Colossenses 2:8

"Philosophy"-this is the only occurrence of the word in the New Testament-here does not refer to the study of basic questions concerning God, man, and the meaning of life. It refers to the speculations and ideas of false teachers not rooted in divine revelation. These ideas had come down by merely human tradition.

"Much depends on our semantics at this point. If by philosophy we mean the search for clarity and understanding regarding the whole of reality, then the Christian must in a sense philosophize. He must think clearly, and he must strive for a self-consistent view of life. In his quest, however, he must always submit to the guidance, limitation, and criticism of the light of divine revelation. On the other hand, if by philosophy we mean human speculation regarding man’s basic questions without due respect for the revelation of God, then the Christian, no doubt, will accord this philosophy a greatly diminished relevance to his life and calling. . . .

"I seriously question the view that Paul, as Tertullian after him, is to be understood as condemning all study of philosophy [cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-58; Acts 17:22-30]. . . .

"I take the word, then, to be limited by the context; the Colossian philosophy is in mind, as well as any other, of course, which is not in harmony with divine revelation." [Note: Johnson, 476:302-03, 307. See David L. Mosher, "St. Paul and Philosophy," Crux 8:1 (November 1970):3-9.]

"Empty deception" describes "philosophy." This is clear from the fact that the two nouns are the objects of one preposition, "through" (Gr. dia), and there is no article before "empty deception." The idea is that the particular philosophy Paul had been warning his readers about was empty deception ("vain deceit," AV). These are not two separate dangers. This had come down to his readers as pagan tradition.

"Although the context of Colossians 2:8 probably has reference to a proto-gnostic type of philosophy at Colosse that had a disastrous mix of legalism, asceticism, and mysticism with Christianity, the implications of Paul’s exhortation to ’beware of philosophy’ are appropriately applied to other alien systems of thought that have invaded Christianity down through the centuries since then." [Note: Norman L. Geisler, "Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:1 (March 1999):3.]

". . . We cannot properly beware of philosophy unless we be aware of philosophy." [Note: Ibid., p. 18.]

The "elementary principles (Gr. stoicheia) of the world" probably refer to the religious practices the false teachers were promoting that were simply external and physical (Colossians 2:20; cf. Galatians 4:3; Galatians 4:9). The view of many commentators is that this false religious system of worship had the elemental spirits as its subject matter (cf. Colossians 2:18). [Note: See O’Brien, Colossians . . ., pp. 129-32, for further discussion.] These practices probably involved observance of the Law of Moses. Christ was neither the source nor the content of these teachings.

"The context makes it clear that these prohibitions refer to things that are ethically neutral, not to things that are inherently sinful. . . . Voluntary self-denial in matters of food can be a helpful spiritual exercise, and may on occasion be recommended by considerations of Christian charity; but what is deprecated here is a form of asceticism for asceticism’s sake, cultivated as a religious obligation. . . .

"As has been said, the Colossian heresy was basically Jewish. Yet the straightforward Judaizing legalism of Galatians was not envisaged in Colossians. Instead it was a form of mysticism which tempted its adepts to look on themselves as a spiritual elite. . . .

"To look to movements within Judaism for the source of the Colossian heresy is a wiser procedure than to postulate direct influences from Iranian [Mesopotamian] or Greek culture." [Note: Bruce, 563:196-97, 200-1.]

"It is best to recognize that both Jewish and Gentile elements were present in the Colossian heresy, many of which were generally shared by the populace in the highly charged world of the first century, especially in the syncretistic and Hellenistic mood of Achaia and western Asia Minor. Many of the elements developed into the Gnosticism of the second century but with far more elaborate philosophical-religious views than are found in Colossians. The most one can say of the error in Colossians is that it was a syncretism of Jewish, Gentile, and Christian features that diminished the all-sufficiency of Christ’s salvation and His personal preeminence." [Note: House, "Heresies in . . .," p. 59.]