 |  |
"Which things" is atina in the Greek, and means "which sort of things", i.e., not only
the three specified, but all other such-like prohibitions and negations: and each
generation has its own. For instance, in our own day sermons have been preached against
"Railway Trains", "Chloroform", "Motor Cars", "Wireless" and "Aeroplanes". The
spirit of this passage in Col. 2: remains though the outward form change.
"Have indeed a show of wisdom."--The word "show" is the translation of logos.
This word has a wide signification, including not only reason, speech, word, discourse,
but also "the cause of" (Matt. 5: 29, margin); "thing" (Matt. 21: 24); "intent"
(Acts 10: 29). Perhaps the rendering "having a reputation for wisdom" conveys the
meaning as well as any. Moffatt's translation is suggestive:--
"These rules are determined by human precepts and tenets; they get the name of
`wisdom' with their self-imposed devotions, with their fasting, with their rigorous
discipline of the body, but they are of no value, they simply pamper the flesh."
"In will worship."--This is a compound word, ethelothreskeia, possessing
characteristics not uncommon in Greek literature, in which such compounds are
generally, though not always, used in a bad sense.
In Col. 3: 12 the apostle uses the word translated "humility" in a good sense. Where
humility arises out of contemplation of the wonders of grace, the putting on of the new
man, as the elect of God, nothing can be more fitting. But if it cringe, instead of having
boldness of access: if it impose upon the flesh works of supererogation, multiplying
mediators, observances, and ordinances, then, it is vain and deceptive.
This "show of wisdom" expresses itself in a threefold way: (1) Will worship;
(2) Humility, and (3) Neglecting the body.
The reader of these words, like the writer, is under no illusion regarding the need
where there is to "buffet the body, and keep it in subjection". We have been taught by
revelation and by experience that "in our flesh dwelleth no good thing". But this
knowledge, instead of leading us to "neglect the body" in the hope of making progress in
sanctification, compels us to recognize, on the one hand, that nothing done by the body,
done to the body, or not done by the body, can, of itself, make us, in ourselves, more
condemned than we already are, nor, on the other hand, can it make us more acceptable.
The ground of our acceptance is in Another and that without qualification.
These bodies of ours which have been the instrument of sin, can now, by grace,
become the instruments of righteousness. The epistle to the Romans emphasized this fact
in chapter 6: and says, in chapter 12:, that the presenting of our bodies a living
sacrifice is but our "logical service". If that be so, "neglecting the body" can be only evil.
If by neglecting it we hope to derive spiritual merit, what are we better than the ritualist?
Does not the Hindoo the same? If in these bodies we hope to serve God, what warrant
have we to "neglect" them? Is the emaciated, unkempt, unwashed fakir, or mediæval
"saint", more acceptable in the sight of God than the redeemed child of God "clothed and
in his right mind"?