Colossians 1:9-14, Part 2
Thus we cannot function as Christians unless we understand salvation, and part of this means to acknowledge the contrast between the condition of the Christian and the non-Christian. On this point, Scripture portrays the two as standing in opposite extremes, and it uses various ways to explain and emphasize this. In our passage, Paul states that the believers share an inheritance in the "kingdom of light" under Christ, and that while they were still unbelievers, they were under "the dominion of darkness." The contrast between the Christian and the non-Christian, therefore, is as the difference between light and darkness.
The ways that Scripture uses the contrast between light and darkness suggest that the metaphors apply to at least four major areas of differences between Christians and non-Christians – the ethical, intellectual, existential, and eschatological. Ethically, non-Christians are evil and filthy people. Intellectually, they are stupid and irrational people. Existentially, they are restless and miserable people. Eschatologically, they are condemned and doomed people. In contrast, because of the grace of God and the work of Christ, Christians are righteous, enlightened, joyous, and redeemed.
Of course, non-Christians deny these differences, even claiming the opposite on some points. We expect unbelievers to think this way – if they agree with us on the above, they would believe the gospel and become Christians. However, although Scripture is clear on these contrasts, the most scathing attacks against those who affirm them come from those who claim to be Christians. Perhaps some of them are only Christians in name and not in reality. Perhaps some of them are embarrassed by the biblical faith. But since these contrasts constitute the very foundation of the gospel – the very need and reason for it – faithful believers must not compromise on these points.
Those who deny the nature and degree of these differences also deny the necessity and magnitude of the work of Christ, and thus deny the Christian faith. Therefore, we must denounce as traitors and imposters all those who dilute or reject these contrasts. Many of them are spiritual prostitutes who lie in bed with the enemies of the faith in exchange for some tokens of kindness and respect. Since the genuineness of their profession of faith must be doubted, certainly there should be no place for them in positions of church leadership. The stubborn and outspoken ones should be excommunicated from the church.
Since we were once non-Christians, our present understanding of non-Christians is at least in principle also our perception of our pre-conversion condition. That is, if we are consistent, what we think about non-Christians now is also what we think about our pre-converted selves, or what we were before we became Christians. Therefore, to the extent that we are "soft" in our view toward non-Christians, we are also soft on our past selves. And to the extent that we are soft on our past selves, we belittle and devalue the work of Christ, through which our redemption was secured. It follows that to think or speak of non-Christians as less evil, filthy, stupid, irrational, restless, miserable, condemned, and doomed than Scripture describes them is tantamount to a personal rejection of the gospel. He is as one who tramples the Son of God underfoot and insults the Spirit of grace (Hebrews 10:29).
Colossians 1:9-14, Part 1
For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding. And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and joyfully giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Christianity changes people. A convert to this faith is "born again" and becomes different than before. Scripture stresses the necessity of this change, and explains it to its converts. Paul's letters provide good examples of this emphasis, telling his readers about this difference, how to think about this new life, and how to live it. Besides the fact that truth possesses intrinsic value and therefore ought to be known, it is necessary to understand a person's condition before and after his conversion – and thus the nature of this change – for several reasons.
It is necessary for ministry to non-Christians – in preaching the gospel to them, or evangelism. Without an understanding of the non-Christian's condition, he cannot be informed, let alone persuaded, as to why he needs salvation in the first place. What are the spiritual and intellectual differences between the Christian and the non-Christian? If the Christian does not know the answer, then why and how does he commend the faith to the non-Christian?
It is necessary for ministry to Christians – in deciding our agenda and emphasis in preaching, in theological education, in formulating church policies, in parenting, and so on. One of the decisive factors in considering these aspects of ministry to believers is our view of the sinner's condition and the non-Christian world and culture. If the intellectual and ethical differences are small, then the biblical command to put off the old man and put on the new man would be unnecessary, and in fact, almost meaningless.
Whether we consider non-Christian culture as consistent with the Christian worldview also makes a difference. Is non-Christian thinking false, deceptive, irrational, satanic, or does it contribute to our knowledge of truth? For example, if non-Christian thinking is utterly corrupt and incompetent, then there should be no attempt to harmonize Scripture with non-Christian science and philosophy. Instead, we will realize that we already have the truth in Scripture and refute the opponent.
It is necessary for ministry to God – in prayer, worship, and thanksgiving. "Ministry" here, of course, means service, and although God does not need our service, he requires it (Acts 17:25). When Paul writes that we are to be "giving thanks to the Father" (v. 12), he also describes what the Father has done for us. To give thanks without knowing what one is giving thanks for, or to give thanks for nothing, would render the thanksgiving a meaningless gesture. But Scripture says that God has done something for us, an act whose magnitude is such that it deserves our everlasting gratitude.
Colossians 1:3-8, Part 5
The Colossians' faith and love "spring from" the hope that is stored up in heaven, and they heard about this hope "in the word of truth, the gospel" (v. 5). This gospel is a message about God's grace, bearing fruit consisting of faith, love, and hope once it is heard and understood (v. 6). And it is heard and understood when a person teaches it to an audience (v. 7).
Because the Christian faith is transmitted when it is explained and understood, it is intellectual in nature. We can think about it, and talk about it. We can explain it, and we can understand it. The idea that faith is "caught, not taught" is against the whole spirit of the Christian religion, and is also an assault on the verbal revelation of Scripture. True piety begins and grows in precisely the opposite manner – it is taught, not caught. The idea that God's grace is beyond our understanding comes from false humility and a rejection of the nature of the gospel in favor of human tradition and philosophy about God's "incomprehensibility." One who does not understand something about God's grace cannot believe it, since there would be nothing for him to believe, so that he is not a Christian at all.
One commentator remarks that Paul does not include "knowledge" in this list of things that characterize the Christian faith, but "he deliberately omitted the word 'knowledge' because of the 'special knowledge' aspect of the heresy," that is, the heresy of Gnosticism. But to say this is so misleading that it should almost be considered a heresy itself. Paul represents "the word of truth" as the foundation of the Christian's entire life of faith, love, and hope. It is information about God's grace that is "learned" and "understood" by the mind, so that it could produce the intended effects in those who affirm it.
The rest of the letter continues to hammer on the essential role of knowledge in the Christian religion over and over again. It is one of the major themes of the letter. By verse 9 Paul is already praying for his readers to be "filled with knowledge" – not just to have the bare minimum, but to be filled with it. The above commentator admits, "In 1:9, Paul did pray that they would be filled with the knowledge of God's will," and adds, "not some speculative or intellectual knowledge (gnosis) of the heretics and their false teaching."
But then what has become of his remark that Paul does not add knowledge to faith, love, and hope? It is a misleading observation. Knowledge produces and sustains faith, love, and hope. The commentator seems to think that Paul de-emphasizes knowledge in order to make a contrast between Christianity and Gnosticism (or tendencies that were to develop into Gnosticism). But Paul in fact does something very different – he emphasizes knowledge even more than Gnosticism, only that this knowledge is "truth" (v. 5-6), conveyed in the message of the gospel.
The commentator has, it seems, read into Paul's letter a strategy of spiritual surrender and suicide that Christians sometimes employ. In essence, it is the practice that says, "I will kill my own beliefs to spite yours." However, Paul does not defend Christianity by denying its very foundation – that is, true knowledge – but rather emphasizes it even more and contrasts it against the imposter. As the commentator says, Paul's knowledge is not the "speculative or intellectual knowledge of the heretics." Although Christianity is not speculative, as it is in non-Christian science and philosophy, it is intellectual knowledge, since knowledge is by definition intellectual. One cannot "know" something in an non-intellectual way, as in apart from the intellect or the mind.
Christianity is an intellectual religion, not always in the academic or professional sense, since any ordinary person should be able to understand it, but it is intellectual in that it is of the mind, to be taught and learned. We can discuss it, think about it, remember it, and debate about it. Christian evangelism and teaching are possible only when the intellectual nature of this religion is acknowledged and emphasized.
Colossians 1:3-8, Part 4
Christian hope is also specific, a hope that is "stored up for you in heaven." We have seen that faith can be used in an objective sense, as in "the Christian faith," or in a subjective sense, as in "your faith in Christ." Likewise, there is an objective sense to hope, and then also a subjective sense. Even when used in its subjective sense, the hope of the gospel is much more than a general expectation of or desire for a positive future, or to wish for something. A mere wish often has no basis for its fulfillment, and outside of the gospel promise, the nature of what is desired falls far short of the believer's inheritance in its glory and purity. On the other hand, the Christian hope rests on the promise of God and the reality of redemption.
In any case, whereas faith is used in the subjective sense in this passage, hope is used in the objective sense – the significance of this will be noted in a moment. This is evident because, first, a subjective hope is an attitude, condition, or disposition of the mind – again, not necessarily and proportionately connected with a disturbance of the mind, or an emotion – but here the hope is stored up in heaven, not in the mind. Second, Paul says the Colossians "heard about" this hope, thus it is not something that is felt, sensed, opined, or affirmed in the mind, but something proclaimed and described. And third, if we may equate what the believers have received in verses 5 and 12, then this "hope" is said to be an "inheritance," which is something objective, not subjective.
Although this hope is stored up in heaven, so that the full benefits are reserved for a future time, through the Holy Spirit we now enjoy the powers of the age to come. Moreover, it is stored up in heaven not in the sense that it is kept from us, but that it is reserved for us. It is not something that we wish for or work for – it is not a possibility but a reality. God has foreordained our salvation, and nothing can take away our inheritance, because no one can snatch us from the his hand. This objective hope is the foundation of our subjective faith. The significance, therefore, is that our faith is not based on presumption or possibility, but destiny and reality.
One way to use these three words to embody a course of dogmatics is to place the doctrinal aspect of Christianity under faith, the ethical under love, and the eschatological under hope. These distinctions are meaningful, but not precise or perfect, for both the ethical and eschatological can also fall under the doctrinal, so that the entire religion can be called the Christian faith. Also, when used in this context, all three words would take on their objective senses.
We say that the Christian religion is characterized by these three things, but do other religions also offer faith, love, and, hope? When properly defined, we see that they do not. Again, Paul does not refer to some general faith or belief without regard to its object. The faith here is "faith in Christ Jesus." If non-Christians could have faith in Christ Jesus in the sense specified in Scripture, then they would already be Christians. Non-Christians do not have faith. And since love entails obedience to God's commands as they have been revealed in the Christian Bible, then no non-Christian religion, philosophy, or ethical view can offer or produce true love. Non-Christians do not have love. However, note that almost all of non-Christian philosophies – from Buddhism to Satanism – can contain love if it is defined as some sort of emotion. Then, our hope refers to the "inheritance" of the saints as promised in Scripture, stored up for us in the heaven described in Scripture. It is specific and exclusive. Thus there is no faith, no love, and no hope except in the Christian religion.
Colossians 1:3-8, Part 3
Just as Paul has in mind a faith that is specific – it is "faith in Christ Jesus" – he has in mind a love that is also specific – it is "the love you have for all the saints." Some commentators remark that in this passage faith characterizes our "vertical" relationship with God, while love characterizes our "horizontal" relationship with other people. This is true to the passage as far as it goes, but it would be a mistake to infer from this a broad principle that rigidly enforces the distinction. This is because, among other things, love must also characterize our vertical relationship with God.
Although faith is sometimes associated with a feeling of confidence, it is not to be identified with the feeling itself. Rather, faith is belief in divinely revealed propositions and it is in itself independent of feelings that may fluctuate. Feeling good about a biblical proposition is different from believing it. Likewise, although love is sometimes accompanied by certain emotions, love itself is not an emotion. The idea that love is either an emotion or necessarily and proportionately associated with certain emotions has inflicted disastrous damages to the intellectual and ethical development of countless believers.
The Bible speaks of love as the disposition to think of and act toward other persons (including God) in accordance with divine precepts and laws – that is, to treat them as God tells us to treat them. This love has no direct and necessary connection with any emotion, which without any inherent negative connotation, we define as a type of mental disturbance. This disturbance can be positive or negative, but it is a disturbance.
As Paul writes in Romans 13, "The commandments…are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law" (v. 9-10). Notice that love is the fulfillment and not the replacement of the law. We do not treat people with love instead of treating them according to the law. Rather, to treat them with love is to treat them according to the law, or God's commandments.
He says that the commandments, such as "Do not commit adultery" and "Do not murder," are summed up in the commandment to love. A summary is not different from or superior than the things that it embodies. In fact, to truly understand the details represented by the summary, one must examine the things that it summarizes. Thus the commandment to love is not different from or superior than the other commandments – love is defined by these commandments in the first place.
Scripture defines our love toward God in the same way. Jesus tells his disciples in John 14:23, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching" – not that he will feel a certain way or have a certain emotion. If he loves, he obeys. Then he says, "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (15:12-13). There is no emotion here. The command is to love, and this love means heroic and sacrificial action for the benefit of others.
Many people who feel thoroughly distraught inside at the slightest suffering in others would never sacrifice even their personal comfort to save them, not to say their very lives. But they have been taught – by culture, by tradition, by anti-Christian philosophies, but not by Scripture – that this represents compassion. They groan and weep for them – is this not love? Although it might permit themselves to feel very compassionate and spiritual, it has nothing to do with love.
In their more sober moments, theologians and commentators admit that biblical love has to do with thinking and acting in accordance with God's commands toward other persons, and that it has nothing to do with a particular kind of mental disturbance, or emotion. The Scripture is clear on this; it is not difficult to recognize. As one commentator writes, "The Bible speaks of it as an action and attitude, not just an emotion….Christians have no excuse for not loving because Christian love is a decision to act in the best interests of others."
Defining love as an emotion leaves one with an excuse, since our feelings could fluctuate. Moreover, such a definition generates unnecessary guilt in the person who does not always feel what he thinks he should feel toward people. And if love is an emotion, then exactly what emotion is it? That is, what should it feel like? But according to the Bible, if a person will consistently treat other people in accordance with God's commands, regardless of how he feels, then he walks in love. On the other hand, the person who does nothing more than collapse into an emotional mess at any sign of human suffering does not walk in love. He is an unloving nuisance, and he might as well stop pretending.
Colossians 1:3-8, Part 2
So the crucial issue is not whether Christianity is a religion, but what kind of religion it is. One way that Scripture characterizes the Christian religion is with the words faith, love, and hope (v. 4-5). When subjective and emotional meanings are attributed to these words, they cannot convey anything substantial about Christianity or accentuate its distinctive features against other religions and philosophies. But when understood according to their biblical usage, these words are able to embody some core aspects of the Christian religion, so much so that some writers have organized their dogmatics under them. Of course, the same information can be presented in different ways in terms of structure and emphasis.
Faith is not general belief or confidence. Sometimes people are urge to "have faith" without mention of the content of this faith. Even unbelievers are encouraged to have faith in this sense. If this faith is intended to produce a desirable outcome or cause one's effort and stamina to prosper, then what is the basis for this confidence? "Faith" in this sense often refers to nothing more than an irrational willpower or expectation.
Scripture speaks of faith in several ways. Here we will mention only two of its broad meanings. First, "faith" can refer to the Christian religion itself, that is, the set of doctrines and practices that define it, as when we say "the Christian faith" and "contend for the faith" (Jude 3). Or, "faith" can refer to one's personal belief in this religion, as when we say "have faith in God" (Mark 11:22) and "we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus" (Colossians 1:4). This kind of faith is a gift from God, produced by his Spirit in those whom he has chosen. When we affirm the doctrine of justification by faith, we affirm that God saves us by giving us faith in Jesus Christ.
As we discuss faith, love, and hope together, we are interested in this second sense of faith – it is "faith in Christ Jesus." There is the popular misconception that to "believe in" God is not the same as to "believe that" what he has revealed about himself is true, that is, to believe these things "about" God. Sometimes the distinction is made between trust and belief, or trust and assent. However, the proper distinction is one made between true and false faith, not "believe in" and "believe that" faith, or between trust and assent. It would be absurd to say, "I believe in Christ, but I believe nothing about him" – to "believe in" Christ this way is meaningless. To have faith in someone is to believe something about him, and it is impossible to have faith in someone in a way that is beyond or other than what we have faith in him about, or what we believe about him.
It has been argued that the contents of "believe in" and "believe about" (or "believe that") are not necessarily identical since we believe certain things about a person that provide us a basis to "believe in" or "trust" him beyond what is immediately indicated by these things that we believe about him. Unless "trust" refers to a blind assumption affirmed by sheer willpower, in which case it is not biblical faith at all, to say that you "trust" God beyond what you believe "about" him is just to say that what you believe "about" him provides a basis for you to do this, which in turn means that this "trust" remains identical to what you believe "about" him. That is, the distinction or "distance" made between trust and assent is itself another object of assent. And this means that the distinction is in fact false and the "distance" between the two non-existent.
Thus to say that we have faith in Christ is a shorthand for saying that we believe a number of propositions about Christ. The word "faith" indicates the positive and desirable nature of the things that we believe about him, and to the extent that this faith is biblical, these would be biblical propositions.
Colossians 1:3-8, Part 1
We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, because we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love you have for all the saints – the faith and love that spring from the hope that is stored up for you in heaven and that you have already heard about in the word of truth, the gospel that has come to you. All over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing, just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and understood God's grace in all its truth. You learned it from Epaphras, our dear fellow servant, who is a faithful minister of Christ on our behalf, and who also told us of your love in the Spirit.
Some people have an aversion to the word "religion" and prefer to have nothing to do with it. Among them, those who consider themselves Christians object to the word on the ground that Christianity is not a religion but a "life" or a "relationship." But this disdain for the word is based on ignorance and false piety.
First, we may question whether the words "life" and "relationship" are in fact adequate descriptions of the Christian faith. The biblical account of this life and relationship is much richer than what most people have in mind who prefer these words as descriptions of the faith. In fact, Scripture includes many things in its exposition of this life and relationship that many of these people seek to exclude by their rejection of the word "religion."
In Merriam-Webster, one main definition of religion is "the service or worship of God." This might seem too specific for some philosophers, but the average Christian could hardly protest against it. Even if the definition is insufficient, there is nothing repulsive or unspiritual about it. And of course, "the service or worship of God" can include the idea of a life or a relationship, but it is also broad enough to include more, or more of the things that are involved in this life or relationship.
Then, a second definition is "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices." This probably represents the idea of "religion" that many Christians disassociate with their faith or any legitimate spiritual life. However, there is nothing inherently wrong in this idea of religion; rather, we need to know what it is that has been personalized or institutionalized. If it is a true religion, then it ought to be personalized. If this true religion endorses a formal organization in its operations, then it ought to be institutionalized.
To institutionalize something means "to incorporate into a structured and often highly formalized system." This could be right or wrong, and the way it is done could also be right or wrong. A "highly formalized system" could canonize a set of human traditions, resulting in the repudiation of doctrinal orthodoxy and spiritual liberty. However, the fault then lies in that which is formalized, and not the very idea of a formal organization. So even institutionalization has nothing inherently objectionable about it, nor is it necessarily opposed to or by Christianity.
Thus, for example, if it is not wrong for a believer to say that "Christianity is the only true service or worship of God," then it is not wrong for him to say that "Christianity is the only true religion." There is likewise no problem with the first and second definitions in Webster's New World Dictionary: "belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe" and "any specific system of belief and worship, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy."
If a person insists on a private definition of religion that renders it wrong or unbiblical, then of course he should not apply it to Christianity, but he has no basis to impose such a definition on other people. The point is that when we operate by the ordinary dictionary definitions, the statement "Christianity is not a religion" is false, and in fact unbiblical. Of course Christianity is a religion. And if we operate by these definitions, then the person who says "Give me Jesus, not religion" is telling us that he wants nothing to do with "the service and worship of God."
The needed distinction is not one between religion and relationship, since at least by the ordinary dictionary definitions, a religion can sustain a relationship. Rather, the needed distinction is one between good and bad religion, or true and false religion. Christianity is superior to Islam, Buddhism, and others, not because Christianity is a relationship while these are mere religions. All of these are religions. The difference is that Christianity is true and the rest are false. Christianity is a divinely revealed religion. It is God's own word on the proper service and worship of God. All other religions are human and demonic inventions.
Colossians 1:1-2
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,
To the holy and faithful brothers in Christ at Colosse: Grace and peace to you from God our Father.
Since Paul's letter to the Colossians is considered a warning and corrective against a heresy threatening the church, we will begin with a brief word on the nature of occasional letters.
As suggested by the word "occasional," these letters are "occasioned" – and written to address – particular needs, questions, threats, events, and so on. An occasional letter represents only one side of a conversation, and since the meaning of language depends on context, this could present difficulties in interpretation, especially when there is little information concerning the issues that it is intended to address. For this reason, emphasis is often given to ascertaining the "missing" end of the conversation, and then our interpretation of the letter is made dependent on what we think we know about the purpose for which it is written.
However, the difficulty that this poses to biblical interpretation is often exaggerated, and thus also the importance of access to this other end of the conversation. This is because the difficulty is often sufficiently reduced and sometimes completely eliminated by the thoroughness of the side of the conversation that is before us.
To illustrate, suppose someone asks me, "Can a non-Christian religion save a man from the wrath of God?" An answer of "no" is accurate, and as far as it goes, also sufficient. In this case, it is true that one who has access to only my side of the conversation – only the word "no" – could have no understanding of what the negative answer really means or what it is intended to address. Therefore, my answer would not teach such a person anything about Christian doctrine.
But instead of a simple "no," I could say, "All men have fallen under Adam, and have fallen short of God's righteous moral demands. But God ordained and sent Christ to take up a human body and to die for the sins of those chosen for salvation, so that all who receive the sovereign gift of faith may be saved through him. Because redemption of the elect through Christ is God's only plan of salvation, so that Christ is the only one who satisfied the wrath of God and redeemed the elect, the only way that any person can be saved is through faith in Christ." This much fuller reply is also accurate and relevant. And it is indeed possible that I would answer the question this way, that is, during those times when I would not provide an even lengthier explanation.
Without knowledge of the inquiry that occasioned my answer, although someone might not realize what question it is intended to address, I have filled my end of the conversation with so much information that the original question is practically dispensable in order to understand my statements. From my reply, one could make a possible reconstruction of the original question, but it would be unnecessary to do so unless the aim is to reconstruct the entire exchange rather than to understand my side of the conversation.
Further, not only is my answer intelligible in itself, it also provides ample information on Christian doctrine that can be affirmed and applied by someone unfamiliar with the original exchange, but who has access to only my answer to the question. In fact, such an extensive answer by itself is more instructive concerning Christianity than if one were to have both sides of the conversation but with only a simple answer – such as only the word "no" – on my end of the exchange.
We may also observe that just because my statements are formulated as an answer to a question does not mean that every detail in the answer must correspond to something mentioned in the question. For example, the idea of redemption is essential in my answer, but the question itself contains no concept of redemption. It does not ask whether we need redemption, or whether Christ is the only one who has redeemed sinners. That is, it would be irrational to think that because the question contains no concept of redemption, then neither can my answer refer to it, or that because my answer refers to it, then redemption must be first mentioned in the question.
As in our own conversations, Paul's letters consist of much more than a "yes" here and a "no" there. They include extensive expositions of sound doctrine and thorough refutations of his opponents. The issues being addressed are often stated, explained, or rephrased. The difficulty often associated with a lack of historical context in interpreting occasional letters is an exaggeration because they contain so much positive information as well as direct and indirect indications concerning the issues being addressed that it is seldom a major hindrance to possess only the letters, or this side of the conversation. A much greater threat to interpretation is the tendency of some to speculate about information that we do not possess, instead of paying attention to the documents that we have right before us.
There is some debate about the nature of the heresy that Paul's letter is supposedly written to address. If we operate by the (unwarranted) assumption that every major issue Paul mentions in the letter is intended to counteract a corresponding element in the false doctrine that he writes to address, then it would seem that the heresy contains a mixture of mysticism, asceticism, Gnosticism, and Jewish tradition. Although Gnosticism was not systematized until the second century, Gnostic tendencies have long infiltrated some schools of Jewish and Greek thought, so it is conceivable that Paul would have had to combat them during his ministry.
That said, as Paul does not directly refer to any heresy in the letter, some argue that he is not writing to confront a specific threat at all. Perhaps it is just a general letter of instruction and exhortation, or at best the contents correspond, not to a specific heresy, but to the general intellectual and religious culture that surround the Colossians.
Just because Paul emphasizes the supremacy of Christ does not mean that there are false teachers denigrating the sufficiency of Christ. Just because he sets forth an exalted and precise Christology, insisting on both the divinity and humanity of Christ, does not mean that there is a heresy that threatens either aspect of the doctrine. And just because he writes, "Do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day," does not mean that there are indeed individuals there seeking to enforce these traditions. It is possible, but not necessarily true. The letter to Colossians is different from a letter like the one to Galatians, in which false teachers and false teachings are explicitly described.
Thus although the presence of a heresy is possible, and may be employed as a practical assumption in exploring the precise interpretation of the letter, there is no solid warrant to insist on it. And if the assumption is false and interpretation is made to depend on it, then the result could be an inaccurate understanding of the letter. The point is that, in this case, Paul's side of the conversation is so extensive that no loss is suffered due to uncertainty about the situation at Colosse.
Therefore, Barclay is mistaken when he writes, "These, then, were the great Gnostic doctrines; and all the time we are studying this passage, and indeed the whole letter, we must have them in mind, for only against them does Paul's language become intelligible and relevant." On the contrary, the main ideas in the letter are intelligible and relevant to any ordinary reader even without any exposition, or any knowledge of ancient Gnostic and Jewish thought. The assertion that it is necessary to read Paul's letter against the background of Gnostic doctrines is absurd and irresponsible.