Colossians 1:12-17
 

There were three purposes in Paul's mind as he wrote Colossians. What was the purpose of the first two chapters and how does it fit in the Oneness perspective?

Col 1:12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light.
Col 1:13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,
Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For 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.
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Someone once told me they felt Colossians was about oneness. I disagreed. Oneness is inferred, but is absolutely not the point. The first two chapters are about our full sufficiency in Christ.

Even the reference to the fulness of the Godhead dwelling in Chirst bodily is not a oneness issue. It seems anytime GODHEAD is mentioned, people think of oneness. But GODHEAD is simply GODHOOD. It is telling us that everything we need that comes from God is already our's if we are simply in Christ. This refers to our needs and our potential for salvation. Once we're in Christ, we have all we need. We require no rituals to ensure we make it to heaven, like Sabbath keeping or any other observance of any kind. Being IN CHRIST is all we need. It's a positional issue, not oneness at all, as much as I love and believe and preach Oneness.

The context of the reference to the fullness of the Godhead in Col 2 is not speaking of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It is speaking about the fullness of what God provides for us to be saved and sufficient for all our needs.

This is a good response. When you say Godhood, are you referring to "deity?" I don't think the word "godhead" is found in the Greek in this passage.

I suppose deity would be a good word. I think the sense of the passage is everything to do with what comes from God for us.

I was taught Pauls point here is God had the Son in mind at the time of creation. But reading as it is written doesn't say that. If we read it as it is written, it says by the Son all things were created, through him and for him, he IS before all things. I don't see how this would imply that he was in the mind of God. can't wait to see the outcome of this.

The Greek meaning is deity.

NASEC: theotēs; from G2316; deity: - Deity (1).

I agree with you. This passage was not written to prove God is Oneness, and to be fair, nor triune. The purpose I was looking for was to show the deity and supremacy in the face of the Colossian heresy. The heresy was Gnosticism.


1. Christ is the image of God.

2. Christ's supremacy in His relationship to creation. He is first born of all creation. Meaning that He is Sovereign over all creation.

3. Christ's supremacy over all things

4. all things were created by (instrumental cause) and for Him (final cause), and in Him all things hold together.

A.T. Roberston: "Now there is an equal danger of the dissipation of vital Christianity in philosophic speculation. In particular, the peril was keen concerning the Person of Christ when the Gnostics embraced Christianity and applied their theory of the universe to him. They split into factions on the subject of Christ. The Docetic (from \doke“\, to seem) Gnostics held that Jesus did not have a real human body, but only a phantom body. He was, in fact, an aeon and had no real humanity. The Cerinthian (followers of Cerinthus) Gnostics admitted the humanity of the man Jesus, but claimed that the Christ was an aeon that came on Jesus at his baptism in the form of a dove and left him on the Cross so that only the man Jesus died. At once this heresy sharpened the issue concerning the Person of Christ already set forth in Php 2:5-11. Paul met the issue squarely and powerfully portrayed his full-length portrait of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man (both deity and humanity) in opposition to both types of Gnostics. So then Colossians seems written expressly for our own day when so many are trying to rob Jesus Christ of his deity. The Gnostics took varying views of moral issues also as men do now. There were the ascetics with rigorous rules and the licentious element that let down all the bars for the flesh while the spirit communed with God. One cannot understand Colossians without some knowledge of Gnosticism....." http://www.site-berea.com/B/rwp/rwp15.html


With this in mind, how would the Oneness interpretation fit into the purpose of Paul's message? I think Willy pointed out the UPCI interpretation, but I think it is clear that it doesn't fit. Any other ideas?

I tend to think the heresy Paul was speaking against was of the Judaizers. They constantly tempted the believers, and the entire book of Hebrews, for example, was about how that Jesus indeed IS Messiah, and very God. I think 1 John was also against the Judaizers and not so much gnosticism. But the truths certainly refute gnosticism as well.

I know the purpose of Galatians was because of the Judaizers. But I quite sure Colossians, Philippians and 1 John was directed to the Gnostics, well 1 John is a toss up between Gnostic, Docetism or Cerinthus.

As far as 1 John is concerned, the Judaizers were directly opposed to the thought of Christ being Jesus incarnate, as both God and man. Reading Acys and other epistles tends to cause me to see Judaizers as the major enemies of the cross. I once espoused that Gnostics were the problem addressed in 1 John, too. But someone pointed out the Judaistic element that is all through the ealry church days. I changed and agreed. My thoughts, anyway.