The New Refusal to Put Off the Old Man (Colossians 3:6-10)

Read this First Part even though It Is Exegesis

Christ is our life—physical, spiritual, and eternal.  At some point in the future, we will appear with Him in heaven.  We have the heavenly citizenship now, but then we will appear with Him, so we should live like that, and not like who we once were, children of disobedience, objects of God’s wrath, who lived according to their own desires and ambitions.  While we are on earth, we need to die to the things that will not be in heaven.

Before we became in Christ by grace through faith, we lived earthly lives heading toward our natural destination.  But now we have put off the old man, the one walking his own direction to his own drumbeat.  We’re no longer motivated by idolatry and covetousness nor by anger and wrath.  We’ve put off that lifestyle and we’re no longer that person, and we will live like it, so we should live like it.

Our minds have stopped suppressing the truth and believing the lie.  They are renewed in the knowledge after the image of God to what we’ve been restored at our conversion.  We’re not natural men thinking natural thoughts, but spiritual men with the tendency to think spiritual thoughts.  We will and can live like what God created us for.

For everything that we now are, and for the position in which we now live in Christ, we put off those things incompatible with our appearance with Him in glory.  V. 5 has a sample list of some of those and v. 8 presents another sampling.   We will not and cannot continue in anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy (slander), filthy communication, and lying as a lifestyle.

Now For the Interesting, Controversial Application (Don’t Just Skip to This)

I want to take several moments to focus on one of these:  filthy communication.  What is “filthy communication?”  To apply Scripture to present-day situations, we must know something about present-day situations.  Even believing in the sufficiency of Scripture, we do not believe that every scriptural answer is explicitly found on the pages of Scripture.  To apply Scripture, Scripture assumes we have some extra-scriptural knowledge, that there are truths that we can with certainty discern in the real world.  The Bible itself is meaningless unless it is applicable to human questions and needs.  Applying the Word of God requires a scriptural perspective on human experience.

Colossians 3:8 assumes we can know what “filthy communication” is.  And yet there is no “chapter and verse” for filthy communication.  None.  So any four letter word is acceptable, correct?  And if I make an application, I’m a Pharisee, right?  Isn’t it true that I’m just adding to Scripture?  So I’m a legalist that is attempting to be overly restrictive, by making the commandments of men to be equal with the Bible, right?  If evangelicals and now even fundamentalists are going to be consistent, they’re going to have to say this, aren’t they?  We are not told what the bad words are.

Or are we to assume that we can apply Scripture with certainty?  Do we believe that we can get guidance from the Holy Spirit on applying what the Bible says?  In this case, it is putting off filthy communication.  The one Greek word translated into the English “filthy communication” is aischrologia.  That Greek word is found only here in the New Testament.   Friberg says it is “dirty talk, filthy or obscene language or speech.”  BDAG says it is “speech of a kind that is generally considered in poor taste, obscene speech, dirty talk.”  Liddell and Scott say, “foul language.”  Thayer writes, “foul speaking. . . low and obscene speech.”

OK, can we know what obscene, foul, dirty, tastless speech is?  I believe that Scripture assumes that we can.  And Paul commands the Colossian church to put off this kind of speech.  The saved person’s mouth shouldn’t be saying it.  Let’s go one step further.  It especially shouldn’t be said during preaching, as a part of an even more sacred kind of speech, a sermon from God’s Word.

The world likes to use filthy talk and this is one way that we Christians are different than the world.  But let me speak as a fool for a moment to make a point.  A way that professing believers can fit into the world is to use the salty speech that unbelievers use.  Some might even say it is “contextual” or “missiological,” if we do.  Unbelievers might be able to relate to us Christians better if we talked like they did.   We wouldn’t seem perhaps so sanctimonious to them.  They wouldn’t have to feel so cramped and that would spur some relationship that could work out in evangelism some down the road.  And if we used it in preaching, we could attract unbelievers.  They would really be able to identify with us and feel more close and then maybe get saved.  In that sense, we are kind of being all things to all men.  You get my drift, don’t you?

Of course, all of this violates Colossians 3:5-10.  It’s not scriptural. It offends God.  It manifests a kind of Christianity that isn’t even Christian, so it couldn’t be Christianity.

This very point is what often separates professing Christianity today.  Evangelicals and even some fundamentalists today speak as though as they are on some higher spiritual plane because they don’t expect people to live what Scripture does not say.  And it does not say what filthy communication is.  Most of them apply this selectively, even as they will not apply this with regards to standards of modesty, designed distinctions in dress, separateness in music and dress, and appropriate entertainment.  And then if there’s any question beyond that, they say, “Hey, yer majoring on minors!”

For instance, right now John MacArthur and the guys in his evangelical camp are against the Mark Driscoll people for using filthy communication even in the pulpit.  They are very specific about this.   Based on their own standard of application of scripture, they are being ascetic, overly restrictive, and Pharisaical themselves.   That’s what the Mark Driscoll side thinks.  And then the MacArthur group isn’t happy about the Pipers and the Carsons and those evangelicals.  They haven’t come out strong enough against Driscoll—they still rub shoulders with him.  And to them MacArthur is way too sure of himself.  Way too certain.  Driscoll is part of the quasi-emergent variety that is more nuanced in these things.  He would say, let’s just love Jesus.  C’mon guys.  Of course, that’s how the John MacArthur guys would treat any of us that would apply this consistently all the way through.  And the John MacArthur people call someone like me and others, “fire-breathing fundamentalists.”  Hmmmm.  Good point.

In other words, we can know what fleshly lusts are, what worldly lusts are, what the garment that pertains to the man is, what the attire of a harlot is, what an uncertain sound is, and more.  We also can apply filthy communication to filthy television and movies.  Evangelicals and now fundamentalists treat that like it’s off base.  They have a different standard there now.  And I mean now.  Because Christians have historically taken a stand in these areas.  This truly is a new kind of Christianity that can’t apply the Bible any more to the actual areas of our life, so that we really are different than the world.  You can hardly tell the difference between a Christian and an unsaved person.  They listen to the same kind of music, use similar speech, dress about the same, and have about the same kind of entertainment.  It’s really an interesting deal for Christians.  They are forgiven and in Christ and all that, plus just like the world.  God isn’t glorified, but it really isn’t about God, is it?  Somehow they’ve made what is about us to be about Him, but He isn’t fooled by that at all.

For instance, John Piper is Desiring God.  Is he?  Maybe John Piper himself does.  I’ve read that he doesn’t have a TV.  He has said a few things about a certain kind of questioning about whether rock music can represent God.  He wants people to know that they can have their greatest pleasure in God.  That’s all true, but it still shouldn’t be about our pleasure.  It’s about God’s pleasure.  And if we do desire God, we desire the God of the Bible and He hates filthy communication, filthy music, filthy dress, all of that.  So if you desire that God, you also will hate what He hates.  And the Piper people don’t seem like they do hate those things, so I question whether they do Desire God.  They make a good point with their Desiring God.  David panted after God like a hart after the waterbrooks (Ps 42:1).  But it doesn’t do any good at all if the God you are desiring is the god of Hedonism.

Now there’s a kind of club that is self-authenticating that says this is all Christianity.  They point at each other and say, “Yer right.”  So they must be right.  And so many people couldn’t be wrong.  And look how it’s all working.  It’s being so missiological and so many are being brought into the church.  This is producing a great lack of discernment.  God’s Word is being disobeyed.  God is being dishonored.

I’m saying that this is a new refusal to put off the old man.  Is there an acronym there?  NRPOOM.  Maybe not.  It isn’t Christianity.  That’s what Paul says in Colossians.

Hearts Comforted (Colossians 2:1-2a)

Christianity is Christ.   Belief in Christ saves.  But it is belief in the Jesus of the Bible, the one and only true Christ.  The wrong thinking about Christ would destroy the churches of Colossae and Laodecia.  Paul is torn with concern over two churches he had never visited or seen.  He agonized (“conflict” in 2:1, “strive” in v. 29) over them.  Paul was saying that those churches did not know the anguish that he experienced over them because of the spiritual threats brought by the false teachers.

Paul loved the church, and so he loved these churches.  He had desires for them that would provide what they needed to overcome spiritual attack.  The first was that their hearts would be comforted.  When you read those words at the first part of v. 2, it sounds like what someone would need who was discouraged or depressed.  I don’t think that’s what it is at all.

The center of emotions in Hebrew culture were the “bowels.”  The “heart” is synonymous with the mind.  The word for “comfort” is often translated strengthened.  It’s a word, parakaleo, that is translated a number of ways, including “edify.”   It’s  compound Greek word that means literally:  “called along side of.”   That’s why it is translated a number of different ways.  Different situations demanded different types of help.  Sometimes it was comfort.  What helps are the words that are said to someone that will alleviate the need.

The problem of the false teachings about Christ was in the mind.  They weren’t thinking correctly.  Paul wanted their minds to be strengthened or built up in a way that would have them thinking the right way.  He desired that their minds might find it easy to say “no” to the false doctrine of the gnostics and ascetics.   He wanted their minds to be so full of the truth that they would easily see the counterfeits.  Then they could stand for the Lord without falling.

Solution to All Human Problems (Colossians 1:1-2)

You would not have included a Roman prison in a travelogue.    The very confined, trepidacious conditions of Paul, chained to a Roman guard, would have kept most people from visiting from just across town, let alone the 1000 to 1300 miles Epaphras had to journey to Rome from Colossae  in c. AD 60 out of concern for his own church, a congregation not even started by Paul that we know of.   It was God’s church at Colossae after all, and so very important—the doctrinal and practical issues were not a waste of time.  He knew that.  Whatever the problems that motivated this visit, they were serious enough for Epaphras to take the time out at great expense, energy, and danger to get some specialized instruction from Paul about what to do.

The apostle would offer authoritative words that could be counted upon for solutions.  Epaphras brought an encouraging report of his people, but the false teachings were a perilous threat to the budding assembly.   The contents of the epistle brought back to Colossae from Paul tell us that the problems he faced there involved confusing undermining of the identity and nature of the Lord Jesus Himself.  The faith that saves and keeps every church centers on Jesus, so Epaphras thought it was worth the trip, that what he was witnessing threatened the very future of the work there.

The solution for every difficulty in life is found in Jesus Christ.  He is All in All (Col 3:11).  Satan has always centered his attack on the seed of (Gen 3:15) or child of (Rev12:1-6) the woman.  He targets the foundation of the church (Mt 16:12-16).  Without Jesus we have no true knowledge, no success, no absolutes, no life, no meaningful relationships, no authority, no fulfillment, and no hope.

Christ loved the church.  Paul and his companion Timothy loved it too.  Like Epaphras, Paul and Timothy didn’t want to see this church suffering under such cataclysmic, destructive influences, so he sent back this inspired letter to buoy that church and others against the corrupt teaching about Jesus Christ.  In so doing, we continue today all the more enriched and established by Paul’s master portrait of our Lord.

Before You Read Colossians…

It happened on the Night Bus.  I was a college freshman.  As they say in college football, I was a “true” freshman.  We had dropped off all the teens and adults after the Sunday Night service, and now it was just us college guys.  And as was our custom, we all got up to preach, one at a time. 

I’ll never forget one particular message on that night.  One of the upper classmen invited us to turn in our Bibles to Colossians 2:21.  For the next twenty minutes, we were barraged with quotes and applications of “touch not, taste not, handle not.”  He talked about our girlfriends, and he said, “touch not, taste not, handle not.”  He talked about drugs, and he said, “touch not, taste not, handle not.”  He talked about liquor, and he said, “touch not, taste not, handle not.”  He discussed our roomates’ clothing and shoes and ties and money, and he said, “touch not, taste not, handle not.”  He brought up every forbidden thing, every tabboo that he could think of, and he said, “touch not, taste not, handle not.”

That’ll preach, right?  Right.  Meanwhile, I found myself sneaking a peak, in between stories, at my Bible.  Imagine that.  I kept it open to Colossians 2.  Something seemed strange.  Didn’t seem quite right, what he was saying.  I read verse 20…

Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) 

…and I thought to myself, “something ain’t right here.”  In my true freshman mind, it seemed to me that Paul was saying just the opposite of what this preacher, a college senior, was preaching. 

Lo and behold, Colossians 2 is in fact saying just the opposite.  Which reminds us of the necessity of context.  If we would truly understand the Word, we must understand the context.  Of course, the Scriptural context is always, shall we say, helpful and stuff.  But we should also consider the historical and cultural setting of a book as well.  

Paul did not plant the church in Colosse.  In fact, he had not even visited the city.  All that he knew of the brethren in Colosse came from the report of Epaphras, their pastor (1:7).  When Epaphras declared their love in the Spirit, Paul was stirred up to pray for them, “desiring that they might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding…”  The word “knowledge” in verse 9, and repeated in verse 10, is the Greek word epignosis, which goes beyond mere knowledge (gnosis), and indicates a fuller, deeper knowledge.

Paul desired fuller knowledge for the Colossians in order to counter the pernicious teachings of the Gnostics, who claimed a special, deeper and fuller knowledge given to them personally and uniquely.  It is amazing to note how much of the New Testament was written to counter Gnostic error.  The Gnostics considered themselves to be the enlightened, and some of the early church fathers mention Simon Magus as a leader of that cult.  Interestingly, we still find much of Gnostic error prevelant in our day.  It was no accident that so much of the New Testament is written to address it. 

Gnostics believed that they had a higher knowledge of God, one that came independently of God’s revelation in the Scriptures.  As a result of this faulty starting point, the Gnostics proclaimed much heresy and false doctrine, what Paul called “philosophy and vain deceit” in Colossians 2:8.  This philosophy and vain deceit was “after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”  Naturally then, Gnostic philosophy was as empty as a clean dinner plate.  In Christ, Paul said, “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”

Gnostic error included the teaching that Jesus Christ was not fully God and fully man, but that “the Christ” came on him at some point, and left him later.  I am summarizing as briefly as possible here.  Gnostic teaching is much more in depth, especially concerning the person and nature of Christ, then what I have mentioned.   Paul addresses their false views of Christ very thoroughly in Colossians.  Christ is “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature (Colossians 1:15).  “By him were all things created…” (v. 16).  “…he is before all things, and by him al things consist” (v. 17).  “For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell” (v. 19).  “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (2:9).  These are just a sampling of verses in which Paul accomplishes a dual purpose — answering Gnostic error and giving the Colossians a full knowledge of Christ.

The Gnostics also taught that the material world was corrupted and that sin came through contact with the material world.  Similar to the Pharisaic idea that corruption came through eating with unwashed hands, the Gnostics believed that sin came from the outside in, rather than from the inside out.  Because of their view of sin, Gnostics either became extremely ascetic and spartan in their lifestyle, or else extremely licentious and Epicurean in their principle.  Those who lived by the Epicurean principle of “if it feels good, do it” believed that since sin came through contact with the material world, and contact with the material world was unavoidable, one might as well live it up.  Those who took a spartan principle believed that if sin came through contact with the world, contact with things in the material realm must be avoided as much as possible.  This form of Gnosticism majored in self-denial, in keeping of feasts and the law, and in the Essene principle of “touch not, taste not, handle not.” 

The Gnostic principle of ascetism along with a sprinkling of Essene teaching greatly influenced the believers at Colosse.  For that reason, Paul takes the first two chapters and the beginning of the third to address this error.  Colossians 2:18-23 gives a wonderful refutation of the vain philosophy of Gnostic asceticism.  But, lest the Colossian believers think that their liberty gives them license, Paul concludes the book with instructions to “mortify your members (the true contaminants) which are upon the earth” (Colossians 3:5).  In the remainder of the book, Paul exhorts them to holiness and godliness in their living. 

Of course, this is just a thumbnail sketch of the issues at stake in Colosse.  We trust that the remainder of the month will flesh out some of these issues a little further.