Colossians studies 14: thanking God — twofold reason (1:4)

by Dan Phillips

Last time we studied the timing and significance of the thanks Paul and Timothy gave for the Colossians. Now we begin to study why they thanked God, today focusing on Colossians 1:4 — "having heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and the love which you have for all the holy ones."

What in a congregation would bring Paul joy, and lead him to give thanks? Expressions of honest doubt, social programs, massive numbers, popularity with the world, artistic worship? Hardly. Paul gave thanks to God because of two signs of life he saw in the Colossian church, two particular species of spiritual fruit: faith and love.

First fruit: FAITH

The participial expression literally rendered "having heard of" is causal (= "because we heard of"), and it introduces the reasons why Paul and Timothy always thanked God for the Colossians. they thanked God, first, because they had heard of "your faith in Christ Jesus."

Faith is the indispensable element, the sine qua non, of the Christian life; and the word of God is the indispensable element in faith.

• The Word of God gives birth to faith (Romans 10:17)
• We are rescued from the power and penalty of sin through faith (John 3:16)
• We live by faith (2 Corinthians 5:7)
• We continue to please God by faith (Hebrews 11:6)

Thus, faith was a crucial sign of spiritual life in Paul's eyes. If a person has genuinely been saved, he will exhibit faith in Christ. If a person exhibits no faith in Christ, there is no indication that he has been genuinely saved. This truism was Christianity 101 to the apostles, but seems to have eluded their much better-educated (and much less wise) modern would-be successors.

What is faith? Faith is never just a free-floating quality, valuable in and of itself regardless of its object. Biblical faith is all about the object. Biblical faith, as I recently discussed in another connection, involves at least two fundamental elements:

1. A word from God
2. Personal embrace of that word, involving the whole man

What is the specific word from God that Paul has in mind? It is God's testimony to Christ. Paul says it is "faith in Christ Jesus," which is to say faith in God' Anointed and sole Savior. Now, that is the point. You see, Paul is not thanking God merely that they have faith of some sort. Paul is specifically thanking God that they have faith in Christ Jesus.

Nor can we imagine, in our most feverish hallucinations, that Paul meant anything like, "Faith in Christ Jesus — whatever you mean by those two words." Paul is concerned only with what God means by those two words. He would have no part in reinventing, or creating "another Jesus" (2 Corinthians 11:4). I don't think you'd ever catch him speaking of a resurrection-denier as having passionate faith in and love for Jesus.

As Paul will go on to teach, forgiveness, redemption, love, life, real wisdom ─ everything of spiritual value —  is in the real Christ Jesus. So Paul rejoices that they have come into possession of all that by believing in that Christ.

This, too, is why Paul can call them "faithful," as he did earlier. Clearly, they are being troubled and tempted by false teaching. But at present they as a church still hold to the real Christ Jesus in faith. If they lose that, they will have nothing.

Second fruit: LOVE

Paul speaks of thanking God for "the love which you have for all the holy ones." This is the second dimension of Christian living. The primary dimension is vertical: our relationship with God ("your faith in Christ Jesus"). The secondary dimension is horizontal: our relationship with others ("the love which you have for all the holy ones").

This is one of the thirty-seven times that he uses the Greek word for "all" in this letter. This is a significant fact. The false teaching was evidently splitting the Church up into the "haves" and the "have-nots." Paul rejoices that the Colossians, in their faithfulness, still embrace all their fellow-saints in love.


When Paul speaks of "all the holy ones," he lightly touches on the fact that all who have trusted in Christ, without exception, are holy. (For a study of the aspects of holiness, see part 11.) This is positional holiness, a holiness all Christians share by definition. Everyone who trusts in Christ is set apart to God's ownership and service in Christ, and is therefore positionally holy in Him.

The common translation "saint" is unfortunate. Nobody today understands it without specific instruction, and we have this utterly unbiblical idea (thanks to Rome) that there are special believers who deserve to be called saints, in distinction from all the other believers. Paul does not use the word to part believer from believer. Rather, in speaking of "all the holy ones" Paul underlines that which all believers have in common, as well as the love which binds us all together.

What is love? The word agapē is not a magic word. Its richness is not inherent, but comes from the ways it is used. Consider three passages of Scripture:

• Luke 10:29-37
• Galatians 5:13-16
• 1 John 3:17-18

What can we deduce from those passages?

1. Love is not primarily an emotion, a mood, friendship, or just a nice thing to say
2. Love is a personal commitment to pursuing the highest good of another, born of a mental attitude and expressed through action

This love may or may not affect our emotions at any given moment. It certainly will affect our words and our deeds. It is, after faith, a crucial Christian virtue (cf. Colossians 3:14; 1 Corinthians 13:13).

The health of any local church depends on Christians growing in love for one another. True, the local church is the place of learning. But it is also the place of practising what we learn. That practice must involve learning of and meeting the needs of our brothers and sisters in the assembly in love.

So the false teaching was troubling the Colossians, but it had not yet parted them as a church from Christ, and it had not yet parted them as believers from one another. Notice the rather emphatic phrasing: "which you have [i.e. which you still maintain] for all the holy ones." They were still fundamentally accepting one another, loyal to one another, and striving to meet each other's needs. The false teaching threatened this. In time, were it embraced, it would destroy it. But as of yet, the bond held sure, in real Christian unity.

For these two sure signs of spiritual life, Paul gave thanks to God.

---

Colossians studies 13: thanking God — timing and significance (1:3)

by Dan Phillips

[The series all starts here.]

In Colossians 1:3-8, Paul tells the Colossian believers when and why he thanks God for them. He writes, "We always thank God, the Father of  our Lord Jesus Christ, while praying concerning you...."

It is worth noting the prominence of thankfulness in this letter. Again and again, Paul urges the Christians in Colosse to give thanks to God. Consider the following:

• "...thanking the Father who qualified us  for our portion of the lot of the holy ones in the light" (1:12)
• "...abidingly rooted and being built up in Him, and being confirmed by the faith just as you were taught, abounding in it  in thanksgiving" (2:7)
• "And let the peace of Christ keep ruling in your hearts, unto which also you were called in one body; and become thankful people" (3:15)
• "And everything, whatever you may do — in word or in deed — do all things in the name of the Lord Jesus, thanking God the Father through Him" (3:17)
• "Keep persisting in prayer, staying alert in it with thanksgiving" (4:2)

Since the apostle stresses thanksgiving so much, it is fitting and characteristic for him to set the example.

This in turns leads us to consider the importance of thankfulness, particularly in this setting. Briefly put:

1. Saying "thank you" focuses us on what we have.
2. False teaching invariably would focus us on what we supposedly don't have.

Almost four years ago, we looked at the dangerous vulnerability of discontentment. Think of it again in connection with the Colossians' situation. The false teacher was trying his best to make the Colossians feel left out, excluded, deprived. He wanted them to feel that there was a higher level of spirituality to which they hadn't attained. The Gospel hadn't gotten them there. He wanted to convince them that they needed this special doctrine, this special teaching, that only he could bring.

This is what false teachers have always done, and will always do. This is temptation, in a nutshell: what you have isn't good enough; you need this. Satan did it in the Garden  — and it worked. Bathsheba represented that to David  — and it worked. The false gods took that guise to Israel  — and it worked.

Paul's message, by contrast, is going to be that a human being finds and receives everything he truly needs in Jesus Christ (cf. 2:9-10 for a summary-statement). Any and every Christian by definition is forgiven, rescued, redeemed, reconciled, loved, indwelt, filled full, and marked out for God's service. It simply does not get better than that, except in the visible presence of Christ on that day.

Convinced of the truth of Christ's great salvation, each and every Christian can and must be totally unimpressed by any teaching that says otherwise. Suppose some charismatic person comes and says, "Oh, but you need the second blessing...and this level of grace...and this special teaching...and this experience ─ or you miss out!" The slightest flicker of interest betrays defective faith. Faith would produce glazed eyes, a yawn and a dismissive shrug.

Surely this is how we want to be. What, then, is a sure way to enjoy that invulnerable contentment in Christ, to realize it and grow in it, and to get full value out of it?

The surest way is to say "Thank You" for Christ — for His person, His work; for all we have in Him. Say it often, loudly, and regularly.

Paul sets the stage in this note of thankfulness. When he himself says "thank you" to God for the Colossians, is it going to be because some few of them are attaining some new standing in grace? Is it going to be because they received some "second blessing," or delved into deep secret teachings not open to rank-and-file, garden-variety, blood-bought Christians?  No!

When Paul says "thank you" to God, it will be for the Colossians' faith and love (v. 4). Are these reserved for an elite sub-set of Christians? Not at all. They are attributes which grow in the heart and life of every healthy, growing disciple of Christ.

Thus, we can see that the cagey apostle is already starting to counter the false teaching, in a very subtle way. Thankfulness is a heresy-antidote. A people thankful for Christ's person and work is a people immune to false teaching.

Note too that, no matter how faithfully Epaphras labored in the Gospel, it is God who gets Paul's thanks. This is the principle of "credit to whom credit is due." Popular teaching is dead wrong in its notion that numeric "success" is a sure sign of God's blessing on the right method. Only God can bring a genuine response to the Gospel, and genuine spiritual growth.

Remember Paul writing in 1 Corinthians 3:6, "I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth." Epaphras (and you, and I) can plant and water, but only God can give life and growth.

Finally, note the frequency of Paul's thankfulness: "We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, while praying concerning you." His other letters show us that the apostle had quite a prayer list. This doesn't mean, of course, that Paul did nothing but give thanks. But it does mean that, when he prayed for the Colossians, he gave thanks for them.

This is an encouraging note, and it shows Paul's tactfulness. He is going to correct them, to be sure, and warn them off from this doctrinal temptation. But before he does so, Paul assures them that he still has much for which to thank God, every time he prays for them.

The application does not require much imagination, I think. When we tell others of Christ, do we pray that God will bring spiritual results? Or are we closeted Pelagian Calvinists — focusing on an excellent presentation of the Gospel, with proper measures of law and Gospel and sovereignty, as if that "should do the trick"?

Do we personally thank God for every spiritual benefit that comes of our attempts to serve, whether as pastors or members or parents?

Probably the single best dietary change any of us could make would be regular helpings of generous, hearty, loud thankfulness to God for all His riches to us in Christ.

---

Colossians studies 12: Greetings 3 (1:2b) — Paul's prayer-wish

by Dan Phillips

We note with great sadness the passing of Michael Spencer, the Internet Monk. Our prayers are with his family and many friends who are grieving and sorrowful—yet not without hope (1 Thessalonians 4:13). "And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son" (1 John 5:11).         —Dan, Frank, and Phil

Next Paul offers what I call, perhaps not originally, a prayer-wish: "grace to you, and peace, from God our Father" (Colossians 1:2b). Paul's letters glitter with a number of such prayer-wishes, which are not straight-up addresses to God (prayers), but are perhaps a species of benediction. Paul implicitly calls on God to grant spiritual graces to the Colossian believers.

The gifts

First, Paul pray-wishes them grace. Christians have struggled for centuries to capture the meaning of grace. I find it helpful to identify some of the distinct facets of this sparkling jewel.

One facet is common grace. God shows this to all people without exception (cf. Luke 6:35). Common grace is free and unmerited; in fact (as is all grace, by definition) it is actually counter-merited. Since Adam everybody's life is forfeit, and there is no such thing as "deserved grace." Every breath is a literal gift; every bite of food, gulp of air, and swallow of water comes from God's common grace.

Another facet is saving grace. We see this in many passages, chief among them being Romans 3:24 and Ephesians 2:8-9.

...being declared righteous as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus (Romans 3:24)

For by grace do you stand saved through faith — and this does not originate from you, the gift is God's; not originating from works, that one might not boast (Ephesians 2:8-9)

In a way, however, saving grace is not strictly "free." Oh, it is free to us. We contribute absolutely nothing to it except the sin from which we need to be saved, plus suicidal attitudes ranging from total disinterest to violent hostility — until this grace begins to work in our hearts to transform us and give us life. Free to us... but not free. Every last bit of it was paid for in full. The one who paid for it was the Lord Jesus Christ, living a perfectly righteous and holy life, and dying as a penal, substitutionary sacrifice for sinners.

Finally, there is what you might call serving grace, or living grace. This is God's free and continual self-giving into our lives, which in turn motivates and enables us to give to Him and others. A clear and dynamic statement is found in 1 Corinthians 15:10 — "But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace towards me did not turn out empty, but more abundantly than all of them I labored; well, not I, but the grace of God which was with me."

Maybe the best imperfect analogy to this is the way a father might give his kids money with which to buy Mom a Mother's Day or birthday present.

Paul accepted their professions of faith as genuine, so he is not wishing saving grace to them. Rather, he is prayer-wishing them grace from God to endure, stand fast, serve and grow.

(For an instructive/corrective post dealing with misrepresentations of grace, see Grace: eighteen affirmations and denials.)

Second, Paul pray-wishes them peace. Note Isaiah 48:22; 57:21

"There is no peace," says the LORD, "for the wicked." (48:22 ESV)

"There is no peace," says my God, "for the wicked." (57:21 ESV)

We must remind ourselves that "wicked" describes all mankind — us! — by nature. We must recall that we are not born either loving God, or neutral to God. We are born God-averse; we are born His enemies. So "peace" is not the legacy of all men without exception; it is in fact the legacy of no natural son of Adam, without exception.

According, something drastic must be done to make peaceful relations possible, to call off the war in a way that satisfies God's holiness as well as His mercy.

There are multiple aspects to the peace that God accomplishes and gives. First, there is peace with God. This is fundamental. Without it, nothing but warfare and wrath follows. We find this peace referenced, for instance, in Romans 5:1 and Colossians 1:20. Men are reconciled to God through Christ due to His work on the Cross. For believers, hostilities have ceased, and we are entitled to good relations with Him.

Second, there is the peace of God (Isaiah 26:3; Philippians 6-7). We enjoy the full benefit of good relations with God, with the peace of mind and confidence that accompany being in good with God. This is the peace that Paul pray-wishes the Colossians.

The Giver

The one who will bestow these gifts is "God our Father." This is an important point. The value of a gift is determined in large measure by the worth of its giver. How much a gift means to me depends on how much the giver means to me. If it is a non-material gift, the whole value depends on the giver's worth and power.

With God, the Giver's worth and power are literally infinite. There simply is no being of greater worth than God. All creation centers about Him, and owes Him thanks and praise. Further, what God gives has punch, for His grace saves and equips, and His peace keeps and satisfies

Note Paul's specificity. God is not the Father of all men without exception (unless all you mean by that is that He is their Creator and Judge). Here is how God becomes men's Father:

1. By conversion (John 1:12)
2. By regeneration (John 1:13)
3. By legal adoption (Ephesians 1:5)

Once again, note that (as in all the NT), the wonderful spiritual benefits of which Paul speaks are God's bequest specifically for converts to Christ. If you have trusted in Christ, God is your Father. Your human father may have mistreated you, or deserted you, or have died and left you. Your heavenly Father is literally incapable of mistreating you, He has unswervingly promised always to love and accept you, and death will only come to bring you into His immediate presence.

The issue, then, is this: is God our heavenly Father, on His terms?

[Note: except as noted, all translations in this article are mine]

---

Colossians studies 11: Greetings 3 (1:1-2) — holy, faithful, brothers

by Dan Phillips

Before we pick up speed, I think it worth a leisurely look at the recipients (1:2) — "to the holy  and faithful  brothers in Christ at Colosse: grace to you, and peace, from God our Father."

Note first what Paul called them (1:2a): holy, and faithful.

It is pretty remarkable that Paul would call this largely-Gentile church "holy...brothers in Christ." What is the root idea of holiness? The root idea of creaturely holiness is not primarily behavior. Rather, the root idea of creaturely holiness is being set apart to God's ownership and His service. To be holy is to belong to God, to be uniquely set apart to Him.

This is a pretty remarkable assertion. What had Adam made us? Unholy! Sinners, by nature and by choice. As Romans 5:12 says, "For this reason, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and thus death came through to all men, because all sinned──..."

But then see what God declares us: positionally holy, by virtue of the person and work of Christ. Hebrews 10:10 says, "And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." The Greek wording is hard to capture without an over-long paraphrase. The idea is something like "we are currently people who have been abidingly sanctified by means of the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all." The latter is a time-note: it was a final, definitive act, neither permitting nor requiring repetition.

So we believers have been set apart for God's ownership and service, not by virtue of one thing we have ever done, but by virtue of the one thing Jesus Christ did. In fact, it was quite in the face of everything we had done, in spite of our many crimes against God and man. The cure could not be found in us, for we were the source of the problem. The cure came from without, by the intervention of Christ.

And then, having declared us positionally holy, God makes us personally holy. We read it in Hebrews 12:10 — "For, on the one hand, [our earthly fathers] were disciplining us for a few days in accord with what seemed best to them; on the other hand, He disciplines us for our common good, that we might be sharing His holiness." This aspect of holiness is a matter of progressively becoming in practice what we already are in Christ.

The aspect Paul had in mind here is positional holiness. It is an assertion he can make about every genuine Christian there, regardless of how they're doing that particular day. All of the other five uses in Colossians are positional (1:4, 12, 22, 26; 3:12). So Paul is addressing them first by what they all are: holy brothers in Christ.

Now, it is doubtless true that some have only claimed faith and are not holy in Christ. But Paul makes the judgment of Christian charity, and addresses himself to them as a church of professed believers in Christ who have indeed shown signs of genuine faith.

We should think that, too, of ourselves. If we are in Christ by faith, we are set apart to God, and we are therefore a saint, a holy person. Therefore, regardless of what other relationships we might have ── marriage, relatives, jobs, organizations ── our deepest and most fundamental relationship is that with God. This is why we must allow no idol to break our relationship with God; and also why, specifically speaking, we should not accept false teaching over the true Gospel.

Then Paul calls them "Faithful brothers in Christ."  The word pistos means "reliable, trustworthy." It is used of good pastor Epaphras in 1:7. But how could Paul say this, when some were not being faithful?

First, Paul could say it because they were still showing good life-signs in important areas (cf. vv. 3-4). Second, he could say it because of tact. Although Paul is intending to correct them quite sharply, he shows wisdom (cf. Proverbs 15:2a──"The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable" [NASB]).

Paul is not saying that every individual Colossian church attender was flawlessly faithful. Rather, he is addressing them with tact and charity, giving them the benefit of a doubt, speaking with them in accord with the best view he can take of them: personally faithful individuals who are being troubled by false teaching. Until driven to conclude otherwise, it is wise to try to hold the best possible view of a person, giving him the most credit we can, giving him the benefit of a doubt.

In other words, Paul is calling them by what they have been, what they should be — and what they still can be, by repentance and doing the word of God!

So Paul starts out with tact and charity, calling them by what they all are, if they are Christians at all (holy). Then he calls them by what they should be, because of their relationship to Christ (faithful). In this way, he gives the real brothers encouragement and something to aim for...and tacitly shames the phony defectors.

Finally, Paul calls them "brothers." Again, think of it. This is a Jew calling Goys "brothers." In Paul's day, one common nick-name by Jews for Gentiles is found in Ephesians 2:11, where "uncircumcision" is literally foreskin. Crude, and far from nice. In fact, it was said that God created the Gentiles simply as fuel for Hell.

So, we shouldn't gloss too fast over this pure-bred pedal-to-the-metal Jew calling this church-full of Gentiles "brothers"; how can he? He can do it because they are "brothers in Christ." (Read 1:26-27, then read 3:11.) Although the Jews still have a distinct future in the plan of God, and still have a covenant with God, in Christ we are all on equal footing: all equally redeemed, forgiven, regenerate, and loved by God.

Having laid this foundation, I'll aim at picking up speed in future studies.

---

Colossians studies 10: Greetings 2 (1:1-2)

by Dan Phillips

(Continued from heah.)

Last time we saw who primarily wrote Colossians: "Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God" (Colossians 1:1). We saw that the letter to the Colossians is not like this post. This is being written by a student of revelation; Colossians was written by a conduit of revelation. As an apostle, Paul spoke for Christ. For he is, as he says, an "apostle of Christ Jesus."

In whose name did Paul write? Perhaps I can assume that most of our readers value those words properly; I daresay many churchgoers don't. Many think that Jesus is the Lord's first name, and Christ His last. If so, this order must mess them up: Christ Jesus. So let's be sure we know what they mean.

CHRIST is yet another non-translation. It is instead a transliteration of the Greek word Χριστός (Christos), which simply means "anointed" (note: only two "n's"). It is from the verb χρίω (chriō), meaning to pour oil on something, to anoint it. A christos, then, is someone who has had oil poured on him.

So you see right off that it isn't a last name; in fact, it isn't a name at all. It's an adjective, used as a noun, a title.

Now here, perhaps some New Ager has stumbled by from a Religious Science or Christian Science site, and his eyes light up. "That's right!" he says. "It's the Christ, the principle of Sonship that is in us all!" You may recall that the Lord saved me out of the cult of Religious Science, founded by Ernest Holmes. The cult's textbook is called The Science of Mind, and it includes a glossary, which defines "Christ" thus:

The total manifestation of God, from the plant to an angel; from a peanut to the entire Universe of expression. Christ in Man means the idea of Sonship, the Perfect Man as He must be held in the Mind of God.

Uh, yeah; except no.

Words, like people, have histories and genealogies. You don't meet someone and instantly pop off with, "Okay, I'm going to say you're a circus clown, from an ancient family of circus clowns who entertained the crown princes of Europe, and...." The person is what he is, and you need to learn who he is and what he is and where he's been and what he's done.

So it is with words such as "Christ." They already have histories, when we meet them. We don't get to make them up. This word's history reaches back into the Old Testament, where the Hebrew equivalent is mâšîach — which means exactly the same thing ("anointed"), and is transliterated "Messiah." So "Christ" and "Messiah" mean exactly the same thing; and both transliterate Greek and Hebrew words (respectively) meaning anointed one.

In the OT, anointing was a sort of inauguration ceremony that identified special individuals. Which sorts? Three:

1. Prophets (1 Kings 19:16; Psalm 105:15)
2. Priests (Exodus 30:30; Leviticus 4:5)
3. Kings (1 Samuel 9:16; 24:6 [Hebrew 7])

The Old Testament prophesies the Messiah, the anointed one (Daniel 9:25-26), who unites in Himself all three offices:

1. Prophet (Deuteronomy 18:15-19)
2. Priest (Psalm 110:4)
3. King (Psalm 2:6, 9; Isaiah 9:6-7)

JESUS also transliterates the Greek name passably. It is indeed our Lord's personal name, a name given and interpreted by the angel in Matthew 1:21 — "she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins" (NAS). "Jesus" is the Greek version of the Hebrew name "Joshua," which means salvation, or Yahweh is salvation, in Hebrew.

Here again, Holmes just makes it up in how he defines "Jesus":

The name of a man. Distinguished from the Christ. The man Jesus became the embodiment of the Christ as the human gave way to the Divine Idea of Sonship.

In contrast, the apostle John (who actually knew Jesus Christ) said

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22)

So you see, New Agers can't just come along and pump any meaning they care to into words like "Christ." Paul did not make up the word. He took a word with a long, rich, distinct history, and he plopped it right down on...

...not a concept
...not an ideal
...but a particular historical Person.

Now, briefly: where was Paul? He was in prison (4:3, 18); to be exact, he was in prison in Rome (Acts 28:17-31). To be even more precise, he was in prison for preaching the Gospel to people just like the Colossians; for preaching to them that they could be accepted as righteous by God for Christ's sake, without having to become Jews in any sense. So he had a personal investment, and some very convinced cred, in opposing the false teacher.

Next: who was the secondary writer? "Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, and Timothy the brother...."

Timothy was a child of mixed parentage (Acts 16:1). I often envied Timothy, raised in a home where his parents spoke Greek and Hebrew! No need for Machen and Weingreen!

Timothy was also a Christian believer who was nurtured up on Scripture (2 Timothy 1:5; 3:15). He became Paul's beloved and trusted apprentice (Acts 16:1-3; Philippians 2:19-23).

What role Timothy had in the composition of the letter, we don't know. Perhaps he was Paul's secretary. But Paul presents his apprentice as joining with him in the letter's composition.


Next, I plan to go on to look at the recipients, and see the significance in how Paul greets them.

---

Colossians studies 9: Greetings 1 — the main author (1:1-2)

by Dan Phillips

Now we begin studying the text of the epistle. If we were to do it verse-by-verse from my notes, it would take about 23,497 separate posts. So I'm thinking... no. It will be selective.

Like Ephesians, Colossians generally falls into two roughly equal parts: the first emphasizes doctrinal truths (chapters one and two), the second emphasizes practical application (chapters three and four).

First in Colossians we have the greetings (1:1-2). Ancient letters were unlike modern letters. They begin with the signature, and the addressee. So here:

Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, and Timothy the brother, to the holy  and faithful  brothers in Christ at Colosse: grace to you, and peace, from God our Father. 

The primary sender is "Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God" (1:1a). Paul gives us his pedigree in Philippians 3:4-6, which may hint as to why he felt particularly moved to write this letter. I have suggested that the false teacher may have been a Jew. If so, he may have played the "race-card" on Ephaphras, who was a mere dog/Gentile. But not Paul; he came of the finest stock, racially and religiously.

But here Paul doesn't stress that (well-known) aspect. He calls himself an apostle. We should note that "apostle" is not a translation; it's merely a transliteration of the Greek apostolos. An actual translation might be  emissary, or commissioner, or even plenipotentiary. An apostle was the reality of which the Papacy/Magisterium is a warped imitation. We read of Paul's twofold pedagogy in Acts 22:3 and Galatians 1:13-14. Though steeped in Judaism, Paul's Gospel-knowledge was his by revelation from Christ.

Each apostle had at least three qualifications:

1. He was hand-picked by Jesus (Luke 6:12, 13; the office could not be applied-for)
2. He had to be an eyewitness of Christ's resurrection (Acts 1:21-22)
3. There would be confirmatory miraculous signs (2 Corinthians 12:12; Hebrews 2:3-4)

We see that Paul had these qualifications by comparing 1 Corinthians 9:1, 2 Corinthians 12:12, and  Galatians 1:1, 11-12. Thus Paul truly was an apostle "through the will of God" (Colossians 1:1). That phrase ("the will of God")) does not mean that Paul "felt led" to be an apostle. No, he knew he was called by direct, inerrant, special revelation — as direct as the Scripture we read to learn God's will for us (cf. Acts 9:5-6, 10-16; 26:12-19).

As an apostle, Paul was a conduit of ongoing revelation (John 14:26; 16:12-15), and as such laid the one foundation of the church  (Ephesians 2:20), which is the truth of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11).

Can there be apostles today? Sure, I supposed, but they'd have to be about 2000 years old (cf. Acts 3:21), and would have to show unambiguous miraculous confirmation such has not even been suggested since the close of the first century.

In other words, no.

The foundation has been laid by the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20). Our role is to build on it, not keep starting over again as if the apostles had not already laid it.

Next time, Lord willing, we'll look at the sender's Master.

---

Colossians studies 8: one more specific error and response

by Dan Phillips

I have this nightmare that when my first book is about to go to press, and is out of my hands, uneditable, final version, goodbye, about to be seen by however-many friends and foes...

...and suddenly I realize some massive gaffe! Either a reference I meant to double-check, or a statement I meant to clarify or qualify ("Idiot! It was Van Leeuwen! Not vanGemeren!"), or what have you. But — and here we have the saddest two words in the English language — TOOOOOO LAAAAAAAATE.

Well, thank God it's not that way with blogging. And so, HSAT, I have one more late-inclusion I should have listed in the false teacher's teaching. This, however, is not so much a specific teaching as it is the upshot, the cumulative effect, of his teaching.

That effect: exclusivism.

This would have shown itself as an “us-them” mentality vis-a-vis other Christians. For instance, recall the issue of being judged and ruled out in chapter 2:16, 18 —

Therefore, stop letting someone judge you in eating and in drinking, and in respect to a festival or new moon or sabbath day.... Stop letting anyone rule you out, delighting in humiliation and worship of the angels, going into detail about things he has experienced, being inflated without cause by the mind of his flesh....

You see, this false doctrine created a sub-class (or perhaps I should say "hyper-class") of Christians. With that teaching, you have (A) the plain old, garden-variety, just-saved Christians, who just have Jesus and the Gospel and the word of Christ through His apostles; and then, above them, you have (B) this elite group of The Arrived. They have special knowledge, and live by special rules. They have access to special information granted through the special experiences that their leader had brought them exclusively, hot-off-the-presses from Heaven.

With that in mind, look afresh at 1:5-6 —

...of which you heard before in the word of the truth, the good news, which has come to you, just as also in all the world it is bearing fruit of itself and growing just as also among you, from the day in which you heard it and came to know fully the grace of God in truth.

Do the truths Paul subtly yet insistently emphasizes stand out now? Paul asserted boldly that the Colossians had already heard and believed the one and only saving Gospel. This was the same Gospel that had gone unaltered throughout the civilized world with equal saving and lifegiving effect. They had real, accurate knowledge of God's grace in that Gospel. There was neither place nor need for an update or improvement.

Another way Paul responded to this exclusivism was in his repeated use of the word translated "all" and "every":

• 1:4 having heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and the love which you have for all the holy ones,
• 1:28 whom we are proclaiming by confronting every man, and by teaching every man in all wisdom, in order that we might present every man mature in Christ;
• 2:9-10  because in Him is permanently dwelling all the fullness of Deity bodily, and you stand filled full in Him, who is the Head over all rule and authority,
• 2:19 and not holding fast the Head, from whom all the body being supported and knit together through the joints and ligaments is growing with the growth given by God.

Paul's stress is on what all Christians have in common. God has poured out all His riches for all His people in Christ. He told all the truth to every person with the goal of presenting every Christian mature in Christ. Any teaching that then comes and makes essential divisions among them violates that rich truth.
Now, note: I say essential. By that I refer to basic vital equipment as Christians, not differing roles or ministries, such as distinguish man from woman, husband from wife, child from parent and so on. Nor do I have in mind varying stages of maturity or knowledge. To be as plain as I can, I am talking about teaching that creates "haves" and "have-nots" among people who are saved in Christ. Paul has no such vision. In common with all the apostles, all Christians without exception are the "haves," and all unbelievers are the "have-nots" (cf. John 3:36; 1 John 5:12).

Another way Paul combats this is by stressing the unity of the body in Christ, a unity vitiated by the exclusivism of the false teacher.

And on top of all these things put on love, which is the unifying bond that leads to maturity. And let the peace of Christ keep ruling in your hearts, unto which also you were called in one body; and become thankful people (Colossians 3:14-15)

The tendency of the Gospel is centripetal, that of this false teaching is centrifugal. Actually, though, it also would be centripetal... except that the center would be the false teacher, not Christ. After all, it was his thoughts, his revelations, his experiences, his rules, his special knowledge that they were being made to depend on.

Sound familiar?

---

Colossians studies 7: Paul responds to the false teacher (2)

by Dan Phillips

Thus far, we have seen that the church in Colosse was a relatively young little church situated in a culture with diverse populace and influences. An associate of Paul's named Epaphras had founded the church by the pure preaching of the person and gospel of Jesus Christ. The church had gotten a good start, and was showing genuine life and vitality, as the gospel bore fruit in their lives.

However, an individual had come bearing a false teaching. This teaching had elements of paganism and mutated Judaism, and involved at least some degree of attempted syncretism with the edges of Christian faith. He and his teaching had apparently not yet begun to make serious inroads into the church, but Epaphras was concerned. He appealed to his mentor, the apostle Paul, for a word — and what a word he got!

Paul responded by affirming Epaphras and his message, as we saw last time.

More potently, Paul responded by preaching Christ in all His fullness. How do we see that, specifically, in Colossians? A study I did found that, out of the 95 verses in Colossians, Christ is mentioned in 53 of those verses. In fact, some verses mention Him two and three times.

To break it down a bit, this means that some 56% of the verses mention Christ at least once.

Or, put another way, every other thing Paul says is something about Jesus.

Why?  I hope to open this up more fully as we proceed, but very briefly:

First, in Christ God has come and solved our most fundamental problem (1:19-22)

...because in Him the Father was pleased for all the Fullness  to dwell permanently,  and through Him to reconcile all things back unto Himself, by making peace through the blood shed on  His cross, through Him — whether the things on the earth or the things in the heavens.  And you, though being formerly abidingly alienated, and enemies in mental disposition, as shown by your wicked works, yet now He reconciled you back in the body of His flesh through His  death, to present you holy and unblemished and inculpable in His very presence,…

As has been often and well-said, we did not primarily need a teacher nor a philosopher; we had had both in Moses and Solomon, and they served to show the distance between us and God's holiness and wisdom. We did not primarily need an example. We had such a pattern in the Law, and it damned us, as does the "example" of Christ if we attempt to earn salvation by emulation.

Nor did we even solely need God to call us to come to Himself, to bid us and welcome us and throw His arms open to us. Why not? It would be a loving and lovely offer, but....  Try filling a baseball team in a graveyard. Try populating a party with ravenous wolves. We both could not have come, and would not have come, had the invitation been only external.

Nor did we need a Salvation-cosigner, merely achieving salvation, making salvation available, as if one were to lay down a goblet brimming with the elixir of life in a morgue, bidding "whosoever will" to come and drink, then standing back to watch.

No, we needed a Savior, one who came into the world not merely to teach, nor merely to guide, nor merely to offer salvation; but one who came into the world to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15).

We needed God Himself to deal once and for all with our sin-issue, root and branches. So He did in Christ (Romans 8:3). All the fullness of Deity dwelt bodily in Christ.

• It was that body that made possible the shedding of His blood, without which there could be no atonement nor forgiveness (Leviticus 17:11; Hebrews 9:22). 
• It was that Deity that imparted infinite value to the shed blood (Acts 20:28).

So He does not merely open the door for us, but He opens it, clothes us, and carries us through that door into the presence of God.

Second, in Christ we are filled full (2:9-10)

...because in Him is permanently dwelling all the fullness of Deity bodily, and you stand filled full in Him,  who is the Head over all rule and authority

He who is filled with God fills us with life and blessing. His filling is natural and native; ours is a covenantal boon. His is eternal; ours has a beginning. His is infinite; ours is finite — but sufficient.

This last point is worth further unpacking. I plan to take a half-step back next time, and revisit this fullness which all Christians know in Christ.

---

Colossians studies 6: Paul responds to the false teacher (1)

by Dan Phillips

[First and appropos of little, peer-pressure has done its work on me, and I have now yielded to the siren call of Twitter. Why? Because the cool kidz are doing it. And now you know that.]

Last time we outlined the false teaching that loomed as a threat to the young church in Colosse. Now we begin to study how the apostle responded.


First, I notice that Paul does not detail the false teaching. This is why there has been such debate and variations among students of the letter, through the centuries, as to the exact configuration of “the Colossian heresy.” We are left with allusions, mostly in chapter two; and with hints we glean from Paul’s emphases.

Rather than laying out the opposing view in detail, and then refuting it point by point, Paul mostly issues a positive corrective. He does not say, “Teacher X says 123, but that’s not true, because of 456. The real truth is 789.” Instead, Paul says in effect, “The truth is 789. You know this. Why ever would anyone settle for 123?”

It would be false to conclude from this that there is never any place for doing what Paul does not do here. For instance, in Galatians and 1 Corinthians 15, Paul does dedicate more space to presenting and refuting specific error. That is not the case, however, in Colossians.

Second, I notice that Paul doesn’t name this single false teacher who is threatening the flock. Sometimes, he does name the false teachers (1 Timothy 1:20), and sometimes he doesn’t (1 Corinthians 15:12; 2 Corinthians 12:11; Galatians 6:12). I don't know a simple formula that will explains the apostle’s choices in each case.

I can, however, observe that what the apostle actually does has the effect of focusing attention on the cure, rather than the disease (or its carrier). It is as if Paul is saying, “This man is nothing. What he is saying is of no consequence. That’s precisely what puzzles me: given that Christ is who He is, and that He has done what He has done – why would you pay any attention to such things, rather than stay as far away from them as you can?”

So what does Paul do, to counter the false teacher? I’ll lift out two related facets today, and then (DV) develop more next time.

FIRST: Paul supports the teaching of Epaphras (cf. 1:4-7, 23; 2:7 [DPUV]).

...having heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and the love which you have for all the holy ones, ⁵on account of the hope which is laid away for you in the heavens, of which you heard before in the word of the truth, the good news, ⁶which has come to you, just as also in all the world it is bearing fruit of itself and growing just as also among you, from the day in which you heard it and came to know fully the grace of God in truth; ⁷just as you learned it from Epaphras, our beloved fellow-slave, who is a faithful servant of Christ for your sake,

1:23 assuming that you remain on in the faith, abidingly founded and settled and not being shifted away from the hope of the good news which you heard, which was announced in all creation which is under Heaven, of which I, Paul, became a servant

2:7 abidingly rooted and being built up in Him, and being confirmed by the faith just as you were taught, abounding in it in thanksgiving.

Paul speaks of their faith (1:4a), love (1:4b), and hope (1:5) — and then says that they had learned these truths from Epaphras. That is Paul's seal of approval on Epaphras' teaching. In this way, the great apostle tells the Colossians, "What you already heard from Ephaphras is the real deal. It is the one saving, sanctifying, and preserving and true Gospel. There will not be another. You have no need for another. There will be no second editions, no upgrades, no supplements. What there is to know, you have already heard. Epaphras is the man."

Then 1:23 reaffirms that they are not to leave nor shift from this faith that Epaphras had taught them. What is more, it is the "catholic" faith — which is to say that it is the one Gospel that is preached everywhere, without alteration: full salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. This teacher has nothing they need.

Then 2:7 again reaffirms that all the confirmation they need in Christ, they will get from the faith Epaphras had taught them. No new revelations are necessary.

So, they had already heard the right truth.

SECOND: Paul supported the character of Epaphras (cf. 1:7; 4:12, 13)

1:27 just as you learned it from Epaphras, our beloved fellow-slave, who is a faithful servant of Christ for your sake,

4:12 Epaphras greets you, who is one of you, a slave of Christ Jesus, always struggling on your behalf in his prayers, in order that you might stand mature and fully assured in every aspect of the will of God. ¹³For I bear him witness that he has much anguish for you, and for those in Laodicea, and for those in Hierapolis.

To say that Epaphras is "faithful" is to say that he is reliable, dependable, can be counted on — as opposed to this self-impressed upstart. Epaphras is committed (1) to Christ's service, and (2) to their spiritual wellbeing. Neither of these things is true of the false teacher.

Not only did they already have the right truth, but had already heard if from the right man.

This, then, is Paul's opening salvo. It speaks to us today. Epaphras was not an apostle, but he had grounded that church absolutely sufficiently, by laying the church's one foundation: the preaching of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:10-11). It was not necessary that he have special standing or special, supernatural, revelatory gifting. What was necessary was that he preach Christ — and he had done that.

This tells us who are pastors to preach Christ, and we can be assured that we stand within the apostolic tradition. This is the true apostolic succession: the preaching of the Gospel of Christ. If you are dedicated to Christ's service, and if you preach the Gospel, you could cherish the hope that Paul would also write a letter commending your ministry because and only if he could also commend your message.

SIDEBAR: don't miss the sad irony here. The sect which today most famously makes the biggest noise about "apostolic succession" — doesn't have it.

It tells all us sheep, as well, to stick with the Gospel. Hear it straight, then stick with it. Expect our adversary to send persuasive salesmen with "new and improved" versions to appeal to our restless discontent. Expect, and prepare to ignore.

As we shall continue to see, Colossians brings us a very contemporary, much-needed message: Christ is supreme and sufficient. Accept neither supplement nor substitute.

Colossians studies 5: the false teacher's teaching (2)

by Dan Phillips

Last time we laid the base for understanding the Colossian error as syncretistic in nature. Now, the specifics as I glean them from Paul's hints in Colossians. I note five (all translations are my own), which I present briefly in overview:

FIRST: a reduction of Christ. This was doubtless the subtlest. It could not have been an outright rejection of Christ, or the false teacher himself would have been rejected out-of-hand by Christians. Satan is seldom so frontal. At least, not with professed believers.

Though I put this first (because of its importance), it might better be placed last, because it is the upshot of all the rest. One might obscure a large object in a room by walking up to it and trying to pick it up and carry it away. Or one might accomplish the same end simply by crowding the room with so many other things, that the main thing is sidelined and obscured.

Thus it is with virtually all heresy. This teacher may have said something like, “You trusted in Christ? Great! Now do you want to have fullness of life? Do you desire special revelation, special knowledge and understanding? Do you yearn for a deeper life, greater reality, and a deeper level of spirituality? Do you long for greater holiness and intimacy with God. I have discovered the secret! I can show you how!”

SECOND: an imposition of Jewish rules and rituals. See 2:16 — "Therefore, stop letting someone judge you in eating and in drinking, and in respect to a festival or new moon or sabbath day."

As disciples of Paul and his Lord, Epaphras and the church would have revered the OT revelation. If their teaching hadn’t gone very deep, hadn't been very comprehensive — and particularly if this man were a Jew — they might very well have been made to feel like second-class citizens in light of Israel’s great position in the plan of God, and the great promises that Israel had and has.

The false teacher may very plausibly have said, “If you want in on the whole package, you need to keep the law of God too!”

My suggestion may find additional confirmation in 4:11, because Paul specifically names the authorized, on-target Jewish believers. That is, in saying "only these who are of the circumcision are fellow-workers for the kingdom of God," Paul may well be implying "—as opposed to that guy, who is not."

THIRD: asceticism (i.e. extra rules for holiness, applying to diet and all). See 2:18a, 20b-22 — "Stop letting anyone rule you out, delighting in humiliation...why, as though living in the world, do you permit yourselves to be regulated — `Handle not, neither taste, nor even touch’ (all of which things are destined for destruction by consumption) — in accord with the commands and teachings of men?" The false teaching tried to lessen the evil impact of the flesh. But in so doing, it concentrated on the flesh, tailored itself to the flesh, and actually preened and promoted the flesh.

FOURTH: angel-worship. See 2:18 — "and worship of the angels." One might reasonably doubt that any Jew or Jew-oid would have taught such a thing. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Qumran community was one Jewish sect that was very interested in angelology.

Remember, too, that the Jews of Colosse originally came from Mesopotamia, not Israel. Many religions put forth many mediators, objects of worship. His was, it appears, another one. Therefore this appears to be a mixture of a sort of Judaism and paganism, as Christian Science is a mixture of Christianity and Eastern mysticism.

FIFTH: a dependence on this man’s own special revelation and teachings. First, note 2:8 — "Keep looking out lest there shall be someone who takes you hostage through  empty, deceptive philosophy,  in accord with the tradition of men, in accord with the rudiments of the world,  and not in accord with Christ." Then, 2:18 — "Stop letting anyone rule you out, ...going into detail about things he has experienced, being inflated without cause by the mind of his flesh." I take it that this teacher stressed their getting information that they could get nowhere else, apart from him. This arcane information does seem to be a prominent feature, since Colossians features different terms for knowledge in 14 verses, and “wisdom” in 7 verses.

The Greek is interesting and challenging here. Perhaps we'll dig in deeper, when and if we get to chapter two. The upshot: the false teacher is his own proof-text! Whatever else God may have made available to all Christians, he had something special. The only way they could access it was by dependence upon him. The whole tenor of his teaching would turn them from what God had done and provided for all His people in Christ, to this man's special goods.

One real guy? I do think (for reasons I argued two posts ago) that it was one teacher, and that he was both a real presence and a real danger.

In verse 4 Paul's warning could be hypothetical, since Paul phrases his fear in the subjunctive mood ("that no one should delude you"). Then in verse 8 he moves to the indicative mood, but now the tense is future ("Keep looking out lest there shall be someone who takes you hostage through empty, deceptive philosophy").

Yet in neither case does the grammar mean that the attempt is not in progress, only that it is has been (and must remain) unsuccessful. They are not being deluded, they are not being taken hostage — but someone is sure trying.

However, in v. 16 it is possible that Paul should be translated "stop letting someone judge you," indicating that it was going on; and in v. 18 "Stop letting anyone rule you out," as well as v. 20's incredulous question "why, as though living in the world, do you permit yourselves to be regulated...?" Both are in the present tense, more than hinting that the action was in progress.

Pause. At present, we're just introducing the book and doing an overview. If I (A) live, and (B) continue to be allowed to blog here, and (C) continue in this series, then perhaps we will examine each of those more closely when we get to chapter 2.

For now: what modern equivalents do you think you see?

Next time, Lord willing, we'll start looking at how Paul responded.

---

Colossians studies 4: the false teacher's teaching (1)

by Dan Phillips

In the last post, I introduced and defended my idea that the Colossians were being troubled by one particular charismatic false teacher. By the way, I did not mean to say that no one else has ever had that idea, which is unlikely. I may even have read it, in 35+ years of loving and reading on Colossians. But I honestly don't recall anyone advancing the position, and I do continue to see and hear the plural + Gnosticism as the standard, default position.

Now let's approach a closer look at the shape of the false teaching. After that, I plan to shift to focusing on how Paul responded to it.

As TruthStands observed in the last post's meta, Colosse was ideally situated for syncretism. In case that's not a regular word for you, syncretism is basically playing religious mix-n-match. You take a bit from various religions and mix it together, so that what you have is a little of several religions, but not any particular religion — until it itself becomes a religion. I'd say that Christian Science, Religious Science, and Roman Catholicism are three syncretistic religions, for example. You could name others.

Why was it ideal for syncretism? Here is where introductory matters matter, in interpretation. As I observed in the first post, Colosse hosted travellers going to and from Rome and the Euphrates Valley, and was home to native Phrygians, Greek settlers, and Jews — specifically Jews who had been imported not from Israel but from Babylonia and Mesopotamia.

What that means is that the populace featured folks presumably influenced by paganism, Greek thought, and Judaism that had been uprooted from the holy land and put through a wringer for a few centuries. It was not singly rooted anywhere, nor in anything. It was eclectic, and not in the best sense of the word. The framework would have been not to have a framework.

Kind of like us.

One can over-generalize and say that false teachers can come at Christianity in one of two ways.

1. Confrontation. They can initiate a frontal, head-on collision, trying their mightiest simply to undo Christian truth-claims. "Not that, but this" would describe this stance. Atheists, Orthodox Jews, Islam today are often of this stripe.
2. Assimilation. This approach tries more at collusion than collision. Assimilators labor to give the impression of shared common-ground, so as to make room for their bringing in what really matters to them. Mormons are attempting this today, as are many Roman Catholics. This apparently was the approach of the Judaizers in Galatia. They were not kin to apostate Jews today who would try to discredit Jesus' Messianic claims. They would affirm faith in Jesus as a terrific starting-point... and then say "here is what you really need to be fully saved."

If you think it through, you see that the Serpent utilized both approaches, in Genesis 3, starting more with the second, and ending up with the first.

The Colossian teacher was of the second variety. Piecing together what clues we have in Colossians, it does not appear that he flatly denied Jesus. I gather that from the fact that Paul did not deal with him by asserting the truthfulness, or the reality, or the qualifications of Christ.

Rather, I think his approach was to "Yes, yes of course" the whole Jesus-thing... but then, by emphasis and omission, to substitute the distinctives he brought as the real heart of the matter (according to him). Like the Colossians, he was ready to admit Jesus as important, and to affirm him as a tremendous starting-place.

Christ just wasn't enough. Having Jesus alone didn't get you all the way there. Christ wasn't everything one needs.

To get all that, you needed what the false teacher was bringing, which he would be delighted to share.

This is why Paul's pro-active response is not to stress the truthfulness of Christ, but the absolute sufficiency of the person and work of Jesus Christ.


Next time, Lord willing, we'll get into the specifics of the false teacher's doctrines. After that, we'll begin looking at Paul's response, in overview.

---

Colossians studies 3: the false teachers (?)

by Dan Phillips

As I mentioned last time, the little church in Colosse was being threatened by false teaching.  In time, I hope to show you that understanding as much as we can about the false teaching — and, particularly, observing how Paul responded to it — is extremely helpful and instructive to us in our current situation.

I also mentioned that it is common to identify the opposition in Colosse as (A) a group of (B) Gnostic false teachers. I have seen studies debating just how Gnostic they were (and more studies and sermons simply and flatly asserting that they were Gnostics), but I've never seen the number of false teachers debated, nor even discussed.

For instance, the recent, excellent NT introduction by D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo (Zondervan: 2005²) discusses whether the false teaching can be called Gnostic in any sense, what its elements seem to be, and even whether there was any specific identifiable heresy in Colosse (526-529). But in describing the opposition, they simply write, "The apostle had heard that some false teachers had come to Colosse, so he wrote to refute their errors..." (523, emphases added).

Similarly, in N. T. Wright's earlier TNTC commentary on Colossians (IVP: 1986) he spoke only of "false teachers," plural. Even on 2:18, where Paul uses the singular, Wright wrote that "Paul describes these people as ‘entering into—their own visions!’ All they have discovered in their vaunted mystical experiences is a set of imaginary fantasies" (128).

In spite of this unargued consensus, I noticed something consistently in the text of Colossians sent my thinking in a fresh direction. As I said, given that far better men that I evidently have seen no such thing, I may well be wrong. However, given that greater understanding and greater attention to details is always helpful, I think it's at least worth a thought.

Let's start by isolating every verse that directly mentions the opposition in Colosse. Here you go (all are my ad hoc translations, bolding added):

• 2:4 — "I say this that no one should delude you with persuasive arguments."
• 2:8 — "Keep looking out lest there shall be someone who takes you hostage through empty, deceptive philosophy, in accord with the tradition of men, in accord with the rudiments of the world, and not in accord with Christ:"
• 2:16 — "Therefore, stop letting someone judge you in eating and in drinking, and in respect to a festival or new moon or sabbath day,...."
• 2:18-19a — "Stop letting anyone rule you out, delighting in humiliation and worship of the angels, going into detail about things he has experienced, being inflated without cause by the mind of his flesh, and not holding fast to the Head...."

With those in mind, note these mentions of opponents in other epistles:

• "Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles. ... 12 And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do.  13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.  14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds. (2 Corinthians 11:5, 12-15)
• "...there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ." (Galatians 1:7)
• "They make much of you, but for no good purpose. They want to shut you out, that you may make much of them." (Galatians 4:17)
• "I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!" (Galatians 5:12)
• "For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh." (Galatians 6:13)
• "Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh." (Philippians 3:2)
• "As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,  4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. ...6 Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions" (1 Timothy 1:3-4, 6-7)
• "For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party.  11 They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach" (Titus 1:10-11)

What do you notice? Every one of the mentions in Colossians is in the singular, both pronouns and verbs. The other epistles regularly speak of the opposition in the plural.

Now, this isn't an exhaustive study of every mention of false teachers in every other letter. But I do note that even when Paul uses a singular (i.e. 2 Corinthians 11:4), he'll shift right back into plural (11:5, 12ff.).

So I surmise that there was one charismatic and potentially influential false teacher in Colosse, who was threatening to exert a dangerous influence among believers. I don't think we should speak of the false teachers in Colosse, but the false teacher. At any rate, that's all we have direct authority to identify.

Some might quite appositely point to Colossians 2:8 and 22, where Paul mentions the traditions, commandments and teachings "of men." But 2:8 says to beware of someone, some individual, who teaches these things. Besides, in every other occurrence of τῶν ἀνθρώπων ("of men"), Paul is speaking of mankind, not of specific men (Romans 2:16; 1 Corinthians 1:25; 13:1; Ephesians 3:5; 4:14). Indeed, the ESV translates both occurrences in Colossians as "human."

If I'm reading it right, then, while the other epistles help us see how Paul responded to movements and teachings, Colossians will specifically show how the apostle goes up against one big name, one heretical proto-televangelist, who perhaps could fill the auditoriums of his day and rivet crowds with his personal teachings and experiences and revelations.

What will Paul do? Find dirt on the man's private life? Focus on the way he dresses or lives, or how much money he gets or spends, or what rumors are told of him? How will the apostle respond to this one charismatic false teacher who is threatening to unravel this young church?

First, Lord willing, let us identify what we can of the man's doctrines.  (Was he a Gnostic, like everyone says?  What did he teach?) Next time. Then we can see how Paul responded.

---