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.

Posted in Expositions | Permanent Link