21---23,
5.3.5
23. ἅτινά ἐστιν λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας ἐν “ ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ καὶ ἃ Only here
in class.
ταπεινοφροσύνῃ Kat! Pdedia σώματος οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινί, πρὸς or Bib.
"πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός.
1 80 [Ln.], T., Tr. [W.H.], R.V., Ws. with all Greek MSS. except Β.
omitted by B, m, Or. (Lat.), Hil.
fore best to adhere to the common view, and translate ‘‘all which things are to perish with the using’’. The meaning is, then, that with consumption the forbidden meats and drinks were destined to perish. This interpretation has the advantage of being forcible, for it throws one side of Paul’s refutation into a terse parenthesis. His argument is, these meats and drinks, on which the false teachers lay such stress, are of no such importance, for in the nature of things they perish in their very use. If we can annihilate them they cannot rule us. The words should be included in brackets.—kara τὰ ἐντάλ- ματα καὶ διδασκαλίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων: to be taken with δογµατίζεσθε. This states the other side of Paul’s refutation, The precepts are not only concerned with things destined to perish, they have their source in human commandments. Light- foot aptly points out the striking parallel between these words of Paul and those of Christ on defilement (Mark vii.). Both argue from the perishableness of meats, both treat these things as indifferent in themselves, and both quote Isaiah. Even though these precepts are partially found in the O.T., they are rightly called pre- cepts of men, partly because they went beyond what it enjoined, partly because their object is different.
Ver. 23. ἅτινα: 1.6., which command- ments and teachings.—Adyov σοφίας. This may be taken in the sense of “a word of wisdom,” but with no inner truth. Others translate ‘‘ appearance of wisdom” (Beng., De W. and others). But this seems not to be a meaning of Ady. Klopper’s translation, ‘‘ reason” or “ ground,” yields no very good sense. It is best, with most recent commentators, to translate “a reputation for wisdom ”’. μέν is not followed by δε, but this is not uncommon (see Winer-Moulton, pp. 719- 721).---ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ καὶ ταπεινο- φροσύνῃ καὶ ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος. It is impossible to connect σώμ. with all three datives (Hofm.), it can belong only to ἀφειδίᾳ, with which it is connected as an objective genitive, “ severity to the body”. If καὶ is retained before ἀφ. the sense of the earlier datives is not affected.
e Only here in N.T.
καὶ;
If, however, it is omitted their sense may be affected. It is possible to take ἀφ., then, as an instrumental dative with λόγον ἔχοντα. But it is also possible to take it, with Haupt, as an explanatory apposition to the earlier datives. In this case ἐθελ. and tam. have both an ascetic meaning, Against this, however, is the fact that the words cannot be separated from the parallel expressions in ver. 18, This seems to fix the sense of ἐθελ. as a wor- ship of angels, which was not required of them, and ταπ. will mean what it meant in ver. 18. ἐθελοθρ. occurs nowhere else, and was probably coined by Paul. Simi- lar compounds were not unusual, and generally, though not invariably, had a bad sense. This is commonly supposed to attach to this word, but in any case it gets a bad sense from its context. ἀφ. σώμ. is the clearest assertion we have of the ascetic character of the false teach- ings.—ovk ἐν τιμῇ τινί, πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός. These words, which con- stitute this verse one of the most difficult in the New Testament, have received very various explanations. It is disputed whether οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τ. Should be con- nected with the preceding or following words, and also with what πρ. πλησ. τ. σαρκός should be connected. Sumner, followed by Conybeare and Evans on 1 Cor. vii. 2, interpreted πρὸς as meaning ‘to check,” and translated “ not in any value to check the indulgence of the flesh,” connecting οὐκ ἐν τ. τ. with the following words. This view was adopted by Lightfoot, and has been accepted by Moule and now by Ellicott. It has been inserted, with altogether insufficient warning, in Κ.Υ. It is a new explana- tion, and since propounded has found comparatively little favour. Lightfoot quotes numerous examples to prove that πρός after words denoting value, utility, sufficiency, etc., is used in the sense “ to check” or ‘‘to prevent”. But in these cases the meaning does not lie in πρός, but in πρός after some word which im- poses this sense upon it (e.g., φάρμακον), and there is nothing of the kind here. Abbott, in his valuable criticism of this interpretation, points out that πρός means