perish with using)- in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence. Col 3:1 Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. 3For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory.

Col 2:20 “if” This is a first class conditional sentence which was assumed to be true from the author’s perspective or for his literary purposes. Believers are united with Christ and should be separated from the powers and structures of this fallen world system.

“you have died” This is an aorist active indicative. This death is symbolized in baptism (cf. Col 2:12; Rom 6:4), and is an image of the believer’s death to the old life and the resurrection to the new life of God-eternal life. Baptism, like circumcision, is an outward sign of an inner spiritual reality (cf. Col 2:11; Col 2:13).

Daily death to personal ambition and personal preferences is a mandate of effective ministry (cf. Rom 6:7; 2Co 5:14-15; 1Jn 3:16). However, this is not a legalism of rules, but a freedom from the tyranny of the fallen self! Daily spiritual death to self brings true life!

“with Christ” This is another use of the Greek preposition syn, which means joint participation with. These three grammatical features: (1) syn compounds; (2) the aorist tenses of Col 2:11-13; Col 2:15; Col 2:20; and (3) the first class conditional sentence of Col 2:20 show what believers already are in Christ!

NASB”to the elementary principles of the world”

NKJV”from the basic principles of the world”

NRSV”to the elemental spirits of the universe”

TEV”from the ruling spirits of the universe”

NJB”to the principles of this world”

This term (stoicheia) is defined as

1. fundamental principles (cf. Heb 5:12; Heb 6:1)

2. basic elements of the world, such as earth, wind, water or fire (cf. 2Pe 3:10; 2Pe 3:12)

3. elementary spirits, (cf. Gal 4:3; Gal 4:8-9; Col 2:8; Eph 6:10-12)

4. heavenly bodies (cf. Enoch 52:9-10 and the early church fathers who thought it referred to the seven planetary spheres, cf. Baur, Arnt, Ginrich, Danker’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 776)

The basic etymology was “something in a series” or “row.” See note at Col 2:8.

Paul viewed life as a spiritual struggle (cf. Eph 2:2-3; Eph 6:10-18). Humans were beset by evil from within (a fallen nature, cf. Genesis 3), by a fallen world system (cf. Genesis 3) and by personal evil (Satan, the demonic and the stoicheia).

James Stewart’s, A Man in Christ, has an interesting comment:

“Sin was not something a man did: it was something that took possession of him, something the man was, something that turned him into an open enemy of the God who loved him. It brought outward penalties: ‘whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.’ But far more appalling than these were its inward results. It tormented the conscience: ‘O wretched man that I am!’ It brought the will into abject slavery: ‘the good that I would, I do not, but the evil which I would not, that I do.’ It destroyed fellowship with God: men were ‘alienated,’ ‘without God in the world.’ It hardened the heart, and blinded the judgment, and warped the moral sense: ‘God gave them over to a reprobate mind.’ It destroyed life itself: ‘the wages of sin is death.’

Such is the apostle’s estimate of sin’s overwhelming gravity. And through it all, even where sin is regarded as an external force waiting to take advantage of human nature in its frailty, he will allow no blurring of the fact of personal accountability. Principalities and powers may lie in wait, but in the last resort man’s is the choice, man’s the responsibility, and man’s the doom” (pp. 106-107).

For “world” see Special Topic: Paul’s Use of Kosmos at Col 1:6.

“decrees” This term has the same root as Col 2:14. Christ did not release believers from the Mosaic Law to become entangled again in Gnostic rules or any humanly mandated requirements. Oh, the freedom believers have in Christ! Oh, the pain of well-intended religious legalists!

Col 2:21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch” This series has no verbs and no connectors, which makes it emphatic! It may have been a slogan of the false teachers. These are examples of human religious rules which did not bring true righteousness. Humans have always had an ascetic, legalistic tendency (cf. Isa 29:13; Mat 15:10-12; Mar 7:19; Rom 14:17; Rom 14:21), but it is a hollow religion of self effort, self glory and self sufficiency (cf. Col 2:22-23).

Col 2:22 “(which all refer to things destined to perish with the using)” In Mat 15:7-20 and Mar 7:6-23 Jesus discusses this same type of issue in relation to the food laws of Leviticus 11.

“perish” See Special Topic below.

SPECIAL TOPIC: DESTROY, RUIN, CORRUPT (PHTHEIR)

Col 2:23 “the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and the severe treatment of the body” This was Jesus’ condemnation of the Scribes and Pharisees (cf. Isa 29:13).

Paul describes the false teachers religious practices by three terms:

1. NASB “self-made religion”

NKJV “self-imposed religion”

NRSV “self-imposed deity”

TEV “forced worship of angels”

NJB “The cultivation of the will”

This term is used only here in the NT. It may have been coined by Paul or earlier Christians. The NASB seems to have caught the essence of the term, “self-made religion.” TEV assumes that it reflects Col 2:18.

2. NASB “self-abasement”

NKJV, TEV “false humility”

NRSV “humility”

NJB (combines the second and third terms)

This same Greek word is used in Col 2:18. Literally it means “humility,” but the context favors the NKJV and TEV translation.

3. NASB, NRSV,

TEV “severe treatment of the body”

NKJV “neglect of the body”

NJB “a humility which takes no account of the body”

This reflects the ascetic religious view that to deny one’s bodily needs showed or developed religious piety. Examples are (1) denying the body food; (2) celibacy; (3) lack of clothing in winter, etc. This followed the Greek view that the body (matter) was evil.

SPECIAL TOPIC: CHRISTIAN FREEDOM vs. CHRISTIAN RESPONSIBILITY

Copyright 2013 Bible Lessons International

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

if. App-118., a.

be dead = died.

from, App-104.

subject, &c. Mid. of Greek. dogmatizo, which means to impose dogmas upon one. Supply Ellipsis with “such as”.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

20.] Warning against asceticism. If ye died (in your baptism, as detailed above, Col 2:11 if.) with Christ from (a pregnant construction: died, and so were set free from: not found elsewhere in N. T.: cf. Rom 6:2; Gal 2:19, where we have the dative) the elements (cf. Col 2:8; the rudimentary lessons, i.e. ritualistic observances) of the world (see on Col 2:8; Christ Himself was set free from these, when, being made under the law, He at His Death bore the curse of the law, and thus it was antiquated in Him), why, as living (emphatic, as though you had not died, see Gal 6:14) in the world, are ye being prescribed to (the active use of the verb, to decree, is common in the later classics, and occurs in the LXX, and Apocrypha. The person to whom the thing is decreed or prescribed is put in the dative (2Ma 10:8), so that, according to usage, such person may become the subject of the passive verb: cf. Thuc. i. 82, ( ),-Herod. vii. 144, ( ), and see Khner, Gram. ii. p. 35. Some, as Bernhardy, p. 346, and Ellicott, prefer considering this form as middle, and give it the sense of doceri vos sinitis. It seems to be of very little consequence which we call it; the meaning in either case is almost identical: why is the fact so? or, why do you allow it? To my mind, the passive here carries more keen, because more hidden, rebuke. The and of 1Co 6:7 rest on somewhat different ground. There, the voluntary element comes into emphasis, and the middle sense is preferable. See note there. I cannot see, with Meyer, why we should be so anxious to divest the sentence of all appearance of blaming the Colossians, and cast all its blame on the false teachers. The passive (see above) would demand a reason for the fact being so-Cur ita siti estis, ut , which is just as much a reproach as the middle Cur, sinitis, ut The active renderings, decreta facitis, Melancth. (in Eadie), decernitis, Ambrst. (ib.), are wrong both in grammar and in fact. The reference to Col 2:14 is plain. They were being again put under that . which was wiped out and taken away) Handle not, neither taste, nor even touch (it will be understood that these words follow immediately upon without a stop, as ;-just as the inf. in 2Ma 10:8. Then as to the meaning,-I agree with Calv., Beza, Beng., and Meyer in referring all the three to meats,-on account mainly of Col 2:22-23 (see below), but also of coming as a defining term between the two less precise ones and . Others have referred the three to different objects and variously to meats, or unclean objects, or women: universally to meats. Mey. remarks of the negatives, the relation of the three prohibitions is, that the first is nec, the second ne quidem. This would not be necessary from the form of the sentence, but seems supported by the word introducing a climax. Wetst. and the Commentators illustrate and as applied to meats, by Xen. Cyr. i. 3. 5, , () , , )-which things (viz. the things forbidden) are set ( emphatic, whose very nature is ) all of them for destruction (by corruption, see reff.) in their consumption (i.e. are appointed by the Creator to be decomposed and obliterated with their consumption by us. So Thdrt.- , , . ; : and similarly c.- , , -Thl., Erasm., Luth., Beza, Calv., Grot., Wolf, Olsh., Mey., al. The argument in fact is similar to that in Mat 15:17, and 1Co 6:13.

Two other lines of interpretation have been followed: 1) that which carries the sense on from the three verbs, Handle not, &c. things which tend to (moral) corruption in their use. De W., Baum.-Crus., al. But this suits neither the collocation of the words, nor , the using up, consumption, which should thus rather be . 2) that which makes refer to , and renders which all tend to (everlasting) destruction in their observance; but this is just as much against the sense of , and would rather require , if indeed be not superfluous altogether. See these same objections urged at greater length in Meyers note)-according to (connects with : the subsequent clause being a parenthetical remark; thus defining the general term to consist in human, not divine commands) the commands and systems ( is the wider term comprising many . In reff., the wider term is prefixed: here, where examples of separate have been given, we rise from them to the system of doctrine of which they are a part) of men (not merely , bringing out the individual authors of them, but . describing them generically as human, not divine. This I would press as against Ellic., who views the as the art. of correlation, rendered necessary by . But even if this usage were to be strictly pressed with such a word as , the substantive nearest to it, , has no article), such as ( brings us from the general objective, human doctrines and systems, to the specific subjective, the particular sort of doctrines and systems which they were following: q. d., and that, such sort of . . . as ) are possessed of ( does not exactly = , but betokens more the abiding attribute of these -enjoy, as we say) a reputation ( occurs in various meanings. Absolutely, it may signify avoir raison, as Demosth. adv. Lept. p. 461, , which meaning is obviously out of place here:-as is also to take account of, Herod. i. 62, , . But the meaning to have the repute of,-found Herod. v. 66, (is said to have influenced the Pythia),-and Plato, Epinomis, p. 987 b, (Veneris esse dicitur, as Ficinus),-manifestly fits the context here, and is adopted by most Commentators) indeed (the solitarium leaves the to be supplied by the reader, or gathered from what follows. It is implied by it, not by the mere phrase (see the examples above), that they had the repute only without the reality) of wisdom in (element of its repute) voluntary worship (words of this form are not uncommon: so we have , a volunteer or self-constituted proxenus, in Thuc. iii. 70-, to pretend to be deaf, Strabo i. p. 36,-, voluntary slavery, Plato Symp., p. 184 c, &c. &c.; see Lexx., and Aug., Ep. 149 (59, cited above on Col 2:17), says sic et vulgo dicitur qui divitem affectat thelodives, et qui sapientem thelosapiens, et ctera hujusmodi. Mey. cites Epiphan. Hr.xvi. p.34, explaining the name Pharisees, . See many more examples in Wetst. The . was mainly that of angels, see above, Col 2:18; but the generality of the expression here may take in other voluntary extravagancies of worship also) and humility (see Col 2:18) and unsparingness of the body (Plato defines , . , Def. p. 412 D: Thuc. ii. 43 has : Diod. Sic. xiii. 60, , &c. &c., see Wetst.), not in any honour of it (on the interpretations, see below. is used by St. Paul of honour or respect bestowed on the body, in 1Co 12:23-24; of honourable conduct in matters relating to the body, 1Th 4:4 (see note there: cf. also Rom 1:24): and such is the meaning I would assign to it here-these have the repute of wisdom for (in) &c., and for (in) unsparingness of the body, not in any real honour done to it-its true honour being dedication to the Lord, 1Co 6:13),-to the satiating of the flesh? I connect these words not with the preceding clause, but with above-why are ye suffering yourselves (see on the passive above) to be thus dogmatized (in the strain &c. according to &c., which are &c.), and all for the satisfaction of the flesh-for the following out of a , the ground of which is the , Col 2:18? then after this follow most naturally the exhortations of the next chapter; they are not to seek the -not , but . The ordinary interpretation of this difficult passage has been, as E. V. not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh, meaning thereby, that such commands do not provide for the honour which we owe to the body in the supply of the proper refreshment to the flesh. But two great objections lie against this, and are in my judgment fatal to the interpretation in every shape: 1) that cannot be used in this indifferent sense as equivalent to , in a sentence where it occurs together with , and where it has before occurred in an ethical sense: 2) that will not bear this meaning of mere ordinary supplying, satisfying the wants of: but must imply satiety, satisfying to repletion. The children of Israel were to eat the quails , Exo 16:8; cf. also Deu 33:23; Lam 5:6; Hab 2:16; also . , Polyb. ii. 19. 4.

Meyer renders-these commands have a repute for wisdom, &c.,-not for any thing which is really honourable (i.e. which may prove that repute to be grounded in truth), but in order thereby to the satiation of mens sensual nature: and so, nearly, Ellicott. The objections to this are, 1) the strained meaning of ,-2) the insertion of but before , or as in Ellic. only after it, both which are wholly gratuitous. This same latter objection applies to the rendering of Beza, al., nec tamen ullius sunt pretii, quum ad ea spectant quibus farcitur caro,-besides that this latter paraphrase is unwarranted. See other renderings still further off the point in Mey. and De W. Among these I fear must be reckoned that of Conyb., are of no value to check (?) the indulgence of fleshly passions, and that of Bhr and Eadie, regarding – as participial, and joining with -a harshness of construction wholly unexampled and improbable. The interpretation above given seems to me, after long consideration, the simplest, and most in accord with the context. It is no objection to it that the antithesis presented by is thus not to . …, but merely to : for if the Apostle wished to bring out a negative antithesis to these last words only, he hardly could do so without repeating the preposition, the sense of which is carried on to .

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Col 2:20. , if) The inference, begun at Col 2:16, is continued; and at ch. Col 3:1, a new inference follows.- , ye are dead from) An abbreviated expression, i.e. dead, and so set free from the elements, etc.- , from the elements) Col 2:8.-) in the Middle voice, you receive (take up) dogmas, ordinances.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Col 2:20

Col 2:20

If ye died with Christ-When they were buried with Christ in baptism their death with Christ was signified and sealed. (Col 2:12). They entered into that real and vital union with him which makes his death, as a complete renunciation of the old life of sin. (2Co 5:14-15; Gal 2:19-20; Gal 6:14).

from the rudiments of the world,-From the ends, ways, and manners of the world.

why, as though living in the world,-If you are no longer moved by worldly rewards, honors, and ends; if you are dead with Christ to earthly conditions; since you put off at your baptism your old ways of life.

do ye subject yourselves to ordinances,-The ordinances here mean the law of Moses first, to which the Jews were disposed to cling, and teach that the Gentiles should observe; but they embraced all the observances and appointments which human philosophies and reasonings could command.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Chapter 10 Christ the Antidote to Carnal Asceticism

Col 2:20-23

Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (touch not; taste not; handle not; which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh, (vv. 20-23)

It is a great mistake and a fatal blunder into which the best of people readily fall to fail to distinguish the two very different senses in which the term the flesh is used in the Bible. Sometimes it refers solely to our bodies, this mortal flesh, but in the doctrinal parts of the New Testament it generally means the nature that fallen man has inherited from his first father. God created man, we are told, in His own image, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them; and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created (Gen 5:1-2). Physically perfect, they were morally innocent and spiritually like unto God, who is a Spirit and the Father of spirits.

But in the very next verse we read, Adam begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image (Gen 5:3). This was after sin had defiled his nature and poisoned the springs of life, and all his children now bear this fallen image and likeness. Hence the need of regeneration, and so our Lord said to Nicodemus, That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. He is not merely saying that that which is born of the physical body is a physical body, but that personality which comes into the world through natural generation and birth is one with the fallen nature that Adam acquired when he fell. This is called distinctively, the flesh, the body of the flesh, sin in the flesh, sin that dwelleth in us, the carnal mind which is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be; and is the nature of the old man-the unregenerate natural man.

We are told that we all were by nature children of wrath, even as others. When converted, or regenerated, this carnal nature is not altered in the slightest degree. It is never improved nor sanctified, either in whole or in part. In the cross of Christ God has condemned it utterly as too vile for improvement. The believer has received a new nature which is spiritual, the nature of the new man. He is now responsible to walk in obedience to the Word of God, which appeals only to this new nature. The old and the new natures are in the believer and will be until the redemption of the body.

It is true that the flesh, or the old nature, acts through the members of the body, but the body itself is not evil. Every natural instinct or physical appetite, no matter how perfectly right and proper it may be, and used as God intended, may be perverted to selfish and dishonorable purposes. But we are called upon to mortify, or put to death, the deeds of the body and no longer to yield our members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin, but to present the body with all its ransomed powers unto God to be used for His service under the controlling power of His Holy Spirit. Hence the Christian is called to a life of self-abnegation and so the apostle Paul could say, I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection.

But by that he does not mean that he visits needless punishment upon his physical flesh in order to purify his spirit, but rather that he does not permit unlawful or inordinate physical appetites to dominate him, and so lead him into excesses which would bring dishonor upon the ministry committed to him and upon the name of the Lord whose servant he is. This subjection of the body will ever be necessary as long as we are in this scene of testing. So the apostle Peter tells us, He that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin. It is not that we obtain deliverance from the power of sin by ascetic practices such as flagellation, fasting, or ignoring physical comfort, but rather by refusing obedience to carnal impulses, the gratification of which may give physical pleasure while they war against the soul.

And in this we may see the contrast between our Lords temptation and our own. Of Him we read that he suffered being tempted. Of us, that we cease from sin if we suffer in the flesh. In other words, to Him, the Holy One, temptation caused the keenest suffering. His holy nature shrank from the slightest contact with evil even in satanic suggestion. But with us, fallen as we are, the suggestion of evil may be seductively pleasing, and we must resolutely refuse the thought of sensual pleasure in order that we may walk in purity before God. He was tempted in all things like as we are, apart from sin. That is, He was never tempted by inward desire for sin. He could say, The prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in me. With us it is far otherwise. When temptation is presented from without we are sadly conscious of the fact that we have a traitor within who would open the door of the fortress to the enemy if he were not carefully watched. And right here is where purpose of heart is needed in order that we may cleave to the Lord and give no ground to the suggestions of the flesh or the promptings of the Adversary.

An Indian, in explaining the conflict of the two natures, said, It seems to me as though two dogs are fighting within me: one is a black dog, and he is very savage and very bad. The other is a white dog, and he is very gentle and very good. But the black dog fights with him all the time. And which dog wins? someone asked. Laconically the Indian replied, Which ever one I say sic him to. And it was well put, for if the will is on the side of the evil, the flesh will triumph; but if the will is subdued by grace and subject to the Holy Spirit, the new nature will control.

It is for lack of understanding this important truth that many have supposed they could perfect themselves in holiness by imposing penances and suffering of various kinds upon the body. At a very early day such views came into the church. The Jewish Essenes and the Stoic philosophers had accustomed both Jews and Gentiles to the thought that the body in itself is evil and must be subdued if one would advance in holiness. These views were taken up by certain sects of Gnostics, while others went to the opposite extreme and taught that the spiritual alone was important, and that the body might be used in any way without polluting the soul.

But in these last four verses of our present chapter the apostle warns against the folly of seeking holiness through asceticism. He describes these practices as being part of that philosophy of which he has already spoken in verse 8, which he designated the rudiments or elements of the world. Challenging the believer, as a new man in Christ, who died with Him to his old place and condition in the world, he asks: Wherefore if ye [died] with Christ from the [elements] of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,after the commandments and doctrines of men? I have purposely left out certain parenthetical expressions which we will look at in a moment.

The great thing now to see is that all these rules and regulations for the subduing of the body are according to the principles of the world. They all take for granted that God is still trying in some way to improve the flesh, and this we know is not His purpose. Through John the Baptist He said, The axe is laid to the root of the tree. Not only in modern times, but in those early days of Christianity that we are considering, men have laid the axe, or the pruning-knife, if you will, to the fruit of the tree as though the tree might be improved if the bad fruit were cut off. Get men to reform, to sign pledges, to put themselves under rules and regulations, to starve the body, to inflict physical suffering upon it, and surely its vile propensities will be at least annulled if not eliminated, and little by little men will become spiritual and godlike. The formula which thousands have taken up within the last few years:

Every day, in every way,

I am getting better and better,

expresses the mind of many. But no amount of self-control, no physical suffering whatsoever can change the carnal mind, called emphatically, the flesh.

Saint Jerome tells how, having lived a lecherous life in his youth, after he became a Christian he fled from all contact with the gross and vulgar world in which he had once sought to gratify every fleshly desire. He left Rome and wandered to Palestine, and there lived in a cave near Bethlehem where he sought to subdue his carnal nature by fasting almost to starvation. And then he tells us how disappointed he was when, exhausted and weary, he fell asleep and dreamed he was still rioting among the dissolute companions of his godless days. The flesh cannot be starved into subjection. It cannot be improved by subjecting it to ordinances whether human or divine. But as we walk in the Spirit, and are occupied thus with the risen Christ, we are delivered from the power of fleshly lusts that war against the soul.

In the parenthetical portion of verses 21-22 the apostle gives us a sample, if we may so say, of the carnal ordinances or doctrines of men to which he refers, Touch not; taste not; handle not. He is not saying, Do not touch, taste, or handle these ascetic regulations-that would be nonsense-but these are the human rules, through obedience to which the ascetic hoped to attain to a higher degree of spirituality. How often we have heard verse 21 quoted as though for the guidance of Christians today, exactly the opposite of that which the apostle intended. All such regulations are to perish with the using.

These things have, indeed, an appearance of wisdom in will worship and humility and neglecting of the body, or punishing the body by making it suffer. It is natural to suppose that such things would have a tendency to free one from carnal desires, but untold thousands of monks, hermits, and ascetics of all descriptions, have proved that they are useless against the indulgence of the flesh. One may shut himself up in a monastery in order to escape the world, only to find he has taken the world in with him. One may dwell in a cave in the desert in order to subdue the flesh, only to find that the more the body is weakened and neglected, the more powerful the flesh becomes.

Dr. A. T. Robertson translates the last part of verse 20: Why, as though living in the world, do you dogmatize; such as, Touch not; taste not; handle not? These rules may be elevated to the importance of dogmas, but they will never enable one to achieve the object he has in view.

You have heard of the man who, anxious to fit himself for the presence of God and awakened to a sense of the emptiness of a life of worldly pleasure, fled from the city to the desert and made his home in a cave in the rocks, there practicing the greatest austerities, and hoping through prayer and penance to reach the place where he would be acceptable to God. Hearing of another hermit who was reputed to be a very holy and devout man, he made a long, wearisome journey across the desert, supported only by his staff, in order to interview him and learn from him how he might find peace with God. In answer to his agonized questions the aged anchorite said to him, Take that staff, that dry rod which is in your hand, plant it in the desert soil, water it daily, offering fervent prayers as you do so, and when it bursts into leaf and bloom you may know that you have made your peace with God.

Rejoicing that at last he had what seemed like authoritative instruction in regard to this greatest of all ventures, he hastened back to his cell and planted his rod as he had been told to do. For long, weary days, weeks, and months, he faithfully watered the dry stick and prayed for the hour when the token of his acceptance would be manifest. At last one day, in utter despair and brokenness of spirit, weakened by fasting and sick with longing for the apparently unattainable, he exclaimed bitterly, It is all no use. I am no better today than I was when I first came to the desert. The fact is, I am just like this dry stick myself. It needs life before there can be leaves and fruit, and I need life, for I am dead in my sins and cannot produce fruit for God. And then it seemed as though a voice within said, At last you have learned the lesson that the old hermit meant to teach you. It is because you are dead and have no strength or power in yourself that you must turn to Christ alone and find life and peace in Him. And leaving his desert cave he went back to the city to find the Word of God and in its sacred pages learn the way of peace.

And let us remember it is as impossible to obtain holiness by ascetic practices as it is to buy salvation by physical suffering. We are saved in the first place, not through anything we undergo, but through that which our blessed Lord Jesus Christ underwent for us on Calvarys cross, and, blessed be God, He who died for us upon that cross now lives for us at Gods right hand, and He is the power for holiness as well as for justification. By the Holy Spirit He dwells within us, and as we yield ourselves unto God as those who are alive from the dead, He is enabled to live out His wondrous life in us. Does your heart sometimes cry:

Tell me what to do to be pure

In the sight of all-seeing eyes;

Tell me is there no thorough cure,

No escape from the sins I despise?

Will my Saviour only pass by,

Only show how faulty Ive been?

Will He not attend to my cry?

May I not this moment be clean?

Oh, believe me, dear, anxious, seeking Christian, you will find holiness in the same Christ in whom you found salvation. As you cease from self-occupation and look up in faith to Him you will be transformed into His own glorious image. You will become like Him as you gaze on His wonderful face. There is no other way by which the flesh may be subdued and your life become one of triumph over the power of sin. Asceticism is but a vain will-o-the-wisp that, while it promises you victory, will plunge you into the morass of disappointment and defeat. But occupation with Christ risen at Gods right hand is the sure way to overcome the lusts of the flesh and to become like Him who has said, For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified through the truth.

Of Him they said He was a glutton and a wine-bibber, because He came not as an ascetic but as a Man among men, entering with them into every sinless experience of human life. He has left us an example that we should follow His steps. He has come to sanctify every natural relationship, not to do violence to those affections and feelings which He Himself implanted in the hearts of mankind.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

world

kosmos = world-system. Jam 1:27; Joh 7:7. (See Scofield “Rev 13:8”).

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

if: Col 3:3, Rom 6:2-11, Rom 7:4-6, Gal 2:19, Gal 2:20, Gal 6:14, 1Pe 4:1-3

from: Col 2:8, Eph 2:15

rudiments: or, elements

living: Joh 15:19, Joh 17:14-16, 2Co 10:3, Jam 4:4, 1Jo 5:19

subject: Col 2:14, Col 2:16, Gal 4:3, Gal 4:9-12, Heb 13:9

Reciprocal: Exo 27:8 – as it was showed Lev 11:24 – General Mat 15:2 – transgress 1Co 8:8 – meat Eph 2:14 – the middle Col 3:1 – risen 1Ti 4:3 – to abstain Heb 7:16 – the law Heb 9:10 – carnal 1Pe 2:24 – being

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

(Col 2:20.) . The of the Received Text has no authority, neither has the article before the proper name. Since ye died off with Christ from the rudiments of the world, or, have been separated by such a death from the rudiments of the world. The phrase rudiments of the world has been already explained under the eighth verse. To be dead to them is to be done with them, or, to be in such a state that they have no longer any authority over us. Thus in Rom 7:3-4, the wife by the death of her husband is said to be so free from conjugal law, that she may marry another man. In Gal 2:19, the apostle speaks of being dead to the law. The dative is used in those two cases, as if there was a consciousness of complete deliverance. The preposition is here employed to intensify the idea, as if death were followed by distance or removal. Winer, 47, b. They had nothing more to do with the rudiments of the world-and the rudiments of the world had nothing more to do with them. The apostle again introduces his favourite idea of union with Christ. The death of Christ abrogated the ritual law; and being one with Him in that death, they had died to that law-the denoting consequent separation. We cannot agree with Huther, in inferring from this passage, that the phrase rudiments of the world expresses something more than the Mosaic law, and denotes the ethical life of the heathen world. He says-the language implies that the Colossians had served the elements of the world; and if so, then, if you mean the ritual institute by these elements, you must hold what you can never prove, that the majority in this church were of Jewish extraction. But the argument is not conclusiv e. In Gal 4:9, the apostle may refer to heathen elements, so far as they had a ceremonial and sensuous aspect; but the rites of the heathen world-its , never had any Divine claim or obligation, so that the death of Christ did not formally annul them; whereas the Mosaic law was an ordinance of God’s appointment, and only by yielding to it could religious privilege and blessing be enjoyed prior to the death on Calvary. It was by initiation into this rudimentary and worldly system, that the worship of the one God could be engaged in. Heathenism never had any authority over them, whatever might be its actual power. If its ordinances be meant, then the apostle warns against a return to them. This is not the case, for the ordinances against which he cautions were remnants of a system not wholly unlawful like Gentilism, but of one which had enjoyed Divine sanction. In short, the whole paragraph has special reference to Jewish customs. After speaking, in the eighth verse, of the rudiments of the world, he describes the glory of Christ, and affirms that the Colossian believers are circumcised in Him-a reference to the Jewish ritual. Then, having said that the handwriting of ordinances had been blotted out, he adds, as a warranted inference from, and application of the doctrine-let no man judge you in eating and drinking, or in respect of new moons and Sabbath days-another direct allusion to Mosaic institutions. And in fine, as a sample of those rudiments of the world, he quotes-touch not, taste not, handle not. There were among them, it is true, other practices than such as had been originally Jewish;-an asceticism which was foreign to the Mosaic system, and an angel-worship which was, perhaps, based upon a misrepresentation of traditions connected with it; but still the central error of the false teachers was an attempt to impose the ceremonial yoke, in some of its aspects, on the members of the Christian church, as som ething which would ensure them a transcendental purity, and bring them into a magical connection with the powers of the spirit-world. The apostle then asks-

, , , :-Why, as living in the world, do ye suffer such ordinances to be published among you as touch not, taste not, handle not? Bhr is wrong in saying that stands for , though the one phrase may explain the other. The word cannot here mean the physical world, as Schneckenburger maintains, for it must have the ethical meaning which it bears in the previous clause and in verse eighth. It is the sphere of the weak and beggarly elements. But the Colossians had been translated into the kingdom of God’s dear Son, therefore the code of the realm which they had left had no more force upon them. A Russian naturalized in Britain need not trouble himself about any imperial ukase, as if he yet lived under the Autocrat.

The verb , which occurs only here in the New Testament, but sometimes in the Septuagint and Apocrypha, signifies in the classics to pronounce an opinion, as well as to enforce or publish a decree. The latter meaning prevails in the Septuagint, Est 3:9, etc.; 2Ma 10:8; 2Ma 15:36. Some look on the verb as active. Thus Melancthon has decreta facitis; Ambrosiaster, decernitis; and Olshausen, why do ye again set up worldly ordinances? The majority of commentators take the word in a middle sense, though Beza, Wolf, and Meyer give it a passive significance. Buttmann, 135, 8. But we cannot see how the use of the middle would imply a censure, any more than the employment of the passive. The middle brings out rather a pointed caution-why should ye permit the preaching of dogmas? or why should ye allow such dogmas to be imposed on you? They could not suppress the teaching of the errorists, but they needed not to listen to it, and far less to yield to it. The strong form of the verb almost says, that the apostle suspected a latent tendency in their temperament to listen and be charmed. The apostle, in Eph 2:15, calls the Mosaic law, in one aspect of it, by the name , and he here uses the cognate verb referring to the same institute. The argument is a cogent one. They were dead to such ordinances-why then should they act as if they lived under them? They did not belong to that , of the character of which such ordinances partook. They belied their entire position, and reversed all their relations, if, after being freed by Christ, they again sunk themselves into bondage-if they allowed the handwriting to be reinscribed, and taking the nail out of it, laid it up among their solemn archives as an instrument of revived and extended authority. To submit to the ritual which they had believed to be obsolete, was in direct antagonism to all t hat Jesus had done for them, and to all which they had willingly acknowledged as His achievement on their behalf. Some of the to which the apostle alludes are now given, and they are ascetic in nature. But ere we advance to them, we shall take up the clause which we believe to be joined closely with , viz., the last clause of Col 2:22.

. Mat 15:9; Mar 7:7; Isa 29:13. Our reasons for adopting this view will be afterwards stated. This clause describes the source of such , and virtually contains another reason why they should not be submitted to. The prime reason is, that believers are dead with Christ to them; but the subordinate reason is, that the edicts are wholly human in their origin. Why should ye for a moment suffer them to be imposed upon you according to–or having no higher authority than, the commandments and doctrines of men? The two nouns differ not, as Grotius supposes, that the former is enacted by law, and the latter enjoined by philosophers; but rather, as Olshausen says, the first is enactment-the second, the principles on which it is based. The first-., is the dogma in its preceptive and practical form, of which there is a specimen in the preceding part of the verse-touch not, taste not, handle not; and the second-, is the doctrine out of which it arises-the convictions and theories by which it is illustrated and defended. The same general idea has been stated under the eighth verse. Christ is Head, and to Him alone do we owe subjection. Whatever authority ordinances had when the Mosaic economy stood, they have none now-the institute being abolished in the death of Him who is the one Legislator. And all extra-biblical additions to it were human in their very origin.

Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians

Col 2:20. In his deunciation of false teachers, the apostle has reference to both Judaism and so-called philosophy in the rest of the chapter, but chiefly the former. Rudiments of the world means the elements or ordinances of the law that were types of the Gospel. Since Christ has released them from their obligation to the former rudiments, by (Paul asks) are they still subjecting themselves to them as if they were still under them.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Col 2:20. If ye died, as is actually the case, since they died with Christ (see references). When baptized their death with Christ was signified and sealed (comp. Col 2:12). Wherefore, though a correct gloss, is sustained by but one ancient manuscript, and the insertion of it can readily be accounted for.

From the rudiments (or, elements) of the world; see Col 2:8. They died from these, because they were separated from them. The law and all its ordinances were wiped out by the death of Christ (Col 2:14), they who were united with Him in His death shared with Him all the blessings of the same immunity (Ellicott). Here, as everywhere, the Apostle finds in the facts of salvation the motive for believers.

Why, as though living in the world; world being used in its technical theological sense = in the flesh. They were not yet relapsed into this state, but obedience to the false teachers would make them live as if they had.

Are ye subjected to ordinances. One word in the Greek, derived from dogma, i.e., decree. It is doubtful whether the exact sense is: subjected by yourselves, or by others; but the difference is mainly one of expression. It is a curious instance of change in language that subject to dogmas would now refer to doctrines, whereas then it pointed to practical rules of life.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Our apostle being now in the close of this chapter, returns to expostulate, and argues the case with those who were willing to subject themselves to the observation of the old Jewish rites and ceremonies. He argues thus: “If says he, you profess yourselves in your baptism to be spiritually dead with Christ, and to be freed by his death from the Levitical ordinances, why are ye subject to those ordinances? Such are touch not, taste not, handle not; touch not any unclean thing, taste not any forbidden meat, handle not any consecrated vessel; all which observances were to perish necessarily with the very using: And whereas they were set of with a specious shew of wisdom, as if they were voluntary services and free-will offerings to God, he acknowledges, that they had indeed a shew of wisdom, a shew of humility, and seeming to give any honour to the satisfying of the flesh; but all this had nothing of spiritual devotion and piety in it.”

Learn hence, 1. That such as do by baptism profess themselves to be dead with Christ to the ceremonial law, may certainly conclude, that the Jewish ceremonies have no more any power over them, or that they ought to yield themselves to the observation of them: If ye be dead with Christ, why are ye subject to ordinances?

Learn, 2. That though God approveth and accepteth willing worship, yet not will-worship, what fair shew soever it may seem to have, either of wisdom, humility, or mortification; whatever is the product of our fancies, is a very fornication in religion, and an abomination in the sight of God, how pleasing soever it may be in the sight of men; and yet men are most forward to that service of God which is of man’s finding out and setting up; man likes it better to worship a god of his own making, than to worship the God that made him; and likes any way of worshipping god which is of his own framing, more than that which is of God’s appointing. Ah! Wretched heart of man, which, whilst it seems very zealous to worship and honour God, hath not zeal to do it in any other way than in that which reflects the highest dishonour upon him.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Once one had died to sin and worldly pursuits in baptism (verse 12), there was no reason for him to live as if he were still controlled by worldly thinking. Worldly traditions and the law of Moses do not control the Christian’s life. The Pharisees wanted to add their own requirements to God’s law and force everyone to follow them. Jesus said they thereby made their worship vain ( Mat 15:9 ). We need only to follow God’s will to be pleasing unto him ( Mat 7:21 ). Man’s laws have to do with the temporary things of the world. Such commands come out of the minds of men and have no bearing upon one’s spiritual well being.

Man’s additional, external requirements appear to be based upon wisdom. However, such appearances are merely an illusion. Will worship is based upon what the worshiper wants instead of what God wants. The false teachers worshiped angels and endured depravation of their body in an effort to control fleshly lusts, but such did not achieve the desired end ( Col 2:20-23 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

Col 2:20-23. Wherefore The inference begun Col 2:16 is continued. A new inference follows Col 3:1. If ye be dead with Christ As by receiving the ordinance of baptism ye profess to be; from the rudiments, or elements, of the world See on Col 2:8. From those ceremonies, which persons among the Gentiles or the Jews are apt to place so much dependance on; why, as though living in the world In the manner you formerly did, and being still influenced by the spirit of the world, and associated with worldly people; are ye subject to ordinances To mere human institutions, heathen or Jewish? Why receive ye or use ordinances, which Christ hath not enjoined, and from which he hath made his followers free? Or the sense may be, Since you professed yourselves at your baptism to be spiritually dead with Christ, and by his death to be freed even from the ceremonies of the law, (though of Gods own institution,) why should you submit to superstitious rites and ordinances of the like kind invented by men? Touch not Any unclean thing; taste not Any forbidden meat; handle not Any consecrated vessel. Most commentators suppose that the Jewish ceremonies only are here referred to, and that this was directed to the Jewish converts at Colosse: but as I have no doubt, says Macknight, that it was intended for the Gentiles, I think the ordinances of which the apostle speaks were the rules of the Pythagoreans respecting abstinence from animal food, and of the Platonists concerning the worshipping of angels, condemned Col 2:18, which it seems some of the church at Colosse had actually begun to follow; perhaps at the persuasion of the Judaizing teachers, who wished to subject them to all the rites of the law. Which all are to perish in the using All which things cannot be used, but they must perish in and by the use of them, being made merely for the body, and with it going to corruption, and having therefore no further use, no influence on the mind. The original expression, however, , may be rendered, tend to corruption, in, or by, the abuse of them; and the word being often used by St. Peter, not for a natural, but a moral corruption, (see 2Pe 1:4; 2Pe 2:12; 2Pe 2:19,) the meaning of the verse may be, that when these ceremonies are observed in compliance with the commands and doctrines of men as things necessary, they corrupt men who thus abuse them. Thus Doddridge: All which things tend to the corruption of that excellent religion into which you have the honour to be initiated, by the abuse of them, according to the commandments and doctrines of mistaken and ill-designing men, who insist so eagerly upon them, as if they were essential to salvation. Which things indeed have a show, a pretence, of wisdom Of being an excellent doctrine, or wise institution, and are, in that view, gravely insisted upon, especially by the more rigorous sects; in will-worship A worship, or service, which they themselves have devised. The word nearly resembles the phrase found Col 2:18, , delighting in the worship. But it can hardly be literally translated, so as to express the same idea. But the meaning is, a worship of human invention, consequently performed from ones own will. And in an affected humility and neglecting of the body Greek, , a not sparing of the body; namely, by subjecting it to much mortification, in denying it many gratifications, and putting it to many inconveniences. Not in any honour Namely, of the body; or not of any real value, as may be rendered, namely, before God: to the satisfying of the flesh Nor do they, upon the whole, mortify, but satisfy the flesh. They indulge mans corrupt nature, his self-will, pride, and desire of being distinguished from others. Doddridge reads, to the dishonourable satisfying of the flesh; their severity to the body, rigorous as it seemed, being no true mortification, nor tending to dispose the mind to it. On the contrary, while it puffed men up with a vain conceit of their own sanctity, it might be said rather to satisfy the flesh, even while it seemed most to afflict it.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Verse 20

Dead–from the rudiments of the world; released from obligation to them, that is, from the Jewish rites. The language of the remainder of this passage (Colossians 2:20-23) is not a little obscure. The general sentiment which it has been understood to convey may be expressed thus: Why are ye subject to ordinances and outward prohibitions relating only to the perishable things of this life, that cannot spiritually affect the soul?–prohibitions which rest on the authority of human traditions, and which only make a show of sanctity by means of the outward mortification of the body.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

2:20 {20} Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, {e} as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

(20) Now last of all he fights against the second type of corruptions, that is to say, against mere superstitions, invented by men, which partly deceive the simplicity of some with their craftiness, and partly with their foolish superstitions and to be laughed at: as when godliness, remission of sins, or any such like virtue, is put in some certain type of meat, and such like things, which the inventors of such rites themselves do not understand, because indeed it is not there. And he uses an argument taken of comparison. If by the death of Christ who established a new covenant with his blood, you are delivered from those external rites with which it pleased the Lord to prepare the world, as it were by certain rudiments, to that full knowledge of true religion, why would you be burdened with traditions, I know not what, as though you were citizens of this world, that is to say, as though you depended upon this life, and earthly things? Now this is the reason why before verse eight he followed another order than he does in the refutation: because he shows by this what degrees false religions came into the world, that is, beginning first by curious speculations of the wise, after which in process of time succeeded gross superstition, against which mischiefs the Lord set at length that service of the Law, which some abused in like sort. But in the refutation he began with the abolishing of the Law service, that he might show by comparison, that those false services ought much more to be taken away.

(e) As though your felicity stood in these earthly things, and the kingdom of God was not rather spiritual.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

In these verses Paul developed the third error he already alluded to, namely, asceticism. The ascetic practices ("elementary principles," stoicheai, Col 2:8) he referred to seem to have been extensions of Mosaic Law. "If" (Col 2:20) could read "Since." It is a first class condition in Greek that in this case is a condition true to reality. Christians "died" to merely human ordinances of Judaism and Gnosticism at conversion (cf. Rom 6:1-4; Rom 7:1-6; 2Co 5:14; Gal 2:19). Nevertheless it is possible to put oneself under these and live like unbelievers in the world. The false teachers were in effect forcing the Colossians to live by the world system by placing ascetic requirements on them. The specific decrees cited as examples (Col 2:21) have to do with food, but these are only representative of many such laws. These laws are inadequate for three reasons. The things prohibited perish through normal usage, the laws are of human origin, and they do not solve the real problem, namely, the desires of the flesh.

"There is only one thing that will put the collar on the neck of the animal within us, and that is the power of the indwelling Christ." [Note: Alexander Maclaren, "The Epistles of St. Paul to the Colossians and Philemon," in The Expositor’s Bible, p. 255.]

The emphases of these false teachers are still with us today. The first is "higher" knowledge (Gnosticism). The second is the observance of laws to win God’s love (legalism). The third is the belief that beings other than Christ must mediate between people and God (mysticism). The fourth is the practice of abstaining from things to earn merit with God (asceticism).

"When we make Jesus Christ and the Christian revelation only part of a total religious system or philosophy, we cease to give Him the preeminence. When we strive for ’spiritual perfection’ or ’spiritual fullness’ by means of formulas, disciplines, or rituals, we go backward instead of forward. Christian believers must beware of mixing their Christian faith with such alluring things as yoga, transcendental meditation, Oriental mysticism, and the like. We must also beware of ’deeper life’ teachers who offer a system for victory and fullness that bypasses devotion to Jesus Christ. In all things, He must have the preeminence!" [Note: Wiersbe, 2:104.]

Reformed theology has historically taught that a true Christian will never renounce faith in Christ. The fact that Paul wrote this epistle to Christians who were in danger of doing precisely that should prove that this teaching is wrong. Nowhere in the epistle did he make a distinction between professing Christians, who were supposedly the objects of his warnings, and true Christians. Rather he appealed to the Colossians as genuine Christians to watch out for this real danger. Genuine Christians can be deceived by false teaching, even teaching concerning Christ.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 2

TWO FINAL TESTS OF THE FALSE TEACHING

Col 2:20-23 (R.V.)

The polemical part of the Epistle is now coming to an end. We pass in the next chapter, after a transitional paragraph, to simple moral precepts which, with personal details, fill up the remainder of the letter. The antagonist errors appear for the last time in the words which we have now to consider. In these the Apostle seems to gather up all his strength to strike two straight, crashing, final blows, which pulverise and annihilate the theoretical positions and practical precepts of the heretical teachers. First, he puts in the form of an unanswerable demand for the reason for their teachings, their radical inconsistency with the Christians death with Christ, which is the very secret of his life. Then, by a contemptuous concession of their apparent value to people who will not look an inch below the surface, he makes more emphatic their final condemnation as worthless-less than nothing and vanity-for the suppression of “the flesh”- the only aim of all moral and religious discipline. So we have here two great tests by their conformity to which we may try all teachings which assume to regulate life, and all Christian teaching about the place and necessity for ritual and outward prescriptions of conduct. “Ye are dead with Christ.” All must fit in with that great fact. The restraint and conquest of “the flesh” is the purpose of all religion and of all moral teaching-our systems must do that or they are naught, however fascinating they may be.

I. We have then to consider the great fact of the Christians death with Christ, and to apply it as a touchstone.

The language of the Apostle points to a definite time when the Colossian Christians “died” with Christ. That carries us back to former words in the chapter, where, as we found, the period of their baptism, considered as the symbol and profession of their conversion, was regarded as the time of their burial. They died with Christ when they clave with penitent trust to the truth that Christ died for them. When a man unites himself by faith to the dying Christ as his Peace, Pardon, and Saviour, then he too in a very real sense dies with Jesus.

That thought that every Christian is dead with Christ runs through the whole of Pauls teaching. It is no mere piece of mysticism on his tips, though it has often become so, when divorced from morality, as it has been by some Christian teachers. It is no mere piece of rhetoric, though it has often become so, when men have lost the true thought of what Christs death is for the world. But to Paul the cross of Christ was, first and foremost, the altar of sacrifice on which the oblation had been offered that took away all his guilt and sin; and then, because it was that, it became the law of his own life, and the power that assimilated him to his Lord.

The plain English of it all is, that when a man becomes a Christian by putting his trust in Christ Who died, as the ground of his acceptance and salvation, such a change takes place upon his whole nature and relationship to externals as is fairly comparable to a death.

The same illustration is frequent in ordinary speech. What do we mean when we talk of an old man being dead to youthful passions or follies or ambitions? We mean that they have ceased to interest him, that he is separated from them and insensible to them. Death is the separator. What an awful gulf there is between that fixed white face beneath the sheet and all the things about which the man was so eager an hour ago! How impossible for any cries of love to pass the chasm! “His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not.” The “business” which filled his thoughts crumbles to pieces, and he cares not. Nothing reaches him or interests him any more. So, if we have got hold of Christ as our Saviour, and have found in His cross the anchor of souls, that experience will deaden us to all which was our life, and the measure in which we are joined to Jesus by our faith in His great sacrifice, will be the measure in which we are detached from our former selves, and from old objects of interest and pursuit. The change may either be called dying with Christ, or rising with Him. The one phrase takes hold of it at an earlier stage than the other; the one puts stress on our ceasing, to be what we were, the other on our beginning to be what we were not. So our text is followed by a paragraph corresponding in form and substance, and beginning, “If ye then be risen with Christ,” as this begins, “If ye died with Christ!”

Such detachment from externals and separation from a former self is not unknown in ordinary life. Strong emotion of any kind makes us insensible to things around, and even to physical pain. Many a man with the excitement of the battlefield boiling in his brain, “receives but recks not of a wound.” Absorption of thought and interest leads to what is called “absence of mind,” where the surroundings are entirely unfelt, as in the case of the saint who rode all day on the banks of the Swiss lake, plunged in theological converse, and at evening asked where the lake was, though its waves had been rippling for twenty miles at his mules feet. Higher tastes drive out lower ones. as some great stream turned into a new channel will sweep it clear of mud and rubbish. So, if we are joined to Christ, He will fill our souls with strong emotions and interests which will deaden our sensitiveness to things around us, and will inspire new loves, tastes, and desires, which will make us indifferent to much that we used to be eager about, and hostile to much that we once cherished.

To what shall we die if we are Christians? The Apostle answers that question in various ways, which we may profitably group together. “Reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin”. {Rom 6:11} “He died for all, that they which live should no longer live unto themselves”. {2Co 5:14-15} “Ye are become dead to the law.” {Rom 7:6} By the cross of Christ, “the world hath been crucified unto me, and I unto the world.” So then, to the whole mass of outward material things, all this present order which surrounds us, to the unrenounced self which has ruled us so long, and to the sin which results from the appeals of outward things to that evil self-to these, and to the mere outward letter of a commandment which is impotent to enforce its own behests or deliver self from the snares of the world and the burden of sin, we cease to belong in the measure in which we are Christs. The separation is not complete; but, if we are Christians at all, it is begun, and henceforward our life is to be a “dying daily.” It must either be a dying life or a living death. We shall still belong in our outward being-and, alas! far too much in heart also-to the world and self and sin-but, if we are Christians at all, there will be a real separation from these in the inmost heart of our hearts, and the germ of entire deliverance from them all will be in us.

This day needs that truth to be strongly urged. The whole meaning of the death of Christ is not reached when it is regarded as the great propitiation for our sins. Is it the pattern for our lives? Has it drawn us away from our love of the world, from our sinful self, from the temptations to sin, from cowering before duties which we hate but dare not neglect? Has it changed the current of our lives, and lifted us into a new region where we find new interests, loves, and aims, before which the twinkling lights, which once were stars to us, pale their ineffectual fires? If so, then, just in as much as it is so, and not one hairs breadth the more, may we call ourselves Christians. If not, it is of no use for us to talk about looking to the cross as the source of our salvation. Such a look, if it be true and genuine, will certainly change all a mans tastes, habits, aspirations, and relationships. If we know nothing of dying with Christ, it is to be feared we know as little of Christs dying for us.

This great fact of the Christians death with Christ comes into view here mainly as pointing the contradiction between the Christians position, and his subjection to the prescriptions and prohibitions of a religion which consists chiefly in petty rules about conduct. We are “dead,” says Paul, “to the rudiments of the world,”-a phrase which we have already heard in verse 8 {Col 2:8} of this chapter, where we found its meaning to be “precepts of an elementary character, fit for babes, not for men in Christ, and moving principally in the region of the material.” It implies a condemnation of all such regulation religion on the two grounds, that it is an anachronism, seeking to perpetuate an earlier stage which has been left behind, and that it has to do with the outsides of things, with the material and visible only. To such rudiments we are dead with Christ. Then, queries Paul, with irresistible triumphant question-why, in the name of consistency, “do you subject yourself to ordinances” (of which we have already heard in Col 2:14) such as “handle not, nor taste, nor touch”? These three prohibitions are not Pauls, but are quoted by him as specimens of the kind of rules and regulations which he is protesting against. The ascetic teachers kept on vehemently reiterating their prohibitions, and as the correct rendering of the words shows, with a constantly increasing in tolerance. “Handle not” is a less rigid prohibition than “touch not.” The first says, Do not lay hold of the last, Do not even touch with the tip of your finger. So asceticism, like many another tendency and habit, grows by indulgence, and demands abstinence ever more rigid and separation ever more complete. And the whole thing is out of date, and a misapprehension of the genius of Christianity. Mans work in religion is ever to confine it to the surface, to throw it outward and make it a mere round of things done and things abstained from. Christs work in religion is to drive it inwards, and to focus all its energy on “the hidden man of the heart,” knowing that if that be right, the visible will come right. It is waste labour to try to stick figs on the prickles of a thorn bush-as it the tree, so will be the fruit. There are plenty of pedants and martinets in religion as well as on the parade ground. There must be so many buttons on the uniform, and the shoulder belts must be pipe clayed, and the rifles on the shoulders sloped at just such an angle – and then all will be right. Perhaps so. Disciplined courage is better than courage undisciplined. But there is much danger of all the attention being given to drill, and then, when the parade ground is exchanged for the battlefield, disaster comes because there is plenty of etiquette and no dash.

Mens lives are pestered out of them by a religion which tries to tie them down with as many tiny threads as those with which the Liliputians fastened down Gulliver. But Christianity in its true and highest forms is not a religion of prescriptions, but of principles. It does not keep perpetually dinning a set of petty commandments and prohibitions into our ears. Its language is not a continual “Do this, forbear from that,”-but “Love, and thou fulfillest the law.” It works from the centre outwards to the circumference; first making clean the inside of the platter, and so ensuring that the outside shall be clean also. The error with which Paul fought, and which perpetually crops up anew, having its roots deep in human nature, begins with the circumference and wastes effort in burnishing the outside.

The parenthesis which follows in the text, “all which things are to perish with the using,” contains an incidental remark intended to show the mistake of attaching such importance to regulations about diet and the like, from the consideration of the perishableness of these meats and drinks about which so much was said by the false teachers. “They are all destined for corruption, for physical decomposition-in the very act of consumption.” You cannot use them without using them up. They are destroyed in the very moment of being used. Is it fitting for men who have died with Christ to this fleeting world, to make so much of its perishable things?

May we not widen this thought beyond its specific application here, and say that death with Christ to the world should deliver us from the temptation of making much of the things which perish with the using, whether that temptation is presented in the form of attaching exaggerated religious importance to ascetic abstinence from them or in that of exaggerated regard and unbridled use of them? Asceticism and Sybaritic luxury have in common an overestimate of the importance of the material things. The one is the other turned inside out. Dives in his purple and fine linen, and the ascetic in his hair shirt, both make too much of “what they shall put on.” The one with his feasts and the other with his fasts both think too much of what they shall eat and drink. A man who lives on high with his Lord puts all these things in their right place. There are things which do not perish with the using, but grow with use, like the five loaves in Christs hands. Truth, love, holiness, all Christlike graces and virtues increase with exercise, and the more we feed on the bread which comes down from heaven, the more shall we have for our own nourishment and for our brothers need. There is a treasure which faileth not, bags which wax not old, the durable riches and undecaying possessions of the soul that lives on Christ and grows like Him. These let us seek after; for if our religion be worth anything at all, it should carry us past all the fleeting wealth of earth straight into the heart of things, and give us for our portion that God whom we can never exhaust, nor outgrow, but possess the more as we use His sweetness for the solace, and His all-sufficient Being for the good, of our souls.

The final inconsistency between the Christian position and the practical errors in question is glanced at in the words “after the commandments and doctrines of men,” which refer, of course, to the ordinances of which Paul is speaking. The expression is a quotation from Isaiahs denunciation {Isa 29:13} of the Pharisees of his day, and as used here seems to suggest that our Lords great discourse on the worthlessness of the Jewish punctilios about meats and drinks was in the Apostles mind, since the same words of Isaiah occur there in a similar connection. It is not fitting that we, who are withdrawn from dependence on the outward visible order of things by our union with Christ in His death, should be under the authority of men. Here is the true democracy of the Christian society. “Ye were redeemed with a price. Be not the servants of men.” Our union to Jesus Christ is a union of absolute authority and utter submission. We all have access to the one source of illumination, and we are bound to take our orders from the one Master. The protest against the imposition of human authority on the Christian soul is made not in the interests of self-will, but from reverence to the only voice that has the right to give autocratic commands and to receive unquestioning obedience. We are free in proportion as we are dead to the world with Christ. We are free from men not that we may please ourselves, but that we may please Him.

“Hold your peace, I want to hear what my Master has to command me,” is the language of the Christian freedman, who is free that he may serve, and because he serves.

II. We have to consider one great purpose of all teaching and external worship, by its power in attaining which any system is to be tried.

“Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and severity to the body, but are not of any value against the indulgence of the flesh.” Here is the conclusion of the whole matter, the parting summary of the indictment against the whole irritating tangle of restrictions and prescriptions. From a moral point of view it is worthless, as having no coercive power over “the flesh.” Therein lies its conclusive condemnation, for if religious observances do not help a man to subdue his sinful self, what, in the name of common sense, is the use of them? The Apostle knows very well that the system which he was opposing had much which commended it to people, especially to those who did not look very deep. It had a “show of wisdom” very fascinating on a superficial glance, and that in three points, all of which caught the vulgar eye, and all of which turned into the opposite on closer examination.

It had the look of being exceeding devotion and zealous worship. These teachers with their abundant forms impose upon the popular imagination, as if they were altogether given up to devout contemplation and prayer. But if one looks a little more closely at them, one sees that their devotion is the indulgence of their own will and not surrender to Gods. They are not worshipping Him as He has appointed, but as they have themselves chosen, and as they are rendering services which He has not required, they are in a very true sense worshipping their own wills, and not God at all. By “will worship” seems to be meant self-imposed forms of religious service which are the outcome not of obedience, nor of the instincts of a devout heart, but of a mans own will. And the Apostle implies that such supererogatory and volunteered worship is no worship. Whether offered in a cathedral or a barn, whether the worshipper wear a cope or a fustian jacket, such service is not accepted. A prayer which is but the expression of the worshippers own will, instead of being “not my will but Thine be done,” reaches no higher than the lips that utter it. If we are subtly and half unconsciously obeying self even while we seem to be bowing before God; if we are seeming to pray, and are all the while burning incense to ourselves instead of being drawn out of ourselves by the beauty and the glory of the God towards whom our spirits yearn, then our devotion is a mask, and our prayers will be dispersed in empty air.

The deceptive appearance of wisdom in these teachers and their doctrines is further manifest in the humility which felt so profoundly the gulf between man and God that it was fain to fill the void with its fantastic creations of angel mediators. Humility is a good thing, and it looked very humble to say, We cannot suppose that such insignificant flesh-encompassed creatures as we can come into contact and fellowship with God; but it was a great deal more humble to take God at His word, and to let Him lay down the possibilities and conditions of intercourse, and to tread the way of approach to Him which He has appointed. If a great king were to say to all the beggars and ragged losels of his capital, Come to the palace tomorrow; which would be the humbler, he who went, rags and leprosy and all, or he who hung back because he was so keenly conscious of his squalor? God says to men, “Come to My arms through My Son. Never mind the dirt, come.” Which is the humbler: he who takes God at His word, and runs to hide his face on his Fathers breast, having access to Him through Christ the Way, or he who will not venture near till he has found some other mediators besides Christ? A humility so profound that it cannot think Gods promise and Christs mediation enough for it, has gone so far West that it has reached the East, and from humility has become pride.

Further, this system has a show of wisdom in “severity to the body.” Any asceticism, is a great deal more to mens taste than abandoning self. They will rather stick hooks in their backs and do the “swinging poojah,” than give up their sins or yield up their wills. It is easier to travel the whole distance from Cape Comorin to the shrine of Juggernaut, measuring every foot of it by the body laid prostrate in the dust, than to surrender the heart to the love of God. In the same manner the milder forms of putting oneself to pain, hair shirts, scourgings, abstinence from pleasant things with the notion that thereby merit is acquired, or sin atoned for, have a deep root in human nature, and hence “a show of wisdom.” It is strange, and yet not strange, that people should think that, somehow or other, they recommend themselves to God by making themselves uncomfortable, but so it is that religion presents itself to many minds mainly as a system of restrictions and injunctions which forbids the agreeable and commands the unpleasant. So does our poor human nature vulgarise and travesty Christs solemn command to deny ourselves and take up our cross after Him.

The conclusive condemnation of all the crowd of punctilious restrictions of which the Apostle has been speaking lies in the fact that, however they may correspond to mens mistaken notions, and so seem to be the dictate of wisdom, they “are not of any value against the indulgence of the flesh.” This is one great end of all moral and spiritual discipline, and if practical regulations do not tend to secure it, they are worthless.

Of course by “flesh” here we are to understand, as usually in the Pauline Epistles, not merely the body, but the whole unregenerate personality, the entire unrenewed self that thinks and feels and wills and desires apart from God. To indulge and satisfy it is to die, to slay and suppress it is to live. All these “ordinances” with which the heretical teachers were pestering the Colossians have no power, Paul thinks, to keep that self down, and therefore they seem to him so much rubbish. He thus lifts the whole question up to a higher level and implies a standard for judging much formal outward Christianity which would make very short work of it.

A man may be keeping the whole round of them and seven devils may be in his heart. They distinctly tend to foster some of the “works of the flesh,” such as self-righteousness, uncharitableness, censoriousness, and they as distinctly altogether fail to subdue any of them. A man may stand on a pillar like Simeon Stylites for years, and be none the better. Historically the ascetic tendency has not been associated with the highest types of real saintliness except by accident, and has never been their productive cause. The bones rot as surely inside the sepulchre though the whitewash on its dome be ever so thick.

So the world and the flesh are very willing that Christianity should shrivel into a religion of prohibitions and ceremonials, because all manner of vices and meannesses may thrive and breed under these, like scorpions under stones. There is only one thing that will put the collar on the neck of the animal within us, and that is the power of the indwelling Christ. The evil that is in us all is too strong for every other fetter. Its cry to all these “commandments and ordinances of men” is, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are ye?” Not in obedience to such, but in the reception into our spirits of His own life, is our power of victory over self. “This I say, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh.”

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary