Chapter 6 Colossians 2:16–23

Literary Context

Although a bit distanced from the christological confession in 1:15–20, the christocentric focus of Paul’s arguments can still be felt in the remaining sections of this letter. After providing a strong critique of the “empty and deceitful philosophy” (2:8) in the previous section, Paul now tackles the practices and behavior such a philosophy might have encouraged. In his critique of the false teaching, Paul has already established a few critical points: (1) in Christ one finds the fullness of deity, and he is therefore the head of every ruler and authority (vv. 8–10); (2) in participating in Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, believers can now participate in the victory that is in him alone (vv. 11–12); and (3) that victory points to the freedom of the believers from the “written decree against us” (v. 14) since Christ has already disarmed the powers behind such a record (v. 15).

Building on these three points, 2:16–23 discusses the behavior and practices that should reflect on the believers’ participation in Christ’s victory. (1) Believers should not be judged concerning dietary customs and calendrical practices dictated by human tradition (vv. 16–17); (2) they should not be disqualified by those who insist on various types of visionary experiences (vv. 18–19); and (3) they should not submit to ascetic practices as dictated by human tradition (vv. 20–23). Although details are provided concerning the practices promoted by these false teachings, clarity is lacking concerning to what the various terms refer. Nevertheless, Paul makes it clear that these practices are “according to human tradition” and “not according to Christ” (cf. v. 8). After his critique of these practices, Paul turns to the positive exhortation, beginning with “seek the things above” (3:1). In these exhortation sections, Paul continues to emphasize the central role of Christ (cf. 3:1, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17).

The shift from the aorist indicatives and participles in 2:13–15 to the present imperative in 2:16 points to the development of another stage of Paul’s argument, and some have suggested that beginning with 2:16, one finds the beginning of the “practical” or “paraenetic” section.1 Others have simply labeled this section as the “consequence” of the prior christological affirmations 2 or even the “conclusion” of such affirmations.3 What is clear is that this section builds on the previous ones. To separate it strictly from the previous does not do justice to the intricate relationship between this section and its preceding and following contexts. First, the appearances of “therefore” (οὖν) in 2:6 as well as 3:1 suggests that Paul is building his arguments step by step, and the presence of οὖν in 2:16 points to another stage of his argument.

Second, in the preceding and following sections, one also finds the combination of the theoretical and the practical. This is most apparent in the several references to Jesus’ death and resurrection. In the previous section, the call to be “rooted and built up in him” (2:7) is based on the believers’ participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus (vv. 11–14). In this section, the call to resist the practices imposed by the false teachers is also grounded in the same series of events (v. 20). This focus on the climactic events in salvation history likewise provides the grounds for Paul’s arguments in the sections that follow (3:1–4, 5–9, 12–14). It is therefore clear that a theoretical/practical distinction is insufficient to delineate the arguments of Paul in this letter. He is, however, intensely focused on the relevance of the death and resurrection of Christ for those who believe in him in the context of the false teachers.

V. Faithfulness of the Believers (2:6–4:1)
1. A. Call to Faithfulness (2:6–7)
2. B. Sufficiency in Christ (2:8–23)
  1. 1. Against Deceptive Philosophy (2:8–15)
  2. 2. Against Human Rituals and Regulations (2:16–23)
3. C. Reorientation of Christian Living (3:1–4:1)
VI. Eschatological Mission to the World (4:2–6)

Main Idea

In light of the death and resurrection of Christ, Paul urges the Colossian believers not to submit themselves to ethnic and religious rituals, visionary experiences, and ascetic practices. Unlike the reality of the victory accomplished by God through Christ, these regulations and practices provide only false promises that distract one from God’s powerful work.

Translation

Structure

After revealing the deceptiveness of the false teachings in 2:8–15, Paul shifts his attention to the practices promoted by those who are spreading such false teachings. This section is divided into three subsections, each of which begins with a critique of a set of practices. After listing the questionable practices, Paul provides the grounds on which such practices are to be critiqued. Although specific terms are provided in describing the targeted practices, the significance of many of these terms is not readily comprehensible to the contemporary readers. These terms might have been used by the false teachers themselves, or at least they appear to belong to a set of vocabulary shared by Paul and the Colossian believers. But the precise nuance becomes unclear for us who stand in considerable historical and cultural distance from first-century Asia Minor.4

In vv. 16–17, Paul urges the Colossians not to be judged concerning selected dietary and calendrical practices. While we cannot pinpoint the specific nature of the false teachings, the practices noted are at least not foreign to those who are familiar with Jewish customs and observances. Paul’s critique of these practices centers on the incomparable status of Christ, compared to whom these practices are but a “shadow.”

In vv. 18–19, Paul focuses on self-humiliation and the worship of angels. These two items possibly point to ascetic practices and claims of visionary experiences; these are experiences shared by more than one religious tradition. To Paul, these not only point to the empty and carnal minds of the practitioners, but more importantly, they point to the failure to be connected with Christ the head.

In the final section (vv. 20–23), Paul returns to a critique of selected regulations. These are transitory and merely products of human creation. They are of “no value”; this expression not only applies to the regulations listed here, but it also serves as the concluding remark of all three sections (vv. 16–17, 18–19, 20–23) as Paul provides a succinct and final evaluation of these practices.

The relationship between the first (vv. 16–17) and second (vv. 18–19) sections is clear: both begin with a subtle reference to the false teachers together with an imperative verb (“do not let anyone judge”; “do not let anyone condemn”). Verses 20–23, however, begin with a conditional clause (v. 20), and the regulations critiqued are related to both the dietary practices noted in the first section (v. 16) and the ascetic practices noted in the second (v. 18).

The relationship between the first two sections and the final one, therefore, needs further comment. Some see in the final section a move from “religious and cultic demands” to “ethical and ascetic requirements,”5 while others see a move from “motives and results” to “regulations and practices.”6 Neither of these, however, is adequate. One should begin by focusing on the conditional clause in the final section that points to the death of Christ: “if you have died with Christ” (v. 20). This provides a transition to 3:1: “if you have been raised with Christ.”7 Reading in light of these two references, we can see the final section summarizes the first two in claiming that the noted practices and claimed experiences are worthless, and they should have been abandoned when believers died with Christ. This final section, therefore, serves both as the conclusion of 2:6–23 as well as the introduction to 3:1–4:1.

Exegetical Outline

I. Against Human Rituals and Regulations (2:16–23)
1. A. Critique of false practices (I) (2:16–17)
  1. 1. Against dietary and calendrical practices (2:16)
  2. 2. Because they are mere shadows of things to come (2:17)
2. B. Critique of false practices (II) (2:18–19)
  1. 1. Against ascetic practices and visionary experiences (2:18a-c)
  2. 2. Because they are empty, carnal, and not connected to the head (2:18d–19)
3. C. Critique of false practices (III) (2:20–23)
  1. 1. Against legalistic regulations (2:20–21)
  2. 2. Because they are transitory, human, and worthless (2:22–23)

Explanation of the Text

2:16 Therefore, do not let anyone judge you in food and in drink, or in regard to a festival, a new moon, or sabbaths (Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει καὶ ἐν πόσει ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νεομηνίας ἢ σαββάτων). With “therefore” (οὖν), Paul moves to another stage of his critique of the false teachings (cf. 2:6; 3:1). As the preceding section focused on the theoretical underpinnings of the false teachings, this section tackles specific practices demanded by the false teachers. This exhortation is connected directly with the previous assertion of the defeat of the evil powers and with the general discussion of the sufficiency of the believers’ sharing in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (vv. 11–15).

“Anyone” (τις) is another way of rhetorically suppressing the identity of the false teachers.8 “Judge” (κρινέτω) here carries the sense of passing “an unfavorable judgment upon” a person.9 This negative use of the verb is consistent with Paul’s usage elsewhere; it is best illustrated by Rom 2:1, where “judge” is paralleled by “condemn”: “for at whatever point you judge [κρίνεις] another, you are condemning [κατακρίνεις] yourself.” Particularly relevant is the repeated use of this verb in a negative sense in Rom 14, where Paul forbids believers to judge one another in their dietary (14:3, 10) and calendrical practices (14:5). It is, therefore, justifiable to translate the phrase, “do not let anyone condemn you” (NRSV; cf. NLT).10

“In food and in drink” means “in matters of food and drink” (NRSV; cf. NASB, TNIV, ESV, NIV).11 This probably reflects the dietary practices of eating and drinking in a pagan context (cf. Rom. 14). The avoidance of “food and drink” refers to the abstention “from meat” and “from wine and strong drink” in preparation for the participation in cultic and religious rituals.12 In light of the following reference to feast and “sabbaths” in particular, however, a Jewish background cannot be excluded. In Rom 14:14, 21, “meat” and “wine” are the subject of disputes where one finds disagreements concerning issues of “clean” and “unclean” (v. 14), and such issues became important in contexts where the interaction between Jews and Gentiles was prominent. A similar context seems likely for the Colossian believers.

In the OT, fasting is also considered a preparatory act for an encounter with God (Exod 34:28; Deut 9:9; Judg 20:26; Jer 36:6; Dan 9:3; 10:2–3, 12). Restrictions concerning drinks appear less often, however, except in a few special cases related to regulations applied to priests (Lev 10:9; cf. Lev 11:34, 36) and Nazirites (Num 6:3).13 Later rabbinic sources testify to certain dietary restrictions concerning drinks (e.g., m. Ḥul. 8.1),14 and these restrictions are particularly relevant when Jews find themselves living among the Gentiles. In this context, these dietary regulations should be understood in light of both the discussions of ethnic identity of Jewish Christians and the preparatory rites for visionary experiences.

“In regard to” (ἐν μέρει) is a “stylistic variation of the previous simple ἐν, used to avoid a succession of five datives.”15 “Festival” (ἑορτῆς), “new moon” (νεομηνίας), and “sabbaths” (σαββάτων) point clearly to a Jewish context. These three terms appear together in a number of OT passages (e.g., 1 Chr 23:31; 2 Chr 2:4; 31:3; Ezek 45:17; cf. 2 Kgs 4:23; Neh 10:33; Isa 66:23; Ezek 46:1; Amos 8:5). Some consider these terms here simply as the imposition of a “religious calendar” on the Colossian believers.16 It should be noted, however, that when these terms are listed together in the OT, it often refers to cultic rituals linked with these festal days. If so, Paul is not opposed to the Jewish calendar per se but to the imposition of practices related to these feasts.17 As in the reference to dietary restrictions noted above, these practices may also remind the Gentile audiences of pagan religious observances especially in relation to astrological observations and speculations. If so, Paul is further suggesting that their submission to the (Jewish) calendrical practices can be considered a return to their past when they were involved in idolatrous worship.18

2:17a These are a shadow of the things to come (ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων). Paul continues his critique of “these” customs and regulations related to dietary and calendrical practices in v. 16 by noting its insignificance when compared to the accomplished work of God in Christ. While “shadow” (σκιά) can refer simply to the shade cast by a source of light (Plato, Phaed. 101d, 239c), an inferred use of this term is implied here. Three particular uses of this metaphor could have been implied with the use of this word. First, in Greek philosophical traditions (esp. Plato), “shadow” (σκιά) is contrasted with “reality” (πρᾶγμα) or “form” (εἰκών), and the “shadow” represents that which only acquires the appearance of what is real.19 Paul’s use of a different term for the contrasted “substance” (σῶμα) in v. 17b may be dictated by his agenda in this letter, although the contrast between these two terms does appear in Hellenistic Jewish writers.20

Second, “shadow” is also often used to describe fleeting and transitory representation, as contrasted to that which is permanent and stable.21 This is related to the first use of the metaphor, but this use emphasizes the temporal nature of what is depicted. The genitive modifier, “of the things to come” (τῶν μελλόντων), may point to this background.

Third, in light of the connection between the words “shadow” and “image” (εἴδωλον) across the various Greek writers,22 it is also possible that Paul has “idols” in the back of his mind when he uses this term. This is made all the more possible with the anti-idol polemic in 2:6–15. If so, the “shadows” represent that which is “not according to Christ” as contrasted to that which is “according to Christ” (v. 8).

Contextually, the third use would fit this context well, but in Greek writers “shadow” is hardly connected with the worship of the idols. The first two uses would come close to Paul’s argument here. If the contrast between “shadow” and “reality,” especially in the Platonic sense, is to be assumed, then Paul’s usage here is striking in that he is replacing the ontological distinction between appearance and reality with the temporal one.23 This temporal perspective is highlighted by the genitival phrase, “of the things to come.”

“Of the things to come” refers to the acts of God through Christ that have already been accomplished, thus justifying a translation that makes this temporal aspect explicit: “these are a shadow of the things that were to come” (TNIV, NIV). In the NT, the participle μελλόντων often acquires an explicitly eschatological sense as it can refer to the eschatological figure (Matt 11:14), the age to come (Eph 1:21; 1 Tim 6:19), or eternal life (1 Tim 4:8). In this context, the climactic eschatological event has already taken place in the death and resurrection of Christ (vv. 11–15), and the reference to the relative future “is to be interpreted from the period when the restrictions of verse 16 were enjoined.”24 This imagery of the “shadow of the things to come” is best paralleled by the description of the law in Heb 10:1a: “The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves.” This strengthens our understanding of the significance of the Jewish context of the false teachings plaguing the Colossian believers.

2:17b But the substance belongs to Christ (τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ). In contrast to shadowy existence of the customs and practices promoted by the false teachers, the reality belongs to Christ. The conjunction “but” (δέ) is a coordinating conjunction, which normally connects two similar clauses. Here, however, it connects the previous relative clause with this independent clause. Some have therefore questioned if this clause is intended to serve as a contrast to the previous one. Various other constructions have been suggested,25 but the contrast between “the shadow of the things to come” and “the substance [that] belongs to Christ” is still the least problematic reading. First, while δέ is a coordinating conjunction, “the equivalence required between coordinating clauses is that of their position within the hierarchy of the sentence, not that of their clause type.”26 Second, this contrast between the inadequacy of the human tradition and the finality and sufficiency of Christ fits well with Paul’s wider argument here. Third, this contrast is not foreign to NT writers, as testified by Heb 10:1.

The use of σῶμα to refer to the “substance” is unexpected. Elsewhere in Colossians, this word refers to either a “physical body” (1:22; 2:11, 23) or the metaphorical “body of Christ” (1:18, 24; 2:19; 3:15). Some have therefore considered this term here as also referring to the “body of Christ,” with the concept of “reality” only implied in the Greek text: “the reality is the body of Christ” (NJB).27 This reading is possible because what is modified by the genitival phrase (“of Christ”) is left unspecified. One could, therefore, assume that σῶμα carries the sense of “substance” or “reality” while “the body of Christ” is implied by the genitival phrase. In any case, the fact that “it is not altogether certain … whether it is Christ or the church that is set as reality in contrast to the shadow”28 may point to an intentional ambiguity as Paul tries to emphasize the incorporation of the believers “in Christ.”

2:18a-c Let no one condemn you by insisting on self-humiliation and the worship of angels (μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ καὶ θρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀγγέλων). Paul now focuses his critique of false teachings by warning the Colossian believers not to be misled by ascetic practices and cultic acts of worshiping angels. The negated imperative, “let no one condemn,” introduces the second part of this section. As 2:16 began with a reference to the false teachers through the indefinite τις, Paul points to the same people group through the indefinite “no one” (μηδείς). In extending his arguments from v. 16, however, one finds Paul using terms and expressions even more puzzling to us. The various possibilities in translating each of these terms and expressions create myriads of possible interpretations concerning the nature of the false teachings that Paul is combating. Nevertheless, before unpacking this verse, we should be reminded that Paul’s response to the false teachers is unequivocal and clear even if we may not be able to understand fully the exact nature of the false teachings.

The verb “let … condemn” (καταβραβευέτω) has often been understood in a narrower meaning of “robbing of a prize” (cf. ASV, NKJV; NJB) or “disqualifying” (cf. NAB, NRSV, REB, TNIV, NIV), which has been assumed to signify the presence of an athletic metaphor. This reading is often built on an etymological analysis of the word: “βραβεύω has the primary meaning of ‘award a prize’ … hence καταβραβεύω … means ‘decided against’ as an umpire.”29 Although this verb appears only here in the NT and rarely in extracanonical material, the few contemporary parallels in both literary and nonliterary sources point to the use of this term in a general sense without any allusion to the athletic context.30 In this context, therefore, it is best to take this in the general sense of “condemn” (NLT) or “pass judgment” (NET). If so, “let no one condemn you” builds on the similar call in v. 16 with a greater sense of urgency.

The translation “by insisting on” (θέλων) takes the participle as an adverbial participle of means, although this use has been debated. Some see Hebraic influences behind the use of this participle with the preposition (ἐν) as expressing the idea of “delighting in” (NAB; cf. NKJV),31 thus modifying “no one”: “do not let anyone who delights in … ” (TNIV, NIV; cf. NET). In this context, however, it is best to take the participle as modifying “condemn” with the sense of “by insisting on,”32 articulating the means through which the believers are being condemned by the false teachers (cf. NLT, NASB, RSV, NRSV, GNB, ESV).33 This is supported by its proximity to the imperative and the parallel in v. 16, where the preposition “in” introduces the means through which the believers are being judged/condemned. The final part of this section (vv. 20–23), which argues against ascetic practices, also suggests that the false teachers are not simply being content with such practices among themselves; they are also imposing them on the Colossian believers.

“Self-humiliation” (ταπεινοφροσύνῃ) retains the ambiguity of the use of the Greek term in this context. In the NT, this term is almost always used in reference to the positive virtue of “humility” (Acts 20:19; Eph 4:2; Phil 2:3; Col 3:12; 1 Pet 5:5), and this use appears later in this letter (Col 3:12). Here, however, Paul is clearly not endorsing the practices of the false teachers. This can therefore be labeled generally as “wrongly directed” humility34 or even “false humility” (NKJV, TNIV, NIV).

It is possible to understand this noun as referring to “asceticism” (ESV) or “self-abasement” (NAB, NASB, NRSV). First, in the LXX the cognate verbal form appears in connection with the act of fasting (e.g., Ezra 8:21; Ps 34[35]:13; Isa 58:3, 5). Elsewhere, the term is also used to refer to other ascetic practices.35 This “humility” can therefore denote the self-humiliation or self-discipline of one’s body. Second, in v. 23 this noun indicates the “harsh treatment of the body.” Third, certain ascetic practices are connected with heavenly ascent (Apoc. Ab. 9.7–10; 12.1–2; T. Isaac 4–5; 2 Bar. 5.7).36 If the following phrase (“worship of angels”) is to be understood as referring to heavenly ascent, “self-humiliation” is then a practice that prepares for this visionary experience. Or if “worship of angels” points to the invocation of angels, these ascetic practices would also point to rituals that accompany the encounter of angelic beings.

The second act imposed on the Colossian believers is the “worship of angels” (θρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀγγέλων). The understanding of this phrase depends on whether “of angels” is a subjective genitive or an objective genitive. Recent interest in understanding the Colossian false teachings in light of a predominantly Jewish background has prompted many to understand this phrase within the background of Jewish mysticism; those who adopt this reading argue for a subjective genitive reading, where “worship of angels” is interpreted as “worshiping with angels” in one’s heavenly ascent.37 Note also certain texts that point to the participation in heavenly worship with celestial beings (Isa 6:2–3; Apoc. Ab. 17–18; Apoc. Zeph. 8.3–4; T. Levi 3.4–8; T. Job 48–50; Asc. Isa. 7–9; 1QS 11.8).

Nevertheless, an objective genitive reading provides the best reading. First, note that Paul appears to be arguing against a worship initiated by human beings. This is already noted in v. 8, where Paul argues against such “human tradition.” Moreover, the note on “self-imposed worship” in v. 23 “specifically characterizes the concept ‘worship’ [θρησκεία] as performed by men.”38

Second, the strongest argument is one of lexical evidence: “A survey of the usage of θρησκεία fails to turn up one example of a divine being, or a typical object of worship (e.g. an ‘idol’), related to θρησκεία in the genitive case that should be taken as a subjective genitive.”39 The Jewish texts cited in support of a subjective genitive reading merely point to a general sense of heavenly worship but lend no support for the reading of this particular genitive.

Third, instead of locating the Colossian false teaching in a general trajectory within mystical Judaism, angel veneration has been shown to have existed in Phrygian Judaism.40 Few would argue against a syncretism in the Judaism of first-century Asia Minor,41 and it is also possible that the Jewish angelology was influenced by the Hellenistic demonology.42

Finally, the negative evaluation of spiritual beings in 1:16 and 2:15 also argues against reading angels in this context simply as benign beings in the heavenly court.

Yet even with the adoption of an objective genitive, the precise meaning of this act of worship remains unclear. Against those who suggest that Paul would have provided a stronger argument against such idolatrous worship, it should be noted that an anti-idol polemic can indeed be identified behind Paul’s argument.43 Moreover, the “worship of angels” noted here may point simply to the “veneration”44 or the “invocation”45 of angels. We know, for example, of a connection between angels and the Jewish Torah found elsewhere in the NT (cf. Acts 7:53; Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2). Although an established angel cult cannot be deduced from these references,46 it is at least possible that this “worship of angels” is related to the rules and regulations repeatedly noted in this section (vv. 16, 20, 21, 23).

The oddity of this reference to the “worship of angels” may also be another example of an ironic note in this letter: “the people he is opposing spend so much time in speculations about angels, or in celebrating the fact that the law was given by them, that they are in effect worshipping them instead of God.”47 The following phrase, however, suggests that Paul is not simply referring to Torah observance; a certain element of syncretism has to be assumed when Paul further discusses the religious experiences encouraged by the false teachers.

2:18d Entering into these things that he has seen (ἃ ἑόρακεν ἐμβατεύων). Paul continues to criticize the false teachers for their promotion of visionary experiences in the worship of angels. The difficulties involved in making sense of v. 18d are reflected by the insertion of a negative particle in some manuscripts48 by early scribes, and this emendation is reflected in some modern versions: “intruding into those things which he has not seen” (NKJV, italics added). The various interpretations of this difficult clause depend on the way the participle “entering” (ἐμβατεύων) is understood.

(1) Many versions translate this participle as “entering into details”: “such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen” (NIV; cf. NET, TNIV). Others have made it explicit that “what he has seen” are the visions: “dwelling on visions” (NRSV; cf. ESV).49 While this meaning of the participle is not without precedent (cf. 2 Macc 2:30), such a usage is rare. Moreover, this reading “is very tame, where the context seems to require something more assertive.”50

(2) Understanding “entering” as a technical term for part of the entry rites into mystery cults, some see this Hellenistic cultic background as explaining the meaning of this clause: “as he has had visions of them during the mystery rites.”51 While this view may explain the significance of the act of “entering,” it is difficult to explain “self-humiliation” and “the worship of angels” as that which the initiated see when they enter the cult. Moreover, “entering” acquires a technical sense only when it is used with other related vocabularies.52 Finally, the references to Jewish regulations and customs elsewhere in this section also question this connection even when a syncretistic Judaism is assumed.

(3) The best reading takes the participle ἐμβατεύων in the sense of entry into an inheritance to take possession of it. Together with the legal term “written record” (χειρόγραφον) in v. 14, this term points to the acquisition of property.53 The LXX usage is particularly relevant here, where “entering” and “inheritance” appear together in reference to taking possession of the Promised Land (Josh 19:49), and both terms appear in Colossians (cf. Col 1:12). This reading retains the usual meaning of the verb while allowing the additional significance to be carried by this verb as demanded by the context in which it appears.

If we read it this way, this section refers to visionary experiences while worshiping the angels, and “entering into these things that he has seen” is an attempt to enter into the heavenly realm through visionary experiences to gain possession of that which escapes mere mortals. Instead of gaining possession of the heavenly realm, however, they are only able to encounter what they see in their futile minds.54 The Colossian believers are called to resist such practices because all promises to them have already been provided through Christ, in whom “all the fullness of deity dwells” (v. 9). Again, while the specific problem may remain unclear to modern readers, the solution is clear and unmistakable.

2:18e Conceited without reason by his carnal mind (εἰκῇ φυσιούμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ). This description of the false teachers confirms the reading of the difficult clause that precedes it. “Conceited without reason” (εἰκῇ φυσιούμενος)55 points to the baseless assertions of the false teachers who claim superior visionary experience while not being able to experience anything but their illusions. Assumed to be humble through their ascetic practices (v. 18), they are actually consumed by pride that prompts them to be involved in false worship.

The ironic nature of their claims is further illustrated by the phrase “his carnal mind” (lit., “the mind of his flesh”). Here Paul is accusing the false teachers of claiming to transcend their physical bodies in their involvement in visionary experiences but ending up becoming preoccupied by a mind that is controlled by the flesh (cf. Rom 7:25). This phrase then points forward to v. 23 concerning the futility of the “harsh treatment of the body” in controlling the desires of “the flesh.”

2:19a And not holding fast to the head (καὶ οὐ κρατῶν τὴν κεφαλήν). This participial clause further defines the false teachers as those who do not focus solely on Christ. This clause not only points to the critical deficiency of the false teaching, but it also identifies the shaky ground on which the false teachings are built. The false teachers can be criticized for their particular practices and their focus on visionary experiences, but these practices and experiences are to be criticized primarily because they do not find their roots in Christ. This section again builds on Paul’s earlier call for the Colossian believers to be “rooted and built up in him” (v. 7), and not to be deceived by a philosophy that is based on “human tradition” instead of being “according to Christ” (v. 8).

“Not holding fast” (οὐ κρατῶν) assumes that the false teachers were at least once connected with Christ or his body in some ways, but they have ceased to do so. Some versions make this explicit: “lose their hold upon the head” (REB). But this phrase has also been translated as “not connected to”: “has no connection to the Head” (NJB); this assumes that the false teachers never were part of the body of Christ. This issue cannot be settled by the examination of this short phrase alone.56 What is clear, however, is that a continued connection with Christ is critical for the growth of the believers.

“The head” is an appropriate metaphor here in that it points both to the final authority of Christ as emphasized above (vv. 8–10, 15) and to the source on which the body is dependent (see the following clause). These two are parallel ideas, however, since the derivative idea of dependence draws on the understanding of the head as the determinative part of the body.

2:19b-d From which the entire body, nourished and united through the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth from God (ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων ἐπιχορηγούμενον καὶ συμβιβαζόμενον αὔξει τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ θεοῦ). The dependence of the believers on Christ is illustrated with this physiological metaphor of the body. The antecedent of the masculine relative pronoun “which” (οὗ) is apparently the feminine noun “head” (κεφαλήν). This gender of this relative pronoun is likely constructed by sense and refers back to “Christ” (v. 17), who is the “head.”57 The christological focus is again unmistakable.

This section apparently draws from the physiological metaphor of the body, although the participles “nourished” and “united” move beyond medical terminology.58 With this use of the “body” metaphor, one finds both the emphases on Christ as the head (1:18) and the church as the unified body of Christ (3:15). Rather than borrowing from the Greco-Roman concept of the cosmic body,59 Paul most likely begins his reflection on the death of the physical body of Christ (1:22) and the believer’s participation in his death and resurrection (2:11–13). The physiological understanding of the body provides further fuel for the emphasis on both the significance of the “head” and the intimate connection between the various parts of the body. In this verse, therefore, one finds a link between the earlier Pauline discussion of the unity of the various parts of the body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 12:12–26) and the later Pauline emphasis on the love that holds this body together (cf. Eph 4:1–16).

With this clause, a subtle shift of focus in Paul’s argument begins: from the emphasis on Christ as the head, Paul is preparing his readers for the ecclesiological impact of such an affirmation. This focus will dominate the discussion in the sections that follow (3:1–14). Here, however, Paul focuses on the danger of the false teachings: they not only draw one’s attention away from Christ, but they also disrupt the unity of the church that finds her foundation on Christ and him alone. The emphasis on “the entire body” likewise points both to the need of every member to be dependent on Christ and to the unity of this body under this head.

“Grows with a growth from God” identifies the ultimate source behind the growth of the body. The accusative “a growth” (τὴν αὔξησιν) should be considered as an accusative of content,60 and the genitive “from God” (τοῦ θεοῦ) is a subjective genitive.61 This seemingly awkward construction can partly be explained by the presence of the intransitive verb “grows” (αὔξει), where God is considered to be the ultimate subject: “grows as God causes it to grow” (TNIV, NIV). Another reason for this awkward construction is the presence of two sources of growth. Christ the head provides nourishment for the entire body, but the ultimate source of this growth can be found in God himself. The presence of God and Christ as dual agents are already found in Paul’s description of the first (1:15–16) and second (1:18–20) creations.

The “growth” of the body of Christ involves the spiritual growth of the individual members (3:5–8), the growth of the unity among these various members (3:9–14), and the outreach to those outside the body (4:5–6). Paul’s emphasis on this growth is polemical in intent with each of these areas. The false teachers who focus on themselves instead of Christ fail to bring about spiritual growth in their followers. Their focus on individual visionary experiences destroys the community of God’s people. Their obsession with their own superior knowledge and with their own exclusivist practices prevents them from bringing the gospel to the outsiders. For Paul, members of the body of Christ do not need to look beyond the gospel of Christ to find ultimate fullness and fulfillment.

2:20a-b If you have died with Christ to the elemental spirits of the world (Εἰ ἀπεθάνετε σὺν Χριστῷ ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ κόσμου). Paul now turns to the absurdity of following that which Christ had already conquered. Unlike the previous two subsections that began with an imperative (vv. 16, 18), this one begins with a conditional sentence, followed by a question addressed to the readers. Recognizing the connection between the notes on the death of Christ in this section (vv. 20–23) and his resurrection in the next (3:1–4), some have considered 2:20–3:4 as a unit.62 Nevertheless, the listing of a sample of regulations in vv. 20–21 seems to be a continuation of the discussion of customs and regulations imposed by the false teachers in v. 16. It is best, therefore, to consider this final subsection as one that bridges the previous discussion with the paraenetic sections that follow.

This subsection can be understood as providing “counterdefinition.”63 Verses 20–21 label regulations that prepare for heavenly visionary experiences as those that belong to “this world,” and vv. 22–23 challenge the wisdom of the ascetic practices by claiming that they are of “no value” especially in combating the desires of the flesh.

The conditional sentence beginning with εἰ points to a first-class conditional sentence that can be used in stating what is perceived to be real.64 In light of the previous discussion of the believer’s identification with Christ in his death (cf. vv. 11–13), this protasis is assumed to be true. Moreover, Louw suggests that when the protasis of a first-class conditional clause is followed by a question, the resulting construction “functions (semantically) as a speech act to emphasize that the condition is a claimed fact.”65 If so, it is justifiable to translate “if” (εἰ) as “since” (TNIV, NIV; cf. NLT), although this protasis does force the audience to reconsider the reality they had experienced.

As in v. 8, “the elemental spirits of the world” (τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ κόσμου) refer to evil spiritual forces that fight against God’s work through Christ. In this section that challenges the claims of the false teachers, this phrase becomes important as it qualifies the previous reference to the “worship of angels” (v. 18). While the false teachers may consider their visionary experience of the worship of benign spiritual beings as being allies of God, Paul is saying that they are actually submitting to the evil forces at enmity with God. The awkward presence of the preposition “from” (ἀπό, translated here as “to”)66 is important because for Paul, death is not the final event, but it leads to resurrection (vv. 12–13; 3:1). Death is therefore not a state of impotence; rather, it foreshadows the coming victory. “Died with Christ to the elemental spirits of the world,” therefore, contains the idea of victory and liberation, as is made explicit in some versions: “You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the spiritual powers of this world” (NLT; cf. TEV, CEV).

2:20c Why, as though you were still alive to this world, do you submit to its regulations (τί ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσμῳ δογματίζεσθε;). In this apodosis, one finds the question that illustrates the irrational choices of those who claim to belong to Christ. “As though you were still alive” translates an adverbial participle (lit., “living,” ζῶντες), which, together with the marker “as” (ὡς), denotes a concessive idea. “To this world” refers to “the world of their old life.”67 The literal translation “in the world” (KJV, NASB, NKJV, NJB, NET, ESV) may give the false impression that Paul is arguing for an escapist mentality, but Paul is arguing for the freedom from the control of the spiritual forces of this world. This sense is best expressed with creative renderings of the clause: “as though you still belonged to the world” (NRSV, TNIV, NIV; cf. GNB), and “as if you were still living the life of the world” (REB). The rendering “you were still alive to this world” is not only able to capture the sense of the clause, but it also retains the emphasis on one’s death to this world in the previous clause.

“Submit to its regulations” (δογματίζεσθε) translates a Greek verb that can be taken as a middle (“submit to [its] regulations”) or a passive voice (“allow yourselves to be controlled by [these] regulations”).68 In both cases, the regulations are imposed by an external force, and those who adopt them do so willingly (although with the middle sense the responsibility of the believers is more apparent). What is not clear is whether the believers have already submitted to these regulations. Those who consider the Colossians believers as not yet having fallen away from the true gospel argue for a slightly different translation: “Why subject yourselves to regulations?”69 Regardless of how one comes down on this issue of apostasy, Paul is presenting a real danger, and it is entirely possible that some have already believed these false teachers.

A conceptual parallel to this discussion can be found in Rom 6, where Paul argues that since sin and death no longer rule over Christ (6:9), believers who identify with Christ should no longer submit to sin as their master (v. 14).70 For Paul, to follow a set of regulations is to submit to a master. In this case, to submit to the regulations of the world is to reject Christ as the Lord of the universe, one who has already “disarmed” the evil spiritual forces (Col 2:15).

2:21 Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch (μὴ ἅψῃ μηδὲ γεύσῃ μηδὲ θίγῃς). This verse provides a sample of the content of the “regulations” of the world mentioned above. Of the three terms, the meaning of “do not taste” is clear as it apparently points back to “food” and “drink” in v. 16. The meaning of the first and third items and the relationship between them remains unclear. Several readings are possible:

(1) In light of the possible distinction between “handle” and “touch,” some have suggested that Paul may be referring to different degrees of the same general decree against defilement, with “touching” representing a weaker sense of “handling.”71 The ironic tone can also be detected behind this sequence as this “downward sliding scale … corresponds to the upward rise in absurd scrupulosity.”72 Without denying the ironic nature of this sequence, however, it is questionable if we can clearly distinguish between “handle” and “touch.”73 The place of “taste” is also unclear within this sequence.

(2) With the use of “handle” (ἅπτομαι) in 1 Cor 7:1 (often translated “touch”) in reference to a sexual act, some have considered “do not handle” here as referring to abstention from sexual relationships.74 Paul’s further statement that this “has no value in restraining the gratification of the flesh” (v. 23) may lend support to this reading. But when the term is used in a sexual sense, one expects to find “woman” (1 Cor 7:1) or “her” (Gen 20:4, 6 LXX) after the verb. The lack of such references weakens this reading.

(3) Some have considered all three terms as nothing “more than an emphatic expression for the food regulations addressed in 2:16.”75 While possible, this view ignores other aspects of the false teachings as noted in vv. 16, 18, and 23 (i.e., calendrical practices, visionary experiences, and other ascetic practices).

(4) Perhaps the best way to understand these items is to read them within a general framework of cultic concerns. In LXX, “to touch” (θιγγάνω) appears only once in a context where one also finds the word “to handle” (ἅπτομαι), where the holiness of the presence of God on Mount Sinai is to be safeguarded (Exod 19:12–13).76 Elsewhere “to handle” often appears in cultic context (e.g., Exod 30:29; Lev 5:2, 3; 6:18, 27 [LXX 6:11, 20]; 11:24–39), and this is extended to the gospel narratives when Jesus challenges the cultic boundaries of Israel (cf. Matt 8:3; Luke 5:13). The dietary practices noted above in v. 16 appear with calendrical discussions, and they are both situated in a cultic context of “the worship of angels” (v. 18). Instead of a thoroughgoing asceticism, therefore, the regulations imposed on the Colossian believers aim at preparing them for an encounter with the angels.77

This cultic reading explains the diversity of the regulations in this section as they center on cultic purity in the worship of heavenly beings. For Paul, therefore, these practices are not to be condemned because of the rigorous treatment of the body. They are to be condemned because they look to other beings as the objects of worship instead of Christ himself, to whom these beings have been submitted (v. 15).

2:22 All these, related to things that are destined to perish with use, according to human commands and teachings? (ἅ ἐστιν πάντα εἰς φθορὰν τῇ ἀποχρήσει, κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων;). In this apodosis (beginning in v. 20c), Paul further provides reasons for the Colossian believers to reject the regulations imposed by the false teachers. This verse can be rendered literally as: “These are all destined to perish with use, founded as they are on human commands and teachings” (NET). Grammatically, the antecedent of the relative pronoun translated here as “these” (ἅ) appears to be the regulations noted in the previous verse. The content of this verse, however, complicates this simple identification. Those who argue against this identification find it difficult to understand how rules and regulations can “perish with use.” “All” should then refer to “the material things with which the rules ‘handle not’, etc., are concerned.”78

It is difficult, however, to reconcile this reading with the second part of the verse because it seems evident that “according to human commands and teachings” refers to the regulations and not to the targeted objects behind these regulations. It seems best, therefore, to consider the two parts as referring to separate antecedents, with “destined to perish with use” referring to the material things, and “all these” referring to rules. Without following strictly the word order in Greek, the following rendering makes this clear: “Such rules are mere human teachings about things that deteriorate as we use them” (NLT).

“Destined to perish with use” points to the lack of any permanent value of the regulations that guard such material things. In Paul, “perish” (φθορά) is often used in reference to that which belongs to this age instead of the age to come (Rom 8:21; 1 Cor 15:42, 50). The contrast between legalistic practices that are destined to perish and the life-giving promises of Christ (v. 13) also reminds one of a similar contrast between “flesh” and “Spirit” in Gal 6:8: “Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction (φθοράν); whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.”

“According to human commands and teachings” alludes to Isa 29:13 (LXX):

The Lord said:

These people draw near to me,

with their lips they honor me,

but their hearts are far from me,

and in vain they worship me,

teaching human commands and teachings [ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ διδασκαλίας, pers. trans.].

This passage is one of Isaiah’s critiques of the idolatrous acts of God’s people. The phrase “far from me” is often used explicitly for Israel’s departure from her God in worshiping idols (cf. Jer 2:5; Ezek 44:10).79 Jesus also evoked this prophetic tradition against those who follow the “traditions of the elders” in insisting on legalistic practices (Matt 15:9; Mark 7:7), though it is not clear if Paul is aware of this gospel tradition. Paul’s use here is consistent with his earlier critique of the false teaching as “according to human tradition” (v. 8).

While most recognize the allusion to Isa 29:13 here, the verse that follows this statement from Isaiah also needs to be noted:

Therefore, I will proceed to remove this people.

I will remove them and destroy the wisdom [τὴν σοφίαν] of the wise,

and I will hide the understanding [τὴν σύνεσιν] of the intelligent. (Isa 29:14 LXX, pers. trans.)

While not an exact parallel, Paul’s subsequent note on the false teachers having “an appearance of wisdom [σοφίας]” (v. 23)80 may also evoke this Isaianic tradition. If so, Paul is identifying these false teachers with those who misled Israel into a departure from the worship of the one and true God. In both, the urgency of such a critique is unmistakable.

2:23a These rules have no value in restraining the gratification of the flesh (ἅτινά ἐστιν … οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός). Paul continues to ridicule the “regulations” of the world by noting their impotence in combating the desires of the flesh. The translation adopted here demands a discussion of the structure of the entire verse: “These rules have no value in restraining the gratification of the flesh, even though they have an appearance of wisdom with their self-imposed worship, self-humiliation, and harsh treatment of the body.” Considered “almost impossible to translate,”81 the difficulties of this verse lie in the possible meanings of the various parts of the verse and the lack of clarity concerning the relationship between these parts. The basic difference among the proposals centers on the decision concerning the main clause and therefore what is to be taken together with the first two words (lit., “which are”; ἅτινά ἐστιν).

(1) In light of its close proximity, some consider the participle “having” (ἔχοντα) to be linked with “are” (ἐστιν), thus forming a periphrastic: “Such rules indeed appear wise….”82 The placement of the contrastive marker (μέν) between the finite verb and the participle is unusual, however, especially when it is expected to appear as the second word of a clause.

(2) Some take “are” (ἐστιν) with the final prepositional phrase, “result in the indulgence of the flesh” (πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός),83 with the two clauses in between, the second subordinating to the first: “Even though they have the appearance of wisdom with their self-imposed worship and false humility achieved by an unsparing treatment of the body—a wisdom with no true value—they in reality result in fleshly indulgence” (NET). While this does take into account of the postpositive position of the particle μέν, it seems difficult to have two subordinate clauses interrupting the flow of the sentence, especially when the second subordinate clause modifies the first.

(3) Although not without difficulties, the best reading is to consider “no value in restraining the gratification of the flesh”84 as completing the thought introduced by the finite verb “are” (ἐστιν), with the intervening clause as a concessive clause, as in NAB: “While they have a semblance of wisdom in rigor of devotion and self-abasement [and] severity to the body, they are of no value against gratification of the flesh.” This reading takes advantage of reading (2) in treating the particle μέν in the postpositive position, but without assuming the presence of two complex subordinating clauses in between. Moreover, the negative particle “not” (οὐκ) can function as a particle that provides the contrast to the statement introduced by the particle μέν.85 The contrast set up by the phrases “the appearance of wisdom” and “no value” also fits well within the flow of Paul’s argument here.86 Finally, this reading also recognizes the contrast between the two clauses that contain the preposition “by means of/in” (ἐν).

“Have no value” (οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι) literally reads “not in any honour” (KJV), and those who take this word in the sense of “honor” would suggest that “the ‘honor’ (τιμή), which they claim for themselves, cannot be conferred on them.”87 In this context the word commonly rendered as “honor” can acquire the sense of “value” or “price” (Matt 27:9; Acts 4:34; 1 Cor 6:20; 7:23).88 Most versions therefore translate this phrase as “are of no value” (ASV, NASB, NRSV, NKJV, ESV; cf. NET, TNIV, NIV). Taking the preposition πρός in the sense of “against,” Paul is affirming that the ascetic rules and regulations have no value in combating the desires of “the flesh.” This reference to the failure of their practices recalls Paul’s critique of the false teachers as “conceited without reason by his carnal mind” (v. 18). Paul’s rhetoric here points to his sustained attempt in this section to unmask the claims of the false teachers as their seemingly spiritual practices simply reflect their denial of the sufficiency of Christ.

2:23b-e Even though they have an appearance of wisdom with their self-imposed worship, self-humiliation, and harsh treatment of the body (λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας ἐν ἐθελοθρησκίᾳ καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ καὶ ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος). In these clauses, Paul unveils the true nature of the cultic and ascetic practices promoted by the false teachers. “Even though they have” takes the participle ἔχοντα as a concessive adverbial participle, which thus sets up a contrast between the appearance of the wisdom of the imposed practices and their actual uselessness. To translate λόγον as “appearance” has been adopted by most versions although it is difficult to pinpoint the exact sense of this Greek word, which has a wide semantic range.

Paul characterizes the false teachings and their related practices in three ways.89 First, “self-imposed worship” (ἐθελοθρησκίᾳ) can refer to the general system embraced by the false teachers (“self-made religion,” NASB, ESV) or a general spiritual orientation (“self-imposed piety,” NRSV). Both senses are certainly present, but this word should be understood in light of “the worship of angels” in v. 18. If so, this act of worshiping angels is now considered to be “self-imposed worship,” which is contrasted with a growth that is initiated by God (v. 19); as such, it is “according to human tradition … and not according to Christ” (v. 8).

“Self-humiliation” (ταπεινοφροσύνῃ) has already appeared in v. 18, and this connection with ascetic practices is clearer as it appears together with “harsh treatment of the body” (ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος).90 “Harsh treatment of the body” includes but is not limited to the dietary, calendrical, and cultic practices noted above (vv. 16, 20–21). In light of the “worship of angels” in v. 18 and “self-imposed worship” in this verse, this asceticism is not simply the disciplining of the body; it is also preparation for an act of worship and is thus a cultic act. This understanding of asceticism can be identified across various ancient ascetic traditions, as it is “not simply the cutting off or destroying of the lower but, much more profoundly, the refinement and illumination of the lower and its transfiguration into something higher.”91 For Paul, the question is whether such “illumination” and “transfiguration” are grounded in the salvific act of God through Christ or are simply self-imposed acts of worship, the object of which are forces that had already been pacified by Christ.

Theology in Application

Rules and Regulations

In the previous section, Paul pointed to the problems with the rules and regulations imposed by the false teachers (v. 14). In this section, he provides several lists with specific regulations and practices noted (vv. 16, 21, 23). This critique reminds readers of the NT of Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees and the scribes for ignoring the “commands of God” while holding fast to “human traditions” (Mark 7:8). Elsewhere in his letters, Paul notes that those who “rely on the works of the law are under a curse” (Gal 3:10). Reading such statements may seem to suggest that Christian traditions are unequivocally against all rules and regulations.

This conclusion must be qualified, however, by other statements in both the gospels and in Paul. In Luke 1:6, for example, Zechariah and Elizabeth are both favorably depicted as people who were “observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.” Likewise Paul also affirms that “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good” (Rom 7:12). Even in the following sections in Colossians, Paul will advocate specific patterns of behavior to which the Colossian believers should conform (esp. 3:5–4:1). It is thus misleading to assert that Paul and other NT writers have no concern for rules of conduct.

The question then is: Why are Jesus and his followers so critical of a certain set of regulations or certain groups that follow such traditions? Without providing a comprehensive survey of Jesus’ and Paul’s view of the law,92 a few points should be noted when one probes into the rationale behind such critique. The first and most obvious basis of such a critique lies in the contrast between external practice and the condition of the heart. In the midst of Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees and the scribes, one finds the same Isaianic passage that Paul uses in v. 22, although Paul only alludes to a part of it:

These people honor me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me.

They worship me in vain;

their teachings are merely human rules.

(Mark 7:6–7; Isa 29:13; cf. Matt 15:8–9)

Second, the arrival of the messianic era brings about necessary changes. In response to questions concerning fasting, for example, Jesus uses the parable of the old and new wineskins to illustrate the drastic changes brought by the arrival of a new era in salvation history (Mark 2:18–22; par. Matt 9:14–17; Luke 5:33–39). Certain regulations that are specific for the time of promise may not be applicable in the time of fulfillment.

Third, many of the rules and regulations imposed by the Jews of the first century are at best a secondary application of the Torah. Both the content and intent of such application seem to deviate from the original purpose of the foundational Mosaic precepts. This can at least partly explain some of the criticisms directed against the teachers of the law. This is also the reason why those teachers were criticized for “setting aside the commands of God in order to observe [their] own traditions” (Mark 7:9).

Fourth, the ethnic component should also be noted. Many of the laws and regulations targeted by Jesus and especially by Paul are related to particular Jewish practices that seek to consolidate their ethnic identity. The identity markers of Sabbath observances, circumcision, and ritual purity laws in particular were efficient vehicles through which the identity of the Jewish community could be protected. In response to those who insisted that “Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses” (Acts 15:5), Peter emphasized that God “did not discriminate between us and them” (15:9). Ethnic identity should not be the basis of one’s salvation.

Peter’s further response led to the final and most important point, that rules and regulations cannot take on soteriological significance because “it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are” (Acts 15:11). If such rules distract one from recognizing that one “is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ” (Gal 2:16),93 following such rules can be considered an idolatrous practice as one fails to worship the God who alone can provide salvation for human beings.

In this section of Colossians, Paul’s critique of the false teachings contains all of these reasons. The focus on the external fails to deal with the desires of the heart (v. 23), and to follow specific regulations reflects the failure to realize that they are “a shadow of things to come” (v. 17). Claimed to be of special value, they are but “human commands and teachings” (v. 22). Moreover, the particular dietary regulations and calendrical practices (v. 16) point to a specific ethnic focus, and with the reference to “circumcision” in the previous section (v. 11), the distinct Jewish focus cannot be ignored. The most critical deficiency of such regulations is that they distract one from the work of God in Christ, who has freed us from the evil forces that formerly ensnared us (v. 20).

To reduce this passage to a polemic against an ethical import of the Christian gospel is therefore unjustifiable. Instead of attacking the general rules and regulations that aim at promoting godly living for the community of God’s people, Paul is targeting those traditions that deprive Christ of the glory that belongs to him alone. To Paul, those traditions violate “the first ethical response” that is required of one who should worship God and him alone.94

Moreover, if our interpretation is correct, the specific rules noted in this section should be considered as cultic rules that prepare one for entering into the “worship of angels” (v. 18). If so, Paul’s focus is not on Christian ethics in general, but on the false object of worship that plagued the practices of these false teachers. Even so, this is not even an act of worshiping “the other” when one assumes that one’s power resides in oneself in accomplishing what can be accomplished only by God. This is perhaps our greatest temptation—one that results in the creation of objects of worship that are but “the illusions created by our false self-expansion.”95 At the end, therefore, this “worship of angels” can be nothing but the worship of oneself, or in the language of Paul, a worship that is “according to human tradition … not according to Christ” (v. 8).

From Rules and Regulations to Spiritual Disciplines: Fasting as a Case Study

Paul’s critique of the particular rules and regulations imposed by the false teachers naturally leads one to reconsider the positive roles of spiritual disciplines, especially when some of those named rules and regulations can be and have been useful instruments in the development of God’s people. In contemporary contexts, references to terms such as “food” and “drink” (v. 16), and the commandment “do not taste” (v. 21) in the context of a discussion of “rules” that seek to restrain “the gratification of the flesh” (v. 23), remind one of the Christian practice of fasting. While Paul’s words do not address the issue of fasting, principles provided here may be relevant in discussing this practice and other related spiritual disciplines.

Should Christians practice the discipline of fasting? The varied interpretations that one can draw from the different NT passages should alert us to the difficulties in formulating a simple answer to this question. That Jesus fasted (Matt 4:2; Luke 4:2) and taught his disciples to do so (Matt 6:16–18) makes it clear that he does not object to this practice inherited from the OT traditions. This practice is affirmed by Christ’s followers at various significant moments in their Christian lives (Acts 9:9; 13:2–3; 14:23).

Several cautionary notes concerning this practice can, however, be identified in both Jesus’ teachings and the rest of the NT. First, those who fast should not consider this practice as one that elevates their spiritual status (Matt 6:16, 18; Luke 18:9–14). Second, fasting should not be considered as an act that rejects the creation of God, which includes one’s own body (1 Tim 4:3). Third, even in the midst of fasting, believers should recognize the arrival of the climax of salvation history in the person of Jesus Christ (Matt 9:14–17; Mark 2:18–20; Luke 5:33–35; cf. Luke 2:36–38).

While the topic of fasting is never the focus of Paul’s discussion in his letters, one should not assume that he entirely rejects this practice.96 Paul here echoes the cautionary notes that appear elsewhere. The issue of conceit lies at the center of his critique of those who impose this discipline on believers (v. 18). His affirmation of the significance of the “body” has been repeatedly noted in Colossians (1:22, 24; 2:11) since creation belongs to God and his Son (1:15–20), and this affirmation forms the foundation for Paul’s critique of the “harsh treatment of the body” (2:23). Most importantly, the arrival of the eschatological age relativizes the efficacy of such disciplines (v. 17), and those who practice them apart from a recognition of one’s inadequacy apart from the work of God through Christ are involved in the worship of a false god (vv. 18–19).

Recognizing the profound significance of these practices, contemporary Christians should be reminded that practices such as fasting can be understood wrongly as instruments to manipulate God and others. It is therefore important to emphasize that “fasting is a response to a sacred moment, not an instrument designed to get a desired result.”97 Those who fast should also resist the urge to consider this as “an inevitable sign of piety.”98 We should not deny, however, that among other practices, fasting can prepare one to recognize one’s impotence and dependence on the grace of God (cf. Lev. 16:29–31; 23:26–32). Yet such recognition must be coupled with an understanding that points to the completed and final sacrifice in the death of Jesus Christ (Heb 9:23–28).

Stubborn Christocentricism

The focus on Christ and his work has been the subject of previous sections.99 In this section, the reader again finds Paul focusing on Christ and on the need of believers to appreciate the implications of participating in his body. In seeking ways to apply this passage, one may be hesitant in repeatedly returning to the same message. For Paul, however, this christocentric emphasis lies at the core of the gospel, and he is unashamedly repetitive in drawing attention to the center of God’s redemptive plan for humanity.

In this section of Colossians, which discusses the false teachings, the significance of Christ is portrayed not primarily through the use of specific christological titles. Instead, one finds the attention focused on the narrative of Christ’s death and resurrection.100 This narrative ties the various sections together and thus forms an underlying story through which the problems facing the Colossian believers can be resolved. The participation of the believers in the death and resurrection of Christ is introduced already in 2:11–13 through the metaphor of circumcision. This is unpacked in 2:16–23, where Paul focuses on the freedom that believers experienced when they died with Christ, whose death liberates us from the power of the evil forces. Moving from death to resurrection, the next section focuses on the exaltation of Christ, whose resurrection guarantees a new life for believers, a life that will find its consummation when Jesus appears again in glory (3:1–4).

In the sections that follow, Paul returns to the believers’ participation in Jesus’ death when they are called to “put to death” the evil practices of their past (3:5–9); this act of stripping off reminds one of the death of Christ (cf. 2:11) and is followed by the putting on of the new nature, which is characterized by a community of unity and righteousness (3:10–14). This continued unpacking of the relevance of Christ’s death and resurrection for the believers illustrates what it means to “continue to walk in him” (2:6).

From cultic practices in the worship of a false deity to the behavior of the believers, and to the formation of a new community that is not separated by ethnic, social, and economic barriers, one finds the impact of one’s participation in the death and resurrection of Christ. This narrated gospel should affect every part of Christian existence. It provides the foundation for one’s identity, and it dictates the behavior of an individual and of a community. To allow one aspect not to be affected by this story of Christ is to challenge the cosmological and final significance of God’s new creative act (1:18–20).