Philosophy or Christ? Col 2:8

(8)See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. (9) For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, (10) and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; (2:8-10)

To begin a study of this verse we must first define a term which is only used once in the Bible, and therefore cannot be considered a biblical term since its usage is in a negative light. That is the only way we can understand what Paul is saying in this verse. The term in question is the word “philosophy”. So, what exactly is philosophy? The word comes from two Greek words, phileo, which means “to love” and sophia, which means “wisdom.” Philosophy is therefore the love and pursuit of wisdom. In some ways it’s what causes us to ask questions like “who am I?”, “why am I here?”, and “where am I going?”. Because each of us has a worldview, which is to say that each of us has an overall perspective from which we see and interpret the world, each of us could be said to be a philosopher. [1]

From the Christian perspective, most of us think of philosophy as John MacAurthur sees it,

… the musings of unregenerate men desperately trying to determine ultimate truth apart from God. But as Francis Schaeffer in our own generation emphasized, man cannot begin with himself and arrive at ultimate reality. The Apostle Paul agreed with this assessment. He wrote in 1 Cor 2:9 that ultimate truth is discovered neither by empiricism [The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge] nor by rationalism [the reliance on reason as the best guide for belief and action]: “Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard [empiricism], and which have not entered the heart of man [rationalism], all that God has prepared for those who love Him.” [2]

So it should not really shock us to find out that many of these philosophers have come to realize that a pursuit of a reality without God leaves one’s self in complete and total solitude, and makes life meaningless.

British philosopher David Hume said, “I am first affrighted and confounded with the forlorn solitude, in which I am placed in my philosophy”.

The 19^th century German philosopher Fredrich Nietzsche scorned Christianity as the religion of weaklings. He was among the first to proclaim that God is dead. Yet he could not live with the implications of his philosophy. [Os] Guinness writes, “For Nietzsche to be consistent, he needed to become his own superman, but his views were overwhelming even to himself. As he poised over the abyss, he shivered with horror of being ‘responsible for everything alive.’ In the impossibility of this situation, madness perhaps becomes his only possible freedom from the overbearing responsibility. ‘Alas, grant me madness’ ” (The Dust of Death, p. 24). Tragically, Nietzsche’s wish was granted. He spent the last 11 years of his life insane.

One of the leading 20^th century philosophers was the French existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, also an atheist. In his novel Nausea he has the main character, Roquentin, say, “Every existing thing is born without reason, goes on living out of weakness, and dies by accident.” … Roquentin expresses Sartre’s belief that, apart from God, man is utterly meaningless. [3]

But does that indict every aspect of philosophy? Does it provide anything that is usable? Is it as Tertullian said, “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church?” Or is it as Thomas Aquinas saw it, that philosophy is a useful “handmaiden of theology”? Is Col 2:8 an indictment of all philosophy in general, or is this directed at something in particular that was happening in the Colossian Church?

In terms of philosophical content, the answer must be a resounding “No!” There is very little if any content (the musings of unregenerate men) within the study of philosophy that can or should be borrowed, and used within Christianity. However, there are many methods of argumentation that can be borrowed from philosophy and used as tools to better explain theology and defend biblical truths. This is the best explanation of what Tertullian was reacting against, as well as what Aquinas was promoting – use the methodology but reject the content. Any defense of creation that goes beyond simply stating what the Bible says and then sitting down, must use a philosophical method of argumentation of proof. An example would be arguing that the current geological record provides considerable doubt about the theory of evolution. The same could be said for proofs of the existence of God.

And this should not be surprising to anyone. In these examples, it's not the world's “philosophy” that's being employed, but something that's already resident in Scripture. In Isa 1:18, God says, “Come let us reason together.” It is what God did with Job, and what Paul did in the Jewish synagogues. (Ac 17:2; 18:4; 24:25) Philosophical arguments are not the issue; it is the philosophical content being imposed into the argument that is.

And this appears to be right where Paul was with philosophy. Some theologians see philosophical methodologies of the Stoics being utilized by Paul in some of his letters as part of his defense of Christianity, and especially here in the book of Colossians. Or maybe he chose to use the Stoic's philosophical methodologies against them. As the ‘the apostle to the Gentiles’, Paul “is more philosophical and deals with the problem of onerous philosophy more than any other writer in the New Testament because of the pragmatic issues of polytheism and atheism he confronted. … Paul is not anti-intellectual, as is evidenced by the fact that he quotes Greek poets in Acts 17:28; also, in Acts 17 he directs his teachings toward Epicurean and Stoic philosophers, which shows that he was knowledgeable of their philosophy.” [4]

Therefore, as we begin this study, this must be our rule as well.

The Deficiency of Philosophy

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. (2:8)

‘See to it that no one takes you captive’ –

Definition: ‘captive’ (‘spoil’ KJV) – The Greek word, sulagogeo { soo-lag-ogue-eh’-o } means to carry off booty; to carry one off as a captive (and slave); to lead away from the truth and be subjected to one’s influence. Another adds, “to take over complete control of a person as one would a captive.” [5]
It seems to be as true today as it was in Albert Barnes’ day that the word ‘spoil’, which is used in the KJV, has changed its common meaning. In this verse, the KJV uses the word ‘spoil’ to refer to the goods plundered in war or by thieves. The “word spoil now commonly means, to corrupt, to cause to decay and perish, as fruit is spoiled by keeping too long, or paper by wetting, or hay by a long rain, or crops by mildew. But the Greek word here used means to spoil in the sense of plunder, rob, as when plunder is taken in war.” [6] For either word, according to Keathley, “It is used here figuratively of carrying someone away from the freedom that comes from the truth in Christ into the bondage of error.” [7]
Paul starts this warning off with the words ‘beware’ or ‘see to it’ exhorting the Colossians to keep their eyes open, and to be on their guard; be prepared. Just as it was in Paul’s day, false teachers and false religions are everywhere. Paul was exhorting the Colossians to always be vigilant, ever watchful. And one cannot be watchful if they are ignorant of the truth, which is why Paul’s previous words were so strongly worded. Walking in the truth, and continually building oneself up in Christ is the only way to prepare us to guard ourselves against being taken captive. One of the most important duties of church leaders is to guard their flock against those that would seek to draw believer’s away from the truth of the Gospel, the wolves in sheep’s clothing, whether they attempt to enter the body or remain external to it (Mat 7:15; Phil 3:2; 2 Pet 3:17; Rom 16:17-18; Eph 5:6; 1 Tim 6:20). It is their job to discern truth from error and to prevent the flock from being drawn away after false doctrines. Too few church leaders do this, being unprepared to discern anything.
And be on your guard about what? Be alert and always watching to make sure that no one robs you of your faith and hope in Christ by leading you astray from the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. False teachers are hoping to show you a better, more enlightened way. Knowingly or unknowingly, they seek to “rob you of the rich treasure of the Gospel, strip you of your spiritual armor, take away from you the truths and doctrines of Christ, and divest you of your spiritual privileges and blessings”. [8] (Eph 5:6; Heb 3:12; 13:9)

‘through philosophy’ –

Definition: ‘philosophy’ – The Greek word, philosophia { fil-os-of-ee’-ah } as was defined above means the love of wisdom. Louw-Bida defines as follows, “human understanding or wisdom and, by implication, in contrast with divinely revealed knowledge” [9] It was used as a description of the skill as well as the zeal in any art or science, any branch of knowledge. Used once in the NT of the theology, or rather theosophy (any philosophical or religious thought based on a mystical insight into the divine nature), of certain Jewish Christian ascetics, which occupied itself with investigations in the speculative nature and classes of angels, into the rituals of the Mosaic law and the regulations of Jewish tradition respecting practical life.
If judged purely based on the definition of the word, then philosophy could be viewed as a noble and worthwhile endeavor for mankind. To love wisdom and to seek it should imply that mankind is pursuing the wisdom and understanding of his God and creator. Unfortunately, like the philosophy of today, the wisdom and knowledge being sought was that which mankind had invented from his own speculations about who and what God is or is not. Much like today, philosophers attached themselves to specific schools of thought that sought to explain every facet of life and the human reaction to it. None of which was based on the Scriptures or was based on a twisted or warped understanding of them.
Unfortunately, the philosophy being referenced here is the kind that sought to add content to theology. It was a Greek philosophy that was dominant in the regions around Colosse. Why? Because philosophy had a high and honorable reputation among the Gentiles. Philosophy was the downfall of the great school of Alexandra in Egypt in the 2^nd and 3^rd centuries. When it began it trained many of the best and brightest minds in the 2^nd century Christian world. But within a 100 yrs the mixture of Aristotle's philosophies (as well as others) with Christian theology had corrupted the school beyond repair.
As was discussed in the introduction to this section, philosophy can provide methodology but not content, and John Gill seems to echo that sentiment, “... philosophy may be useful as an handmaid; it is not to be a mistress in theological things; it may subserve, but not govern; it is not to be made use of as a judge, or rule in such matters.” [10] If philosophy has a role, then its role is to serve in bringing clarity to theology discussions, providing a set of reasoning methodologies.
The methodologies we see in most, if not all, of the OT books like Job or Psalms, is God reasoning with mankind. And that is the basis of the philosophical methodologies – reasoned argumentation – which have value for us today. But even these have limitations. Endless navel gazing is simply unproductive and leads mankind away from the truths of God in His Word and provides virtually no benefit to understanding God and His Word. It is the human based wisdom as well as the man-made and man-centered methodologies which should be rejected. To echo the words of William Barclay, “To speak like this is not to drift into fundamentalism or submit to a tyranny of the written word, but to hold that no teaching can be Christian teaching which is at variance with the basic truths of Scripture and with the Word of God.” [11]
John Calvin saw the philosophy being referenced here as Paul intended it when he wrote that philosophy was “everything that men contrive of themselves when wishing to be wise through means of their own understanding, and that not without a specious pretext of reason, so as to have a plausible appearance. For there is no difficulty in rejecting those contrivances of men which have nothing to set them off ... philosophy is nothing else than a persuasive speech, which insinuates itself into the minds of men by elegant and plausible arguments.” [12]
For Paul in this verse, one thing seems to be quite clear, the simple Gospel message of salvation from sin through faith in Jesus Christ was simply not enough; it needed to be supplemented with an elaborate system of knowledge for which a simple-minded person could not understand without the secret intellectual knowledge of the spiritual elite (Gnosticism). (Rom 1:21; 1 Cor 1:19-23; 1 Cor 3:18-19; 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 2:17-18; 2 Tim 3:13)
The philosophy of old had a number of characteristics shared by its modern-day counterparts, both are filled with proud, dogmatic and assertive people, who claim to know everything but cannot prove anything, and who contradict each other continually. After interviewing a number of philosophers, 18^th century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau concluded, “There is not one of them who, if he chanced to discover the difference between falsehood and truth, would not prefer his own lie to the truth which another had discovered. Where is the philosopher who would not deceive the whole world for his own glory?” [13]

‘and empty deception’ –

Definition: ‘empty deception’ (‘vain deceit’ KJV) – The Greek word for 'empty', kenos { ken-os’ } means empty or vain, devoid of truth, destitute of spiritual wealth, of one who boasts of his faith as a transcendent possession, yet is without the fruits of faith. The Greek word for 'deception', apate { ap-at’-ay } means deceit, deceitfulness, fraud or trick. In other words, it was a deception that sounded good but was completely empty, devoid of any value or benefit to the hearer, leaving the hearer spiritually destitute. They gained nothing from hearing or attempting to comply with its rules and regulations for human conduct or worship.
Most commentators from the 16^th through 19^th centuries saw 'philosophy and empty deception' as referring to the same thing, and that 'empty deception' described 'philosophy.' They saw 'philosophy' as the promise of acquiring wisdom, and 'vain deception' as the inevitable end result of what actually got acquired. [14]
To accept these empty, vain man-made philosophies was to exchange the truth for a lie. It's like being promised a million dollars, only to lose your life's savings trying to acquire something that never existed in the first place. The doctrines being proposed sound good and seduce the mind, but they are an illusion, they’re not real.

‘according to the tradition of men’ –

Definition: ‘tradition’ – The Greek word, paradosis { par-ad’-os-is } means a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing; a giving from one to another; that which is delivered, as in the substance of a teaching.
The reference is obviously to a content based philosophy that was being verbally given over to others. Philosophy has a long history of one philosopher building upon or refuting the works (or thoughts) of another. But philosophy is not a science, it’s a belief or a system of beliefs with only human reasonings to back those beliefs up. Science deals with knowable facts. It starts with a theorem, or a belief that something is true or could be true, and attempts to prove that thesis or belief. If the thesis can be proven, then it’s a fact, and if it cannot be then the theorem is discarded. A philosopher's thoughts and teachings sound so intellectually plausible, but just because someone believes something and hands it down from one person or one generation to the next does not make it true. As John MacAurthur put it, sometimes tradition is nothing more than ignorance and falsehood handed from generation to generation. [15] The Jewish Talmud is a good example of that.
All 'teachings' are in danger of becoming 'tradition'. Why? Because it's easier to train yourself to repeat results than to understand the processes which are used to prove the teachings to be true. A very good example of this is math. Why do you believe that 9 x 6 = 54 - we were taught to memorize it, isn't that enough? Why does the area of a rectangle equal the width times the length? Why does Pi equal 3.14159...? It is easier to accept the master's decisions than to follow his reasonings. [16]
Whether we wish to admit it or not, each of us carries around both a rationalist and a traditionalist. Even the most rebellious and non-conformist person carries around their traditions and holds onto them as tightly as a traditionalist. We may reject pews in the church but have difficulty changing our musical style to appeal to today's youth. Are you more interested in style or content? For Paul, it was the content that was the most important. And that is what it should be for us!
Keathley wrote, “... there are biblical or divine traditions that have their source in God’s special revelation, and human traditions, those that come from man’s own ideas and theories. Human traditions may be neutral and harmless as in the order of church worship, special events and ceremonial procedures, or policies in the conducting of human affairs, but the concern is when they, as here in Colossians and with the tradition of the Pharisees, nullify the teachings and commands of Scripture (cf. Mark 7:1-13).” [17]

‘according to the elementary principles of the world’ –

Definition: ‘elementary principles’ (‘rudiments’ - KJV) – The Greek word, stoicheion { stoy-khi’-on } means any first thing or things in a row, from which the others belonging to some series, an element, first principal e.g. the primary and fundamental principles of any art, science, or discipline.
Some theologians believe that the term “elementary principles” refers to elementary spirits, the spirits that emanate from God, as used by Gnosticism. Or it could have been a type of astrology associated with the ancient beliefs of such men as Julius Caesar, Vespasian or Alexander the Great. Their spirits would have been associated with the stars and planets. These men would never have made a move without consulting the stars for guidance. In effect, they were slaves to the stars. There was only one way to escape the fate of the stars – you had to have a secret knowledge, know the correct formula to escape the control of the stars. Either way, this brings us back to Gnosticism, which was pedaling the very same formula for success, a secret knowledge to escape your fate. These heretical teachers were essentially telling the Colossians that their “truths” were more advanced and more profound than the one's Epaphras and Paul were teaching them. In reality the Colossians were being enticed to return to their old beliefs before becoming Christians, not providing a new and better way to understand truth. They were being told to reject the truth for a repackaged lie.
A more probable meaning of the term “elementary principles” is that Paul was simply describing the belief systems of these heretical teachers as being too simplistic for mature believers. If they were to accept these teachings they would be going backwards, not forwards, from a place of being a mature adult to being children again and holding silly, childish beliefs. (Eph 2:2; 4:14) We see this very same concept stated by Paul in Gal 4:3 where he wrote, “So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world.” As Paul points out, these teachings do not bring enlightenment, but bondage. It is a bondage or slavery to be required to go back to a set of rules and regulations so that you can acquire the special knowledge needed to free yourself from the sins of this world for which Jesus Christ had already sacrificed Himself on the cross to deliver you from (1 Cor 1:18-21; Col 2:20).
Whichever is true – and there is truth in both – we know that the beliefs that Paul was referring to here were not from God. Satan's desire is to draw mankind, and especially believers, away from the truth. And he will use any means and any methods at his disposal. As we saw earlier, it is our responsibility to hold fast to the truth. Never let it go!

‘rather than according to Christ’ –

The ‘tradition of men’ and ‘elementary principles of the world’ describe a philosophy that does not have its foundation in Christ. These two concepts embody the basic tenants of both ancient and modern philosophy, and this is why Paul sets them in opposition to the knowledge of Christ. Both of these terms refer to the 'ideas and the speculations that man thinks up' to replace Christ. It is Jesus and His gospel that is to be our standard of doctrine and worship. Anything that is contrary to the teachings of Scripture is to be rejected. We must always be on our guard, because there is always some repackaged “truth” being sold as new. That's why discernment is so important. (Isa 8:20; 28:13; John 20:31)
It is Jesus that is the standard by which everything is to be compared. Not the other way around. The Gnostics were comparing the teachings of Jesus to their secret knowledge to see if He 'measured up'. But that's backwards. Any knowledge that purports itself to be superior to the Gospel simply does not and will never measure up. (2 Tim 3:16)

See to it that no one carries you off as spoil or makes you yourselves captive by their so-called philosophy and intellectualism and vain deceit (idle fancies and plain nonsense), following human tradition (men’s ideas of the material rather than the spiritual world), just crude notions following the rudimentary and elemental teachings of the universe and disregarding [the teachings of] Christ (the Messiah).

Footnotes

John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Colossians & Philemon, (Moody Bible Institute: ©1992) p. 95-96.
Ibid p. 96.
Ibid p. 96-97.
Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 472.
J. Hampton Keathley III, Paul’s Letter to the Colossians: An Exegetical and Devotional Commentary, 11. Heretical Problems in the Light of Union With Christ Part I, Exhortation Against False Teachers (Col. 2:4-8).
Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 384.
Ibid.
J. Hampton Keathley III, Paul’s Letter to the Colossians: An Exegetical and Devotional Commentary, 11. Heretical Problems in the Light of Union With Christ Part I, Exhortation Against False Teachers (Col. 2:4-8).

The primary sources for this study use J. Hampton Keathley III, Paul’s Letter to the Colossians: An Exegetical and Devotional Commentary, from bible.org, Copyright ©1996-2020 Bible.org, and all attributions are reprinted with permission granted by bible.org, and John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Colossians & Philemon, (Moody Bible Institute: ©1992).

This study uses many of the commentaries, dictionaries and the Greek Lexicon which are all part of 'The Online Bible', Computer Program, © 2023, Larry Pierce, http://www.onlinebible.net/, unless otherwise referenced. See Colossians Bible Study for full attribution. All word definitions are from either Strong's and/or part of the Online Bible Program.

Where noted, Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), p/o Logos Bible Software, Faithlife, LLC, © 2023.

All Scriptures quotes are from the New American Standard Bible, 1995 Revision, unless otherwise noted. Verse links from Blue Letter Bible, https://www.blueletterbible.org/

Search This Blog

shadmans Musings