Saint Chrysostom says: "A word of wisdom, not power, and therefore not truth. Therefore let us turn away from the one who has only a word of wisdom. For someone may seem pious, modest, and a despiser of the body, yet in reality he is not so." Let us also take some words from Theodoret: "The Apostle pointed to those who have the appearance. But not the reality, and who deceive by the splendor of words." Let us add one from Oecumenius: "They have only the appearance of wisdom, and not deeds. Or rather, they have only a bare, empty, but insinuating word."
If these wise men really explained all that exists as the Gnostics later did, then "illusory wisdom" is the most fitting title for their speculation. They presented themselves as walking through the heavens and told, as though eyewitnesses, how everything came about. They constructed a ladder of spiritual powers, one generated from another, and all drawing nearer and nearer to earthly creatures. In the imagination of the hearers an attractive picture was drawn, and it could captivate them if one did not ask why and how.
So also now the account of the world's self-formation from nebulous patches paints in the imagination a very sweeping picture, supposedly presenting something majestic, and it captivates. But it has nothing firm beneath it. This soap bubble bursts at once as soon as someone begins asking why and how. The Colossian speculators began from the spiritual world, and ours from the material. Yet the spirit of the teaching is one and the same there and here, and its value is the same: a soap bubble.
Self-willed worship, humility, and harsh treatment of the body made up the outward practical side of the speculation. The speculators, as it appears, acted this way themselves. By this they gave their speculation an illusory appearance of wisdom, which produced amazement and attracted people.
"In self-willed worship," en ethelothreskia, means in voluntary worship. Worship is a form of outward reverence for God. Those wise men built their own faith and invented a special order of divine service for it. Perhaps it is called self-willed because it did not conform to any then known order, and therefore not to the Jewish one. Or is it called ethelothreskia because they left everyone free to worship God outwardly as he wished, not establishing one order of divine service obligatory for all? Both could attract. The first could attract by novelty and some kind of display. The second could attract by license, for who is not eager for that?
Our Khlysts have their own service. They also go to church, but their own service is sweeter to them, though it is very misshapen. It pleases them because it is self-willed. The same thing is beginning to appear among spiritists. Some of them turn their seances into something liturgical, except that they are directed not to God, but to spirits, or more directly, to demons. Something similar could have existed among those wise men and their disciples.
"In humility." Above, the chosen humility in verse 18 could be explained as the starting point of the whole speculation: how can we have communion with God, even if only with angels? But here the outward appearance is clearly indicated: how the wise men carried themselves and how they obliged their disciples to carry themselves. Ragged clothing, quiet speech, downcast eyes, disheveled hair, this is humility. Turkish dervishes are like this. However insignificant this may be, it has always attracted and still attracts, and not only simple people. Somehow it is difficult to free oneself from the thought that such people possess a special and somehow higher spirit. From this comes honor for them and obedience.
"In harsh treatment of the body." Poor feeding of the body is also harsh treatment of it. But the Apostle's word expresses something more here. Perhaps they tortured themselves in some way. Flagellants have always existed. They exist even now, in enlightened Europe, among the coarse Turks, and among us among the Khlysts. In itself, harsh treatment of the body in a prudent measure and with holy purposes is not blameworthy, but praiseworthy. "Those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh" (Gal 5:24). If the Apostle refers to it here with reproach, it is certainly because, besides the distorted form in which it appeared, it was bad in its direction and spirit, and was mixed with some superstitions.
The Manichaeans also were not well disposed toward the body. They acted so because they considered it not to be the work of God, and because they saw evil in its very nature. Harsh treatment of the body in this and a similar spirit cannot be spared.
"Not in any honor, to the satisfying of the flesh." It is difficult to determine what these words mean in the present passage. It seems that, since the Apostle is clarifying here what the wise men used to deceive and to produce the thought of their lofty wisdom, these words too should be referred to the same point. They attracted by self-willed worship, false humility, and harsh treatment of the body. The Apostle adds to this: and all this could deceive even more because they did not seek honor in order to turn respect into a means of eating abundantly. For "satisfying," plesmonē, does not mean simple satisfaction of the flesh by food, but abundant satisfaction, excess.
Writing to the Corinthians, the Apostle pointed to similar aims in certain teachers (see 2 Cor 11:20). But in these people, he says, this is absent. Therefore they could deceive all the more easily. "Not in honor" means they did not appear in a representative manner that aroused respect, but came forward as humble men. They always carried themselves this way, not being troubled by lack of honor. In fact, they appeared almost like true Apostles. "To satisfying," pros plesmonen, indicates the aim of those who seek honor. In them, he says, this is absent.
Another thought is also possible here. They do not spare the body and do not give it the honor due to it by nature. They do not show care for its maintenance and the satisfaction of its natural needs. God, having created the body, did not appoint it as an enemy to the soul, but as a co-worker and helper. Yet they treat it as an enemy. They torture it and do not feed it.
Our commentators develop this thought. Saint Chrysostom says: "God gave honor to the body, but they did not use it in honor. They dishonor the flesh, he says, by depriving it of what is due and taking away its strength." Oecumenius writes the same: "God, honoring man, created his body with His own hands and granted him the necessary food. But they did not regard the foods given as honorable, but as harmful things that must be avoided."
Here also are the words of blessed Theophylact: "God honored the body and gave foods so that, by being nourished with them, the flesh might exist. But they do not hold the body in honor, and deprive it of what is due." In this interpretation, "to the satisfying of the flesh" will mean "for the nourishment of the flesh." They do not have proper care for the body in order to satisfy its needs.
There is also another interpretation, according to which "not in honor" is opposed to the words "having a word of wisdom." Their teaching only has the appearance of wisdom. It only produces the rumor that they are wise. In reality it does not serve their honor. They are worthy not of honor, but of censure for such teaching. In this case, "to the satisfying of the flesh" is given the following meaning: flesh is taken as the sin living in us, the damaged nature, desire, and selfhood. Their teaching does not serve their honor. It only satisfies and abundantly feeds their selfhood, nourishing this sinful infirmity. How far-fetched and awkward such an interpretation is, is obvious in itself.
THEOSIS