In the prison epistle to the Colossians, written sometime between 60 AD and 62 AD according to the MacArthur Bible Handbook, the apostle Paul writes about the deity of Jesus Christ.
In the first of four chapters, Paul positively instructs us of the deity of Jesus Christ. In the second chapter, Paul negatively opposes those who would stand against such truths as the deity of Jesus Christ, referring to them as those who would take the Colossians “captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). In chapters three and four, Paul addresses what new life in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, looks like.
Our concern for this article is to identify and, therefore, diagnose the doctrinal statement of the Colossian opponent. Throughout church history, much speculation has been offered about who this opponent may be. We must seek to identify this opponent for the sake of contextual clarity, exegetical faithfulness, and applicational accuracy.
There have been three primary candidates for the title of the Colossian opponent: the Pharisees, a group of religious elites who sought to live the Law perfectly in order to earn the favor of God, but whose understanding of the Law was seriously flawed by misinterpretations of the Old Testament Scriptures and a legalistic manner of adding to the Law with their own traditions; the secular world in general, which Paul deals with (2 Cor. 6:17 and John deals with (1 John 2:15); or finally the Cynics, who history tells us were known for giving a nod to religion but ultimately denied any such thing as a miracle, thus posing themselves as supposed agents of unity while actually opposing the truth.
Calvin wrote in his Tracts and Treatises that, “Peace is not to be purchased by the sacrifice of truth.” The Cynics reasoned in such a way that is similar to the ecumenical movement, which is a movement to unite the universal Church based on the “sacrifice of truth.” However, the concern of the Cynics was in no way to unify based upon any religious notion, and so their movement would more closely picture that of the “Coexist” ideology that is prevalent in our own day. Making this connection will help us see that indeed, “there is nothing new under the sun” (Eccles. 1:9).
In the first of four chapters, Paul positively instructs us of the deity of Jesus Christ. In the second chapter, Paul negatively opposes those who would stand against such truths as the deity of Jesus Christ, referring to them as those who would take the Colossians “captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). In chapters three and four, Paul addresses what new life in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, looks like.
Our concern for this article is to identify and, therefore, diagnose the doctrinal statement of the Colossian opponent. Throughout church history, much speculation has been offered about who this opponent may be. We must seek to identify this opponent for the sake of contextual clarity, exegetical faithfulness, and applicational accuracy.
There have been three primary candidates for the title of the Colossian opponent: the Pharisees, a group of religious elites who sought to live the Law perfectly in order to earn the favor of God, but whose understanding of the Law was seriously flawed by misinterpretations of the Old Testament Scriptures and a legalistic manner of adding to the Law with their own traditions; the secular world in general, which Paul deals with (2 Cor. 6:17 and John deals with (1 John 2:15); or finally the Cynics, who history tells us were known for giving a nod to religion but ultimately denied any such thing as a miracle, thus posing themselves as supposed agents of unity while actually opposing the truth.
Calvin wrote in his Tracts and Treatises that, “Peace is not to be purchased by the sacrifice of truth.” The Cynics reasoned in such a way that is similar to the ecumenical movement, which is a movement to unite the universal Church based on the “sacrifice of truth.” However, the concern of the Cynics was in no way to unify based upon any religious notion, and so their movement would more closely picture that of the “Coexist” ideology that is prevalent in our own day. Making this connection will help us see that indeed, “there is nothing new under the sun” (Eccles. 1:9).
Textual Evidences for the Identification of the Colossian Opponent
Of the prison epistles written by Paul, which include Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon, only two refrain from the employment of the term Law: Colossians and Philemon. The letter to Philemon is based upon a personal appeal for Philemon to show his runaway slave, Onesimus, grace and mercy. Paul makes the basis of his appeal explicitly known: “I have sent him back to you in person, that is, my very heart” (Philem. 1:12). Paul continues, “but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but voluntary” (Philem. 1:14). The reason for the absence of the term Law in the epistle to Philemon is precisely because Paul is intent upon making a personal appeal to grace rather than a legal appeal to Law.
Why does Paul make no mention of the Law in his epistle to the Colossians? My stance is that the reason for the absence of any address of the Law is because Colossae had already been broken by the hammer of the Law unto the salvation of their souls as these Colossians trusted in Christ for grace (Col. 1:6-8), and because the understanding of the Law was not needful of correction in their midst. Paul instead immediately addresses the deity of Jesus Christ.
To be sure, the Pharisees were opponents of Christ. They despised Jesus and sought from an early point in His ministry to destroy Him (Mark 3:1-12). However, they were looking for the Messiah. Some of them would have even believed, as many Jews believe today, that Jesus was in some sense in the form of the Messiah, that is, the suffering Messiah, but that they were still awaiting the ruling Messiah. The Pharisees, then, would not necessarily need correction regarding their understanding of deity since they firmly believed in God but believed that the path to God was one of self-righteousness rather than grace (Mark 2:14-17).
Both the absence of Law and the presence of an affirmation of deity, an affirmation of which the Pharisees would not necessarily be contentious, dispels the notion of the Pharisees as the Colossian opponent. Paul deals with the issue of judgment in regards to food and drink (Col. 2:16-19), telling the Colossian believers that, “no one is to judge you in food and drink, or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day” (Col. 2:16). Some will contend that this rhetoric regarding the Sabbath and festivals is indicative of the fact that the Colossian opponent is indeed the Pharisees. However, the subsequent verse gives a cue as to the thrust of the language from Paul here: “things which are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ” (Col. 2:17).
The banner over the statement here is not, it would seem, to give us an insight to identify the Colossian opponent, but rather to help the Colossian believers rightly orient their focus away from earthly-mindedness toward heavenly-mindedness. In a word, Paul is therefore in this passage preparing the Colossians, and us by proxy, for what he will write in the third chapter about heavenly-mindedness as the theme of the renewed life. My stance, then, is this: To make this passage (Col. 2:16-19) merely about the identification of the Colossian opponent would be to fail to see this passage in the larger context, which is the context of the entire epistle.
Others will contend that the Colossian opponent is the secular world in general. The epistle states “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). This dichotomization of Christian philosophy, or Christian reasoning, from worldly philosophy seems to point us in the direction of identifying the Colossian opponent as worldliness. Those of the world would certainly pass through Colossae since the city was a trade route and a commerce town.
However, our context indicates that the Colossian believers were actively growing in grace and excelling in sanctification. There are positive exhortations toward increasing holiness, but there are no negative, or polemical, admonishments against what Colossae is doing in regard to their spiritual growth. In fact, Paul says the exact opposite, noting that these Colossian believers are a joy to him as he hears of their growth in godliness: “We give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and the love which you have for all the saints, because of the hope laid up for you in heaven, of which you previously heard in the word of truth, the gospel which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and multiplying, just as it has been doing in you also since the day you heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth; just as you learned it from Epaphras, our beloved fellow slave, who is a faithful servant of Christ on our behalf, and who also informed us of your love in the Spirit” (Col. 1:3-8).
Further, the Colossian opponent seems to have possessed some level of spirituality to their thinking. Paul even cites a direct reference known to be said by the Cynics: “If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees: ‘Do not handle, nor taste, nor touch!’” (Col. 2:20-21).
The idea of touch was spiritual, or religious, one conceived outside of the Bible. The idea of handle was perhaps a direct reference to the Mosaic Law as seen in other passages (Rom. 14:20). This melting together of worldly spirituality and historic doctrines of Judaism paints a vivid picture of the Cynics. They were worldly philosophers who reasoned according to elementary principles of the world and yet would give a nod to religious practices, barring anything that seemed too superstitious or miraculous. The philosophical movement of the Cynics was a melting pot of various religions with a heavy dose of secularism.
Troy Martin offers a helpful analysis of how Paul responds to the opponent, who reasons by “elementary principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8), writing in his work By Philosophy and Empty Deceit, that “unfortunately, the only information the author [Paul] supplies in this verse about this tradition is contained in the prepositional phrase ‘based upon the elements of the cosmos.’” This phrase is not inherently unfavorable but merely explains the basis or foundation of the human tradition. The opponent utilizes a philosophical method whose tradition is based upon the elements of the cosmos. Although different metaphorical interpretations of the phrase “elements of the cosmos” are abundant, Josef Blinzler and Eduard Schweizer adequately demonstrate that in the first century, the phrase refers to earth, water, air, and fire.
The worship of angels was prevalent not within the Pharisaic sect but within secular religions. The prevalence of angel worship, as indicated by the writings of Josephus, was largely popularized during the Intertestamental Period. From the closure of the Old Testament canon with the oracle of the Lord through Malachi to the beginning of the New Testament canon with what I would submit was the writing of the Gospel of Mark, there were approximately four centuries of virtual silence from God to His people. The silence breaks with the ministry of John the Baptist, the first prophetic voice of the New Testament, a man who “appeared in the wilderness” (Mark 1:4), who was “crying in the wilderness, ‘Make ready the way of the Lord, make His paths straight’” (Mark 1:3, Isa. 40:3-5).
Angel worship grew in prevalence particularly during this age of silence because people were looking for a sign. The Pharisees would continue searching for the Messiah, and we are told that the prophets of old continually pointed to the coming Messiah (1 Pet. 1:10-12), and so people were readily searching for this long-awaited Anointed One. However, those who grew tired of waiting in silence began turning to angelic worship. This was especially prevalent within the circle of those who practiced worldly religions, and namely in our case, the Cynics.
This is important to note because Paul specifically cites angel worship as an issue with which the Colossians will deal in the face of this Colossian opponent: “Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, going into detail about visions he has seen, being puffed up for nothing by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God” (Col. 2:18-19).
Why does Paul make no mention of the Law in his epistle to the Colossians? My stance is that the reason for the absence of any address of the Law is because Colossae had already been broken by the hammer of the Law unto the salvation of their souls as these Colossians trusted in Christ for grace (Col. 1:6-8), and because the understanding of the Law was not needful of correction in their midst. Paul instead immediately addresses the deity of Jesus Christ.
To be sure, the Pharisees were opponents of Christ. They despised Jesus and sought from an early point in His ministry to destroy Him (Mark 3:1-12). However, they were looking for the Messiah. Some of them would have even believed, as many Jews believe today, that Jesus was in some sense in the form of the Messiah, that is, the suffering Messiah, but that they were still awaiting the ruling Messiah. The Pharisees, then, would not necessarily need correction regarding their understanding of deity since they firmly believed in God but believed that the path to God was one of self-righteousness rather than grace (Mark 2:14-17).
Both the absence of Law and the presence of an affirmation of deity, an affirmation of which the Pharisees would not necessarily be contentious, dispels the notion of the Pharisees as the Colossian opponent. Paul deals with the issue of judgment in regards to food and drink (Col. 2:16-19), telling the Colossian believers that, “no one is to judge you in food and drink, or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day” (Col. 2:16). Some will contend that this rhetoric regarding the Sabbath and festivals is indicative of the fact that the Colossian opponent is indeed the Pharisees. However, the subsequent verse gives a cue as to the thrust of the language from Paul here: “things which are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ” (Col. 2:17).
The banner over the statement here is not, it would seem, to give us an insight to identify the Colossian opponent, but rather to help the Colossian believers rightly orient their focus away from earthly-mindedness toward heavenly-mindedness. In a word, Paul is therefore in this passage preparing the Colossians, and us by proxy, for what he will write in the third chapter about heavenly-mindedness as the theme of the renewed life. My stance, then, is this: To make this passage (Col. 2:16-19) merely about the identification of the Colossian opponent would be to fail to see this passage in the larger context, which is the context of the entire epistle.
Others will contend that the Colossian opponent is the secular world in general. The epistle states “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). This dichotomization of Christian philosophy, or Christian reasoning, from worldly philosophy seems to point us in the direction of identifying the Colossian opponent as worldliness. Those of the world would certainly pass through Colossae since the city was a trade route and a commerce town.
However, our context indicates that the Colossian believers were actively growing in grace and excelling in sanctification. There are positive exhortations toward increasing holiness, but there are no negative, or polemical, admonishments against what Colossae is doing in regard to their spiritual growth. In fact, Paul says the exact opposite, noting that these Colossian believers are a joy to him as he hears of their growth in godliness: “We give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and the love which you have for all the saints, because of the hope laid up for you in heaven, of which you previously heard in the word of truth, the gospel which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and multiplying, just as it has been doing in you also since the day you heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth; just as you learned it from Epaphras, our beloved fellow slave, who is a faithful servant of Christ on our behalf, and who also informed us of your love in the Spirit” (Col. 1:3-8).
Further, the Colossian opponent seems to have possessed some level of spirituality to their thinking. Paul even cites a direct reference known to be said by the Cynics: “If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees: ‘Do not handle, nor taste, nor touch!’” (Col. 2:20-21).
The idea of touch was spiritual, or religious, one conceived outside of the Bible. The idea of handle was perhaps a direct reference to the Mosaic Law as seen in other passages (Rom. 14:20). This melting together of worldly spirituality and historic doctrines of Judaism paints a vivid picture of the Cynics. They were worldly philosophers who reasoned according to elementary principles of the world and yet would give a nod to religious practices, barring anything that seemed too superstitious or miraculous. The philosophical movement of the Cynics was a melting pot of various religions with a heavy dose of secularism.
Troy Martin offers a helpful analysis of how Paul responds to the opponent, who reasons by “elementary principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8), writing in his work By Philosophy and Empty Deceit, that “unfortunately, the only information the author [Paul] supplies in this verse about this tradition is contained in the prepositional phrase ‘based upon the elements of the cosmos.’” This phrase is not inherently unfavorable but merely explains the basis or foundation of the human tradition. The opponent utilizes a philosophical method whose tradition is based upon the elements of the cosmos. Although different metaphorical interpretations of the phrase “elements of the cosmos” are abundant, Josef Blinzler and Eduard Schweizer adequately demonstrate that in the first century, the phrase refers to earth, water, air, and fire.
The worship of angels was prevalent not within the Pharisaic sect but within secular religions. The prevalence of angel worship, as indicated by the writings of Josephus, was largely popularized during the Intertestamental Period. From the closure of the Old Testament canon with the oracle of the Lord through Malachi to the beginning of the New Testament canon with what I would submit was the writing of the Gospel of Mark, there were approximately four centuries of virtual silence from God to His people. The silence breaks with the ministry of John the Baptist, the first prophetic voice of the New Testament, a man who “appeared in the wilderness” (Mark 1:4), who was “crying in the wilderness, ‘Make ready the way of the Lord, make His paths straight’” (Mark 1:3, Isa. 40:3-5).
Angel worship grew in prevalence particularly during this age of silence because people were looking for a sign. The Pharisees would continue searching for the Messiah, and we are told that the prophets of old continually pointed to the coming Messiah (1 Pet. 1:10-12), and so people were readily searching for this long-awaited Anointed One. However, those who grew tired of waiting in silence began turning to angelic worship. This was especially prevalent within the circle of those who practiced worldly religions, and namely in our case, the Cynics.
This is important to note because Paul specifically cites angel worship as an issue with which the Colossians will deal in the face of this Colossian opponent: “Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, going into detail about visions he has seen, being puffed up for nothing by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God” (Col. 2:18-19).
Historical Evidences for the Identification of the Colossian Opponent
We have already cited much of these historical evidences within the context of the historical-grammatical-theological exposition of various verses within our text. However, two final analyses will prove helpful: first, that first-century extrabiblical writers and philosophers seem to have cited the Cynics as a prevalent force within the timeframe of 60 AD and 62 AD, the time during which Paul was imprisoned and therefore writing to the Colossian believers, and second, the Cynics’ spite of joy and material reality as properly fitting realities for life.
Troy Martin notes in his work By Philosophy and Empty Deceit that “The first-century [AD] letter of Diogenes to Amynander conclusively proves that Cynics used an elemental theory to substantiate their ethical position.” Martin then references the passage of this letter: “One need not thank one’s parents, either for the fact of being born, since it is by nature that what exists came into being; or for the quality of one’s character, for it is the blending of the elements that is its cause… As the prophet of indifference, I speak these words plainly, which are opposed to the deluded life.”
In summary, what the Cynics believed, as indicated by Diogenes, is that all of life dealt ultimately with matter, meaning worldly elements. They were opposed to miracles and superstition. We might refer to the Cynics as what we now would call materialists. Their detestation for anything that could not be observed was evidenced in the promulgation of rhetoric that denied any need to give gratitude to parentage, or for that matter a Creator, for anything dealing with our being. They reasoned in worldly ways, and so Paul seems not to be warning of worldliness generally, but of worldliness specifically in relation to the Cynic school of thought.
Since Paul went to such great lengths to positively prove the deity of Jesus Christ in chapter one and will positively prove the effect that entrusting one’s life to this divine deity will have upon an individual, and indeed, upon a body of individuals, then he will here go to great lengths warning against, and therefore dispelling any notion of, that which would stand in opposition to the belief of miraculous spiritual power. I would submit that in part this is what Paul has in mind when he writes that Christ “had disarmed the rulers and authorities, [making] a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him” (Col. 2:15). Christ, in His deity and divine atonement on behalf of sinners, has overcome all that would oppose such beautiful realities as sovereign power from Heaven.
Finally, the Cynics were known for despising anything that seemed like a source of joy. This is evident both historically and Scripturally: “Which are matters having, to be sure, a word of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abatement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence” (Col. 2:23).
Self-abasement, or asceticism, is defined as “the practice of strict self-denial as a measure of personal and especially spiritual discipline: the condition, practice, or mode of an ascetic; rigorous abstention from self-indulgence.”
The Cynics had a habit of denying themselves any such comfort as joy or rest. Theirs was a way of life that consisted of constant thought, yet produced “no value” (Col. 2:23). This is consistent with their statement against handling, tasting, and touching (Col. 2:21) and an apparent judgment against the Colossian believers for their participation in any food, drink, Sabbath rest, or festival observances (Col. 2:16-19).
Paul in chapter three speaks highly of love for one another, which I submit is partially due to the presence of those around them who denied anything that would bring joy. The love of the Christian fellowship births joy in the people of God, but the Cynics despised joyful activities. Paul stands staunchly against this pessimistic view of life, instead encouraging and exhorting the people of God to be filled with joy and love for one another.
Troy Martin notes in his work By Philosophy and Empty Deceit that “The first-century [AD] letter of Diogenes to Amynander conclusively proves that Cynics used an elemental theory to substantiate their ethical position.” Martin then references the passage of this letter: “One need not thank one’s parents, either for the fact of being born, since it is by nature that what exists came into being; or for the quality of one’s character, for it is the blending of the elements that is its cause… As the prophet of indifference, I speak these words plainly, which are opposed to the deluded life.”
In summary, what the Cynics believed, as indicated by Diogenes, is that all of life dealt ultimately with matter, meaning worldly elements. They were opposed to miracles and superstition. We might refer to the Cynics as what we now would call materialists. Their detestation for anything that could not be observed was evidenced in the promulgation of rhetoric that denied any need to give gratitude to parentage, or for that matter a Creator, for anything dealing with our being. They reasoned in worldly ways, and so Paul seems not to be warning of worldliness generally, but of worldliness specifically in relation to the Cynic school of thought.
Since Paul went to such great lengths to positively prove the deity of Jesus Christ in chapter one and will positively prove the effect that entrusting one’s life to this divine deity will have upon an individual, and indeed, upon a body of individuals, then he will here go to great lengths warning against, and therefore dispelling any notion of, that which would stand in opposition to the belief of miraculous spiritual power. I would submit that in part this is what Paul has in mind when he writes that Christ “had disarmed the rulers and authorities, [making] a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him” (Col. 2:15). Christ, in His deity and divine atonement on behalf of sinners, has overcome all that would oppose such beautiful realities as sovereign power from Heaven.
Finally, the Cynics were known for despising anything that seemed like a source of joy. This is evident both historically and Scripturally: “Which are matters having, to be sure, a word of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abatement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence” (Col. 2:23).
Self-abasement, or asceticism, is defined as “the practice of strict self-denial as a measure of personal and especially spiritual discipline: the condition, practice, or mode of an ascetic; rigorous abstention from self-indulgence.”
The Cynics had a habit of denying themselves any such comfort as joy or rest. Theirs was a way of life that consisted of constant thought, yet produced “no value” (Col. 2:23). This is consistent with their statement against handling, tasting, and touching (Col. 2:21) and an apparent judgment against the Colossian believers for their participation in any food, drink, Sabbath rest, or festival observances (Col. 2:16-19).
Paul in chapter three speaks highly of love for one another, which I submit is partially due to the presence of those around them who denied anything that would bring joy. The love of the Christian fellowship births joy in the people of God, but the Cynics despised joyful activities. Paul stands staunchly against this pessimistic view of life, instead encouraging and exhorting the people of God to be filled with joy and love for one another.
Summary
Throughout church history, much discussion has surrounded the identification of the Colossian opponent. Some have suggested the Pharisees, while others have suggested secular worldliness in general, and still others would suggest, as I have, the philosophical movement of the Cynics. The identification of the Colossian opponent is important in that along with the correct identification of this opponent comes a proper exegetical application of the text. In our assertion that the Cynics are the Colossian opponent, the application is simple: some would wish to have one foot in Christ and one foot in chaos, one foot in the world and one foot in the Word, one foot in elementary principles and one foot in evangelical purity. There is, however, no such thing as spiritual neutrality. We are either in Christ or in chaos, and we must give great caution as to where we lend an ear.
This issue, however, is not one of immediate priority when interpreting the second chapter of Colossians. Since Paul does not explicitly identify this opponent, any attempt at identification entails some level of conjecture. The priority of the passage is, like the priority of all passages, to reveal that Christ, and Christ alone, is worthy of our worship and adoration. Nothing and no one apart from Christ offers us the objective truth that we find in the living Word of the living God. Anything and anyone that poses a threat to the “faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 1:3) ought to be marked and avoided. We are instructed “Do not give him a greeting, for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds” (2 John 1:10-11).
Great care should be given to the protection of the soul against false doctrines. The devil is a liar and the father of lies, and his great desire would be to see the Bride of Christ clothed in worldly doctrines. The Bible is clear, though, as Jesus says of Himself, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6). There is no truth apart from Jesus Christ. The statement thrice employs an exclusive article: the way, the truth, and the life. There is indeed salvation in no other name but the name of Jesus Christ, no matter what the world may tell us (Acts 4:12).
This issue, however, is not one of immediate priority when interpreting the second chapter of Colossians. Since Paul does not explicitly identify this opponent, any attempt at identification entails some level of conjecture. The priority of the passage is, like the priority of all passages, to reveal that Christ, and Christ alone, is worthy of our worship and adoration. Nothing and no one apart from Christ offers us the objective truth that we find in the living Word of the living God. Anything and anyone that poses a threat to the “faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 1:3) ought to be marked and avoided. We are instructed “Do not give him a greeting, for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds” (2 John 1:10-11).
Great care should be given to the protection of the soul against false doctrines. The devil is a liar and the father of lies, and his great desire would be to see the Bride of Christ clothed in worldly doctrines. The Bible is clear, though, as Jesus says of Himself, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6). There is no truth apart from Jesus Christ. The statement thrice employs an exclusive article: the way, the truth, and the life. There is indeed salvation in no other name but the name of Jesus Christ, no matter what the world may tell us (Acts 4:12).
About The Author
TREVOR BATES
1689 Federalism | Post Millennialism | General Equity Theonomist
Trevor Bates serves as the Senior Pastor of Muldraugh Baptist Church in Muldraugh, Kentucky. He and his wife, Sarah, are proud parents of two daughters. Trevor holds to the 1689 Baptist Confession and Post Millennial Eschatology. His deepest passion lies in preaching the whole counsel of God’s Word. Additionally, he has authored six books.
1689 Federalism | Post Millennialism | General Equity Theonomist
Trevor Bates serves as the Senior Pastor of Muldraugh Baptist Church in Muldraugh, Kentucky. He and his wife, Sarah, are proud parents of two daughters. Trevor holds to the 1689 Baptist Confession and Post Millennial Eschatology. His deepest passion lies in preaching the whole counsel of God’s Word. Additionally, he has authored six books.
Partner with us—donate to Grace & Truth Press.
Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations taken from the (LSB®) Legacy Standard Bible®, Copyright © 2021 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Managed in partnership with Three Sixteen Publishing Inc. LSBible.org and 316publishing.com.
Copyright © 2023 by Grace and Truth Press L.L.C. and Trevor Bates / All rights reserved. No portion of this article may be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publisher or author, except as permitted by U.S. copyright law.
Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations taken from the (LSB®) Legacy Standard Bible®, Copyright © 2021 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Managed in partnership with Three Sixteen Publishing Inc. LSBible.org and 316publishing.com.
Copyright © 2023 by Grace and Truth Press L.L.C. and Trevor Bates / All rights reserved. No portion of this article may be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publisher or author, except as permitted by U.S. copyright law.
Posted in Biblical Commentary, Christology
Posted in Deity, Cynicism, Opposition, Discernment, Truth
Posted in Deity, Cynicism, Opposition, Discernment, Truth
Recent
Archive
2025
January
A Treatise Against Impotent Cultural ChristianityKnowledge Versus Knowing: Experiential ChristianityThe Plumb Line, Not The PendulumBrutally Honest WorshipFive Books Every New Calvinist Should ReadFlirting With AbominationsHow to Biblically Support the PastorGrassroots HomeschoolingPurity, Holiness, and the Joy of the LordHonor Your Father and MotherThe Sovereignty of God The Eternality and Aseity of God
2024
May
IVF is Evil.Find Your WhyWhy Do We Struggle with Self-Control?Old Time ReligionThe Pastor and His BibleLessons from Jude Pt. 4: The Dreams of False TeachersJoining with Creation: Why Your Praise Matters to GodChrist is Worthy of a Healthy ChurchBiblical Discernment and Why It Is NecessaryWhat is the Point of the Bible?Faith Cometh: First Mention Basics of Faith Pt. 2
June
July
Is God For Us?What Laws Are We Supposed to Obey?Remember MeDying Thoughts of a Godly ManOn Justification through Faith Alone in Christ AloneHigh Strangeness and a Christian ResponseDiscovering Perfect FaithfulnessChildren: The Best Bible School for AdultsThe Trembling PastorUnderstanding the Law: Part I
September
Rest In ChristFive Minutes for the Imago DeiUnderstanding the Law: Part IIThe Privilege of Knowing God TrulyEphesians: Abounding Riches of GracePrayer and Providence: A Look At Mark 7:24-30The Love of GodEphesians: Our Inheritance, Hope, and Glory in ChristThe Immutability of GodFighting Sin by Trusting in the Superior Satisfaction
December