The Peril of Asceticism
(2:20-23).
Asceticism is the practice
of strict self-denial as a spiritual discipline. Gromacki notes that “asceticism and legalism are
partners in humanistic religion.”[1]
The continuation of regulations imposed by the false teachers shows the
connection with what Paul already had been condemning.
Still
the central error of the false teachers was an attempt to impose the ceremonial
yoke, in some of its aspects, on the members of the Christian church, as
something which would inspire them to transcendental purity, and bring them
into a magical connection with powers of the spiritual world.[2]
Paul opens this section with a
controversial tone as seen in the word “if”
[or since] and “why.” This section
begins with a conditional statement turning to a condemning statement. The
conditional statement is: “If you have
died with Christ to the elementary principle of the world” (2:20 cf.
2:8). The word if is a first class condition which indicates that it should be
perceived as real or true. It is assumed true for the sake of argument.[3]
The if clause pertains to both the
position and identification of the believer—we
have died with Christ. The aim or purpose of our position is “to the elementary principles of the world”
(1:20). The word translated to is not
the best. The KJV is better translating it, from.
The Greek is apo, meaning from, away from, and
signifies departure. Thus, we died with Christ from the elementary principles. It speaks not only of separation
but the element of freedom that follows severance; thus, from the control of.
The point is that if they died with Christ, they are to be separate from the
elementary principles (or rudiments) of the world. These elements are the
godless principles of the world. They are to live up to their spiritual
completeness in Christ.
It is possible, however, to
return or place oneself back under the rudiments of the world (cf. Gal. 4:9).
Paul confronts them and their behavior— “Why,
as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees”
(1:20). Why may be more important
than most commentaries indicate. It seems to function in this context in at
least two ways: First, is demanding a response by the readers as to the reason
they are taking such action. Second, it stands as part of a rebuke or
condemnation in taking such action. The object of the why is given in a twofold
behavior (1) “As if you are living in the
world.” This ties in directly with the living according “to the elementary principles of the world”
The word living means to be possessed
of its vitality and exercise the function thereof. In the Greek is an adverbial
participle and is concessive, thus the idea of still living captures the idea well, but retains the emphasis of
the previous clause concerning our identification in the death of Christ.[4]
This does not mean that believers are no longer in the world which is fallen
and sin-laden; rather they are called to a higher standard of conduct that they
are to live by (cf. John 15:19). They are not to be controlled by this world’s
system. “Paul is not
denying his reader’s earthly existence, only the worldly orientation of their
lives,” notes Harris.[5] (2) The second description is given in the
translation as: “do not submit yourself
to decrees.” This seems to indicate
a prohibition. In the Greek text, however, the phrase is an extension of why,
thus giving it as part of the ;question and could read; Why…do you submit to its
rules?” It is a causative/ permissive
passive which “implies
consent, permission, or cause of the action of the verb on the part of the
subject.”[6]
The passive voice carries the idea of them allowing themselves to be in this
condition. They are voluntarily doing this. The word submit is the word is the
Greek word dogmatizesthe,
where we get the word dogma. “Paul
uses the present tense of the verb to suggest that the readers of the letter
were, in fact, in danger of allowing themselves to be ‘dictated to’ by the false
teachers.”[7]
He now describes
the rules or decrees. Asceticism promotes self-denial in order to develop
spiritualism. The false teachers believed that by abstaining from things they
can earn merit with God. This self-denial is described a in somewhat sarcastic
tone.[8]
These rules are not the apostle’s own teaching, but prominent watchwords of the
false teachers.[9] He gives three examples of the sort of
regulations imposed by Ascetic teaching:
- “Do not handle” (2:21). The Greek here and the rest of these examples are aorist subjunctives, which conveys not to begin to do them. It is used of a prohibition, a negative command.[10] The word translated handle or touch (KJV) is the Greek word hapto, meaning to bring in contact, touch, handle, lay hold of, or to meddle with. It is common to look at this and the other prohibitions concerning food and drink regulations. However, Harris says these are probably not limited to dietary.[11] Gromacki makes a point when he suggests this has to do with sexual abstinence.[12] He points out that the same word in 1 Corinthians7:1— “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” This is reinforced by Paul warning against false teachers who prohibit marriage (1 Timothy 4:3). This is possible. O’Brien rejects this for three reasons: (1) Prohibition of sexual relations are nowhere else in this epistle. (2) In the Old Testament the word is always used in connection of an object of the verb making clear what is meant (cf. Gen. 20:4, 6, Prov. 6:29). Here there is no such object in the text. (3) Verse 22 talks about these being used.[13] Pao understands these are references of the general framework of cultic matters (cf. Ex. 19:12-13; 30:29; Lev. 5:2-3; 11:24-39).[14] Since these are general statements there is a degree of amenity here; therefore, it is hard to determine what it applies to in the false teaching. Paul probably intends his readers to take these in a general sense.
- “Do not taste” (1:21). There can be little doubt this refers to dietary laws or fasting. Again no details are given that will specify what it directly refers to. However, in Christ there is no such distinctions (cf. 1 Tim. 4”3-5).
- “Do not touch” (1:21). This is not the same word as used in the first prohibition. This is a rarer word thingano, which is found only three times in the New Testament (here, Hebrews 11:28; 12:20). It means to touch or to harm. The difference between this prohibition and the first one is not clear. Lightfoot holds that the first verb is stronger than the second one,[15] which may be the case; but is not much help in just what they refer t0 in the text. What is clear is that there are things that asceticism holds that must be abstained from, and they are evidently well known to the readers, since all three prohibitions are used in general terms. It seems that all the prohibitions have the background of purity, and should be seen in that context.
“Which” (Greek: ha) refers back to
verse 21.
“In accordance with” refers back to verse
20 and the reference to decrees or ordinances.[16]
“Which things” referring to the last part of verse 20.
These point to three reasons
for rejecting asceticism:[17]
·
These rules concern things “which are destined to perish with use” (1:22). One must be careful
here. We tend to read this phrase in eschatological terms, taking it to mean
they will perish in the end time events. However, that seems to take the
meaning out of context, and a misreading of the text. Destined to perish points the lack of any permanent value. Perish
has the idea of present action, that which is perishable (1 Cor. 15:42, 50). It
is the same word as found in Gal. 6:8 where the flesh reaps destruction. It is
not an eschatological event as seen in the modifier—with use. It indicates
consumption by use (locative); when they are consumed; or by being used, with
use (instrumental). It seems to speak of perish in the use of asceticism, which
rules are temporary. The great peril is that it allows the material to govern
the spiritual life (cf. 1 Cor. 6:12-13, 19-20; 8:8, Mark 7:15).
·
They are man-made rules and regulations that are
being imposed on the person. They are “in
accordance with the commandments and teachings of men” (2:22). This resumes the thought of verse 21 and the
“elementary principles of the world.”
This alludes to Isa. 29:13. Human religion is the basis and origin in hearts
and minds of men; not the Spirit of God. The readers were members of the
church, the body of Christ rooted by and in faith. These false teachers were
trying to force human commands and teachings contrary to faith in Christ alone.
Man’s teaching is sensual and flesh centered and not spiritually centered. It
tries to add to the finished and sufficient work of Christ.
·
These practices are valueless. This is the
conclusion of this major section. While the verse is a subject of much debate
on how to understand the Greek text translation,[18]
the truth is not changed. It deals with the hypocriticalness of the teaching.
Legalism, mysticism, and asceticism hold certain things in common. They are
marked by rules and regulations; a false wisdom; and practices against the
flesh for spiritual position. “These are
matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and
self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, [but are] of no value against
fleshly indulgence” (2:23). It seems best to take as the antecedent of these things to the preceding clause—doctrines and commandments of men. He
now describes the true nature of these cultic practices promoted by these false
teachers and doctrines. There are three:
First, they have
an appearance of wisdom. The words have
an appearance is a false one. Pao states that it is “a concessive adverbial
participle, which thus sets up a contrast between the appearance of wisdom of
the imposed practices and their actual uselessness.”[19]
The false wisdom is found in the self-made religion; it is “a freely chosen worship.”[20]
It is a religion from the mind of man, not the mind of Christ (cf. Rom. 1:22).
Second, is a
self-abasement, or as the KJV says a false
humility (which is better and the NIV translated it this way also). The
Greek word is tapeinophrosyne,
meaning lowliness of mind, humility, and modesty. This is camouflage for the
purpose of inflating and destroying the grace with ordinances that are useless.
It destroys the grace of God (cf. Gal. 5:4). Grace cannot be increased by
merit. The two are opposed to one another. Salvation cannot be achieved; it can
only be freely received.
Third, is the
severe treatment of the body, or its neglect (KJV). The Greek word used is aphantos
(found only here in the NT), and means unsparing, thus, unsparing in the
treatment of the body. This is manifested in both the denial and the
self-imposed beatings of the body. Asceticism both denies the flesh and
self-tortures the flesh in other to reach a higher spirituality.
Paul concludes “[but are] of no value against fleshly
indulgence” (2:23). In other words, it does not change nor control the sin
nature of man. Such practices do not get to the essence of true spirituality.
Only a change of heart and mind can bring true holiness. These rules do not
accomplish their goal; they are of no value! Their worship and practices are in
vain (cf. Mark 7:6-8). “This
doctrine of matter being inherently evil denies God as Creator, denies Jesus
Christ as being a member of the Godhead, makes marriage, sex, and the pleasures
and joys of life to be inherently evil,” observes Baker.[21]
Such actions and teachings have no value as far as God is concerned.
[2] Eadie, COLOSSIANS, 197.
[3] Wallace, BEYOND THE BASICS, 630.
[4] Pao, ZECNT: COLOSSIANS & PHILEMON, 194;
Harris, EGGNT: COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON, 112.
[5] Harris, EGGNT: COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON, 113.
[6] Wallace, BEYOND THE BASICS, 440.
[7] Moo, PNTC: COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON, 234-235.
[9] Eadie, COLOSSIANS 199.
[11] Harris, EGGNT; COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON, 113.
[13] O’Brien, WBC:
COLOSSIANS, PHILEMON, 151.
[14] Pao, ZECNT: COLOSSIANS & PHILEMON, 195
[15] Lightfoot, COLOSSIANS, 203.
[16] Verse 21-22a is Paul interjecting or
interrupting in the text and in most translations they are handled as a
parenthesis.
[17] Moo, PNTC: COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON, 236.
[18] See the four major views in Pao, ZECNT:
COLOSSIANS & PHILEMON, 197: O’Brien, WBC: COLOSSIANS, PHILEMON, 150-151,
[20] Harris, EGGNT: Colossians and Philemon, 115.
[21] Baker,
UNDERSTANDING THE BODY OF CHRIST, 138.
No comments:
Post a Comment