Indulgence and Self-Made Religion

[Paula]

These discussion questions are prompted by one of my recent Bible readings, from Colossians 2:20-23:

20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 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.

What exactly does Paul have in view in this passage regarding "fleshly indulgence". Is it simply synonymous for sinful or does it have a different meaning? It sounds like there were practices being proscribed to fight against "fleshly indulgence" that didn't work. So what could these practices have been that Paul stated were useless? Kinda reminds me of the Jewish hedge, where you put a hedge around the law to avoid getting even close to breaking the law.

And does this have any parallels today?

[Christianbookworm]

asceticism? Protognostics?

[Paula]

asceticism? Protognostics?

Asceticism seems to fit what Paul was talking about “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” and that would fit with severe treatment of the body. To that end, perhaps Paul is pointing out that it is God that transforms a person and no amount of works, regardless of how well meant, can replace that. Or maybe I am off base with that, but clearly if these activities were neutral Paul wouldn't be commenting on them in a letter.

I am not so sure about early gnostics, although given they thought matter was evil that would fit with hating the body. Now I could be wrong, but I always thought that heresy came later, in the 2nd century at least. As well, Paul doesn't seem to be condemning this Colossian movement as a heresy but more as heterodoxy (falls short of heresy).

[Faber]

The English theologian Bishop J.B. Lightfoot wrote a commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Colossians. He observed,

A mere glance at the letter suffices to detect the presence of JUDAISM in the teaching which the Apostle combats. The observance of sabbaths and new moons is decisive in this respect. The distinction of meats and drinks points in the same direction (Colossians 2:16-17, 21 sq.). Even the enforcement of the initiatory rite of Judaism may be inferred from the contrast implied in St. Paul’s recommendation of the spiritual circumcision (Colossians 2:11). [J.B. Lightfoot, D.D. Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. A Revised Text with Introductions, Notes and Dissertations, (London: MacMillan And Co., 1879), 73.]

Lightfoot takes note of these ascetic and mystical tendencies, assuming that these false teachers are in some sense Christians, not any form of Greek philosophers.

On the other hand a closer examination of its language shows that these Judaic features do not exhaust the portraiture of the heresy or heresies against which the epistle is directed. We discern an element of theosophic speculation, which is alien to the spirit of Judaism proper. We are confronted with a shadowy mysticism, which loses itself in the contemplation of the unseen world. We discover a tendency to interpose certain spiritual agencies, intermediate beings, between God and man, as the instruments of communication and the objects of worship (Colossians 2:4,8,18,23). Anticipating the result which will appear more clearly hereafter, we may say that along with its Judaism there was a GNOSTIC element in the false teaching which prevailed at Colossae. [op. cit., 73-74]

The manner in which Paul mixes these judaizing and mystical ideologies raised the question: Is he talking about two different heresies attacking the churches in Asia Minor, or is he talking about an entirely different heresy altogether, one which contains the elements of Gnosticism and a legalistic form of Judaism? Going back to J.B. Lightfoot’s commentary on the Letter to the Colossians:

But in fact the Apostle’s language hardly leaves the question open. The two elements are so closely interwoven in his refutation, that it is impossible to separate them. He passes backwards and forwards from the one to the other in such a way as to show that they are only parts of one complex whole. [op. cit., 75]

Lightfoot then leans toward the opinion that there is a single heresy, which he equates with Essenism. Having at his disposal at the time of writing only the writings of Josephus and Philo [op. cit., 83] he portrays the mystic speculation of the Colossian heresy as a Gnostic tendency, but not Gnosticism itself.

[Obsidian]

The KJV and NET seem to interpret it as just saying that the rituals themselves derive from the flesh. That is, they look spiritual, but they are not (similar to blowing trumpets to announce the giving of alms, praying long prayers in public, wearing long robes, etc.).

Colossians 2:23 (KJV) which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

The NIV seems to go further, saying that the rituals themselves have no value in preventing fleshly sins.

Colossians 2:23 (NIV) Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

Either way, the meaning is only slightly different.