II. 20]
← ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχέιων τοῦ κόσμου, τί ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσμῳ →
ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείων κ.τ.λ.] i.e. ‘from the rudimentary, disciplinary, ordinances, whose sphere is the mundane and sensuous’: see the note on ver. 8. For the pregnant expression ἀποθανεῖν ἀπὸ comp. Gal. v. 4 κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ (so too Rom. vii. 2, 6), 2 Cor. xi. 3 φθαρῇ ... ἀπὸ τῆς ἁπλότητος, and see A. Buttmann p. 277 note.
← δογματίζεσθε; 21Μὴ ἅψῃ μηδὲ γεύσῃ μηδὲ θίγῃς 22ἅ →
δογματίζεσθε] ‘are ye overridden with precepts, ordinances.’ In the LXX the verb δογματίζειν is used several times, meaning ‘to issue a decree,’ Esth. iii. 9, 1 Esdr. vi. 33, 2 Macc. x. 8, xv. 36, 3 Macc. iv. 11. Elsewhere it is applied most commonly to the precepts of philosophers; e.g. Justin Apol. i. 7 οἱ ἐν Ἕλλησι τὰ αὐτοῖς ἀρεστὰ δογματίσαντες ἐκ παντὸς τῷ ἑνὶ ὀνόματι φιλοσοφίας προσαγορεύονται (comp. § 4), Epict. iii. 7. 17 sq. εἰ θέλεις εἶναι φιλόσοφος ... δογματίζων τὰ αἰσχρά. Here it would include alike the δόγματα of the Mosaic law (ver. 14) and the δόγματα of the ‘philosophy’ denounced above (ver. 8). Both are condemned; the one as superseded though once authoritative, the other as wholly vexatious and unwarrantable. Examples are given in the following verse, μὴ ἅψῃ κ.τ.λ. For the construction here, where the more remote object, which would stand in the dative with the active voice (2 Macc. x. 8 ἐδογμάτισαν ... τῷ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἔθνει), becomes the nominative of the passive, compare χρηματίζεσθαι Matt. ii. 12, 22, διακονεῖσθαι Mark x. 45, and see Winer § xxxix. p. 326, A. Buttmann p. 163, Kühner § 378, II. p. 109.
21. Μὴ ἅψῃ κ.τ.λ.] The Apostle disparagingly repeats the prohibitions of the false teachers in their own words, ‘Handle not, neither taste, neither touch.’ The rabbinical passages quoted in Schöttgen show how exactly St Paul’s language reproduces, not only the spirit, but even the form, of these injunctions. The Latin commentators, Hilary and Pelagius, suppose these prohibitions to be the Apostle’s own, thus making a complete shipwreck of the sense. So too St Ambrose de Noe et Arca 25 (I. p. 267), de Abr. i. 6 (I. p. 300). We may infer from the language of St Augustine who argues against it, that this was the popular interpretation in his day: Epist. cxix. (II. p. 512) ‘tanquam præceptum putatur apostoli, nescio quid tangere, gustare, attaminare, prohibentis.’ The ascetic tendency of the age thus fastened upon a slight obscurity in the Greek and made the Apostle recommend the very practices which he disparaged. For a somewhat similar instance of a misinterpretation commonly received see the note on τοῖς δόγμασιν ver. 14. Jerome however (I. p. 878) had rightly interpreted the passage, illustrating it by the precepts of the Talmud. At a still earlier date Tertullian, Adv. Marc. v. 19, gives the correct interpretation.
These prohibitions relate to defilement contracted in divers ways by contact with impure objects. Some were doubtless reenactments of the Mosaic law; while others would be exaggerations or additions of a rigorous asceticism, such as we find among the Essene prototypes of these Colossian heretics, e.g. the avoidance of oil, of wine, or of flesh-meat, the shunning of contact with a stranger or a religious inferior, and the like; see pp. 85 sq. For the religious bearing of this asceticism, as springing from the dualism of these heretical teachers, see above pp. 79, 104 sq.
← ἐστιν πάντα εἰς φθορὰν τῇ ἀποχρήσεἰ, κατὰ τὰ →
ἅψῃ] The difference between ἅπτεσθαι and θιγγάνειν is not great, and in some passages where they occur together, it is hard to distinguish them: e.g. Exod. xix. 12 προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς τοῦ ἀναβῆναι εἰς τὸ ὄρος καὶ θιγεῖν τι αὐτοῦ· πᾶς ὁ ἁψάμενος τοῦ ὄρους θανάτῳ τελευτήσει, Eur. Bacch. 617 οὔτ’ ἔθιγεν οὔθ’ ἣψαθ’ ἡμῶν, Arist. de Gen. et Corr. i. 8 (p. 326) διὰ τί οὐ γίγνεται ἁψάμενα ἕν, ὥσπερ ὕδωρ ὕδατος ὅταν θίγη|; Dion Chrys. Or. xxxiv. (II. p. 50) οἱ δ’ ἐκ παρέργου προσίασιν ἁπτόμενοι μόνον τοῦ πράγματος, ὥσπερ οἱ σπονδῆς θιγγάνοντες, Themist. Paraphr. Arist. 95 τὴν δὲ ἁφὴν αὐτῶν ἅπτεσθαι τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἀναγκαῖον· καὶ γὰρ τοὔνομα αὐτῆς ἐκ τοῦ ἅπτεσθαι καὶ θιγγάνειν. But ἅπτεσθαι is the stronger word of the two. This arises from the fact that it frequently suggests, though it does not necessarily involve, the idea of a voluntary or conscious effort, ‘to take hold of’–a suggestion which is entirely wanting to the colourless word θιγγάνειν; comp. Themist. Paraphr. Arist. 94 ἡ τῶν ζώων ἁφὴ κρίσις ἐστὶ καὶ ἀντίληψις τοῦ θιγγάνοντος. Hence in Xen. Cyrop. i. 3. 5 ὅτι σε, φάναι, ὁρῶ, ὅταν μὲν τοῦ ἄρτου ἅψῃ, εἰς οὐδὲν τὴν χεῖρα ἀποψώμενον, ὅταν δὲ τούτων τινὸς θίγῃς, εὐθὺς ἀποκαθαίρει τὴν χεῖρα εἰς τὰ χειρόμακτρα κ.τ.λ. Thus the words chosen in the Latin Versions, tangere for ἅπτεσθαι and attaminare or contrectare for θιγεῖν, are unfortunate, and ought to be transposed. Our English Version, probably influenced by the Latin, has erred in the same direction, translating ἅπτεσθαι by ‘touch’ and θιγεῖν by ‘handle’. Here again they must be transposed. ‘Handle’ is too strong a word for either; though in default of a better it may stand for ἅπτεσθαι, which it more nearly represents. Thus the two words ἅψῃ and θίγῃς being separate in meaning, γεύσῃ may well interpose; and the three together will form a descending series, so that, as Beza (quoted in Trench N. T. Syn. § xvii. p. 57) well expresses it, ‘decrescente semper oratione, intelligatur crescere superstitio’.
On the other hand ἅψῃ has been interpreted here as referring to the relation of husband and wife, as e.g. in 1 Cor. vii. 1 γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι; and the prohibition would then be illustrated by the teaching of the heretics in 1 Tim. iv. 3 κωλύοντων γαμεῖν. But, whatever likelihood there may be that the Colossian false teachers also held this doctrine (see above p. 85 sq.), it nowhere appears in the context, and we should not expect so important a topic to be dismissed thus cursorily. Moreover θιγγάνειν is used as commonly in this meaning as ἅπτεσθαι (see Gataker Op. Crit. p. 79, and examples might be multiplied); so that all ground for assigning it to ἅπτεσθαι especially is removed. Both ἅπτεσθαι and θιγγάνειν refer to defilement incurred through the sense of touch, though in different degrees; ‘Handle not, nor yet taste, nor even touch.’
22. ‘Only consider what is the real import of this scrupulous avoidance. Why, you are attributing an inherent value to things which are fleeting; you yourselves are citizens of eternity, and yet your thoughts are absorbed in the perishable’.
ἅ] ‘which things’, i.e. the meats and drinks and other material objects, regarded as impure to the touch. The antecedent to ἅ is implicitly involved in the prohibitions μὴ ἅψῃ κ.τ.λ.
ἐστιν εἰς φθορὰν] ‘are destined for corruption’. For similar expressions see Acts viii. 20 ἔιη εἰς ἀπωλείαν (comp. ver. 23 εἰς χολὴν πικρίας καὶ σύνδεσμον ἀδικίας ... ὄντἀ, 2 Πετ. ιι. 12 [Γρεεκ: γεγεννημένα ... εἰς ἅλωσιν καὶ φθοράν. For the word φθορά, involving the idea of ‘decomposition’, see the note on Gal. vi. 8. The expression here corresponds to εἰς ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκβάλλεται (ἐκπορεύεταἰ, Matt. xv. 17, Mark vii. 19.
τῇ ἀποχρήσει] ‘in the consuming’. While the verb ἀποχρῶμαι is common, the substantive ἀπόχρησις is extremely rare: Plut. Mor. p. 267 F χαίρειν ταῖς τοιάυταις ἀποχρήσεσι καὶ συστολαῖς τῶν περιττῶν (i.e. ‘by such modes of consuming and abridging superfluities’), Dion. Hal. A. R. i. 58 ἐν ἀποχρήσει γῆς μοίρας. The unusual word was chosen for its expressiveness: the χρῆσις here was an ἀπόχρησις; the things could not be used without rendering them unfit for further use. The subtlety of the expression in the original cannot be reproduced in any translation.
On the other hand the clause is sometimes interpreted as a continuation of the language of the ascetic teachers; ‘Touch not things which all lead to ruin by their abuse’. This interpretation however has nothing to recommend it. It loses the point of the Apostle’s argument; while it puts upon εἶναι εἰς φθοράν a meaning which is at least not natural.
κατὰ κ.τ.λ.] connected directly with vv. 20, 21, so that the words ἅ ἐστιν ... τῇ ἀποχρήσει are a parenthetical comment.
← ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων· →
τὰ ἐντάλματα κ.τ.λ.] The absence of both preposition and article before διδασκαλίας shows that the two words are closely connected. They are placed here in their proper order; for ἐντάλματα describes the source of authority and διδασκαλίας the medium of communication. The expression is taken ultimately from Isaiah xxix. 13, where the words run in the LXX, μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με, διδάσκοντες ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ διδασκαλίας. The Evangelists (Matt. xv. 9, Mark vii. 7), quoting the passage, substitute in the latter clause διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων.
The coincidences in St Paul’s language here with our Lord’s words as related in the Gospels (Matt. xv. 1–20, Mark vii. 1–23) are striking, and suggest that the Apostle had this discourse in his mind. (1) Both alike argue against these vexatious ordinances from the perishableness of meats. (2) Both insist upon the indifference of such things in themselves. In Mark vii. 19 the Evangelist emphasizes the importance of our Lord’s words on this occasion, as practically abolishing the Mosaic distinction of meats by declaring all alike to be clean (καθαρίζων; see the note on ver. 16). (3) Both alike connect such ordinances with the practices condemned in the prophetic denunciation of Isaiah.
← 23ἅτινά 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.