We recently posted an article on Colossians 1:15-18, which focused on Christ as the firstborn and his role in bringing about the rest of creation. One point that the article did not discussion that perhaps it should have (and likely will at a later date through a revision) was how Paul’s writings refuted the Colossian heresy.
It is generally accepted (with a few exceptions, such as Morna Hooker) that Paul was refuting some type of heresy in his letter to the Colossians. The exact nature of that heresy and its identification has been a matter of some question, with no clear consensus available. In fact, House observes: “One writer says 44 opinions on the identity of these opponents have been held by 19th- and 20th-century scholars.” [H. Wayne House, “Doctrinal Issues in Colossians – Part 1: Heresies in the Colossian Church,” Bibliotheca Sacra (electronic edition). (Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1998), 45.]
It is impossible to be completely certain of the exact nature of the Colossian heresy. However, as Bruce notes, the only basis we have for determining the nature of the heresy is what Paul provides in refutation of it:
Some scholars suggest that Paul's polemic was not always well informed, that he was prone to misunderstand the positions he attacked. The implication is that those modern scholars who charge him with misunderstanding are better informed than he was about this or that position which he attacks, whether it be the Corinthian disbelief in future resurrection or the Galatian reliance on works of a certain kind as the ground of their justification. On this it can simply be said that even those scholars are dependent on what Paul says about the controverted positions. So if he was misinformed, no more trustworthy source of information is available. [F.F. Bruce, “Colossian Problems Part 3: The Colossian Heresy,” Bibliotheca Sacra (July-September 1984), 196.]
Read more...
