Christ as the Firstborn and the Colossian Heresy posted July 8th, 2007
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.] James White has put forth his position on the matter, from which he has argued that it would make little sense to say that Christ is created in light of the heresy he is attempting to refute. He states:
The position taken by those who deny the deity of Christ falls right into the trap of agreeing with the Gnostics against Paul! In other words, if we interpret this passage as saying Jesus is a part of the creation, and not the Creator himself, we are left with a Jesus who looks very much like the Gnostic ‘aeon’ that Paul is arguing against. The argument presented by deniers of the deity of Christ weakens Paul’s entire argument against the Gnostics, leaving him arguing in circles! [James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity – Recovering the Heart of Christ Belief (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1998), 115.] For the sake of discussion, let us assume that White is correct: Paul is refuting Gnosticism and the details provided by White are correct as to the specific form of Gnosticism in view. Let us briefly consider not only how Paul’s presentation in 1:15-18 could be a refutation of the type Gnosticism defined by White while at the same time presenting Christ as the “firstborn of all creation,” and let us also consider the potential problem this presentation presents for Trinitarians like White, which might help us better understand why he tries so hard to distance himself from what appears to be the natural reading of this text in its historical context. Indeed, I believe the Gnostic teaching defined by White plays right into the hands of Paul’s presentation of Christ as the preexistent, “firstborn” of God.
To understand how Paul would have refuted White’s defined Gnosticism, it is necessary to understand how the Gnostics viewed creation. White explains: We begin with the good, pure, spiritual God at the top of the diagram. From this one true God flows a long series of ‘emanations’ known to the Gnostics as ‘aeons.’ These aeons are godlike creatures… Each of these aeons along the line of emanation from God is a little less ‘pure,’ a little further away from the one true God. Eventually the line extends far enough that you encounter the ‘Demiurge,’ a divine being who has the capacity to create and is sufficiently ‘less pure’ than the one true God so as to create, and come in contact with matter. [James White, The Forgotten Trinity, 108-109.] Paul’s refutation begins with presenting Christ as “the image of God,” one who is just like God but still not God himself, of whom Christ is the “image.” Paul identifies Jesus as “the firstborn” who is, therefore, included among “creation.” As the “firstborn” of all God’s creation, he is no farther removed from God than is the one who is first after him. This in an of itself refutes the Gnostic heresy defined by White. Jesus is also the only one “in” whom and “through” whom God created (Col. 1:16), making him the direct link between God and all the things made by God through him. The “firstborn” was not a distant aeon that created; he was the first! He was not “less pure,” but he was God’s image. He was not a member of a group known as “the pleroma,” as the aeons were, but he was the one that everything else came through, including the material universe itself. In fact, he was not in the pleroma but the pleroma (fullness) was in him (Col. 1:19). This, too, refutes Gnosticism, and it does not require that Christ be eternal to do so.
Paul’s language clearly presents the prehuman Christ as the ‘’the firstborn of all creation,” and at the same time very soundly refuted Gnostic thought, for what he presented as true of Christ is overall vastly different from what was said of the Gnostic aeons or the Gnostic demiurge, as defined by White above. The Colossian hymn in verses 15-20 is often thought to have been borrowed by Paul from existing Christian hymns. If this be the case, Paul successfully made use of it in speaking against this Gnostic heresy.
A point that is perhaps of greater interest for us today deserves our attention: If we assume that the pre-Nicene church was Trinitarian, they would have viewed Christ as the absolute creator, the Son, the second person of the Triune God. It is difficult to imagine a belief system so vastly different from their own presenting the danger that Gnosticism did. Christians would have had no reason to begin to think of Christ as anything but the Almighty God by nature. Such a belief would likely not have so easily given rise to the Gnostic heresy that entered into the early congregation, for the teaching would have had no similarity to Christianity at all. But with the understanding that the Christ was in fact created by God, as his “firstborn,” then the opportunity to associate him with a theological system (Gnosticism) that simply redefined the nature of his creation and his role in relation to other “powers” in God’s creative purpose would not have had an easier path into the congregations, and a better chance to mislead others. In fact, if Trinitarianism was a part of New Testament or early Christian theological thought, then the Gnostic heresy would have been 100% contrary to what they had been taught by the apostles and others and what had been revealed to them by the Holy Spirit. While this certainly would not be out of the question, as many heresies are just that, Paul’s use of temporal language for Jesus and his close (not distant) association with Christ and God in creation suggests that the two systems (Christianity and Gnosticism) were closer in thought than were Trinitarianism and Gnosticism, thus allowing Gnosticism to take root more easily, which by all accounts, particularly those of the early Church Fathers, is exactly what it did do.
On the other hand, if the Colossians had understood the things that the Bible in its completed form came to teach, recognizing that Christ was the first member creation and also the agent through whom God created, the heresy would have also been easy to refute because of its dissimilarity several critical respects with New Testament and early Christian thought, namely, that used by Paul in Colossians 1 and 2.
Go Back
|
|
|
