Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Colossians 2:21
(Touch not; taste not; handle not;
21. ( touch not; taste not; handle not; ] Better (discarding the bracket here), Handle thou not, nor taste, nor touch. This rendering represents exactly the construction of the Greek, and is truer to the shades of meaning of the first and last of the three Greek verbs. The last verb denotes a lighter and less deliberate touch than the first, and so here conveys a climax of prohibition.
The prohibitions in question would be those of the Mosaic law, developed and exaggerated by the Pharisaic schools. Schoettgen ( Hor Hebr. in N. T.) quotes from the Talmud just such precepts: “ Touch not a vessel, till thou hast washed hands and feet from ( its) brim; ” “ They say to a Nazirite, Drink not shave not &c.” “The Latin commentators, Hilary and Pelagius, suppose these prohibitions to be the Apostle’s own, thus making a complete shipwreck of the sense” (Lightfoot). In much more modern comments the same mistake appears.
Our Lord’s teaching (e.g. Mat 15:1-20) takes the exactly opposite direction to this system of prohibitions, and is a lasting warning to His Church on all kindred subjects. Cp. also 1 Corinthians 8; 1Ti 4:3.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Tough not; taste not; handle not – These words seem intended as a specimen of the kind of ordinances which the apostle refers to, or an imitation of the language of the Jewish teachers in regard to various kinds of food and drink. Why are ye subject to ordinances of various kinds, such as this – Touch not, taste not, handle not? That is, such as prohibit you from even touching certain kinds of food, or tasting certain kinds of drink, or handling certain prohibited things. The rapid succession of the words here, without any connecting particle, is supposed to denote the eagerness of the persons who imposed this injunction, and their earnestness in warning others from contaminating themselves with the prohibited things. Many injunctions of this kind are found in the writings of the Jewish rabbis; and the ancient Jewish sect of the Essenes (Notes, Mat 3:7) abounded in precepts of this kind.
See Schoetgen, and Pict. Bib. in loc. They allowed themselves no food that was pleasant to the taste, but ate dry, coarse bread, and drank only water. Many of them ate nothing until sunset, and, if anyone touched them who did not belong to their sect, they washed themselves as if they had been most deeply defiled. Perhaps there was at Colossae a society of this kind, as there were in many other places out of Judea; and, if there was, it is not improbable that many Christians imitated them in the uniqueness of their rules and observances; compare Jennings Jew. Ant. i. 471, and Ros. Alt. u. neu. Morgenland, in loc. If this be the correct interpretation, then these are not the words of the apostle, forbidding Christians to have anything to do with these ordinances, but are introduced as a specimen of the manner in which they who enjoined the observance of those ordinances pressed the subject on others.
There were certain things which they prohibited, in conformity with what they understood to be the law of Moses; and they were constantly saying, in regard to them, do not touch them, taste them, handle them. These words are often used as a kind of motto in reference to the use of intoxicating drinks. They express very well what is held by the friends of total abstinence; but it is obvious that they had no such reference as used by the apostle, nor should they be alleged as an authority, or as an argument, in the question about the propriety or impropriety of the use of spirituous liquors. They may as well be employed in reference to anything else as that, and would have no authority in either case. Intoxicating drinks should be abstained from; but the obligation to do it should be made to rest on solid arguments, and not on passages of Scripture like this. This passage could with more plausibility be pressed into the service of the enemies of the total abstinence societies, than into their support; but it really has nothing to do with the subject, one way or the other.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 21. Touch not; taste not; handle not] These are forms of expression very frequent among the Jews. In Maccoth, fol. xxi. 1: “If they say to a Nazarite, Don’t drink, don’t drink; and he, notwithstanding, drinks; he is guilty. If they say, Don’t shave, don’t shave; and he shaves, notwithstanding; he is guilty. If they say, Don’t put on these clothes, don’t put on these clothes; and he, notwithstanding, puts on heterogeneous garments; he is guilty.” See more in Schoettgen.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Which he doth here by way of imitation, upbraiding of them, elegantly recite in the words, phrases, or sense of those imposing dogmatists, whose superstition and lust of domineering over the consciences of Christians is taxed, in the gradation which the well skilled in the Greek judge to be in the original. For though the first, and which we render
touch not, be sometimes so rendered, yet, considering here the coincidency or tautology will, so rendered, make with the last, the sense of it, as the most judicious and learned have evidenced, seems to be, eat not, as noting they did forbid the eating, i.e. using certain meats at their ordinary meals; (against the reviving of which imposition above, Col 2:16, as will bring in a new one of like import, the apostle elsewhere expresseth himself, Rom 14:17; 1Co 8:8; 1Ti 4:3); obtaining which, they proceeded to forbid the not tasting, and then the not handling, or touching of them with the hand, as if that would defile. It being more not to taste than not to eat, and likewise more not to touch with the finger than not to taste. Expressing the ingenuity of such superstitious imposers, that they heap up one thing upon another to the burdening of consciences, not knowing where to make an end in their new invented external devotions and observances, which, as snares, do first bind fast, and in tract of time strangle. He speaks of these as distinct from those, Col 2:16, they being for antiquated rites which had been of Gods appointment, these for innovations of mans invention, as is apparent from the last verse.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
21. Compare Col2:16, “meat . . . drink.” He gives instances of the”ordinances” (Col 2:20)in the words of their imposers. There is an ascending climax ofsuperstitious prohibitions. The first Greek word (hapse)is distinguished from the third (thiges), in that the formermeans close contact and retention: the latter,momentary contact (compare 1Co 7:1;Joh 20:17, Greek, “Holdme not”; cling not to me”). Translate, “Handlenot, neither taste, nor even touch.” The threerefer to meats. “Handle not” (a stronger term than”nor even touch“), “nor taste” with thetongue, “nor even touch,” however slight thecontact.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Touch not, taste not, handle not. This the apostle says, not of himself, but in the person of the Jewish doctors; who urging the use of the ceremonial law, to which they added decrees and constitutions of their own, said, “touch not” the dead body of any man, the bone of a man, or a grave, any man or woman in their uncleanness; not only their flesh, but the bed they lay on, or the seat they sat on; or any creature that was by the law unclean; of a Gentile, or any notorious sinner, or common man: hence the Pharisees used to wash themselves when they returned from market, lest they should have been by any means accidentally defiled by touching any thing unclean. There is a treatise in their Misna, called Oholot, which gives many rules, and is full of decrees about things
, “that defile by touching”. And so they likewise said, “taste not”, neither the fat, nor the blood of any creature which might be eaten itself, nor swine’s flesh, nor the flesh of any creature that chewed the cud, or divided the hoof; nor might the Nazarites taste wine, or strong drink, or vinegar made of either, or moist grapes, or even the kernels and husks; and if a man ate but the quantity of an olive of any of the above things, he was, according to the Jewish canons, to be cut off, or beaten x: and they also said, “handle not”; or, as the Syriac and Arabic read, “do not come near”, or “draw not nigh”, to a Gentile, to one of another nation, or any unclean person, to whom they forbid any near approach or conversation; or “handle not” any of the above things. Some think that these several rules have respect only to meats; as “touch not”, that is, do not eat of things forbidden ever so little; nay, “taste not”, do not let anything of them come within your lips; yea, “handle not”, do not so much as touch them with your fingers. Others think that touch not regards abstinence from women; see 1Co 7:1; and respects the prohibition of marriage by some in those times; and “taste not”, the forbearance of certain meats, at certain times, which God had not restrained any from; and “handle not”, that is, make no use of, or enjoy your own goods, and so designs that voluntary poverty which some entered into under the direction of false teachers.
x Maimon. Maacolot Asurot, c. 7. sect. 1. & c. 14. sect. 2. & Nezirut, c. 5. sect. 3.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Handle not, nor taste, nor touch ( ). Specimens of Gnostic rules. The Essenes took the Mosaic regulations and carried them much further and the Pharisees demanded ceremonially clean hands for all food. Later ascetics (the Latin commentators Ambrose, Hilary, Pelagius) regard these prohibitions as Paul’s own instead of those of the Gnostics condemned by him. Even today men are finding that the noble prohibition law needs enlightened instruction to make it effective. That is true of all law. The Pharisees, Essenes, Gnostics made piety hinge on outward observances and rules instead of inward conviction and principle. These three verbs are all in the aorist subjunctive second person singular with , a prohibition against handling or touching these forbidden things. Two of them do not differ greatly in meaning. H is aorist middle subjunctive of , to fasten to, middle, to cling to, to handle. is second aorist active subjunctive of , old verb, to touch, to handle. In N.T. only here and Heb 11:28; Heb 12:20. is second aorist middle subjunctive of , to give taste of, only middle in N.T. to taste as here.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Touch – taste – handle [ – – ] . %Aptomai, A. V., touch, is properly to fasten one’s self to or cling to. So Joh 20:17 (note). Frequently rendered touch in the New Testament, and used in most cases of Christ ‘s touching or being touched by the diseased. To get hands on so as to injure, 1Jo 5:18. To have intercourse with, 1Co 7:1; 2Co 6:17. Thus, in every case, the contact described exerts a modifying influence, and a more permanent contact or effect of contact is often implied than is expressed by touch. “The idea of a voluntary or conscious effort is often involved.” No single English word will express all these phases of meaning. Handle comes, perhaps, as near as any other, especially in its sense of treatment, as when we say that a speaker or writer handles a subject; or that a man is roughly handled by his enemies. This wider and stronger sense does not attach to qigganein A. V., handl
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1)“Touch not “ ” (me hapse) “Do not touch,” These three prohibitions of touch, taste, and handle were prompted by continuing “law-keeper” advocates, though the law was fulfilled.
2) “Taste not,” (mede geuse) nor even taste;” This continuing prohibition seems to refer to certain meats and drinks regulated by Mosaic law, Lev 10:9; Num 6:3.
3) “Or handle not,” (mede thiges) “nor even handle,” Unclean persons or things, under the Mosaic law, were neither to be touched or handled without penalty, but subjection to them had passed, Paul contended, Col 2:16; Rom 14:3; Lev 11:10-20; Lev 11:24-35.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
21. Eat not, taste not. Hitherto this has been rendered — Handle not, but as another word immediately follows, which signifies the same thing, every one sees how cold and absurd were such a repetition. Farther, the verb ἅπτεσθαι is employed by the Greeks, among its other significations, in the sense of eating, (417) in accordance with the rendering that I have given. Plutarch makes use of it in the life of Caesar, when he relates that his soldiers, in destitution of all things, ate animals which they had not been accustomed previously to use as food. (418) And this arrangement is both in other respects natural and is also most in accordance with the connection of the passage; for Paul points out, ( μιμητικῶς,) by way of imitation, to what length the waywardness of those who bind consciences by their laws is wont to proceed. From the very commencement they are unduly rigorous: hence he sets out with their prohibition — not simply against eating, but even against slightly partaking. After they have obtained what they wish they go beyond that command, so that they afterwards declare it to be unlawful to taste of what they do not wish should be eaten. At length they make it criminal even to touch. In short, when persons have once taken upon them to tyrannize over men’s souls, there is no end of new laws being daily added to old ones, and new enactments starting up from time to time. How bright a mirror there is as to this in Popery! Hence Paul acts admirably well in admonishing us that human traditions are a labyrinth, in which consciences are more and more entangled; nay more, are snares, which from the beginning bind in such a way that in course of time they strangle in the end.
(417) An example occurs in Homer’s Odyssey, (6: 60,) σίτου θ ᾿ ἅπτεσθον καὶ χαρ́ετον. — “Take food and rejoice.” See also Xenoph. Mem. 1. 3. 7. — Ed.
(418) “The passage referred to is as follows: — “ ᾿Εβρώθη δὲ καὶ φλοιὸς ὡς λέγεται, καὶ ζώων ἀγεύστων πρότερον ἥ ψαντο.” — “Even the bark of trees, it is said, was devoured, and they ate animals not previously tasted.” — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(21) Touch not; taste not; handle not.The first and last of these renderings should be inverted. There is in the commands a climax of strictness. Handle not (the unclean thing), taste it not, touch it not with one of your fingers. It will be noted that all these commands are negative, not positive. They are marked by the ordinary ascetic preference of spiritual restraint to spiritual energy.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
21. Touch not These expressions are quoted from the false teacher, as specimens of the ordinances referred to.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Col 2:21. (Touch not, &c. “Touch not any thing ceremonially unclean: taste not any food which the law prohibits:handle not any thing by which legal pollutions may be contracted.” The quick succession of these precepts, without any copulative between them, happily expresses the eagerness with which the seducing teachers inculcated these things. But I believe that the Pythagorean philosophy is here also alluded to. See the analysis.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Ver. 21. Touch not, taste not, &c. ] The words of those impostors, which are here mimetically, or by way of imitation, related. See the like Ecc 10:14 , where the wise man graphically describeth the fool’s tautologies, “A man cannot tell what shall be, and what shall be, who can tell?” As for the sense, an excellent textman gives it thus: “Touch not;” viz. a woman, 1Co 7:1 ; “Taste not;” viz. meat. “Handle not;” viz. money, meddle not with secular contracts. (Dr Sclater.) This was that holy hypocrisy practised by these ancient seducers, and still commended by the Popish padres to their novices, and that with much eagerness, “touch not, taste not, handle not,” without a copulative. The Capuchin friars in this day may not take or touch silver. This metal is as very anathema to these, as the wedge of gold to Achan, at the offer whereof they start back, as Moses from the serpent; yet they have ever a boy with them, that takes and carries it, and never complains of either metal or measure. In the year of grace 1453, John Capistranus, a Minorite, was sent by Pope Nicolas into Germany, and other countries, to preach and persuade obedience to the see of Rome; and that he might win authority to his doctrine, he strictly forbade feasting and sporting, and other civil exercises, lawful to be used; by which holy hypocrisy (as they call it) he gained the reputation of a very pious man, when he was nothing less. (Funccius.) But these things have a show of wisdom in neglecting the body, &c., and silly souls are much taken with such shows, as children are with gaudies and gewgaws. a
a
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Col 2:21 . The precepts here quoted are those of the false teachers, and are, of course, quoted to be condemned, though their meaning is frequently misunderstood. It is not said what things are thus prohibited, but the context supports the reference to meats and drinks, and is confirmed by . There is no reason whatever to suppose that there is any reference to a prohibition of sexual relations. . “Handle not, nor taste, nor even touch.” There is perhaps a gradation in the order from coarser to more refined contact.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
not. Greek. mede.
handle. Greek. thingano. Only here, Heb 11:28; Heb 12:20.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Col 2:21. , not) Thus the dogmatists commonly spoke.-, touch) The genus; the species are, to taste () with the tongue, and to handle () with the hand.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Col 2:21
Col 2:21
Handle not, nor taste, nor touch-This is an admonition to wholly abstain from the inventions and devices of men in the worship and services of God. God has taught from the beginning that it is a fearful thing to change or in any way to modify his appointments. He has taught by precept and example, that that is the greatest sin. The expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:16-17; Gen 3:6-24), and the death and the woes that came upon them and the whole world, is a fearful example, warning man for all time what a fearful sin it is to add to or take from the commandments of God. He said to Moses: Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you. (Deu 4:2). Indeed, the whole history of Gods dealing with the human family is a condemnation of adding to or taking from the word of God. This is the presumptuous sin. The same is true of every word sealed by the blood of Christ. Every precept and every example of Jesus was given to impress the necessity of accepting the will of God, without taking from or adding to his commandments. He said: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. (Mat 7:21). This plainly teaches that all worship is vain that adds to or takes from the word of God. The great end of the Bible is to lead man to give up his own ways and follow Gods commandments without any modification whatever. That is the sum and substance of all true religion, as taught from the first chapter of Genesis to the last verse of Revelation.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Gen 3:3, Isa 52:11, 2Co 6:17, 1Ti 4:3
Reciprocal: Gen 9:3 – even Lev 11:8 – they are unclean Mat 15:17 – that Mar 7:3 – the tradition Mar 7:19 – General 1Ti 4:8 – bodily
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
(Col 2:21.) -Touch not, taste not, handle not. These curt dogmas are not the apostle’s own teaching, but the mottoes, or prominent lessons, or watchwords of the false teachers. In all probability, the three terms refer to the same general object-abstinence from certain meats and drinks. It is therefore excessive refinement to distribute them according to certain distinctions, either with Flatt, Bhmer, Hammond, and Homberg, referring the first verb-or, with Grotius, the last verb-to marriage; or, with Estius, Zanchius, and Erasmus, giving the first verb an allusion to Levitical uncleanness, special or general. The two critics last named refer the last term to Levitical sacred things, but Michaelis and Storr refer it to impurities. Bhmer, with a strange caprice, finds a reference in to the holy oil which the Essenes specially regarded as labes. But though the words refer generally to diet, and are so used by the classics, there may be a distinction among them, as they seem to be repeated, along with the negative, for the sake of emphasis. The first and last verbs are somewhat similar, and both represent in the Septuagint the Hebrew-, H5595. But the first term may here denote that handling which is necessary to eating-the touch which precedes taste; while the last, a sister-term, with tango and touch, may signify the slightest contact. In Heb 12:20, the contrast seems to be this-a beast was not only not to graze on Sinai, but not even for a moment to set a hoof upon it. Thus in Eurip. Bacchae, 617, where a similar contrast obtains-he did not come in contact, far less handle me-there was neither touch nor grasp. The last verb is the most dogmatic-you are not to take certain meats into your hand, nor are you to taste them; nay, you are not even to touch them, though in the slightest degree-you are to keep from them hand, tongue, and even finger-tip. The apostle does not specify the objects to be abstained from, for they were so well known to his readers.
The connection and meaning of the next clause are matter of various opinion.
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians
Col 2:21. Paul did not give this verse as his command, but quotes it as one of the human ordinances from which Christ has made men free. The restrictions of the law, such as touch not, taste not, handle not, referred to the eating and drinking of certain things. Those rer.ulations had been lifted by the Gospel, so that trying still to fasten them upon Christians was considered as forcing upon them a human regulation.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Col 2:21. Handle not, nor taste, nor touch. Nor is almost = nor even. The E. V. mistranslates the first and last words, and improperly includes the verse in parenthesis. The climax is reached in do not even touch. The prohibitions are specific in form, and refer to certain kinds of food and drink, as appears not only from the word taste, but from Col 2:16 and (especially) Col 2:22. Defilement by contact with impure objects may be included, but is not suggested by the context. This series of condemned prohibitions cannot be used in support of total abstinence from intoxicating liquors, except through culpable ignorance or dishonesty.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
2:21 {21} (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
(21) An imitation of these superstitious men, rightly expressing their nature and use of speech.