J. B. Lightfoot on Colossians 2:22-23

^{23}ἅτινά ἐστιν λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ 23. ‘All such teaching is worthless. It may bear the semblance of wisdom; but it wants the reality. It may make an officious parade of religious service; it may vaunt its humility; it may treat the body with merciless rigour; but it entirely fails in its chief aim. It is powerless to check indulgence of the flesh.’ ἅτινα] ‘_which sort of things_’. Not only these particular precepts, μὴ ἅψῃ κ.τ.λ., but all precepts falling under the same category are condemned. For this force of ἅτινα as distinguished from ἅ, see the notes on Gal. iv. 24, v. 19, Phil. iv. 3. The antecedent here is not ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας κ.τ.λ., but the prohibitions given in ver. 21. λόγον μὲν κ.τ.λ.] ‘_having a reputation for wisdom_’, but not the reality. The corresponding member, which should be introduced by δέ, is suppressed; the oppositive clause being postponed and appearing later in a new form, οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι κ.τ.λ. Such suppressions are common in classical writers, more especially in Plato; see Kühner § 531, II. p. 813 sq., Jelf § 766, and comp. Winer § lxiii. p. 719 sq. St Jerome therefore is not warranted in attributing St Paul’s language here to ‘imperitia artis grammaticæ’ (_Epist._ cxxi, _Op._ II. p. 884). On the contrary it is just the license which an adept in a language would be more likely to take than a novice. In this sentence λόγον ἔχοντα σοφίας is best taken as a single predicate, so that ἐστιν is disconnected from ἔχοντα. Otherwise the construction ἐστιν ἔχοντα (for ἔχει) would be supported by many parallels in the Greek Testament; see Winer § xlv. p. 437. The phrase λόγον ἔχειν τινος, so far as I have observed, has four meanings. (A) Two as applied to the _thinking subject_. (i) ‘To take account of, to hold in account, to pay respect to’: e.g. Æsch. _Prom._ 231 βροτῶν δὲ τῶν ταλαιπώρων λόγον οὐκ ἔσχεν οὐδένα, Demosth. _de Coron._ § 199 )έιπερ ἢ δόξης ἢ προγόνων ἢ τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος εἶχε λόγον, Plut. _Vit. Philop._ 18 πῶς ἄξιον ἐκέινου λόγον ἔχειν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς κ.τ.λ. (ii) ‘To possess the reason or account or definition of’, ‘to have a scientific knowledge of’; Plato _Gorg._ p. 465 A τέχνην δὲ αὐτὴν οὔ φημι εἶναι ἀλλ’ ἐμπειρίαν, ὅτι οὐκ ἔχει λόγον οὐδένα hῶν προσφέρει, ὁποῖα ἄττα τὴν φύσιν ἐστίν, and so frequently. These two senses are recognised by Aristotle, _Eth. Nic._ i. 13 (p. 1102), where he distinguishes the meaning of the expressions ἔχειν λόγον τοῦ πατρὸς ἢ τῶν φίλων and ἔχειν λόγον τῶν μαθητικῶν. (B) Two as applied to the _object of thought_. (iii) ‘To have the credit or reputation of’, as here. This sense of ἔχειν λόγον, ‘to be reputed’, is more commonly found with an infinitive: e.g. Plato _Epin._ 987 B αὑτὸς Ἀφροδίτης εἶναι σχέδον ἔχει λόγον. (iv) ‘To fulfil the definition of, to possess the characteristics, to have the nature of’; e.g. Philo _Vit. Cont._ 4 (II. p. 477) ἑκάτερον δὲ πηγῆς λόγον ἔχον, Plut. _Mor._ p. 637 D τὸ δὲ ὢον οὔτε ἀρχῆς ἔχει λόγον, οὐ γὰρ ὑφίσταται πρῶτον, οὔτε ὅλου φύσιν, ἀτελὲς γάρ ἐστιν, ib. 640 F δεῖ πρὸς τὸ ἐμφυτεύομενον χώρας λόγον ἔχειν τὸ δεξόμενον. The senses of λόγον ἔχειν with other constructions, or as used absolutely, are very various, e.g. ‘to be reasonable’, ‘to hold discourse’, ‘to bear a ratio’, etc., but do not come under consideration here. Nor again does such an expression as Plut. _Mor._ p. 550 C μήτε τὸν λόγον ἔχων τοῦ νομοθέτου, ‘not being in possession of, not knowing, the intention of the legislator’; for the definite article removes it from the category of the cases considered. καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ [καὶ] ἀφειδείᾳ σώματος, οὐκ ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ] ‘_in volunteered_, self-imposed, officious, supererogatory _service_’. One or both of these two ideas, (i) ‘excessive readiness, officious zeal,’ (ii) ‘affectation, unreality,’ are involved in this and similar compounds; e.g. ἐθελοδουλεία, ἐθελοκάκησις, ἐθελοκίνδυνος, ἐθελοκωφέιν, ἐθελορήτωρ, ἐθελοπρόξενος: these compounds being used most frequently, though not always (as this last word shows), in a bad sense. This mode of expression was naturalised in Latin, as appears from Augustine _Epist._ cxlix. 27 (II. p. 514) ‘Sic enim et vulgo dicitur qui divitem affectat thelodives, et qui sapientem thelosapiens, et cetera hujusmodi’. Epiphanius, when writing of the Pharisees, not content with the word here supplied by St Paul, coins a double compound ἐθελοπερισσοθρησκεία, _Hær._ i. 16 (p. 34). ταπεινοφροσύνῃ] The word is here disparaged by its connexion, as in ver. 18 (see the note there). The force of ἐθελο- may be regarded as carried on to it. Real genuine ταπεινοφροσύνη is commended below; iii. 12. ἀφειδείᾳ σώματος] ‘_hard treatment of the body_’. The expression ἀφειδεῖν τοῦ σώματος is not uncommon, being used most frequently, not as here of ascetic discipline, but rather of courageous exposure to hardship and danger in war, e.g. Lysias _Or. Fun._ 25, Joseph. _B.J._ iii. 7. 18, Lucian _Anach._ 24, Plut. _Vit. Pericl._ 10; in Plut. _Mor._ p. 137 C however of a student’s toil, and _ib._ p. 135 E, more generally of the rigorous demands made by the soul on the body. The substantive ἀφέιδεια or ἀφειδία does not often occur. On the forms in -εια and -ία derived from adjectives in -ης see Buttmann _Ausf. Gramm._ § 119, II. p. 416 sq. The great preponderance of manuscript authority favours the form ἀφειδείᾳ here: but in such questions of orthography the fact carries less weight than in other matters. The καὶ before ἀφειδείᾳ should probably be omitted; in which case ἀφειδείᾳ becomes an instrumental dative, explaining λόγον ἔχοντα σοφίας. While the insertion would naturally occur to scribes, the omission gives more point to the sentence. The ἐθελοθρησκεία καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνη as the religious elements are thus separated from the ἀφείδεια σώματος as the practical rule. ἐν τιμῇ τινὶ πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός. οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ κ.τ.λ.] ‘yet _not_ really _of any value to remedy indulgence of the flesh_.’ So interpreted the words supply the oppositive clause to λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας, as the presence of the negative οὐκ naturally suggests. If the sentence had been undisturbed, this oppositive clause would naturally have been introduced by δέ, but the interposition of ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ κ.τ.λ. has changed its form by a sort of attraction. For this sense of ἐν τιμῇ comp. Lucian _Merc. cond._ 17 τὰ καινὰ τῶν ὑποδημάτων ἐν τιμῇ τινι καὶ ἐπιμελείᾳ ἐστίν: similarly Hom. _Il._ ix. 319 ἐν δὲ ἰῇ τιμῇ κ.τ.λ. The preposition πρός, like our English ‘_for_’, when used after words denoting utility, value, sufficiency, etc., not uncommonly introduces the object to _check_ or _prevent_ or _cure_ which the thing is to be employed. And even though utility may not be directly expressed in words, yet if the idea of a something to be _remedied_ is present, this preposition is freely used notwithstanding. See Isocr. _Phil._ 16 (p. 85) πρὸς τοὺς βαρβάρους χρήσιμον, Arist. _H. A._ iii. 21 (p. 522) συμφέρει πρὸς τὰς διαρῥοίας ἡ τοιάυτη μάλιστα, _de Respir._ 8 (p. 474) ἀνάγκη γίνεσθαι κατάψυξιν, εἰ μέλλει τεύξεσθαι σωτηρίας· τοῦτο γὰρ βοηθεῖ πρὸς τάυτην τὴν φθοράν, Lucian _Pisc._ 27 χρήσιμον γοῦν καὶ πρὸς ἐκέινους τὸ τοιοῦτον, Galen _Op._ XII. p. 399 χρωμένῳ γε τίνι πρὸς τὸ πάθος ἀρκτέιῳ στέατι, π. 420 [Γρεεκ: τοῦ δόντος αὐτὰ πρὸς ἀλωπεκίας φαλακρώσεις κ.τ.λ., p. 430 συνέθηκαν ... φάρμακα πρὸς ῥεούσας τρίχας, p. 476 βραχυτάτην ἔχοντι δύναμιν ὡς πρὸς τὸ προκέιμενον σύμπτωμα, p. 482 τοῦτο δὲ καὶ πρὸς τὰ ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ σώματι ἐξανθήματα σφόδρα χρήσιμόν ἐστιν, p. 514 χρηστέον δὲ πᾶσι τοῖς ἀναγεγραμμένοις βοηθήμασι πρὸς τὰς γινομένας δι’ ἕγκαυσιν κεφαλαλγίας, p. 601 κάλλιστον πρὸς αὐτὴν φάρμακον ἐγχέομενον νάρδινον μύρον. These examples from Galen are only a few out of probably some hundreds, which might be collected from the treatise in which they occur, the _de Compositione Medicamentorum_. The language, which the Colossian false teachers would use, may be inferred from the account given by Philo of a Judaic sect of mystic ascetics, who may be regarded, not indeed as their direct, but as their collateral ancestors (see p. 86, note 246, p. 94), the Therapeutes of Egypt; _de Vit. Cont._ § 4 (II. p. 476 sq.) τρυφῶσιν ὑπὸ _σοφίας_ ἑστίωμενοι πλουσίως καὶ ἀφθόνως _τὰ δόγματα_ χορηγούσης, ὡς καὶ ... _μόλις_ δι’ ἓξ ἡμερῶν _ἀπογεύεσθαι_ τροφῆς ἀναγκαίας ... σιτοῦνται δὲ ... ἄρτον εὐτελῆ, καὶ ὄψον ἅλες ... πότον ὕδωρ ναματιαῖον αὐτοῖς ἐστίν ... _πλησμονὴν_ ὡς ἐχθρόν τε καὶ ἐπίβουλον ἐκτρεπόμενοι ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος. St Paul apparently has before him some similar exposition of the views of the Colossian heretics, either in writing or (more probably) by report from Epaphras. In reply he altogether denies the claims of this system to the title of σοφία; he disputes the value of these δόγματα; he allows that this πλησμονή is the great evil to be checked, the fatal disease to be cured; but he will not admit that the remedies prescribed have any substantial and lasting efficacy. The interpretation here offered is not new, but it has been strangely overlooked or despised. The passages adduced will I trust show the groundlessness of objections which have been brought against it owing to the use of the preposition; and in all other respects it seems to be far preferable to any rival explanation which has been suggested. The favourite interpretations in ancient or modern times divide themselves into two classes, according to the meaning assigned to πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός. (1) It is explained in a good sense: ‘to satisfy the reasonable wants of the body’. In this case οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινί is generally interpreted, ‘_not_ holding it (the body) _in any honour_’. So the majority of the fathers, Greek and Latin. This has the advantage of preserving the continuity of the words οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι πρὸς πλησμονὴν κ.τ.λ.: but it assigns an impossible sense to πλησμονὴ τῆς σαρκός. For πλησμονή always denotes ‘repletion’, ‘surfeiting’, ‘excessive indulgence’, and cannot be used of a reasonable attention to the physical cravings of nature; as Galen says, _Op._ XV. p. 113 πάντων εἰωθότων οὐ μόνον ἰατρῶν ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων Ἑλλήνων τὸ τῆς πλησμονῆς ὄνομα μᾶλλόν πως ἐπιφέρειν _ταῖς ὑπερβολαῖς τῆς συμμέτρου ποσότητος_: and certainly neither the Apostle nor the Colossian ascetics were likely to depart from this universal rule. To the long list of passages quoted in Wetstein may be added such references as Philo _Leg. ad. Cai._ § 1 (II. p. 546), _Clem. Hom._ viii. 15, Justin _Dial._ 126, Dion. Alex. in Euseb. _H.E._ vii. 25; but they might be increased to any extent. (2) A bad sense is attached to πλησμονή, as usage demands. And here two divergent interpretations have been put forward. (i) The proper continuity of the sentence is preserved, and the words οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινὶ πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός are regarded as an exposition of the doctrine of the false teachers from _their own point of view_. So Theodore of Mopsuestia, οὐ τίμιον νομίζοντας τὸ διὰ πάντων πληροῦν τὴν σάρκα, ἀλλὰ γὰρ μᾶλλον αἱρουμένους ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν πολλῶν διὰ τὴν τοῦ νόμου παράδοσιν. This able expositor however is evidently dissatisfied, for he introduces his explanation with the words ἀσαφὲς μέν ἐστι, βούλεται δὲ εἰπεῖν κ.τ.λ.; and his explanation has not been adopted by others. Either the sentence, so interpreted, becomes flat and unmeaning, though it is obviously intended to clinch the whole matter; or the Apostle is made to confirm the value of the very doctrines which he is combating. (ii) The sentence is regarded as discontinuous; and it is interpreted, ‘_not of any real value_’ (or ‘_not_ consisting _in anything commendable_’, or ‘_not_ holding the body _in any honour_’) but ‘_tending to gratify the carnal_ desires’ (or ‘mind’). This in some form or other is almost universally adopted by modern interpreters, and among the ancients is found in the commentator Hilary. The objections to it are serious. (α) The dislocation of the sentence is inexplicable. There is no indication either in the grammar or in the vocabulary that a separate and oppositive clause begins with πρὸς πλησμονὴν κ.τ.λ., but on the contrary everything points to an unbroken continuity. (β) The sense which it attaches to πλησμονὴ τῆς σαρκός is either forced and unnatural, or it makes the Apostle say what he could not have said. If πλησμονὴ τῆς σαρκός could have the sense which Hilary assigns to it, ‘sagina carnalis sensus traditio humana est’, or indeed if it could mean ‘the _mind_ of the flesh’ in any sense (as it is generally taken by modern commentators), this is what St Paul might well have said. But obviously πλησμονὴ τῆς σαρκός conveys a very different idea from such expressions as τὸ φυσιοῦσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκός (ver. 18) or τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός (Rom. viii. 6, 7), which include pride, self-sufficiency, strife, hatred, bigotry, and generally everything that is earth-bound and selfish. On the other hand, if πλησμονὴ τῆς σαρκός be taken in its natural meaning, as applying to coarse sensual indulgences, then St Paul could not have said without qualification, that this rigorous asceticism conduced πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός. Such language would defeat its own object by its extravagance.