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, 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. (Colossians 2:20-23 KJV)
Thomas Scott’s Commentary
Verses 20-23: If the Colossians were indeed become dead with Christ to the ceremonial law, which is elsewhere called “the rudiments or elements of this world;” Christ having discharged and cancelled that bond, as well as to their pagan superstitions, Why did they act as if they were still living in the world under a carnal dispensation, and strangers to a more spiritual worship and service? And why did any of them submit to those who dogmatically imposed legal observances and human traditions of any kind on them? The Judaizing teachers having imbibed also the notions of the heathen philosophers, had crept in at Colosse, and with great eagerness inculcated their principles; and seem to have met with countenance from some professed Christians. They called on them, in a dogmatical and authoritative manner, not “to touch” or to eat such food as was legally unclean, and not so much as to taste it, nor yet to handle any thing which might pollute them; probably requiring them also to refrain from marriage (1Co 7:1).—The next words are differently interpreted. Some suppose them to be the words of the false teachers, forbidding the use of all food which caused the destruction of life. ‘Whatever things tend to the destruction of life in the using.’—MacKnight. But though the words may perhaps bear this translation; yet, as there is nothing in the original for of life, and as whatever is used as food is destroyed by that use, the interpretation seems inadmissible.—‘All which things tend to the corruption of that excellent religion into which you are initiated.’—Doddridge. This supposes the word phthora to be used in a moral sense, of which many instances may be given. But the more general, and, as it appears to me, the best founded interpretation, supposes the apostle to refer to our Lord’s words concerning the traditions of the pharisees (Mt 15:17); and implies that abstaining from such things, when not divinely prohibited, as supported the body by perishing themselves, could do nothing towards the salvation of the soul (Mt 15:1-20; 1Co 6:12-20); whereas all such things perish with the using, and could communicate no real defilement. Typical instructions had, in former ages, been conveyed by the ritual law; but its obligation had now ceased, and it was of no more authority than the other doctrines and commandments of human invention which the false teachers added to it. The worship of angels, and the distinction of meats, had a show of wisdom, which might impose on the injudicious. To add voluntarily to the rule of duty, and thus to render it more strict, had a semblance of great devotion and extraordinary sanctity; but it implied that God had given a defective rule, and that he would be pleased with what he had never commanded. It might also appear very humble to worship angels; yet this arose from abominable pride and unbelief. That abstaining from meats, with various self-imposed austerities, might have a show of extraordinary spirituality, by which the body was neglected forma pretended superiority to animal indulgence, and willingness for mortification and suffering: yet all this was not “in any honour” to God, or any thing valuable in itself; nay, the whole tended to satisfy, in a dishonourable manner, the propensities of the flesh or the carnal mind, by gratifying its self-will, self-wisdom, self-righteousness, bigotry and contempt of others.—The word rendered “will-worship” is not elsewhere used in the New Testament; but it may be so naturally formed out of two words found in the eighteenth verse, and rendered “voluntary worshipping,” that its meaning is by no means doubtful.—The last clause is differently interpreted.—‘Nor are they of any value, as they regard those things by which the flesh is gratified or pampered.’—Beza. By “the flesh,” he means the carnal mind, which is gratified with every thing that affords nutriment to pride, self-preference, and contempt of others.—“Not by any provision for satisfying the flesh:” pimh, ‘sometimes in scripture signifies the food and clothing necessary for the body. Thus the provision of the necessaries and conveniencies of life made for parents, elders, and widows, is called pimh (1Ti 5:17). The body is as real a part of our nature as the soul, and ought to have such food and recreation as are necessary to its health and vigour.—The wisdom which teaches the “neglecting of the body, is not wisdom, but folly.” MacKnight.—‘Not yielding that due respect and care to the body which were meet for the moderate and fit sustentation of it.’ Bp. Hall.—‘Forbidding marriage, which “is honourable in all:” And allowing no honourable means of satisfying those desires which are implanted by nature, brought them to all dishonourable lusts.’—Hammond. If this last meaning could be clearly made out, and firmly established, it would very well suit the context. For it can hardly be doubted, that the Holy Spirit let the apostle to speak against the corruptions which certain Judaizing and speculating teachers, grafting the heathen philosopher, so to speak, on the superstitious pharisee, attempted to corrupt the church, in language strictly prophetical of the subsequent corruptions of the “man of sin,” the papal antichrist.—It may, however, be questioned whether the words, translated “satisfying the flesh,” which seems to imply full gratification, even to repletion and satiety, would have been used by the apostle in this connexion: so that, on the whole, the first interpretation appears to me the most satisfactory.—{Doddridge supposes that the two clauses may be transposed; as if the apostle had said, It is to such a satisfying of the flesh as does it no real honour; which he understands as equivalent to being dishonourable, it being the highest honour of our bodies to be employed as the instruments of our souls in the service of God. He refers to an opinion of Howe, that pimh signifies provision as well as honour; the sense being, that although there was no appearance of providing for the flesh, yet there was a carnal kind of satisfaction in these affected severities, which, when proceeding from vain-glory, were as contrary to the genius of true religion as the grossest sensualities.—ED.}—Commandments, &c. (Col 2:22). (Entalmata.) ‘This word occurs but thrice in the New Testament (Mt 15:9; Mr 7:7).—In all these places it is joined with (anthropos), of men, and is mentioned with evident disapprobation, and contrasted, by implication, with the commandments of God, which are called entolai.’—Campbell.