Colossians 2:8 (WH)-Βλέπετε μή τις ὑμᾶς ἔσται ὁ συλαγωγῶν διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου καὶ οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν·
Acts 17:18-τινὲς δὲ καὶ τῶν Ἐπικουρίων καὶ Στωικῶν φιλοσόφων συνέβαλλον αὐτῷ, καί τινες ἔλεγον Τί ἂν θέλοι ὁ σπερμολόγος οὗτος λέγειν; οἱ δέ Ξένων δαιμονίων δοκεῖ καταγγελεὺς εἶναι· ὅτι τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ τὴν ἀνάστασιν εὐηγγελίζετο.
An Additional Reference:
1 Corinthians 1:20-21 (SBLGNT): ποῦ σοφός; ποῦ γραμματεύς; ποῦ συζητητὴς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου; οὐχὶ ἐμώρανεν ὁ θεὸς τὴν σοφίαν τοῦ κόσμου; ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔγνω ὁ κόσμος διὰ τῆς σοφίας τὸν θεόν, εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεὸς διὰ τῆς μωρίας τοῦ κηρύγματος σῶσαι τοὺς πιστεύοντας.
Compare 1 Corinthians 3:19; Colossians 2:4.
Robert G. Bratcher and Eugene A. Nida, A Translator's Handbook to Colossians and Philemon, page 52:
The worthless deceit of human wisdom represents "the philosophy and empty deceit" (compare RSV). It is improbable that Paul is here referring to two different things; it is likely that "empty deceit" characterizes "the philosophy" he is talking about (one definite article governs the whole phrase). The Greek word philosophia appears only here in the NT (see "philosophers" in Acts 17.18). Here it means what is merely human wisdom, as contrasted with the divine wisdom in the Christian message. The word for "deceit" appears also in Matt 13.22, Mark 4.19, Eph 4.22, 2 Thes 2.10, Heb 3.13, 2 Peter 2.13. The scholarly consensus as far as I can tell is that Paul is not condemning philosophy qua philosophy but rather, a certain school of thought or philosophy in the sense of a Weltanschauung.
Proverbs 14:6NIV"The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to the discerning."
ReplyDeleteFirst pursue humility then JEHOVAH'S wisdom will pursue you.
Every servant of JEHOVAH ought to be a friend of(divine) wisdom.
I concur. Philosophy is supposed to be the love of wisdom, but to your point, I reccomend the entry on wisdom found in the Insight book. Wisdom has many facets.
ReplyDeleteLike I try to explain to people while we do not indulge in any reflexive rejection of human wisdom. We are mindful that only JEHOVAH'S wisdom is an unalloyed good.
ReplyDeleteSome of the world's thinkers have hit upon insights that confirm the Bible's wisdom or harmonize with it, but as you mention, Jehovah's wisdom is the only unalloyed good. I know a brother who likes to collect famous quotations that comport with Bible teaching.
ReplyDeleteHere are some of my thoughts,
ReplyDeleteThere have been some that have thought to treat parts of the bible as works of philosophy (Dru Johnson, Jonathan Pennington, Yoram Hazony). Although I think that it might work in terms of historical exegesis (some wisdom literature can certainly be thought of as philosophy, Ecclesiastes for example, there are other works that make use of what might be thought of philosophical reasoning but cannot be thought of as philosophy since they are dealing with a specific event, i.e. Hebrews, parts of John, some of Paul's letters), I think that theologically they cannot be treated as philosophy. In my mind philosophy is essentially dialectical and to be challenged, one cannot say X is scripture and X is philosophy, because the X as scripture must be accepted and has intrinsic authority whereas X as philosophy has no authority beyond the strength of its argument, where the argument ought be to challenged.
That being said I do think philosophy can be useful in theological reasoning, NOT in the sense that many Thomists or neo-platonists use it, i.e. using it as a theological authority, but using it only insofar as the argumentation is sound and aids in clarity and coherency. So then one should treat philosophy like one would treat secular history, useful for reconstruction and understanding, but always tentative and never to be taken as regulative over scripture (for example, if a historical analysis by historical Jesus scholars shows Jesus's speeches in John cannot be traced back to Jesus, that has no effect on whether I take them as theologically authoritative).
But I mean natural theology is certainly valid, this is going to necessarily include philosophy, and philosophy can also elucidate scripture; scripture says God created all things from his will, and philosophical reasoning (and perhaps scientific also) can help in working out what that means.
Romans ch.2:14,15NIV"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) "
ReplyDeleteRoman: I appreciate your thoughts, and they resonate with me. Most thinkers make a distinction between reason and revelation and you explained one factor that makes sense of that distinction. Scotus, Aquinas, and Francis Bacon all put reason and revelation into different compartments as most have done. I agree with what you said about reason/philosophy being a tool, but all tools have their proper place. One other thing I've learned is that philosophy is not one thing. Metaphysics is not the same as ethics or logic, but logic usually is the underpinning of western thought. Theology also requires the use of logic/reason.
ReplyDeleteServant: Based on the verses from Romans and Genesis 1:26-27, etc, I believe humankind will never become totally depraved in this system. The conscience and the image of God governs what even those without law do.
I think a key function of the moral sense is to alert us to the fact that we are spiritually diseased and need help. In the way that physical pain alerts us to bodily dysfunction.
ReplyDeleteJohn ch.3:19-21NIV"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God."
Once a person stops rationalising their failure to zealously pursue moral/spiritual excellence they are in a position to seek out JEHOVAH'S Help that regard.
Yes, I certainly agree. Paul seems to bring out a similiar point at Romans 10:1-4, where he speaks about those who attempt to establish their own righteousness instead of pursuing the righteousness of God. Our moral sense certainly "accuses" us at times or it may excuse us, depending on the circumstances.
ReplyDeleteAs you said, it is only with Jehovah's help that we can be morally/spiritually excellent, and through the ransom of Christ Jesus (Romans 7:25).
"There are also signs of a resurgence of fideism, which fails to recognize the importance of rational knowledge and philosophical discourse for the understanding of faith, indeed for the very possibility of belief in God. One currently widespread symptom of this fideistic tendency is a “biblicism” which tends to make the reading and exegesis of Sacred Scripture the sole criterion of truth." (John Paul II - Fides et Ratio https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html )
ReplyDeleteThat "the philosophy" generally contradicts the Bible, the Bible does not say so. If it contradicts the revelation in terms of a proposition or train of thought, it must of course be rejected, but such a general shift does not follow from nowhere. The apostles themselves used a series of terms and concepts that had obvious parallels with Greek philosophy.
And philosophy should not be "destroyed" anyway, but dealt with as 1 Thessalonians 5:21 says: "examine everything; hold firmly to that which is good".
Colossians 2:8 does not condemn "philosophy" in general, but rather the false wisdom that opposes Christianity. It's important to differentiate between philosophy and false wisdom. Philosophy, which essentially is the use of human common sense, is not "smart-alecky" but a usage of human rationality. This could be compared to how Scientologists prohibit psychology - according to some, because it could cure stupidity :-)
ReplyDeleteChristians have become spiritually susceptible because they encountered the reality of another spiritual world in Christ. For this reason, Paul warns them not to hand over their susceptibility and openness to foreign goals. An apt expression is to capture someone, i.e., to seize the desire within them that strives for learning and achieving completeness, and through this lead them onto foreign paths, even into a maze where they can get completely lost. In our time, particularly the occult, as well as naive admiration for eastern doctrines, captivates many people and drives them towards unknown goals. The current syncretic offerings help us understand the danger that lurked for the young Christians in Colossae. Those who used wisdom (philosophy) to divert them from their goal merely drew attention to other spiritual realities in addition to Christ, and pointed to the possibility of additional lives through encounters with these realities. Paul never denies that other spiritual realities exist: "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live" (1 Corinthians 8:5–6). Paul the Apostle thus confesses the existence of these gods, but keeps them far distant from the only God and Lord. However, the Gnostic philosophers in Colossae wanted to place these other spiritual realities of different qualities beside Christ.
Who were these teachers and what did they offer? They are not named, so we can only generally deduce that we are likely dealing with the so-called gnosis in the Colossian heresy, a pagan knowledge system combined with Jewish legalism and eastern asceticism. In this, particularly in its very prevalent version, Valentinianism, the contrast between spirit and matter, and thus between God and the created universe, formed the conceptual framework. Thus, the danger existed that under the Gnostic teaching the most fundamental Christian doctrines would be undermined: those about creation, incarnation, and Christ's intercessory role. For if God and the material world cannot come into contact with each other, then the Word cannot become flesh, and there is no chance for God and man to meet, at most – as they claimed – through an infinite series of spiritual intermediaries. These intermediaries were the rulers, the archons, of the seven celestial spheres (Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn), and these are what the letter later refers to as "elemental spirits" or elemental forces.
ReplyDeleteThe exact meaning of the "elemental things" or "elemental forces" (stoicheia) is hard to determine. They can refer to material things just as much as to personal beings, abstract intellectual truths and human traditions, components of the physical world and celestial bodies, but also to spiritual beings, angels, both good and bad (cf. Gal 4:3.9; Heb 5:12). Here too, as with the Galatians, the apostle likely meant the celestial powers, which determined the lives of the pagans and made them their actual slaves.
Those who had not achieved such freedom in Christ served these celestial powers. There were systems of thought in which fire, water, air, and earth received similar reverence as "elemental things". In contrast to all these, Paul asserts that the world was created by Christ, and there is no higher wisdom in these beings, because all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in Christ.
But Paul's words are neither to condemn in general the use of philosophy, which Augustine commends, and made use of, nor all traditions delivered by the apostles.