Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Colossians 2:22
Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
22. which all are to perish with the using;)] Lit., which are all for corruption in the consumption. I.e., the things which are thus forbidden as soul-tainting are things merely material, not moral, and this is evidenced by their merely material destiny physical dissolution in the course of natural use. Cp. Mat 15:17. This clause should be bracketed apart, as in R.V.
Observe St Paul’s instructive opposite use, in an opposite connexion, of the same consideration, 1Co 6:13. There an assertor of a distorted “liberty” is met by the thought that alike “meats” and “belly” are to cease to exist with the present order of things; then why for their sake violate real claims of purity?
after the commandments, &c.] The thought returns to the prohibitive formulas; these are not utterances of God’s will, but “ according to,” of the kind of, on the scale of, merely human rule and principle. Obviously, so far as any of them were Mosaic, St Paul would fully recognize their Divine authority in their own period and for their own purpose. But the period was over, the purpose was fulfilled in Christ. To impose them now was to put God’s edict to man’s arbitrary use.
“ Of men: ” cp. Mat 15:9; Mar 7:7; and see Isa 29:13, the passage quoted by our Lord, and doubtless here in St Paul’s mind. The LXX. there agrees almost verbatim with the words here, more so than with the quotations in the Gospels.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Which all are to perish with the using – This is commonly marked as a part of the parenthesis, or the quotation; and there is considerable difficulty in ascertaining its true meaning. It seems most probable that these are the words of the apostle himself, thrown in in the rapidity of composition, and that they are not to be connected with the phrase touch not, etc. If so, the idea is, that it cannot be of so much consequence as the Jewish teachers supposed, to mark distinctly the difference between meats and drinks. They were all to perish with the use of them. Nothing was permanent about them. It could really then be of no great importance what was eaten, or what was drunk, provided it was not in itself injurious. These ordinances had a value among the Hebrews when it was designed to keep them as a distinct people; but they had no value in themselves, so as to make them binding on all mankind. To suppose this, was the common error of the Jews; and hence, the apostle so frequently labored to show that the Jewish rites had no permanent value; see the Rom 14:1-6 notes; 1Co 8:1-13, note; compare the notes at Mat 15:17-18. According to this interpretation, Col 2:21 should be regarded as expressing the common maxim of the Jewish teachers, and the clause before us as the words of the apostle, and should be marked as a parenthesis. So it is marked in Hahns Ed. of the New Testament.
After the commandments and doctrines of men – Many of the ordinances on which the Jews insisted were those which were handed down by tradition. They depended on human authority only, and of course, should not bind the conscience. Others take the words here to mean, All which things tend to the corruption of religion (Doddridge), or are cause of destruction or condemnation (Robinson, Lexicon), by the use of these things, according to the commandments and doctrines of these men.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 22. Which all are to perish with the using] These are not matters of eternal moment; the different kinds of meats were made for the body, and go with it into corruption: in like manner, all the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish religion now perish, having accomplished the end of their institution; namely, to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
After the commandments and doctrines of men?] These words should follow the 20th verse, Col 2:20 of which they form a part; and it appears from them that the apostle is here speaking of the traditions of the elders, and the load of cumbrous ceremonies which they added to the significant rites prescribed by Moses.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Which all are to perish with the using: he adds his reasons why, under the Christian institution, acceptable worshipping of God doth not consist in such observances, both because meats, drinks, garments, &c. are designed unto the benefit of man, for the preserving of his temporal life, and are consumed in their use. They cannot, in or by themselves, either make a man holy or render him unclean, Mat 15:11; Mar 7:19; Rom 14:17; 1Co 6:13; 1Ti 4:3; they all come to corruption, or are consumed in doing us service, they cannot otherwise be of use; which may evince that all the benefit we receive from them doth only respect this mortal life, it not being imaginable that what perisheth in our use should be of any force to the life of our soul, which is immortal and incorruptible. And therefore to urge the reviving of antiquated ordinances, or bringing in such like new ones, is to corrupt or consume the creatures without any spiritual advantage, whereupon such impositions must needs be destructive; and because of the apostles stronger argument, they are not after Christ, but after the precepts and decrees of men, compare Col 2:8, which is our Lord aud Masters argument against the inovations of the Pharisees, Mat 15:9, agreeing with the prophet, Isa 29:13. To bring in additionals of uncommanded worship, or rites and ways of it, is forbidden of God, Deu 12:32; Joh 14:26; 16:13; Rev 22:18; who (according to the purport of the second commandment) must be worshipped in a manner peculiar to him and appointed by him; and theretbre worship not appointed, i.e. not commanded, is forbidden by, him, who will accept of no homage from Christians in the business of religion, unless it be taught by him, and not by men only.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
22. Whichthings, namely, thethree things handled, touched, and tasted.
are to perishliterally,”are constituted (by their very nature) for perishing (or’destruction by corruption‘) in (or ‘with‘) their usingup (consumption).” Therefore they cannot really and lastinglydefile a man (Mat 15:17; 1Co 6:13).
afteraccording to.Referring to Col 2:20; Col 2:21.All these “ordinances” are according to human, not divine,injunction.
doctrinesGreek,teachings.” ALFORDtranslates, “(doctrinal) systems.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Which all are to perish with the using,…. Meaning either the ordinances concerning touching, tasting, and handling, which bring destruction and death on them that use them, and comply with them, in order to obtain righteousness and life; for instead of enjoying salvation through them, they were the cause of damnation to them. Or rather the meats not to be touched, tasted, or handled; these are in their own nature perishing things, and perish by being used; they are only of service to the body, and can be of none to the soul; the using of them cannot defile the man, nor an abstinence from them sanctify him, or commend him to God; they only relate to this present life, and will cease with it, and can have no manner of influence on the spiritual and eternal concerns of men: and besides, the ordinances concerning them are not of God, but are
after the commandments and doctrines of men; for so even the ceremonial law, being now abolished, though originally of God, yet the imposition of it, as necessary to salvation, was a commandment and doctrine of man’s; and particularly the traditions of the elders, and the various rules and decrees, which the doctors among the Jews obliged men to regard, were human inventions and devices: and this is another reason the apostle makes use of to dissuade from any regard unto them; for whatever is of man, and not of God, in religious worship, ought to be rejected.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Are to perish with the using ( ). Literally, “are for perishing in the using.” (from ) is old word for decay, decomposition. (from , to use to the full, to use up), late and rare word (in Plutarch), here only in N.T. Either locative case here or instrumental. These material things all perish in the use of them.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “Which all are to perish,” (ha estin panta eis phthoran) Which things are all for corruption,” temporary, fleshly, worldly and passing, 1Jn 2:17.
2) “With the using,” (te apochresei) “In the using;” here today and gone tomorrow. Note, these continuing law-keeping, ordinance espousers, Col 2:20, were denying thereby the person and purpose and redemption in Christ, Col 2:10.
3) “After the commandments,” (kata ta entalmata) It according to the injunctions,” or traditional mandates of men, Mar 7:2-7. The brethren of Colosse in Asia Minor were exposed to and here warned against religious laws not Divinely sanctioned.
4) “And doctrines of men “ (kai didaskalias ton anthropon) “and teachings of men;” without, outside, or beyond Divine sanction, as well as in conflict with the Truth in Christ Mar 7:8-9; Mat 15:1-20; Heb 13:9.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
22. All which things tend to corruption. He sets aside, by a twofold argument, the enactments of which he has made mention — because they make religion consist in things outward and frail, which have no connection with the spiritual kingdom of God; and secondly, because they are from men, not from God. He combats the first argument, also, in Rom 14:17, when he says,
The kingdom of God is not in meat and drink;
likewise in 1Co 6:13,
Meat for the belly, and the belly for meats: God will destroy both.
Christ also himself says,
Whatever entereth into the mouth defileth not the man, because it goes down into the belly, and is cast forth. (Mat 15:11.)
The sum is this — that the worship of God, true piety, and the holiness of Christians, do not consist in drink, and food, and clothing, which are things that are transient and liable to corruption, and perish by abuse. For abuse is properly applicable to those things which are corrupted by the use of them. Hence enactments are of no value in reference to those things which tend to excite scruples of conscience. But in Popery you would scarcely find any other holiness, than what consists in little observances of corruptible things.
A second refutation is added (419) — that they originated with men, and have not God as their Author; and by this thunderbolt he prostrates and swallows up all traditions of men. For why? This is Paul’s reasoning: “Those who bring consciences into bondage do injury to Christ, and make void his death. For whatever is of human invention does not bind conscience.”
(419) “ Le second argument par lequel il refute telles ordonnances, est;” — “The second argument by which he sets aside such enactments, is.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(22) Which all are to perish with the using.It has been doubted whether these words (which are literally, all which things go to corruption, or destruction, in the using) are the continuation of the ascetic ordinance, or the comment of the Apostle. But the last wordwhich signifies, not only using, but using upseems to decide for the latter alternative. The things are things which go to destruction and are used up. What permanent effect can they leave behind? See 1Co. 8:8 (whether the words of St. Paul, or the words of the Corinthians, accepted as true by him), Meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. It is but an echo of our Lords own teaching as to that which goeth into the mouth (Mat. 15:16-17; Mar. 13:18-19).
After the commandments . . .See Col. 2:8, and Note there. There seems to be an allusion to Isa. 29:13, quoted by our Lord (Mat. 15:7-8; Mar. 7:6-7) in relation to these ceremonial observances.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
22. Which all perish The things thus forbidden, were made to be eaten and to perish with the consumption of them. This verse, thus far, with the preceding one, should be read as a parenthesis.
Commandments Connects with Col 2:20, and is a part of the question. These ascetic impositions sought to enslave their consciences by commands and systems of men, and were not made obligatory by God.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Col 2:22. Which all are to perish with the using; Dr. Doddridge renders and paraphrases this passage thus: “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.” Mr. Peirce, understanding the three precepts foregoing as referring entirely to meats and drinks, explains this clause, “Which yet were all made by God to be consumed by our use of them.”
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Col 2:22 . We are not to put in a parenthesis (Erasmus Schmid, Heinrichs, and others), but merely . (Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, Ewald); for the construction proceeds uninterruptedly to , is then only broken by the judgment . . . ., and thereafter runs on with . . . .
. is an inserted [131] judgment of the apostle anent that which the false teachers interdicted by . . .: which all are destined to destruction [132] through the using , from which it is to be rendered palpably apparent, how preposterous it is to make such things a condition of eternal bliss by urging abstinence from them. We have here a similar line of argument to that in Mat 15:17 . Comp. 1Co 6:13 . Hence is meant to denote the perishing which takes place through the natural dissolution (digestion) of the meats and drinks; and with this conception quite accords the purposely-chosen compound , which, like abusus , indicates the using up , the consuming (Plut. Mor . p. 267 E; Davis, ad Cic. N. D . iv. 60). So it is unanimously explained by Chrysostom, Theodoret ( ), Oecumenius ( , , ), Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Wolf, Grotius, Michaelis, and many others, including Bhr, Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald, Bleek, Hofmann. But, according to others, who likewise regard . as a parenthetical judgment, the is to be referred to the prohibitions, . to the use, i.e . the following of them, and (comp. Gal 6:8 ) to the destruction of the persons who follow them: all which by their use tend to (eternal) destruction . So Ambrosiaster, Augustine, Cornelius a Lapide, Calixtus, Heumann, Junker. Erroneously; because never means merely use , and even the simple , in the sense of , would be an unsuitable designation; in fact, the entire addition, “by the use,” would be utterly superfluous. On account of ., the expedient must also be rejected, on linguistic grounds, that . are still words of the false teachers , which Paul repeats with irony: “ omnia haec (vetita) usu suo perniciem afferunt ,” Heinrichs, comp. Schenkel. By others, who, like Tischendorf, have deleted the marks of parenthesis, the whole down to is taken together: all this, which the false teachers forbid, tends through the using to (“moral,” de Wette) destruction, “si sc. ex doctorum Judaicorum praeceptis et doctrinis hac de re judicium feratur,” [133] Kypke; so also Vatablus, Storr, Flatt, Bhmer, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius (Huther is undecided between this explanation and ours). But in opposition to this it may be urged, that the compound would be entirely without a motive , since not the consumption , but the use at all would be soul-destroying according to the maxims of those people. Our view alone supplies a motive for the use of , and that through the point of its connection with , in which case, however, the object affected by . and . must be the same (the things forbidden). De Wette’s objections are irrelevant, since the thought of the parenthesis . is expressed not strangely, but with Pauline ingenuity, the words . . . . annexed to are by no means superfluous (see below), nor does this annexation require us to begin the parenthesis with and thereby to include heterogeneous elements together; for . . . still belongs closely to . , of which it is the contents, and . . . . is then annexed, after the brief incidentally inserted remark, to . and its contents ( . . .).
. . . ] The article before . , and extending also to . , is generic . The . . . was decreed by the false teachers conformably to the commandments and doctrines of men , not in consequence of what God had commanded and taught. This element, annexed to ., is by no means superfluous (in opposition to de Wette), since, in fact, in itself is a command generally , and may be one based upon divine authority; it rather serves to bring out with perfect clearness the conflicting relation, in which that stands to the . . . For what the false teachers decreed was not the prohibitions of meats contained in the law of Moses as such, and these alone (although they too would have been incompatible with the . . . . ), but such as consisted in the human (Essene) definitions, expansions, and amplifications of the former ( , Col 2:8 ). It was in this, and not in the mere setting up again of the Mosaic law abolished through Christ (Chrysostom and many others), that the was regulated by human standard, without the divine authority and warrant. Moreover, . is not synonymous with ., but has a wider sense (in Mat 15:9 and Mar 6:7 , the narrower idea comes after as a more precise definition), so that the two together specify the preceptive and generally ( ) the doctrinal standard . Comp. Isa 29:13 .
[131] For it is only an incidental observation in opposition to the above ; the main ground of opposition to the latter lies in . .
[132] , it serves for destruction, i.e. it serves for the purpose of being destroyed. See generally Winer, p. 173 [E. T. 229]; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 131 [E. T. 150 f.]. Comp. Wis 4:18 ; Sir 34:10 ; Jdt 5:21 ; Jdt 5:24 ; Jdt 8:22 .
[133] Similarly Dalmer, who, however, takes . in the sense of abuse, joining it immediately to . . . . But while (Dem. 215. 8; Herodian, v. 1. 13) is found in the sense of abuse ( , ), is not, though it was so taken by Erasmus Schmid, Schoettgen, Zachariae, as also by Grimm in his Lexicon.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Ver. 22. Which all are to perish ] The very daily perishing of food and raiment are types of thy perishing also, saith a divine.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Col 2:22 . . Augustine and Calvin took as meaning the ordinances referred to in Col 2:20 , and explained the words as Paul’s refutation, “all which ordinances lead in their use to spiritual destruction”. But . means much more than use, it means abuse or using up; and refers more naturally to the prohibited things than to the prohibitions; while the sense would be complete if . were omitted. A much more attractive interpretation is that of De Wette (followed by Grimm, Ol. and others). He regards the words as a continuation of the injunctions of the false teachers, “all which things tend to spiritual destruction in the abuse”. The sense will then be that certain meats and drinks are forbidden, because the abuse of them leads to spiritual destruction. Lightfoot says “this interpretation, however, has nothing to recommend it”. This is perhaps too strong, for on the usual view comes in awkwardly, as its place is at the end of the prohibitions. But it must be rejected. The translation is a little strained, and it would have been much simpler to say “the use of these things is destructive”. It is therefore best to adhere to the common view, and translate “all which things are to perish with the using”. The meaning is, then, that with consumption the forbidden meats and drinks were destined to perish. This interpretation has the advantage of being forcible, for it throws one side of Paul’s refutation into a terse parenthesis. His argument is, these meats and drinks, on which the false teachers lay such stress, are of no such importance, for in the nature of things they perish in their very use. If we can annihilate them they cannot rule us. The words should be included in brackets. : to be taken with . This states the other side of Paul’s refutation. The precepts are not only concerned with things destined to perish, they have their source in human commandments. Lightfoot aptly points out the striking parallel between these words of Paul and those of Christ on defilement (Mar 7 ). Both argue from the perishableness of meats, both treat these things as indifferent in themselves, and both quote Isaiah. Even though these precepts are partially found in the O.T., they are rightly called precepts of men, partly because they went beyond what it enjoined, partly because their object is different.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
to perish = for (App-104.) corruption. See Rev 8:21.
using. Greek. apochresie. Only here,
commandments. Greek. entalma. Only here, Mat 15:9. Mar 7:7.
doctrines. The doctrines of men and demons are various, and therefore plural. See Mat 15:9. Mar 7:7. 1Ti 4:1; but the Divine teaching is one – 1Ti 1:10; 1Ti 4:6, 1Ti 4:13, 1Ti 4:16, & c.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Col 2:22. , which are) Those things, namely, which are touched, tasted, etc.- , [are to end in destruction] to perish) and which therefore do not defile; 1Co 6:13; the middle of Mat 15:17.- ) in the using up (entire consumption), not strictly so called [not the abuse], but so far as it denotes the use, which is natural, civil, external, truly indifferent, and removed from superstitious fear and severity (rigour).-, according to) as the commandments of men are wont to be.- , the commandments and doctrines) Mat 15:9, note.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Col 2:22
Col 2:22
(all which things are to perish with the using), after the precepts and doctrines of men?-The prohibitions are specific in form, and refer to certain kinds of food and drink. The Essenes taught the avoidance of oil, flesh, marriage, and of contact with strangers. Jesus had made the same point against the Pharisees who contended that in order to be saved one must wash his hands before eating. (Mar 7:14-19,) Monks and nuns practice asceticism for the sake of supposed pietistic effect on themselves. The idea of poverty being essential to piety springs from the same contention.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
to: Mar 7:18, Mar 7:19, Joh 6:27, 1Co 6:13
after: Isa 29:13, Isa 29:18, Dan 11:37, Mat 15:3-9, Mar 7:7-13, Tit 1:14, Rev 17:18
Reciprocal: Gen 9:3 – even Mat 15:17 – that Col 2:8 – after the tradition Col 2:23 – will
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
(Col 2:22.) . The idea of Macknight is altogether unsupported. He supposes the reference of the apostle to be to Pythagorean abstinence from animal food, and he connects this and the previous verse in the following way. Touch not, taste not, handle not whatever things tend to the destruction of life in the using. He takes the maxim of the false teachers condemned by the apostle to be this-abstain from everything the eating of which involves the taking away of life. The idea itself is foreign to the argument, nor can it be supported by the apostle’s diction.
The question turns upon the meaning assigned to , and the supposed antecedent to the relative.
I. A large party take in a spiritual sense, and suppose the relative to refer to the precepts contained in the preceding verse, as if the warning were-all which maxims tend by their observance to spiritual ruin-lead to the eternal destruction of such as are influenced by them. Some of those who hold this view, give the sense of abuse, as if the apostle wished to say-the law did make distinctions of meats and drinks, but the unwarranted abuse of such a distinction is a fatal course. Others, again, connect the last clause of the verse with the first-all which precepts tend to your own ruin, by your observance of them, for they are an observance based upon the doctrines and commandments of men. Such, generally, are the views of Ambrosiaster and Augustine, a-Lapide, Heumann, Suicer, and Junker.
II. Others suppose the antecedent to be not the maxims, but the things forbidden in them, and among such critics there are two classes.
1. Some suppose the apostle to be still further showing the opinion of the false teachers. According to them, the meaning is, either, all which meats and drinks lead to ruin in the use of them, according to the commandments and teachings of those men; or, all these meats and drinks to be abstained from, tend to destruction by the use of them, if you are to be judged by their opinions and doctrines. The verse, then, would contain this idea-the false teachers forbade the touching and tasting of certain things, because, in their opinion, the use of them brought certain pernicious results. This opinion is concurred in by Kypke, Storr, De Wette, Bhmer, and Baumgarten-Crusius. There is nothing in the words themselves to contradict it; it may be grammatically defended, and the noun may bear the meaning of spiritual hurt, as in Gal 6:8. But it does not appear to us to be in so complete harmony with the context as is the following exegesis.
2. The opinion which we prefer is that which gives the same antecedent to the relative, but understands the clause to be an exposure of the absurdity of such asceticism-all which things are meant for destruction through the use of them. The meats and drinks about which the errorist exclaimed-touch not, taste not, handle not, are meant to be consumed by use. They perish or cease to exist, because they are eaten and drunk for the support of life. They are intended for this destiny- -exist for it; God created them to be consumed, and they meet this destiny by being used to the full–used to the complete satisfaction of appetite. The verb is more than a copula. It means-exists-which things exist. The noun is often used in a physical sense-in the Seventy, Exo 18:18; Isa 24:3; Jon 2:7; and in the New Testament, 1Co 15:42; 1Co 15:50; 2Pe 2:12; Josephus, Antiq. 7.13, 3. The term is not abuse in the English sense of the word-but, full use. The Latin abutor has this meaning also-to use up; as often in Cicero, and also in Terence and Suetonius. It is this using up or consuming of a thing by use contained in the and ab, that gave the term in Latin, Greek, and English, the secondary signification of misuse.
The apostle thus states two objections to the Colossian asceticism. First. It contradicts the design of Providence, which created such meats and drinks for man’s use and satisfaction. The apostle, as we have said, uses , which does not signify abuse, but full use. The maxims of the false teachers are-touch not, taste not, handle not; but the things from which he sternly enjoins this abstinence are, in their own nature, utterly harmless, and not only is the use of them unaccompanied with spiritual damage, but that use is enjoined by Him whose providence has so liberally furnished them for the stay and support of life. The meats and drinks so frowned upon have been created for the very purpose of being consumed, and having served their purpose in this consumption they perish. A religion of asceticism is therefore a libel upon Providence-a surly and superstitious refusal of the Divine benignity. It believes that the eating and drinking of some gifts of Divine goodness is fraught with unspeakable danger, and therefore it makes its selections among them in its show of wisdom. Strange conviction, that what is physically nutritious may be spiritually poisonous; and that what gives strength to the body may send leanness to the soul! No wonder that such a self-righteous and ungrateful practice led by a swift path to a dark and Manichaean theology.
And, secondly, things which are meant to perish in being used up, can have little connection with genuine piety; it does not, and cannot depend on abstinence from them. Our Lord Himself said-not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; and the apostle declares-every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused; and he speaks of meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving. 1Co 6:13. It degrades Christianity to make it a system of physical or ascetic distinctions. Spirituality is not based on such external and ceremonial forms. The error, as Olshausen says, was in looking for holiness in the outward rather than the inward. Such an error has been, alas! too common in the church, and is the result of superstitious indolence and vanity. Men seek to be acted on from without, and to be sanctified as if by the secret and unconscious charm of an amulet; misunderstanding, forgetting, or shunning the mighty work or change which should be going on within. That change is from the centre to the outer life, not from the outer life to the seat of motive and thought. What the lips receive or refuse from cup and platter, has neither propitiatory merit nor demerit, nor can it exercise a hidden power over heart and mind. The palate may be ungratified and yet the conscience be defiled; the anchorite, while he starves himself, may roll many a vice, as a sweet morsel, under his tongue; for self-denial in corporeal appetite usually takes ample revenge or compensation in spiritual indulgence and pride. And thus it has been often found, that men attach a higher sanctity to abstinence from certain kinds of food and physical refreshment, than to abstinence from sin; and would rather violate a Divine statute, than break a self-inflicted fast.
What mean they? Canst thou dream there is a power
In lighter diet at a later hour
To charm to sleep the threatenings of the skies,
And hide past folly from all-seeing eyes?
Several things concur in justifying the view we have taken, which is that of the Greek Fathers, of Luther, Calvin, and Beza, of Grotius, Meyer, Steiger, and Bhr. The apostle is speaking of physical things, as eating and drinking, and it is natural to understand and in their physical sense, and in connection with those elements of forbidden sustenance. Again, the writer places no substantive after the three verbs, and the ellipse imparts a certain emphasis. The objects to be abstained from were yet present to his mind, and it was natural for him to allude to them, and to show that they were designed for use, nay, were of so little permanence and value that they perished in this use. The mimetic clause-touch not, etc., is inserted, or rather rapidly interjected, as the apostle passes on. It will therefore be best read in a parenthesis. The swiftness of the apostle’s thoughts interferes so far with the order of them. He first shows the inconsistency of yielding to ordinances after they had become dead to them; and he meant to point out the source of such ordinances, but the mention of them suggests the pointed quotation of some of them, and then he cannot refrain, in a brief underthought, from exposing their absurdity, ere he formally carries out his purpose of showing their origin and inutility. Lastly, the Greek Fathers understand the phrase in this way. They do not mince the matter, but give its coarsest meaning. Chrysostom, followed by Theodoret, says- . OEcumenius uses this language- ; while Theophylact is yet more explicit- .
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians
Col 2:22. Perish with the using. The things the Judaizers insisted that Christians should “touch not; taste not; handle not,” were the articles of food and drink that were restricted by the law. Paul is reasoning that the restrictions were not made because of any bad effect such things would have on the body, for they perished with the using. That is, as articles of food, they were soon cast out of the body, leaving it unharmed. (See Mar 7:15-19) The ordinances against them, therefore, were purely ceremonial, and when the law was canceled, the said restrictions were canceled also. After that was done, any c-ntinuance of them would be regarded as being after the commandments and doctrines of men. Paul taught the some idea in Php 3:9, where he designates the righteousness of the law “mine own righteousness,” after the law had been replaced by that of Christ.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Col 2:22. This verse is parenthetical, and describes the character of the objects prohibited: which all are to perish with the using: all of them appointed to destruction by being used up. This language cannot be fairly applied to the prohibitions, since it is inapplicable. Nor can it be regarded as part of the statement of the false teachers, still less can moral corruption be intended. The view here advocated is accepted by the best recent commentators, and agrees with our Lords own words in Mat 15:17; Mat 7:18-19; comp. 1Co 6:13.
After the precepts and doctrines of men. This is to be joined with Col 2:20, defining further the subjection to ordinances. Doctrines is a term of wider signification than precepts; but both are united here and described as of men, in contrast with Gods law and word in Christ, indeed with the law of Moses, beyond which they have gone (Braune).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
2:22 {22} Which all are to perish with the using;) {23} after the commandments and doctrines of men?
(22) Another argument: the spiritual and inward kingdom of God cannot consist in these outward things, which perish with the using.
(23) The third argument: because God is not the author of these traditions, therefore they are not that which we are obligated to do.