The Purpose of Colossians
Colossians was written by the apostle Paul for two reasons. The first was so that that he could deliver faithfully the truth of the mystery of God—the plan from the beginning, accomplished at the cross of Jesus Christ—namely, Gentile inclusion into the kingdom of God (Col. 1:25-27). Put another way, Paul wrote the letter to inform the Colossians that gentiles participate in the inheritance of Christ (Col. 3:11). Second, the letter was written to address the claims of false teachers (Col. 2:4, 2:8, 2:16-19), of Jewish descent, that misled the Colossians into believing that one must be a Jew outwardly (2:20-23) in order to share in the redemption that Christ has offered. Thus, the letter is one of crucial importance to gentiles who have come to faith in Christ and a stern rebuke against those who demand gentiles adopt Jewish customs. There is much evidence to support these claims. As an apostle (Col. 1:1) Paul has authority to write this letter to the bod of believers and refute false teaching. Let us now examine in detail the nature of what has been called “The Colossian Error”.
The Colossians Error
The Colossian error was two-fold. In part, it was a grievous error in which the divinity of Christ was exalted but his humanity was diminished. This was the false teaching of Docetism. The other half of the error was related to the inclusion of gentiles into the body of Christ. It can be identified as a particular Jewish school of thought. There was a spirit of confusion (or, rather outright deception) which had misled believers who were not of Jewish ethnicity into adhering to the Jewish practices in order to ensure their redemption. We will examine the evidence for both of these claims from the letter.
The presence of Docetism among the Colossians is apparent from the beginning of the letter. This is evident because Paul begins by expounding first on the magnificent glory of Jesus Christ (Col. 1:15-20). In this opening adoration, he makes a claim that Jesus Christ is the “Image of the invisible God” and then explains that “everything was created by him, in heaven and on earth, the visible and invisible…” (Col. 1:15). This sets the tone for the Christ-centric theme of this letter. It is through this man, Jesus Christ, the creator of heaven and earth, that sinners are saved. Paul goes on to demand that he has “reconciled you by his physical body through is death” (Col. 1:21). Paul stresses this point, namely the physical body and nature of Jesus Christ as well as his real death in order to put to rest the apparent claims that Christ was only a phantasm or ephemeral epiphany of God and thus did not truly die. This reconciliation was accomplished through “his blood, shed on the cross”” (Col 1:20). One only has redemption through the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. The Colossian error also asserted that Jesus could not have been entirely God, which Paul vehemently refutes time and time again. Paul repeats that “In him [Jesus] the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells” (Col 1:19, 2:9). Jesus is God, and he was a man, crucified on a Cross at the hands of the Romans and the Jews.
The second aspect of the error was that of Jewish adherence to the law in order to be saved. There were false teachers among the Colossians that taught one must be a Jew outwardly in order to share in the fullness of the redemption that Christ offers (Col. 2:16). Practically, this meant that a gentile could only be redeemed if they also adopted Jewish customs (2:20-21). This was primarily taught as a necessary adherence to the act of circumcision, dietary laws, and avoiding that which is unclean. There is evidence in the text, based on the references to circumcision (2:11, 3:11, 4:11) this was a central doctrine of the false teachers. All in all, Paul rails against this Jewish emphasis, claiming that the true Christian seeks Christ, not acceptance by means of man-made religion (2:23-3:4).
Paul steers the Colossians away from these inferior views of Jesus and from the deceitful adherence to Jewish customs to a Christ-centric view of salvation in which the sinner is fully redeemed and becomes a new creature—one that transcends human divisions of Jew and Greek altogether (3:9-11). Those that are in Christ are united through the cross and display this unity through acts of brotherly love (4:14-17).
Commentary Summary and Critique
In seeking a deeper understanding of contemporary views on the book of Colossians, I have turned to both N. T. Wright and James D. G. Gunn’s commentaries[1]. Both authors have addressed the purpose of the letter, claims of authorship, historical background as well as their take on the “Colossian error”.
First, we will assess the purpose of the letter. Gunn, not convinced that Paul was the author, asserts that the purpose of writing the letter was to, “counteract teaching that might become or already was either attractive or threatening to the baptized in Colossae, particularly with regard to their appreciation of the full significance of Christ.”[2] This was along the same lines as my understanding of the passage, especially in regard to their deficient view of Christ. I felt that this underappreciation of Christ had to do with Docetism, Gunn made no mention explicitly to Docetism, however. Instead, he asserts that any specific terms used are “unworthy name calling”, indicating it is too hard to tell exactly what the false teaching was. I think he is correct in that analysis because it is interpretive and can lead to anachronism.
Wright comes to a similar conclusion as to the purpose of the letter, albeit with a different spin. He pulls from Paul’s own statement as to the purpose in verses 1:24-2:5, summarized as, “the Christian maturity he [Paul] has sought in prayer on the Colossians’ behalf he is now working to produce by writing them.” In this way, Wright sees the purpose as instructing the Colossian believers in such a way as to develop true Christian maturity in light of Christ’s work on the cross. As a result, Paul must address the false teaching that seeks to diminish Christ’s finished work of redemption—which further clarifies his purpose in writing. Wright says it this way, “demoting Christ from his position of unique pre-eminence, and encouraging various dubious mystical and ascetic religious practices.”[3] I agree, heartily with Wright’s analysis.
Both authors come to a very similar conclusion as to nature of the “error” among the false teachers. They both designate the teachings as distinctly Jewish in origin. They each cite the occurrence of dietary laws, circumcision, as well as the historical background of the area and its likely makeup of Jews as reasons for this origin. They both address but refute that it could have been a unique syncretist religion that blended Christianity and Judaism with pagan cult worship.[4] Wright even goes as far as to say that Paul has succeeded in “portraying Judaism itself as if it were just another pagan religion. It is a ‘philosophy’ (2:8), developed by human tradition (2:8, 22): and to follow it is to return to the same type of religion the new converts had recently abandoned.” Wright makes a statement that I believe to be spot on, in which he explains the way to maturity that Paul was leading the Colossians to “does not lie in their becoming Jews, but rather in their drawing out, and applying to personal and communal life, the meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”[5]
I think that both of the commentaries were accurate and helped me come to a further understanding of the Colossian milieu at the time of Paul’s writing. I disagree with Gunn in particular though because he has abandoned the view that the Apostle Paul wrote Colossians. I agree with Wright on this matter, namely that the evidence supports Pauline authorship and the claim in 4:18 should be taken as true. The commentary from Wright has affected my understanding in that it united Paul’s expressed purpose for writing (1:24-2:5) with what I had understood as the meaning. Put another way, he was able to pull the verbatim meaning from the text and then support it whereas I found a meaning along the same lines but did not unite it to Paul’s expressed purpose—though ultimately we had the same conclusion.
© Isaiah R. Maynard, 2023.
[1] Wright, N. T. Colossians and Philemon. Commentary. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans: 1986). And Dunn, James D. G. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. Series. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996).
[2] (Gunn, 1996). p.5
[3] (Wright, 1986). p. 3
[4] (Wright, 1986). pp.3-4, and (Gunn, 1996). pp.9-10
[5] (Wright, 1986). p.6
Life With Jesus Now 