Sophistry (Sounds Good, But …)

In the verses we will be studying today, Paul applies a very light touch. Rather than spelling out the false teachings that are trying to enter the church, he chooses to teach the reader the right understanding. The problem for us is that we only get a very general idea of the problem. As a result there are various ideas about the nature of those false teachings. Some think it was Gnosticism, others think that it was Hellenistic Judaism, and others that the problem was less a false theology and more a bunch of man-made ideas that sound good. In that way of thinking therefore, the problem was Sophistry - a method of argumentation that seems clever but is actually flawed or dishonest. This study takes the Sophistry track.

Lesson (Colossians 2:1-15)

This letter from Paul is addressed to the Colossians at Colossae but he also instructs the Colossians to pass it on to the Laodiceans in Laodicea, a few miles away. There is no evidence that Paul had been to either city. This seems to account for him being careful to show his concern for them and explain his role and purpose.

Paul’s first purpose is to make sure that they may be comforted and no longer conflicted by the different teachings they are hearing. His second purpose is that they come to have assurance and understanding. Paul also makes his first point here. The Father and Son have all wisdom and knowledge. Paul also implies that this knowledge is hidden like treasures that can be found by those who seek for them.

Here "the apostle introduces the first problem that threatens the readers' faith. I call it sophistry: the use of an elegant vocabulary in fine-sounding arguments to deceive an unsuspecting audience.

"In our day, as in the ancient world, people often measure the value of what others say by how well they say it. Even within the church we put great stress on a person's academic credentials, as if a Ph.D. granted one a corner on heavenly wisdom. The result is that we learn to value elegant systems of church dogma that are held together by sophisticated and learned arguments. In the life of many congregations, faith has become so intellectualized that its relational, experiential dimension has been bleached out. Certainly it is important to think through carefully what one believes and why. Yet many of my students come to university with strongly held convictions about Christ but without the experience of a vital relationship with him. Knowing what to believe has replaced knowing whom to believe."²

"According to Paul, certain Christian teachers at Colosse promote a philosophy of religion that consists of human traditions and centers on the basic principles of this world.

"Notice that Paul shapes his initial statement of the problem as an inverted parallelism (ABB'A'), presumably for rhetorical effect. I will follow this same pattern in my exposition of this passage. The problem of sophistry is introduced in verse 4 (A) and repeated in verse 8 (A'), thereby bracketing its essential solution which is introduced in verse 5 (B) and repeated in verses 6-7 (B'). The effect of this parallelism is to relate problem and solution as two integral parts of a coherent polemic, making Paul's argument easy to follow.

"The phrase basic principles of this world is more difficult to interpret; the meaning of basic principles remains unclear. [Most commentators] prefer to understand the basic principles of this world as referring to earth's four basic elements (earth, water, air and fire) and so to [understand it] as "elements" rather than "principles." The erroneous philosophy at Colosse may well have taken shape within the larger milieu of religious thought in the Hellenistic world. The Greeks commonly divided all things into an invisible spirit world, generally considered good and sacred, and a visible material world, generally considered frivolous and profane. A version of Christianity shaped within this religious environment would tend to understand devotion to Christ as a negative response to earth's elements--that is, as an ascetic lifestyle, which demands strict injunctions against the earth's elements."³

In these verses Paul is refuting sophistry of his time and he is also refuting claims made in our time about the nature of Jesus. In Christ we have everything we need. Nothing else is needed, including no additional teachings.

Paul seems to have changed his focus now to another topic. It isn’t clear whether there is one person introducing heresy into the Colossian Church by sophistry or multiple people from multiple belief systems. It would be odd for a single group to proselytize a belief in both "basic principles of this world" and in "circumcision". The proselytizers of circumcision would have been Jews. Outside of Judaism, circumcision was a very uncommon practice. But Jews did not believe in basic principles of the world. So it seems likely that, in changing topics, Paul is also changing target groups.

Whichever is the case, we are given a very clear statement that is still valuable in our time.

These are the same points that are made in other epistles where the message was targeted to Jews promoting circumcision for Christians.

For the wonkish types, who like the deepest details, note that this passage contains an odd sentence. "He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code … that was against us" It seems to be saying that Christ forgave us all of our sins because the written code was canceled. But we believe that our sins are forgiven because the debt for them has been repaid by Christ’s atoning sacrifice, not because the atonement system from Mosaic Law was canceled.

This has forced theologians to interpret the sentence as we see here. "On the cross of Christ, God has canceled the written code, nailing there its regulations, which legislated payment on the debt of our sinful nature and opposed the Gentile mission, since the law made a relationship with God even more difficult for non-Jews"⁴

Notice that the author of this commentary interprets the "us" of "opposed to us" to mean Gentiles. But the writer of the verses, Paul, was a Jew and "us" would include him.

Whenever I find odd claims in the NIV, I immediately turn to the Aramaic New Testament. From the Aramaic sources the sentence requires no interpretation.

Here we see that it was the "bill of our debts" that was against both Jew and Gentile. The NIV Commentary’s interpretation is close. One thing Mosaic Law provided for Israel was an atonement system for those debts, albeit an imperfect one. The atonement system was not "opposed to us [Israel]"; it was for the benefit of Israel, so that Israel might be restored to God. It was Jesus’ death on the cross that provides the once-for-all atonement that pays off the debts owed for sin. With that perfect atonement in place, the previous system of atonements was replaced. And with the end of the atonement system, its administrators, the priestly order became powerless and was shamed publicly.

Since this lesson was first written and presented the NIV has changed its translation of verse 14. It now reads as shown below which makes more sense theologically.

¹⁴ having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.

Conclusion

Though refuting false doctrine in his time, Paul’s words provide us with a clear understanding of the true doctrine. With that knowledge in hand we are prepared to refute false doctrine in our time.

Many of the epistles dealt with false doctrine that was creeping into the church, but false doctrine presented in clever words did not go away. About 100 years later Irenaeas wrote, "Inasmuch as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says, ‘minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith,’ and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive"⁵

"In 1 Corinthians Paul warns his readers that the reign of God is not a matter of eloquent, educated talk but of Spirit-empowered walk (1 Cor 4:18-21). To know Christ as the "wisdom of God" (1 Cor 1:30) and to acquire "Christ's mind" from the Spirit (1 Cor 2:14, 16) rather than the "philosophy of this age" (1 Cor 1:20) is the measure of true Christianity. Paul is not against education; rather, he opposes a Christianity that elevates academic ideas about God above our spiritual relationship with God in Christ."⁶

In these verses we saw what appear to be two different doctrinal heresies, possibly coming from two different groups. In other epistles we see other heresies mentioned. For me, this brings up an interesting point from the work of C.S. Lewis. In essence he said, don’t think of Jesus and Satan as representing opposing viewpoints. They are not like opposite ends of a magnet, one north and the other south.

Jesus represents a single doctrine; Satan does not represent a single doctrine. Instead, Satan represents any and all doctrines that oppose the doctrine of Jesus. Satan doesn’t care which of his doctrines people believe in – so long as they believe in one of his. If a person doesn’t fall for one particular doctrine Satan has lots more doctrines for the person to try on until one is found that fits.

This gives us another insight into the straight and narrow path that leads to the narrow gate that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 7:13-14.

¹ This study combines verses from the New International Version (NIV) and the Aramaic New Testament

Home	Our Hope
Bible Study		May 9, 2010
Sophistry (Sounds Good, But …)

Introduction

Lesson (Colossians 2:1-15)

Conclusion