Verse 6 is sometimes used by critics against my practice of repeating the Bible's descriptions of unbelievers and heretics. Although I have responded to this in a number of places, here I will briefly offer yet another perspective.

Any application of verse 6 is prima facie erroneous if it attributes wrongdoing and hypocrisy to the prophets, the apostles, and the Lord Jesus. The claim that I violate Colossians 4:6 (or any other similar verse) when I repeat what the Bible says about certain types of people toward the same types of people, does by implication attribute wrongdoing and hypocrisy to the prophets, the apostles, and the Lord Jesus. This is because, given the critics' definition of "grace" or "graciousness" for this verse, we must say that the prophets, the apostles, and the Lord very often exhibited no graciousness at all in their speech and conduct.

The grace and salt in Colossians 4:6 refer to an excellence in the quality and content of our speech, so that to equate them with the usage of words and tones that are kind and gentle (often as defined by the culture and not by Scripture in the usual interpretation) is in fact to neutralize it. This excellence of speech could certainly include kind words and tones, but harsh and insulting rebukes are not excluded, as biblical principles and examples conclusively demonstrate.

Now, the Lord once turned over tables at the temple – a physically violent demonstration. This overburdens the critics' view even more, but perhaps we will save it for another time. Anyway, Paul once called down a curse on the high priest, and said, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall!" (Acts 23:3). It is true that Paul did not realize he was speaking to the high priest, and he implied that he would not have said this if he had known. But this in fact proves my point. Notice his reaction when he was confronted: "Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: 'Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people'" (v. 5). He did not say that he was wrong in the very act of speaking an insult. In fact, he did not even say that he was wrong in insulting the high priest before he found out who he was, and he did not retract his statement even after he found out. He only implied that it would have been wrong to speak the insult in this context if he had known that he was addressing the high priest, and he gave a precise biblical reason for this conclusion, suggesting that he was consciously operating by specific biblical principles instead of by one all-encompassing rule that says he must be soft-spoken and non-insulting in every context and in every situation.

So although it is always good to be "gracious," this does not mean that we can never be harsh, insulting, and offensive. "Grace" simply cannot have this meaning in our context, or it would condemn the entire Bible. The prophets called their own people whores. Jesus called the Pharisees snakes. Peter called the Jews murderers. Paul told the Judaizers to castrate themselves. They were not being even a little bit gracious according to the critics' definition. On the other hand, because I am not imposing the world's definition of "grace" on the verse, I perceive no conflict between verse 6 and the examples of the prophets, the apostles, and the Lord Jesus.

Perhaps, some say, we may be harsh against "insiders," or believers, or people in the covenant community, as opposed to "outsiders." Once this argument is used, then notice that I have just received justification for all the instances in which I speak harshly toward Christians and professing Christians where their conditions coincide with biblical passages that use harsh words against the offenders. So the argument is in fact a concession to my advantage.

As for outsiders, the prophets also used offensive insults and condemnations against pagan kings, nations, and peoples. So I wonder if the critics have read much of the Bible. And if they are ignorant of the Old Testament, or somehow despises it, then let us take an example from Paul, who said to Elymas the sorcerer, "You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery" (Acts 13:10). Elymas was clearly an unbeliever and an outsider, but does this sound gracious to you? Not according to the critics' definition of grace.

Then, in his letter to Titus, not only does he use harsh words, approve of harsh words, but he also instructs Titus to use harsh words: "Even one of their own prophets has said, 'Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.' This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith" (Titus 1:12-13). He applies the quote in verse 12 not only to Christians, but to unbelievers and outsiders – all Cretans. And it is doubtful that those he instructs Titus to rebuke are all Christians or professing Christians within the church community.

Perhaps these are all exceptions. This is a favorite argument of those who have been defeated – all instances that destroy their theory are exceptions. But an exception from what? An exception from "wisdom" (v. 5)? An exception from "grace" (v. 6)? So they are saying that Christ was stupid and crude on these occasions. In any case, somehow Vincent Cheung is never allowed to be an exception. Now if I lack divine inspiration and infallibility – a deficiency that I, of course, happily acknowledge – and for this reason I cannot be an exception, then I can say the same about Titus, but he was instructed to be harsh with people.

And if I cannot insult something that the Bible insults because I lack inspiration and infallibility, then how I can commend something that the Bible commends? Or is this another exception, this time regarding a principle and not a person? But if Titus was also an exception because he was directly instructed by an infallible apostle, then the only way that this could make sense is if he received infallibility from the apostle for rebuking people, or if the infallible apostle accompanied him and approved of his rebuke in every instance where he was harsh with the people, or if the infallible apostle received a revelation that in the case of Titus, he would always insult people in the appropriate manner. We have no indication that any of these was the case. In fact, the Bible itself does not suggest that inspiration makes a difference on this issue. For example, the Spirit did not inform Paul that he was addressing the high priest. The decision to insult was based on divine principle, not divine inspiration. And all believers have access to divine principles.

If for some reason, I am still forbidden to preach the Bible using it's own language and expressions, then what am I allowed to do? If I am not permitted to say it to people, am I at least allowed to show people what it says, to open the book and point at the words with my finger? But the Bible says that unbelievers are stupid, evil, wicked, depraved, immoral, impure, greedy, idolatrous, superstitious, enslaved, dead, deceitful, malicious, slanderous, unjust, perverted, filthy, whores, dogs, pigs, donkeys, snakes, brutes…these are all biblical descriptions of unbelievers that come to mind at the moment, and the list goes on and on and on. It also uses some strong words against professing believers who are in error. These are the things that they will read if I were to show them the Bible – the same things that they would hear if I were to speak them. So if I am not allowed to say what the Bible says, am I allowed to show people the Bible? Or am I supposed to hide the book? Am I expected to burn it too? Perhaps this is the true desire of my critics, and only the destruction of the Bible would make them happy, even though some of them claim to be Christians. However, "If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ" (Galatians 1:10). Therefore, I will continue to both speak and show what the Bible says.

For the critics to suppress biblical evidence in order to impose their view on people and to push their own theological agenda is despicable. This ungodly behavior itself deserves harsh treatment and reprimand. It is obvious that I am in the right on this issue, but they do not want to admit it because they are a brood of hypocritical men-pleasing brutes. They are ashamed of the gospel. They kowtow to the culture and the pressure of the world. And they attempt to silence the voice of the messenger, knowing that he who preaches and practices the word of God will refrain from vengeful retaliation and underhanded methods of self-vindication. So to them the power of man is more to be feared than the authority of God. They have hijacked a divine command, including Colossians 4:6 itself, with their own man-made definition and interpretation, and then they attempt to impose the result on me. In the spirit of Paul's teaching earlier about human commands and teachings, I will not let them judge or forbid me. I refuse to comply.

I use strong speech under biblical warranted contexts not because I enjoy insulting people for my personal satisfaction, as if I derive some perverted thrill out of doing it, but with me it is a matter of faithfulness to the doctrine and practice of Scripture. As Paul writes, "This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words" (1 Corinthians 2:13). If we speak the truths that the Spirit teaches, we should also use the words that the Spirit uses to express them in Scripture.

The matter has never been one of mere preference or personality, but one of doctrine and duty. So here is a challenge to those who oppose: What warrant do they have to not follow the examples of the prophets, the apostles, and the Lord Jesus, and to not follow the principle of expressing biblical truths with biblical words? And how do they plan to justify themselves before God for resisting rather than supporting one who does? I charge them with sin. What is their defense? And reader, what is your excuse? My approach is in accord with biblical principles, and with true boldness and humility, and I refuse to stop doing it for any man, "so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified" (1 Corinthians 9:27).

I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand. Remember my chains. Grace be with you.

Whether we perceive it as another manifestation of true spirituality, or as a customary but nevertheless meaningful exhortation – both would be correct – Paul encourages the Colossians to "devote" themselves to prayer. "Devote" appears to indicate the amount, but here it is better translated as "persist," or as in the ESV, "continue steadfastly." And of course, persistence does increase the amount. In any case, we must not become fearful or discouraged, and give up (Luke 18:1).

Prayer is not just another religious activity to make us feel and appear more spiritual, although this is why many Christians do it. The better ones treat it as an emotional release, but proper prayer is still more than this. As James writes, "You do not have, because you do not ask God" (4:2, also 5:15-16). It can make the difference between having something and not having it. In other words, it matters whether you pray, and whether you pray in faith (James 1:6; Mark 11:24).

Since we are addressing the King of Heaven and not going through some impersonal and mechanical exercise, the attitude with which we pray is paramount. Knowledge, faith, and reverence are essential. Paul stresses watchfulness and gratitude here. Of course we must not fall asleep – that would stop our praying – but he is most likely referring to a spiritual alertness, as in a mental discernment and attentiveness that anticipates the Lord's return, but also results in insight in what to pray for and how to pray for it. This is the opposition of a flippant and distracted mental condition.

All prayer is to be done with a thankful attitude. Some people urge believers to release all their resentment and dissatisfaction against God in prayer, as a child beats against his father's chest in a tearful outburst. In addition to modern psychology, they think that they learned this from the prophets. But what we read is that God rebuked them when they showed doubt and weakness, and he killed off a whole generation of Israelites for complaining against him. It is better to take our lesson from the Bible, than to ignore its record of the fate of past murmurers, and its clear answers to the prophets who cried out in their suffering. We must not use prayer as an excuse to legitimize unbelief or to nurture discontent. Ingratitude is unbecoming to those who know the power of God, the grace of Christ, and the fellowship of the Spirit. I am thankful that God requires us to be thankful.

Among other things, Paul's request for prayer in verses 3 and 4 tells us what is important to him. He wants God to "open a door." Since he writes from prison, some commentators think that this could literally refer to opening the prison door, so that he would be set free. Or, this could metaphorically refer to opportunities to preach. But the latter probably entails the former anyway. In any case, the point is clear, and the same, that Paul wishes for opportunities to preach the gospel.

He also wishes his preaching to possess certain qualities. Here he wishes to make the message clear, and in a parallel passage, he wishes to be fearless (Ephesians 6:19-20). Of course, we may assume that he always wants his preaching to be both clear and fearless. His desire provides us with a worthy model for all believers to emulate, but especially by ministers. We are to be eager to perform the work that God has given us, and this should translate into a desire for opportunities to preach, and then to do it with clarity and boldness. Since many ministers lack both of these qualities, we should regard this as more than just an interesting observation about the inner life of the apostle. Rather, we should covet clarity and boldness in our preaching, and ask our people to petition God day and night so that we may attain.

Paul does not make himself the sole representative of the gospel, but he is aware that believers in general could receive or generate opportunities to advertise the faith as well. But he wishes that they would do this well, and so he exhorts them, "Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity." To walk in wisdom toward outsiders would mean that "every opportunity is to be snapped up." Wisdom also knows the way to take advantage of an opportunity: "Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, and so that you may know how to answer everyone" (v. 6).

Colossians 3:18-4:1 also belongs to this context, that is, of the application or manifestation of true spirituality in our human relationships. Since I have expounded on a parallel passage in my Commentary on Ephesians, I will make only some brief comments in this place.

Wives are to "submit" to their husbands (v. 18). I have demonstrated in the Commentary on Ephesians that the word does not refer to only an attitude, but also to actual obedience. Failure to follow this biblical command is destructive to spirituality, happiness, and harmony. Husbands are to love their wives (v. 19). This refers to something much greater than a feeling of affection, since biblical love is defined as obedience to God's law in our relationships. And in the marriage relationship, the husband must love his wife in the way that Christ loves his church, that is, to be willing to sacrifice his own life for her (Ephesians 5:25). This is the true measure of a man. And a father is to raise his children in the admonition of the Lord, but not in a manner as to frustrate them (v. 21).

Slaves receive extra attention here (v. 22-25), not just because they might have to endure much suffering, but it is also possible that they are prone to be lazy, dishonest, and resentful. The Bible does not assume that the rich are always at fault. Notice how Paul helps the slaves apply a spiritual mindset to their work situation. He concludes, "Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism" (v. 25). Does anyone think that God will only judge the masters who do wrong? God judges according to the heart, and not according to appearance. He is not offended – nor is he threatened! – by your class, race, and gender. You may present yourself as the victim, but he is immune to your manipulation.

The masters have their instructions as well, and again as an application of a spiritual mindset: "Provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven" (4:1). It is impossible to overemphasize how much God detests unfair wages, or the withholding of earned and promised wages. "Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter" (James 5:4-5).

The Lord is jealous for the wages of all honest workers. This includes "those whose work is preaching and teaching," because "the worker deserves his wages" (1 Timothy 5:17-18). Do we not realize, and fear, that when preachers are always the last to get paid, and who get paid the least, the Lord will surely avenge them? To withhold finances from God's workers is not only an injustice, but an insult against the mission that God has assigned to them. God is patient and merciful, but he will not be mocked (Galatians 6:6-7). The wealth that people have hoarded, and withheld from the Lord's workers, and all other honest laborers, will testify against them in the day of slaughter.

True spirituality focuses the intellect on spiritual things, on theology and on heaven, and not on earthly things. As it does so, it puts off the old man and puts on the new man (v. 5, 9-10). This is the ethical application, and there are two sides to it, one negative and one positive. On the negative side, it recognizes flesh for it is and refuses to think and behave according to its nature, but rather puts it to death and throws it off. On the positive side, it recognizes the qualities of holiness and consciously puts them on in one's thinking and behavior.

This new self "is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator" (v. 10). In a parallel passage, Paul writes, "You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness" (Ephesians 4:22-24). The procedure deals with spiritual knowledge, attention, and attitude, thus it is decidedly intellectual. True spirituality is a product of an application of sound theology through an education and exercise of the intellect.

Because the procedure in attaining true spirituality is intellectual, it is also deliberate. It can be studied, taught, discussed, performed, examined, improved, repaired, and redirected. And because it is deliberate, it also means that there is no excuse for believers to fail to learn and attain this true spirituality. In addition, verse 11 indicates that every kind of person can become spiritual through Christ. A Jew is not more spiritual than a non-Jew, and the circumcised is not more spiritual than the uncircumcised. It all depends on how the person is related to Christ.

A contrast between the qualities of the flesh versus the spirit, the old man versus the new man, is presented to us. Paul says that all non-Christians are immoral, impure, evil, and greedy (v. 5). They are a people of rage, malice, slander, and filthy language (v. 8). It is disturbing that many people accuse me of using abusive expressions, but they refuse to acknowledge that I am merely repeating or applying what the Bible says. In the name of God and by the authority of his word, I charge them with apostasy. Now, if you are too much of a coward or a men-pleaser to speak the truth, then at least do not get in my way when I do it. Otherwise, you are only making yourself an enemy of Christ.

I will say more about this when we come to 4:6, but here we must note the depraved condition in which we find the unbelievers. As Paul says to the Colossians, "You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived" (v. 7). It is necessary to acknowledge the extreme filth and baseness of a non-Christian's condition in order to honor the greatness of God's grace in saving us from it. To beautify the non-Christian's condition is also to insult God's grace and devalue Christ's sacrifice. Because of the evil qualities and actions of non-Christians, "the wrath of God is coming" (v. 6).

Then, Paul turns to the Christians and calls them "God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved" (v. 12). What a difference! What a mighty deliverance! And now they are to throw off the evil qualities and actions of their former state, and put on things like compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience (v. 12). The new man can forgive others as the Lord forgives (v. 13), and can exercise a love that binds the people of God "in perfect unity" (v. 14). Therefore, on the basis of our new "vertical" relationship with God, now we may live out this true spirituality in our "horizontal" relationship with men.

Although the qualities of the new man apply to all our horizontal relationships, they are especially relevant and fitting when exercised within the covenant community. And so Paul proceeds to say, "Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace" (v. 15). This verse is often misapplied to address the topic of subjective extra-biblical guidance. That is, if a Christian has a peaceful feeling about a person, a decision, or an action, then supposedly it has God's approval and blessing. But this is not at all what the word refers to. The verse is talking about the relationships between believers, and this peace is referring to an objective and relational peace. It is the opposite of hostility and animosity between people, and not the opposite of unrest and turmoil within a person's mind.

Elsewhere, Paul writes, "Since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:1). Again, this peace describes the relationship that Christians have with God. Because they have been justified in Christ, there is no more conflict between them. And because believers participate in this peaceful relationship with God together in Christ, they are to maintain this peaceful relationship with one another as well.

Verse 16, among other things, again indicates that this spiritual relationship among believers is to be an intellectual one: "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom." The content of our conversation is to be the word of Christ, the mode is to be teaching, and the quality is to be wisdom. The relationship is thoroughly intellectual. And if we are not saying it, then we are to be singing it: "…as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God."

Then, verse 17 would remind us that even in our human relationships and in our daily lives, all that we do, whether in word or deed, we should do with a view to please and honor the Lord Jesus Christ and God the Father. We are to be set our minds on the things above even as we deal with the things on earth.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism. Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

The NIV gives this section the heading, "Rules for Holy Living." In light of the previous and the upcoming verses, this seems unwise and inaccurate. Reading through this section, we notice that it is more about encouraging positive spiritual characteristics than laying down rules. Thus the section is better named "Qualities of True Spirituality," as opposed to the false spirituality that Paul has denounced. This is not to say that rules as such are wrong or unspiritual. The apostle has been writing against man-made rules, and not all rules in general. Nevertheless, our passage is more about spiritual qualities than rules for living.

Paul has criticized a false system of religion in 2:16-23. Although it presents itself as a way to attain superior spirituality, in reality it is the invention of an "unspiritual mind." It denies the fullness of Christ in its attempt to supplement or replace his person and his work. It fails to restrain the flesh, but in fact provides a context for it to remain active. Under the guise of a kind of self-denial that is based on human tradition rather than God's command, it indulges in self-effort and self-righteousness. Therefore, contrary to its purpose and its promise, a person who submits to such a system is cut off from Christ and becomes unspiritual. His religion is of the flesh.

What, then, is true spirituality? Or, to adapt our language to 2:8, what is a spirituality that is based on a Christian philosophy, a philosophy that takes its basic principles and assumptions from Christ? Paul gives us the answer in this passage.

True spirituality begins from sound Christian theology. This includes an accurate understanding about the person and work of Christ, and our relationship with him through faith. Here Paul gives emphasis to the fact that Christ has been raised from the dead and seated at the right hand of God. And because of our union with him, we have also been crucified in him, raised with him, and as Paul writes elsewhere, seated with him in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 2:6). Verses 3 and 4 say that our life is in Christ, and when he appears, we will appear with him in glory, thus reminding us of a future hope.

This is the theological basis that Paul weaves into the first part of this section. Again, the emphasis is in Christ as he is now positioned at the right hand of God, and also our union with him – that we have been crucified and raised with him, and that our life is now in him. Why is he drawing attention to this? Because this is the basis for a spiritual mindset. As Paul tells the Colossians, "Set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things" (v. 1-2).

So true spirituality begins with an intellectual recognition of our so-called vertical relationship with God, and an intellectual attention to it. An active spiritual mindset is the foundation of true spirituality. Without it, no matter what a person does, he is not spiritual. However, a spiritual mind does not think on just anything – it does not dwell on "idle notions" (2:18), but on Christ who has been raised and seated, and on our union with him.

Notice that the apostle does not say only, "Set your minds on things above," but he also adds, "not on earthly things." Along with any teaching on being spiritual minded, there is often the warning that we should not become "so heavenly minded that we are no earthly good." There are two problems with this. First, how I wish that this is a real danger! There has never been any danger that Christians were becoming too spiritually minded. Many people dwell on "idle notions" and fanciful doctrines, but Paul says that these come from an "unspiritual mind." Second, this is not a biblical warning. Paul tells us to fix our minds on heavenly matters, and he explicitly says, not on earthly things. The second part is just as authoritative as the first.

Some commentators wish to make the "earthly things" refer to the man-made teachings mentioned previously (2:16-23), as if this best fits the context. Although they might be included, I am unconvinced that Paul has only these false regulations in mind. This is because when one observes the context of a verse, he cannot just look backward, but he must also look forward. And looking forward, Paul contrasts the spiritual with the unspiritual, but the unspiritual are now represented by the characteristics of the flesh, and no longer by mere rules.

In his letter to the Philippians, when Paul writes about the "enemies of the cross of Christ," that "Their mind is on earthly things" (Philippians 3:18-19), he is not talking about human regulations only, even if these might be included. And when he writes to Timothy, "No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs – he wants to please his commanding officer" (2 Timothy 2:4), the "civilian affairs" are decidedly not man-made religious teachings.

My point is that the danger of being "no earthly good" because of an overly spiritual mindset is practically non-existent. What is needed is not a repeated warning against being "no earthly good," but more clear and consistent teaching on what it really means to be spiritual minded. Then, we will tend to the matters on earth in whatever way and to whatever extent the Lord would have us do.

Another argument is that the "heavenly" and "earthly" contrast does not refer to a spatial distinction, but an ethical one. This is at best partially correct, and somewhat misleading. This is because when Paul mentions "the things above," they are not mainly ethical, but includes the ethical or what pertains to the ethical only by implication. He writes, "Set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God." So if we understand the "earthly things" as mainly or even solely ethical, then they no longer represent a contrast against the heavenly things that Paul is talking about. But he is clearly making a contrast. Therefore, the ethical interpretation fails. The apostle indeed makes an ethical application, but when he refers to the heavenly and the earthly, he is not there directly referring to the ethical.

We should be suspicious of theologians who wish to preserve culture and science in the name of Christ without first stressing the overarching importance of possessing a spiritual mindset and to not fix our minds on earthly things. Any teaching on the Christian's attitude toward culture and science should be consistent with Colossians 3:2 and similar verses. And if we really want Christians to do some "earthly good" in a sense that is in accord with biblical teachings, then we must first advocate a spiritual mind, one that is set on things above, not on earthly things. That is, we need to have a teaching on culture and science that does not shove this verse under the carpet, just so we can promote a misapplication of "everything God created is good" (1 Timothy 4:4), which theologians have wrested out of its context in order to justify all kinds of earthly ambitions and pursuits. Let us mind the things of heaven, without adding so many excuses and qualifications, and we will be as effective on earth as we should be.

We are in union with Christ. We belong to him and have died to the world and its human principles. Therefore, the world has no authority over us, and we do not need to submit to its teachings and regulations (v. 20). No one has any basis to impose these rules on us, or to stir up fear and guilt in us for non-compliance. Paul might mainly have restrictions regarding food and drink in mind in verse 21, but the language, and certainly the principle, applies to other man-made restrictions, such as one that forbids marriage.

In another place, Paul writes concerning those who teach the doctrines of demons, "They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods" (1 Timothy 4:1-3). It does not matter if he has the same thing in mind there as he does here, but there he provides another reason for rejecting these prohibitions: "For everything that God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer" (v. 4-5).

It would be too farfetched to apply this idea, as many in the Reformed tradition have done, to justify various things like artistic expression, culture, science, and even capitalism. Of course, the principle is sound and relevant for the purpose stated here. That is, nothing that God has created is in itself ritualistically unclean, and this includes food and marriage. But the narrow context restricts the application, so that, for example, the teaching does not allow one to deliberately consume poisonous mushrooms even though they are created "good." Indeed they might be ceremonially acceptable to eat, but not morally so.

Also, verse 21 does not imply that all prohibitions are to be ignored. There are many, many prohibitions in the Bible, a major summary of which is contained in the Ten Commandments. Thus the verse does not mean that we are now to freely commit murder and adultery, since we must ignore all prohibitions. For me to say this is not a needless precaution, since I have come across precisely such a misuse of this verse on more than one occasion.

And it does not mean that we are free from all human authority, especially when it is based on the word of God. For example, parental authority is given by God, and children are commanded to obey their parents. So a child must obey if his parents tell him to perform various house chores, or if they forbid him to attend a certain social function. These would be proper applications of an authority conferred by the word of God, and the child must not disobey by claiming that these are merely human commands. The parents would be mistaken, however, if they were to claim that these commands in themselves provide a basis for greater spirituality. They could do this indirectly, that is, if the child follows them with a view toward God's command to obey one's parents. We may make a similar point regarding the authority of church leaders (Hebrews 13:17).

Paul is speaking against "human commands and teachings" (v. 22) that represent themselves in a certain manner and that make certain claims for themselves. That is, we must not submit to man-made prohibitions that claim to be spiritually profitable in the keeping of them without a legitimate appeal to or application of the commandments of God. In fact, in keeping these "human commands and teachings," God's commands are often ignored or subverted: "Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition….They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men" (Matthew 15:6, 9).

So when he insists on our freedom from human commands and teachings, the apostle is not just trying to protect our comfort and convenience. The issue carries great spiritual ramifications. These human commands and teachings that are so restrictive and dominating to the one who observes them in fact prevent the person from obeying God's commands and teachings. Then, because these human commands and teachings claim for themselves significant spiritual value and effect, to affirm them is at the same time to deny the completeness of Christ's person and work. And as Paul writes, "They lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence" (v. 23), so that they fail to achieve the very thing that they supposedly do best, that is, to restrain the flesh.

Notice that the flesh does not refer to the body only, but as Paul writes in Galatians 5:19-21, "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like," where "sinful nature" is the NIV's translation for the word "flesh." Since the works of the flesh include things that are internal, these human commands and teachings in fact engender the indulgence of the flesh, stirring up competition, self-righteousness, and so on. The flesh can be subdued only through Christ, and the power of a regenerated and reeducated mind. Paul will discuss this in the next major section of this letter.

When it comes to human commands and teachings, Paul instructs us to put on an attitude of defiance, saying, "Do not let anyone judge you" (v. 16), "Do not let anyone…disqualify you" (v. 18), and "Why…do you submit to its rules?" (v. 20). If we will rest in the completeness and perfection of Christ, in whom we have fullness, we will not allow human traditions and principles to threaten us. We will not bow to its pressure, or submit to its judgment.

As we proceed to verses 18-19, we must continue to keep in mind the positive context against which these negative criticisms are contrasted. That is, Christ's person and work are complete, and anything that undermines this idea of completeness is a false doctrine. Verse 18 describes a person who "goes into great detail about what he has seen." Those who are eager to suppress all spiritual manifestations on the basis of the sufficiency of Scripture cannot find support here, for the verse cannot refer to all such manifestations in general. The apostles themselves had visions and other so-called revelatory experiences, and other believers who were not apostles also had them. And of course, Paul writes this before the completion of Scripture, since he is writing a part of it. Yet Christ's person and work are already complete.

So spiritual manifestations in themselves do not conflict with the completeness of Christ, but Paul is targeting a particular kind of experience that leads to a particular kind of consequence. The vision that this person claims to have seen is associated with "false humility" and "the worship of angels." Paul does not attack the idea of vision, but the false doctrine and the mindset of the person.

This is also the proper way to address claims to visions and dreams today. There is no biblical evidence to suggest that such things have ceased. Scripture is sufficient and complete, but if Christ wishes to appear to someone for whatever reason, I am not going to throw Warfield's book at the Lord and call him Beelzebub. Warfield's farfetched scheme is forced and artificial, and an embarrassment. If someone claims to have seen a vision, it is sufficient for me to examine the content of the vision, the doctrines suggested by it, and the mindset of the person who had the experience. It would be unbiblical to deny the very possibility or the legitimacy of the vision without regard to its content.

As for an illegitimate claim to such an experience, and most claims are illegitimate, in the end, it matters only a little as to whether the person in fact had an experience. Even if he has seen a vision, it does not mean that he is correct or that he should be heeded. If the doctrines suggested by the alleged vision are false, if it contradicts the completeness of Christ or some other biblical doctrine, then the vision was either imagined, demonically inspired, or conjured in some other manner, if there are other possibilities.

The person who "goes into great detail about what he has seen" might consider himself spiritually privileged, but he fails to maintain a connection with the Head, the true source of wisdom and knowledge, and spiritual insight (v. 3). He fails to uphold, and be rooted and built up in the doctrines of Christ, as he has been received by the Colossians and taught by the apostles. Thus Paul's judgment is that "his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions." His attention is given to his senses, to sensual experiences, and not that which is truly spiritual, which is faith in the completeness of Christ's person and work, through which we maintain our connection with him who is the head of the church, that is, his body.

There are those who claim to be prophets, and that God has revealed to them principles that are essential for spiritual advancement, but that no one could discover through a sober study of the plain sense of Scripture. Or, either through divine revelation or esoteric research, some make claims to have discovered certain "codes" that could unlock hidden mysteries or predictions within Scripture itself, beyond what it says with its words and sentences on the surface. Among them are professing Christians, non-Christians gurus, and other personalities. These individuals would fall under the condemnation of Paul. Despite their pretense, their minds and lives are unspiritual, but of the senses and the flesh, and they are puffed up with idle notions. The church must publicly denounce them, and if they are church members, it should expel them from the community.

Corresponding to verses 6 and 7, verses 9-15 will draw attention to some definite doctrines that are especially relevant to the situation. And corresponding to verse 8, he will address some of the particular points raised by the false teachings under consideration. That is, although verses 9-15 contain teachings that are universally profitable for the believer, it is stated and gathered in this place because they are directed against the false teachings that Paul warns about in verse 8, and that he will enumerate in verses 16-23. We will follow his lead and first study the teachings in verses 9-15, and then apply them against the false teachings that Paul calls attention to in verses 16-23.

Verses 9-15 reinforce the teaching concerning the fullness of Christ, an idea that Paul emphasizes throughout this letter. Over and over again, he stresses the fact that Christ is complete. He applies this to the believers and adds, "and you have been given fullness in Christ." All of the false teachings that he counteracts in verses 16-23 undermine the sufficiency of Christ in one way or another. They suggest that it is acceptable or even necessary to supplement a simple reliance on the person and work of Christ with some religious observances, regulations, and experiences.

But if Christ's person and work are complete, and if Christians are complete in him, then to supplement the Christian faith with additional religious doctrines and practices, rituals, regulations, and revelations, would undermine one's spirituality rather than enhance it. Christ is so complete in his person and work that one must devalue him in order to make room for the addition of human traditions and principles. But when that happens, the person becomes "unspiritual," and not more spiritual. The Christian faith is so complete that to add anything to it is to take away from it.

He specifies several ways in which believers have received fullness in Christ. Christians have undergone spiritual circumcision, a "circumcision done by Christ," that has put off their sinful nature (v. 11). No doctrine of physical circumcision can add anything to the believer. Christians have experienced spiritual resurrection (v. 12-13). All unbelievers are dead in sin, but we have been made alive in Christ. A person is either spiritually dead or alive. Nothing could be done to make us more resurrected. The idea itself is senseless. Christians have received complete forgiveness. God has forgiven all our sins, canceled our debt, and nailed the note to the cross (v. 13-14). The language is final, and there is no room for improvement or for more forgiveness. Christians have attained complete victory. Christ has triumphed over all powers and authorities, and by our union with him, we share in his triumph (v. 15). We should stand firm in this, but there is nothing that needs to be done or that could be done to gain additional victory. Christ's work is complete, and we are complete in him.

The positive aspect of Paul's answer to false teaching is most important, because it provides the basis on which we may reject all aberrations. Any teaching suggesting that Christ's person or work is incomplete, and that we need something more in order to complete our salvation or enhance our spirituality, is automatically ruled out. For this reason, ministers ought to constantly teach and remind their listeners of the basics of the Christian faith through a positive exposition of biblical passages and doctrines. Of course, for this to benefit a believer as he faces doctrinal deception, he must have the ability to apply the truths that he knows. But this requires only some basic reasoning skills, such as the ability to make simple deductions and inferences.

Paul has some specific examples in mind, and in verses 16-23, he applies to them what he has said in verses 9-15.

It would be wrong enough to enforce the Old Testament religious calendar on Christians, with verse 17 as the reason, but verse 16 probably suggests more than this to include observances instituted by human tradition. The theological criticism is that "These are shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ" (v. 17). A stringent observer of religious food laws and holy days may think that he has a basis to be confident about his spiritual commitment and to judge himself superior to others. But Paul's criticism is that, since Christ has already come, such a person has nothing but a shadow religion, an image of the reality. Therefore, he is in fact less spiritual than those who commit to Christ in simple faith. Moreover, since Christ the reality has already come, and since Paul and others have preached about his achievements, to persist in or return to a shadow religion is at the same time a denial of Christ, the reality, the actual substance of true religion.

If we will think about it for a moment, it might surprise and sadden us to realize that much of Christendom comes under the criticism of verse 17. Of course, the entire enterprise of Roman Catholicism is a shadow religion. But if we do not consider it part of Christianity at all, and we should not, then what about those Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Charismatics, and others, who criticize other believers for failing to observe Easter and Christmas? They say that these are good days to remember Christ, and that these are great opportunities to draw attention to the faith. But first, the Bible does not teach this – to say that these are the advantages is itself a human tradition and opinion. And second, our passage explicitly tells believers to defy those who judge them on this issue. Anyone who then makes a negative judgment or criticism finds himself on the other side, in opposition to the apostle. All arguments are futile. This is the end of the discussion.

Nevertheless, it is a curious phenomenon that so many are attracted to a religion of shadow instead of a religion of reality. They prefer the symbol over the substance. And if there are no authorized symbols, because the substance has come, then they will invent some for themselves. And on the basis of tending to these symbols, they even assert a spiritual superiority over those who tend to the substance and the reality.

When we consider the nature of many of these symbols, we notice that they have at least three major characteristics. First, they appeal to the senses. Various tools, garments, and decorations appeal to the sense of sight. Special singings and instruments appeal to the sense of hearing. Food and drink appeal to the sense of taste. Candles and incenses appeal to the sense of smell. These are just a small list of examples, and some go further than others in organizing their entire religion into one for the senses. Second, they require much human effort and participation. The exercise of these symbols often demand elaborate arrangement and organization. Sometimes they require self-imposed labor and suffering. Third, and people are often blind to this, they erect a barrier between God and man. Instead of going to God directly and regularly, they institute special days and rituals, and utilize special tools and trinkets. So while God invites all believers to come boldly to the throne of grace (Hebrews 4:16), it almost seems that these people would rather participate in their man-made rituals in order to delay coming to him.

Given these characteristics of a shadow religion, we may infer several reasons behind its attraction. A religion of shadow is in fact a religion of the flesh. It purports to be more spiritual, but in reality it is all of the flesh. It appeals to the sensation and not to the intellect, to the feeling faculties of man and not to his thinking faculties. In connection with this, a religion of shadow is more concrete or even more "real," that is, from the perspective of the flesh. It is less spiritual and less intellectual, but more physical and sensual. This is what the carnal mind wants. Christianity is too spiritual and too intellectual for a fleshly mentality. Related to this is the sense that in a religion of shadow there is more for the flesh to do and more for the flesh to control. And by equating one's spirituality with fleshly activities, such a religion accommodates the pride and unbelief of its adherents. Then, some people prefer a religion of shadow simply because they are bored with the actual Christian faith. Christ is complete, and his work is complete – he does not need them to add anything. And for some, this is just unacceptable, and boring. There is not enough in a religion of reality to satisfy their lust for sensual and animalistic stimulation.

Based on the above observations, the simple way to explain the attraction of a religion of shadow is that it is really for people who do not like God very much. A simple lifestyle of reading about him, thinking about him, talking about him, and praying to him is not enough. A direct contact with God through the mind with minimal sensual activities and distractions is unattractive and frustrating to them. Their lust for fleshly stimulation thus invents more complicated theories to believe and elaborate rituals to perform. All of this, it is most important to note, is not just a matter of preference. For one to persist in a religion of shadow when God commands a religion of reality means that this person has no spiritual reality, and no true contact with God.

Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

This chapter covers a large section because of the close relationship between the verses. Although this passage includes many verses, because of our extensive discussions on the previous passages, there is nothing central here that we have not already considered in some way. This is especially true of verses 9-15, which should now seem easy to understand.

Paul is continuing to write out of the concern he expressed in 2:4, namely, "I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments." The "this" refers to the truth that the fullness of wisdom is in Christ, and sophistries and deceptions are intended by "fine-sounding arguments." These can indeed come from a specific source, such as a group of false teachers attempting to indoctrinate the Colossians, but there is no decisive reason to rule out the possibility that Paul could be providing a general warning, perhaps against false ideas that are popular in the culture of the Colossians.

He continues this approach in verses 6-23. Positively, he states the truths that his readers need to know in this context, and negatively, he applies them against the errors that his readers must avoid. Paul summarizes his presentation in this section in verses 6-8 before going into details in verses 9-23. So verses 6-7 introduces a positive perspective, while verse 8 turns to the negative.

Verses 6 and 7 direct Christians to both maintain and advance in their faith. And the basis for maintaining and advancing their faith is that which they have "received" (v. 6), or that which they have been "taught" (v. 7). In other words, Christians must maintain and advance in their faith, and the way to do that is to go back to and go deeper into the teachings – the doctrine, the theology – that they have received concerning Jesus Christ and the Christian faith. This would include maintaining and advancing in obedience of these teachings.

Verse 8 then turns to the negative. The content of the verse demands a more lengthy treatment.

The "philosophy" that Paul warns against is "hollow and deceptive." It is "hollow" in that it is devoid of truth, wisdom, and reason, but it tries to convince people that it possesses these qualities by using methods and arguments that are "deceptive." In other words, this philosophy can appear wise to foolish people, such as non-Christians, or to Christians who at the moment fail to maintain their focus on the sound doctrines referred to in verses 6 and 7.

This philosophy is doomed to failure from the start because it is based on "human tradition" and "the basic principles of this world" rather than on Christ. It begins from the speculation of man, rather than the revelation of Christ. It is not a Christian philosophy. A tradition consists of a belief or practice, or a system of such, that is affirmed and guarded, and that is handed down to others. By this definition, there is nothing inherently wrong with tradition, and it is not something that necessarily lacks rational justification. In fact, a true system of belief ought to become a tradition that is embraced by all. And in this sense, the Christian faith itself can be a tradition, a revealed tradition. What Paul opposes is not tradition itself, but human tradition, or beliefs and practices that have been invented by men. It does not teach a true system of belief, but it gains acceptance by the use of deceptive appearances and arguments.

There is some question about the meaning of "the basic principles of this world." The two major interpretations understand Paul to be referring to either "elements" or "rudiments." The former could refer to the earthly elements of ancient science (as in earth, water, fire, and air), or it could even refer to "elemental spirits of the universe" (RSV), including pagan deities that supposedly exercise power over peoples and nations. "Rudiments," on the other hand, would refer to the first principles of a philosophy, that is, the basic principles, teachings, and assumptions of a system of thought.

Several considerations, including the context, favor the latter interpretation, so that the meaning should be "rudiments," as in basic principles or teachings. Paul refers to the rudiments of "the world," which in a context that chides the traditions of men, should be taken in the ethical sense. The content of the rest of the passage is consistent with this understanding. In particular, 2:20 calls attention again to "the basic principles of this world" and cites "its rules" as "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!" He says that these are "human commands and teachings…regulations." For this reason Calvin thinks the basic principles refer to "ceremonies." But it is more precise to say that Paul is referring to the teachings about these ceremonies.

In any case, even if some insist that Paul has in mind elements or elemental spirits, it makes no pivotal difference in interpretation and application, since the meaning still reduces to a set of intellectual principles. This is because he is talking about a "philosophy," so that even if the reference directly concerns elements or spirits, he is in fact referring to the intellectual principles and assumptions associated with them.

These principles are false, Paul explains, because they are based on men's ideas and not based on Christ. This point is significant because it universalizes the application of the statement. The false philosophy is hollow and deceptive not just because it is based on some particular human inventions. If this is as far as Paul goes, then this verse might leave room for other human inventions to be correct, or at least they would have to be individually considered. But Paul says that the philosophy is false because it is not based on Christ, the Christ that the Colossians received and were taught (v. 6-7). In other words, any philosophy that is not based on the Christian faith as delivered by the apostles is a false philosophy.

A hollow and deceptive philosophy consists of the traditions and principles of men – things that they invented or deduced from their speculations and superstitions. These false principles pervade all non-Christian religions and philosophies. The natural sciences, including modern cosmology, physics, biology, and so on, are not exempted from this charge. Man-made philosophies are not only hollow, but also deceptive, and many Christians have been deceived into thinking that science is rational and authoritative. This is what it claims, and this is what it wants us to believe, but it cannot withstand even the most basic logical scrutiny in its assumptions, methods, and conclusions. They are after all the traditions and principles of men, nothing more. On the other hand, true philosophy consists of Christian traditions and principles, things that God has revealed to us through the Scripture.

Attempts to destroy the Christian faith sometimes come from unexpected sources. Consider the case of pseudo-presuppositionalism. Some might be surprised that so many professing Christians would rise up to violently defend an anti-biblical epistemology, one that makes man's own sensation the precondition for any contact with biblical revelation, thus subjugating the entire Christian faith under subjective and unreliable human perception. And then this foolishness is integrated as a necessary component in what is supposedly a biblical system of apologetics. It stresses the role of presuppositions, but the problem is that its own presuppositions are based on human traditions and principles, the very thing that Paul condemns.

Paul warns against being taken "captive" by such a philosophy – not only one in particular, but any philosophy that is based on human traditions and principles, rather than on Christ. Pseudo-presuppositionalism is only one of many examples. Once a person is captured by the first principles of an irrational philosophy, one that is based on the inventions of men, he could order his whole life by it, including his understanding of the Christian faith. In another place, Paul calls this a mental "stronghold," a processing system and defense mechanism in the mind that protects false ideas and holds the person prisoner. It becomes a satanic outpost by which the evil one advances his cause, partly by reproducing such a stronghold in the minds of others.

We can refuse to submit to the same deception that has captured and enslaved so many. Instead, we will become established and built up in the philosophy of Christ. By the standard of 2:8, pseudo-presuppositionalism should be considered a non-Christian philosophy, a man-made tradition. We have no obligation to heed these hostages of human ideas, but because we are the faithful ones who stand on biblical principles, we have authority over them, and also an obligation to teach and warn them. Thus we must command their attention, and set their minds free by a philosophy that is truly based on Christ. This is one illustration that what Paul says has universal validity, since it is played out around us daily, but he makes a particular application that we will appreciate as we continue with the passage.

The verse does not disparage thinking, but promotes a Christian intellectualism. Paul does not say, "Do not be confused by the facts. Do not be taken by correct arguments. Do not be rational." No, he has the opposite attitude. He warns against non-factual, incorrect, and irrational philosophy. He does not renounce philosophy as such, for broadly speaking, a philosophy is just a worldview, or a system of beliefs, and in this sense the Christian faith is also a philosophy. He is against a philosophy that is based on human traditions and principles, and not on Christ. And his language suggests that a philosophy that is based on Christ would not be hollow and deceptive. A philosophy that derives its basic principles and assumptions from biblical revelation is a true philosophy – this is the Christian faith.

In the midst of all this, Paul directs our attention to one point about Christ, and writes that in him "are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (2:3). The meaning of "hidden" here refers to something "stored" and "deposited" rather than something removed from view so that no one can access it. He means that wisdom and knowledge are treasures, and that they are all stored in Christ. It is customary to distinguish between the words here translated "wisdom" and "knowledge," but we agree with Calvin as he comments on this verse: "I do not put any great difference between wisdom and understanding in this passage, for the duplication is only to strengthen it; as if he had said that no knowledge, erudition, learning, wisdom, can be found elsewhere."

The latter portion of Calvin's statement leads us to another point, namely, the positive assertion and negative implication of 2:3 make Christianity the most intellectual worldview in existence and the only rational worldview possible. Any expression of the Christian faith that does not present it as the zenith of intellectualism fails to do justice to the nature of Christ. Any theology that does not present the Christian faith as the sole possessor of truth – any truth at all – is not Christian theology. Paul's statement effectively establishes the gospel as a message that says to the unbeliever, "I am completely right, and you are completely wrong. I have all the truth, and you have none of the truth, not even a little. I am intellectually competent, and you are intellectually bankrupt. I am rational in what I believe, and you are irrational in what you believe. Everything that you believe is wrong and foolish."

Whether we take this position reflects our true opinion of Christ, and it is shameful for any believer to even hesitate to openly affirm this. I would be embarrassed before the Lord if someone were to even misunderstand me for being more relaxed than this in my belief. All wisdom and knowledge are in Christ – all of it – and Christianity has a complete monopoly on truth, intelligence, and rationality. And all non-Christian beliefs are untrue, unintelligent, and irrational. This is something that we can prove with ease in argumentation. The Christian has entered into a whole new intellectual realm of rationality, knowledge, and logical thinking to which unbelievers cannot attain. It is impossible to relax on this claim without attacking the very nature of Christ. Thus anything less than this in our profession is blasphemy.

That is the general doctrine, but Paul makes a specific application here. He writes in the next verse, "I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments" (2:4). That is, they are to focus their minds on the truth, so that they will not be deceived by arguments that may appear persuasive to some, but that are in fact false. Now, if Paul is writing against a specific false doctrine, then we can know something about what it teaches by the truths that he emphasizes in the letter.

In particular, since verses 2 and 3 are written so that the deception in verse 4 would not occur, we can infer that any false teaching that Paul seeks to counteract would undermine the truths in verse 2 and 3. Or, to consider this from the other direction, what Paul says in verses 2 and 3 provides the prevention or antidote to the deception that he warns about in verse 4.

And what we find in verses 2 and 3 is that Paul affirms his desire and the possibility for the Colossians to have "the full riches of complete understanding," and to know Christ, "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Therefore, it is likely that if Paul is writing to counteract a specific false teaching, it is one that undermines the fullness of wisdom and knowledge in Christ, and the possibility for believers to attain a complete understanding of all things through the Christian faith.

This assessment is consistent with the content of the next passage (2:6-23), in which Paul reaffirms the fullness of the person of Christ and the work of Christ, so that the Christian needs only to depend on him. There is no need to supplement Christian spirituality with principles, rituals, and experiences that come from outside of our relationship with Christ or that are invented by men apart from Christ. The deception is in thinking that Christ is insufficient, or that the Christian worldview is insufficient. The emphasis here is that the Christian faith as delivered by the apostles is complete.

Although Paul sends them this warning, he tells the Colossians that he delights "to see how orderly you are and how firm your faith in Christ is" (2:5). This seems to be an indication that, even if there is indeed a threat, at the time Paul writes this the Colossians have not been greatly influenced by the false teaching, and that until now their faith has remained overall sound and stable.