clear from ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος in ver. 23. —tv μέρει: “in the matter of,” μέρ.
16—18,
λόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ.
2 , ers , aA > 1 θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ καὶ “θρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀγγέλων, ἃ ' ἑόρακεν “ ἐμβατεύων, εἰκῇ ” φυσιούμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ,
Il., i., 402 ff. times) in class. or Bib. Gk.
x Only here and Acts xxvi. 5; Jas. i. 26, 27 in N.T.
531
18. μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς " καταβραβευέτω W Dem.,
Mid., 544 (quota- tion from witness- es); Eus- tath., ad y Only here and 1 Cor. (six
1So T., Tr., W.H., R.V., Ws. with Q*ABD* 17, 28, 6733." µη: inserted after a
by [Ln.] with CKLP. ουκ: FG.
expressing the category. Chrysostom and some others have taken it strangely to mean ‘in the partial observance ΟΕ”. --ἑορτῆς ἢ veopnvias ἢ σαββάτων: the Jewish sacred seasons enumerated δ5 πεν occur yearly, monthly and weekly. The Sabbath is placed on the same footing as the others, and Paul therefore commits himself to the principle that a Christian is not to be censured for its non-observ- ance. σαββ., though plural in form, means a single Sabbath day.
Ver. 17. This verse contains a hint of the fundamental argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews (cf. esp. Heb. viii. 5, x. 1).---ὅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων. Whether 6 or ἅ be read, the reference is to the whole of the ceremonial ordinances just mentioned. σκιὰ is “shadow,” not “sketch” (as Calvin and others). It is cast by the body, and therefore implies that there is a body, and while it re- sembles the body it is itself insubstantial. τ. peAA. means the Christian dispensa- tion, not (as Mey.) the still future Mes- sianic kingdom, for, if so, the substance would still lie in the future, and the shadow would not be out of date. It is future from the point of view of Judaism. ---τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ: “ but the body belongs to Christ”. σῶμα is that which casts the shadow, therefore it existed contemporaneously with its manifesta- tion, and, of course, according to the Jewish view, in heaven. It practically means what we should call ‘the sub- stance,” and is chosen as the counterpart to σκιὰ, and with no reference to the Church or the glorified body of Christ. Since the substance belonged to Christ, it was foolish for Christians to hanker after the shadow. All that the most sanguine hoped to attain by asceticism and ceremonialism was possessed im- mediately in the possession of Christ.
Ver. 18. This verse gives us our only definite information, apart from which it would have been a highly probable in- ference, that the false teachers practised angel-worship. — ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω. This is commonly translated ‘‘rob you
of your prize”. The judge at the games was called BpaBevs or βραβευτής, and the prize βραβεῖον. But the verb βραβεύω apparently lost all reference to the prize, and meant simply “το decide”. In the two cases in which καταβραβεύω occurs it means to decide against or condemn. It is best therefore to take it so here, “let no one give judgment against you’’; it is thus parallel to, though stronger than, κρινέτω (ver. 16). (Field, Notes on Transl. of the N.T., pp. 196, 197, dis- cusses the word; cf. also Ol. and Abb. ad ἰοο.)---θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ. This phrase is very variously interpreted. Some assume a Hebraism, and translate ‘taking pleasure in humility’? (Winer, Lightf., Findl., Haupt). The LXX uses this not infrequently (but usually with persons, though otherwise in Ps. cxi. 1, cxlvi. το); but there is no N.T. parallel for it, and Paul does not employ Hebra- isms. For this idea he uses εὐδοκεῖν. Moreover it yields no relevant sense here. Others translate “wishing to do so in (or by) humility” (Mey., ΕΙ., Sod., Weiss). But for this τοῦτο ποιεῖν should have been added, and on this interpreta- tion θέλων has really little point. The rendering of Alford, Moule and others is not very different from this in sense, but more forcible. It connects θέλ. with καταβραβ., and translates “ wilfully,” “of set purpose”. 2 Pet. iii. 5 is re- ferred to for the construction. Oltra- mare’s view is similar, but he translates “spontaneously,” so apparently the R.V. mg. and Abbott. The unsatisfactoriness of these interpretations suggests that the text may be corrupt. Hort thinks that for θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ we should read ἐν ἐθελοταπεινοφροσύνῃ. This word is used by Basil, and a similar compound occurs in ver. 23. It is, of course, as Haupt says, difficult to understand how the copyists should have altered it into the very strange expression in the text, But this is not a fatal objection, and the conjecture is very possibly correct. It would mean ‘gratuitous humility,” a humility that went beyond what was