What is The Colossian Heresy?

I read something very interesting about Gnostics and what they believe.

According to Dr. A. T. Robinson, Gnostics believed that God is good and hence could not touch matter. Therefore, they believed that the world was created by intermediate agencies called aeons (emanations From God) Who came in between God and matter. You can't make this stuff up. At any rate upon accepting Christianity these Gnostics at once had trouble with the person of Christ.

Where would He come in in their system? They solved the problem by making Him one of the subordinate aeons. I can definitely see why Paul would be upset with these guys.

So, if that sounds confusing to you join the club. I think scholars have been trying to explain Gnosticism for a real long time, and I think the very purpose of Gnosticism was to confuse believers. Paul wrote his letter to the Colossians to help True Believers there and elsewhere deal with the false Doctrine that was all around them. I believe a good understanding of this short letter to the Colossians is very helpful when our core Christian beliefs are under attack both in and out of the Church.

I haven't been to chapter 3 yet in this study but I'm working on it and I'm learning a lot of interesting stuff on my journey.

All other religions can be reduced to one of two categories, or a hybrid of the two. The two options are either some form of Gnosticism or some form of harvest religion. In general, heresies are about identity; either the identity of God, Jesus, or humanity (or any mixture of the three). All the pagan mythologies with their multiple gods were harvest religions. We see this with the gods of the sun, the moon, the rain, the seasons, etc. These gods are personal, but not infinite. These gods have eyes and ears and thought, emotion, and will but they are not wholly healthy in any of these faculties. Zeus is fighting Neptune who is fighting with Ra who is fighting with Thor who is fighting with Molech who is fighting with Dagda and no one god is all powerful. These are the gods of the west. In the east we find infinite gods that aren't personal. These are the forces and ways of the universe that have no specific will or purpose. The cover and govern the universe and everything in it. By aligning yourself with these forces you reach enlightenment. And, of course, there are hybrid versions of this. 

Only the God of the Bible is both infinite and personal. Christianity is singular in its doctrine of salvation by grace. All others are some form of works, either what you do or what you know. It's subtle because what you know is fundamentally different from who you know and needing to do nothing but rely on the will and work of God. 

That GotQuestions article is good (and I am someone normally guarded about Got Questions content because of their dispensational bias). However, it is my understanding his letter to the Galatians was Paul's primary response to Gnosticism. In the Colossae letter he speaks specifically against "human tradition," and more specifically those human traditions that have to do with "elemental spirits." No one really knows the specifics, but I don't think it is a stretch to think Paul is referencing very the commonly held views in the ancient world that had to do with earth, air, fire, and water. These were fairly fundamental in the Greek philosophies. Thales believed everything was a form of fire, and by extension change. Other philosophers emphasized different aspects as they sought to reduce the world to its core constituent element by which it might be understood. Each domain had its own creature (spirits of the water or the air, etc.). Ironically, GotQuestions has an article on the matter of elemental spirits HERE. Kinda curious this article is not used to inform the article on the Colossian Heresy. 

Keep in mind Colossae was largely Persian, not Roman. In Corinth and Ephesus we have the influence of the large temples and their pagan religions of Apollo, Artemis, Dionysus, and Aphrodite. Phrygia and the Colossian cities were hodgepodges of religion that included all of the main and lesser paganisms but also Hellenism, Judaism, and Gnosticism. In the first century there was even a cult that worshiped the archangel, Michael. I suspect this is what Paul is referencing because the question about whether Jesus is Michael has always existed. The angels are "lesser elements". The theologian has written quite a lot on this in his books like "The Unseen Realm." He's a good source for understanding the Jewish mythologies and zodiac and how it is evident in scripture. I, personally, think he over-reaches and runs into the problem of Judaizing Christianity but that has more to do with method rather than content. 

So I am inclined to think the letter has to do with the eclecticism in general and the Michael cult in particular. That is why Paul emphasizes the identity of Christ. Jesus is not a specially endowed human, nor is he a lesser god. He is God. 

Colossians 1:15-18
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.

I also think it worth noting the believers in Colossae were commended for their faith. 



Phrygia was destroyed in 60 AD by an earthquake. Don't think it's a stretch to believe that was due to divine judgment and not just tectonic plate shifts .

What is the implication of this verse being misquoted in this way??? The verb proclaimed is in fact NOT is being proclaimed but is has been proclaimed as an act finished in the past though repeated in the future...?

When was the proclamation finished in the past ? because on earth it is still not finished and is to be finished in the future? Instead of having a theology that deals with the proclamation of the gospel as finished already to every creature under heaven, we will just reword the verse to suit our 'being created on earth' perspectives, eh?

In general, I think that is correct as far as it goes but there are a couple of places where I think some adjustments are warranted. First, is this implicit necessity in the "why". Creation did not HAVE to be created the way it was created. God, in His infinite will, power, and purpose, could have created creation any way He liked, with any set of principles He wanted, for any number of Purposes He so chose. So working backwards from the soteriology of eschatology of Christ is, imo, putting the cart before the horse. That is NOT, however, to say the purpose that does exist soteriologically and eschatologically in Christ is irrelevant. We necessarily understand the Bible is God's revelation of Himself to humanity. The report of the Bible is first and foremost the report of Christ crucified and resurrected. 

Although it is not normally my practice to draw upon extra-biblical sources to form the case for my position I will on this occasion appeal to something John Stott wrote because I have confidence in your knowledge of scripture (even though you and I do not always interpret it alike) and Stott did a very good and concise job in making the salient point. HERE's the link to the Google Book of Stott's "The Incomparable Christ" where in the introduction he writes about the centrality of Christ in scripture. Pages 15, 16, and 17 are a short read and they cover the matter well. From the opening statements of both the Old and New Testaments (particularly in John's gospel), through Peter's declaration Jesus was foreknown before the world was created, all the way up to the closing statements of scripture in which Jesus permeates the description to the new creation and its new nation and new city. Jesus it the "by," "through," and "for" of creation. 

And, scripturally speaking, it is always the person of Christ, and NOT his philosophy, teaching, or lifestyle that is germane. Christianity parts ways with ALL other religions on this point. It's not knowledge that saves. It is the person of Christ, the incarnate son of God who is God that saves. This is where the Colossians (and the Galatians) were having problems. That problem is completely understandable once we realize those congregations were largely Gentile (pagan) in constitution, and not Jewish. 



In regard to "all things created needed to be relatable to a soul" I think that's incorrect simply because it assumes the soul is a separable attribute of the human being. We don't have souls so much as we are souls. This goes back to one of the problems inherent in the tripartite view of humanity. It's a useful construct but it fails to consider several scriptural facts such as the inherently integrated nature of body, soul, and spirit and the fact there is no such thing as an autonomous soul anywhere in scripture. These problems are holdovers from a particular kind of reading the KJV and not one shared by the majority of Christendom either historically or doctrinally. We do better when we understand scripture's use of "soul" simply as "being." God created a human being when He breathed the life-giving breath into figure He had made from the dust of the earth. Dust (form), breath, and being. NOT body, spirit, and soul. We know this because the psalms tell us God breathed His life-giving breath into animals, too. Yes, there is often a correlation between the breath of God and the Spirit of God in scripture, but the Genesis creation account is not specifically stating God breathed His Spirit into the dust. That's not what the Hebrew states, that's not what the KJV states, and that's not what our other translations of Genesis 2:7 state. It's because of 1 Corinthians 15:45 that the misinterpretation arises. That is where the KJV uses "soul" instead of being, and it's from that translation the tripartite view arose in the modern Dispensational theologies. As this link HERE shows, the KJV didn't translate "psychen" consistently. Sometimes it translates that as "soul," and other times as "life." More importantly, when Paul used the word "psyche" he was NOT using it in the pagan sense of the word. At no time should the apostles' use of the Greek language be construed as evidence they were teaching Gentile, Greek/Hellenist, or pagan religion. I can't find a single place where scripture teaches something called "the soul of the Lord." I can't find a single place where scripture explicitly states God or Jesus has a soul, and I checked before writing those last two sentences. The closest I could find was the inference of Hebrews 4:12's "division of soul and spirit." Jesus was a living being who had been conceived by and indwelt with the Separate and Sacred Spirit (Holy) of God, but that looks different with Jesus than it does with all the rest of humanity because the Spirit of God IS the Spirit of Christ. God is one, and nothing about Jesus' humanity precludes that condition in him.



Let's bring it back to the op. In the letter to the congregants in Colossae, a letter written in the last decade of his life, Paul was addressing concerns that arose as the gospel spread from Jerusalem to Asia and Europe, into the Greek culture and the Roman Empire and all the many paganisms replete with those lands. ANYONE reading the first chapter of Colossians can see the emphasis Paul places on the person of Christ. Just count the number of times "he" and "him" occur! This alone would have been counted as remarkable in the ancient world. Then, when we consider what is stated about the person of Christ we can imagine the readers' jaws hanging loose in a combination of awe and incredulity because one of the bluntest actions of scripture is its forcing us to ask ourselves, "Do I believe what I am reading?!?!?" 


Colossians 1:15-22
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation: 16for by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18He is also the head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. 21And although you were previously alienated and hostile in attitude, engaged in evil deeds, 22yet He has now reconciled you in His body of flesh through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach....


What? Ho can that be? That cannot be! Can it? 

According to Paul, not only can it be; it is. 

That couldn't be said of Zeus, of Apollos, of Artemis, of Plato, of Aristotle, of Alexander the Great, of Moses, and not even of Caesar. And for that last point Christians were covered in pitch and lit on fire as nightlights. That is what was happening by the time Paul wrote to the saints in Colossae. 





And if I misunderstood the post then you have my regrets and I hope anything I missed will be clarified.