John Calvin Commentary Colossians 2:23

"Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and severity to the body; [but are] not of any value against the indulgence of the flesh." — Colossians 2:23 (ASV)

Which have indeed a show. Here we have the anticipation of an objection, in which, while he concedes to his adversaries what they allege, he at the same time considers it entirely worthless. For it is as though he had said that he does not regard their having a show of wisdom. But show is placed in contrast with reality, for it is an appearance, as is commonly said, which deceives by resemblance.

Observe, however, of what colors this show consists, according to Paul. He mentions three: self-invented worship, humility, and neglect of the body. Superstition among the Greeks receives the name of ἐθελοβρησκεία—the term Paul uses here. He has, however, an eye to the etymology of the term, for ἐθελοβρησκεία literally denotes a voluntary service, which people choose for themselves of their own accord, without authority from God. Human traditions, therefore, are agreeable to us on this account: that they are in accordance with our understanding, for anyone will find in his own brain the first outlines of them. This is the first pretext.

The second is humility, since obedience to both God and people is pretended, so that people do not refuse even unreasonable burdens. And for the most part, traditions of this kind are such that they appear to be admirable exercises of humility.

They allure, also, by means of a third pretext, since they seem to be very effective for the mortification of the flesh, while there is no sparing of the body. Paul, however, dismisses these disguises, for

what is in high esteem among men is often an abomination in the sight of God (Luke 16:15).

Furthermore, that is a treacherous obedience, and a perverse and sacrilegious humility, which transfers to humans the authority of God; and neglect of the body is not of such great importance as to be worthy to be set forth for admiration as the service of God.

Someone, however, will be astonished that Paul does not take more pains in pulling off those masks. I answer that he is rightly content with the simple term show. For the principles which he had taken as opposed to this are incontrovertible:

1. The body is in Christ, and consequently, those who set shadows before people only deceive them.
2. Secondly, the spiritual kingdom of Christ is by no means concerned with frail and corruptible elements.
3. Thirdly, by the death of Christ such observances were put an end to, so that we might have no connection with them.
4. And, fourthly, God is our only Lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22).

Whatever arguments may be presented to the contrary, however much splendor they possess, are fleeting show.

Secondly, he considered it sufficient to admonish the Colossians not to be deceived by the presentation of empty things. There was no necessity for dwelling longer in reproving them. For it should be an established principle among all devout people that the worship of God ought not to be measured according to our views. Consequently, any kind of service is not legitimate simply on the ground that it is agreeable to us.

This, also, ought to be a commonly accepted point: that we owe God such humility as to yield obedience solely to His commands, so as not to lean to our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5), and that the limit of humility toward others is this—that each one submits to others in love.

Now, when they argue that the indulgence of the flesh is restrained by abstaining from meats, the answer is easy: we must not therefore abstain from any particular food as being unclean, but must eat sparingly of what we do eat. This is so that we may soberly and temperately use God's gifts, and that we may not, hindered by too much food and drink, forget those things that are God’s.

Hence it was sufficient to say that these were masks, so that the Colossians, being warned, might be on their guard against false pretenses.

Thus, today, Papists do not lack plausible excuses with which to present their own laws, regardless of their nature—some impious and tyrannical, others foolish and trivial. However, even if we grant them everything, Paul's refutation nevertheless remains. This refutation is in itself more than sufficient for dispelling all their insubstantial arguments, not to mention how far removed they are from such an honorable appearance as Paul describes.

The principal holiness of the Papacy today consists in monasticism; I am ashamed and grieved to mention its nature, for fear of stirring up such an abominable stench. Furthermore, it is important to consider here how prone, indeed, how eager the human mind is for artificial forms of worship.

For the Apostle here graphically describes the state of the old monastic system, which came into use a hundred years after his death, as if he had never spoken a word. Therefore, people's zeal for superstition is exceedingly irrational; it could not be restrained by such a clear declaration from God from breaking forth, as historical records testify.

Not in any honor. Honor means care, according to the usage of the Hebrew tongue. Honor widows (1 Timothy 5:3), that is, take care of them. Now Paul finds fault with this: that they teach to neglect care for the body. For just as God forbids us to indulge the body excessively, so He commands that it be given what is necessary for it.

Therefore Paul, in Romans 13:14, does not expressly condemn care for the flesh, but care that indulges lusts. He says, Have no care for the flesh, to the gratifying of its lusts. What, then, does Paul point out as flawed in those traditions he discusses? It is that they gave no honor to the body for the satisfying the flesh—that is, according to the measure of necessity.

For satisfying here means a moderate amount, which restricts itself to the simple use of what nature requires, and thus stands in opposition to pleasure and all superfluous delicacies, because nature is content with little. Therefore, to refuse what it requires to sustain the necessity of life is not less contrary to piety than it is inhuman.