Latest Issue of Themelios

The latest issue of Themelios from the Gospel Coalition is on-line. In it I heartily recommend the review essay by my good friend Nijay Gupta on "New Commentaries on Colossians: A Survey of Approaches, An Analysis of Trends, and the State of Research".

Sumney on the Church/Empire Tension

In his recent Colossians commentary in the NTL series, J.L. Sumney has a lengthy excursus on the household code of Col. 3.18-4.1. On the place of Christians in the Graeco-Roman world, Sumney states this (p. 236):

"To sustain its existence, the church not only needed to oppose the justifications that Rome espoused for its claims to bring peace and security to the world; it also required a competing metanarrative. A metanarrative is an account given to make sense of the world. Such accounts include stories that explain why the world works as it does and why its adherents are in the place they find themselves. Rome's metanarrative included claims that the gods had placed the Romans over the world for the good of the world (Rest gest. 12-13; Appian, Bel. Civ. 5.123). Thus, those who oppose Rome oppose the will of the gods.

The church's competing metanarrative must explain how it can be a socially marginalized and sometimes persecuted group if they are truly the 'people of God' who have come to understand the will of God. The story of Christ's death and resurrection serves this purpose, for it recalls that the exaltation of Jesus comes only after his suffering at the hands of those in power. This becomes a paradigm for the church's worldview, a central element of its metanarrative. Just as the powers of the world opposed Jesus, they now oppose people who believe in him. Though Christ defeated those powers through his crucifixion and resurrection (as Colossians proclaims in 1:15-20 and elsewhere), they refuse to acknowledge their defeat. Thus, in their refusal, those powers sustain the structures of the world that oppose God and God's peole. So the church must exist in a setting that involves confrontation with both culture and empire.

The place in which the members of the first-century church find themselves in relation to the empire and the surrounding culture, combined with this counter-metanarrative, makes some of the insights of postcolonial reading useful for interpreting the New Testament, particularly the household code. Rejecting the metanarrative of the dominant power is central to the resistance oppressed or dominated people offer (Horsley 2003: 93). When Colossians advocates an alternative account of the cosmos, that account will influence the way its readers understand themselves and their lives. Wilson (244) shows that ethical exhortation in the ancient setting strove to give its hearers a conceptual framework that made sense of the thought behind the instructions. This insight encourages us to examine the way in which Colossians' ethical instruction, including the household code, enable readers to make sense of the letter's claims about Christ's sovereignty."

Dan Reid on the Pauline Strip

Dan Reid and I are both memorising Colossians (mind you I'm only memorising 1.15-20). In the course of the way, Dan posts on Col. 2.15 in talking about the Pauline strip. It comes down to whether you take the participle apekdusamenos as middle 'Christ stripped himself' or as deponent 'Christ stripped the powers'. Dan takes the former (as per most patristic authors) and I take the latter (with most modern commentators). Or we could put it this way with by noting J.B. Lightfoot: 'The powers of evil, which had clung like a Nessus robe about his humanity, were torn off and cast aside for ever. And the victory of mankind is involved in the victory of Christ. In his cross we too are divested of the poisonous and clinging garments of temptation and sin and death' (Colossians, 190). Or go with Stanley E. Porter: ‘Jesus Christ’s beneficial or participatory stripping of the defeated demonic enemies of their power makes better sense of the imagery’ (Stan Porter, Idioms, 69).

Note also how the Gospel of Truth echoes Col. 2.15 in this regard: ‘Having stripped himself of the perishable rags, he put on imperishability ... he passed through those who were stripped naked by oblivion’ A gnostic appropriation is of course no argument against the middle force of the participle. But I tend to think that the link of 2.15 with 1.12-14 and the military imagery of defeated hostile forces makes disarming or stripping the powers the most likely image to readers.

The Fruit of Israel's Redemption

I find the image of increased fertility and fruitfulness in Col 1:5-6, 10 most interesting: "the gospel, which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing- as it also does among you, since the day you heard it and understood the grace of God in truth ... so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God". My default position would be to relate this to Genesis 1 where Adam and Eve were to "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth" (Gen 1:28). So the Christians as the new humanity do exactly that. However, in reading over Isaiah just this morning, what I also find fascinating the same image being applied to the redeemed Israel: "In days to come Jacob shall take root, Israel shall blossom and put forth shoots and fill the whole world with fruit" (Isa 27:6) . Taken up from Genesis 1, the progeny of Jesus, the new Adam, are growing and bearing fruit, and obedience to God’s gospel-word is the means by which the old world is colonized by the new humanity of the new creation. In light of Isaiah 27 we could say that the great redemption of Israel that Isaiah predicted with its replanting of Israel produces an abundance of fruit that grows into the entire world. So too does the redemption in Messiah Jesus and the calling of the church to be Israel-for-the-sake-of-the-world bring forth a fruit basket of blessings that covers the earth.

Colossians and Gospel

In his NIB commentary, Andrew Lincoln write:

"Colossians is polemical, because, like the Paul of Galatians in a different set of circumstances, it will not allow God's gracious activity in Christ to be undermined. To add new practices and regulations to the gospel is to suggest not only that believers are disqualified unless they adhere to them but also, more fundamentally, that what God has already done in Christ is deficient. Colossians is essentially Pauline in having none of this. In its defense of the apostolic gospel, Colossians does not make grace a separate theme so much as an underlying presupposition that it reinforces through both the content and the mode of its theologizing. This presupposition is made explicit in the very first mention of the gospel, where to hear the gospel and to comprehend the grace of God are equated (1:5-6). From then on, the insistence on what God has already achieved in Christ for the cosmos and for the church and the 'realized eschatology,' with its stress on the present experience of the benefits of end-time salvation, are in the service of this gospel of grace ... For Colossians the gospel is grace, and no response to it can depart from the foundation by adding human achievements as a requirement. Instead, authentic Christian living is motivated by a response to and empowered by an appropriation of the undeserved favor of God in Christ".

The worship of Angels - Col. 2.18

Colossians 2.18 reads: "Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you." (TNIV).

What is the worship of angels? It could be the worship or veneration of the angels themselves and perhaps indicative of an angel cult in Phrygia. But some (following F.O. Francis) have argued that it is a subjective genitive denoting the angelic worship of heaven that persons attain a vision of through asceticism and fasting and this comports with the emphasis at Qumran on the angelic worship of heaven (e.g. 4Q405). But Clinton Arnold (Syncretism, 91-92) objects that we have no evidence of threskeia used as a subjective genitive in reference to divine beings. It is used with a subj. gen. when people doing the worshipping are named, e.g. the Jews in 4 Macc. 5.7 and Jos. Ant. 12.5.4. Yet the phrase is governed by a single preposition (en) and ‘angels’ is related to both 'worship' and 'humility' which requires a subjective genitive. It is the self-humbling and worship of the angels that is insisted upon. What is more, the perfect form of horao seems to indicate visionary experiences as the context for the discussion. At the same time, Loren Stuckenbruck (Angel Veneration) is probably correct that we do not have to choose absolutely between an objective and subjective meaning. The reason why someone wants to see the angels worship God is because someone believes that there is something very special about the angels themselves!

Provenance of Colossians

I initially regarded Colossians as being written by Paul from Rome, but have now changed my mind and gone with an Ephesian provenance. Here's the discussion that led me to that conclusion:

Given the qualified assumption of Pauline authorship of Philemon, Colossians, and (more loosely) Ephesians, when and where were the former two epistles written? What we can say is that Colossians and Philemon were probably written in relatively close temporal proximity to each other because five identical persons are mentioned in Paul’s greetings in both letters, namely, Luke, Mark, Demas, Aristarchus, and Epaphras (Col. 4.10-14/Philm. 24). Timothy is named as co-author in both letters (Col. 1.1/Philm. 1) and Onesimus is associated with both letters as well (Col. 4.9/Philm. 10). One peculiar fact is that Colossians makes no reference to any potential conflict between Onesimus and Philemon which one might expect on the return of a runaway slave to his owner which could adversely affect relations within the community (see Paul’s exhortation for unity and reconciliation among Euodia and Syntyche in Phil. 4.2). In Col. 4.9, Onesimus is also regarded as a faithful and experienced co-worker. It would seem that there was a gap between the composition of Philemon and Colossians. I surmise that Paul sent Onesimus back to Philemon. Philemon was reconciled to Onesimus and subsequently returned Onesimus to Paul’s service as requested by Paul. Sometime later, the news of an encounter with a certain ‘philosophy’ in Colossae was relayed to Paul and his co-workers who responded by writing Colossians and sending Tychicus and Onesimus to deliver the letter to Colossae and a circular letter (Ephesians) to the other churches of Asia. I find this scenario plausible, though admittedly unprovable.

So where was Paul when this happened, obviously in captivity (Philm. 1, 10, 23; Col. 4.3, 10, 18), but which period of captivity, he refers to imprisonments in the plural in 2 Cor. 11.23. The main candidates are Ephesus (ca. 54-57) or Rome (ca. 61-66). This subject is one of the most perplexing ones facing students of Colossians. The problem is mirrored in text-critical observations since some manuscripts (A, B, P) regard Colossians as written from Rome, while the Marcionite prologue declares it written from Ephesus. Even if we take into account the movements of Paul’s co-workers according to the Pauline letters and the Book of Acts, the evidence still remains ambiguous. The internal evidence of Colossians and Philemon themselves does not help us, nor does taking into account the wider New Testament provide us with a clear cut answer. Instead, we have to weigh the arguments for and against an Ephesian or Roman setting.

Roman Setting. In favour of a Roman provenance is that we know that Paul did experience a prolonged period of imprisonment in Rome which is attested by Acts (Acts 28.16) and other early Christian literature. The Pastoral Epistles (if authentic) also testify to a Roman imprisonment (2 Tim. 1.17) and perhaps Philippians as well but as we will see the provenance of Philippians is contestable (Phil. 1.13-14). But there is no clear reference to a Roman imprisonment in the undisputed letters of Paul, which is no small fact, and must be taken into consideration. Second, in Philemon 9, Paul calls himself an ‘old man’ which suggests that it was written the end of his life. However, this might be a phrase used rhetorically to get Philemon to respect his elder and the apostle and life expectancy rates in the ancient world were much lower than the present so what constitutes ‘old’ might even encompass someone in their forties. Third, and perhaps the strongest argument for a Roman provenance, is that the theology of Colossians seems to represent a maturation and development of Pauline thought. This is attributable no doubt to Paul’s own theological reflection on christology and ecclesiology, but also to the interpretation of Paul’s thought that began with his co-workers like Timothy and has already begun to weave it’s way into the letter. Still, this does not necessitate a later date since Paul’s theology clearly developed somewhat during the short time span between Galatians (ca. 49 AD) and Romans (ca. 55-56 AD) and we do not know how much of the so-called developed theology of Colossians is attributable to the interpretive insights of Paul’s co-workers and their inferences about Paul’s theology which could have been made from any location or residence with time for writing and reflection. Fourth, the statements in Col. 1.6, 23 that the gospel is bearing fruit all over the world and has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven is more consistent with a Roman setting, since Rome was the centre of the political world, whereas Paul’s visits to Ephesus were still connected to his mission in and around the Aegean. When Paul wrote Romans from Corinth ca. 55-56 AD, he had finished his ministry in the east ‘from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum’ (Rom. 15.19), but did not describe it as a ministry that had touched ‘all over the world’ or ‘every creatures under heaven’. Then again, even in Rome, Paul had yet to fulfil his ambition to go to Spain (Rom. 15.24, 28) which meant that that part of the world was still left evangelized. So Col. 1.6, 23 may be no more than a generalizing statement or a piece of hyperbolic evangelicalism on the progress of the gospel in various quarters of the Roman Empire. Fifth, Rome would be a very good place for a runaway slave to hide in the massive population of the city, yet it was also a heck of a long way to travel (approximately 1200 miles by sea) when other cities in Asia Minor and Syria such as Ephesus and Antioch were nearer and large enough to afford a veil of protection. Sixth, a Roman setting was the preferred view of patristic authors, but it was not unamious, and constitutes tertiary evidence at best.

Ephesian setting. The case for an Ephesian setting is strengthed by accounts which place Paul there more than once (1 Cor. 16.8; Acts 18.19-21 and esp. 19.1-20.1) and for three years during his third missionary journey (Acts 19.8-10; 20.31). That Paul experienced imprisonment in Ephesus is arguably implied in 2 Cor. 1.8 where the apostle refers to the hardships experienced by he and his companions in Asia and 1 Cor. 15.32 where Paul speaks of fighting wild beasts in Ephesus. However, there is no clear evidence for an Ephesian imprisonment in Paul’s letters or in Acts. Second, it can be argued that Ephesus and Colossae, only 100 miles apart, make the flight of Onesimus, the delegation of Tychicus/Onesimus, any travels back and forth by Epaphras, the forthcoming visit of John Mark, and the possible visit of Paul to Philemon far more plausible. This flurry of comings and goings is more likely than a series of length sea journeys that were dangerous and took months at a time. Third, Paul’s request in Philm. 22 that a guest room be prepared for him is more realistic given an Ephesian imprisonment. If it was Paul’s plan to go further west after his release from confinement in Rome, then a journey to Colossae to visit Philemon would have meant significantly revizing (or reversing) that plan. Alternatively, the remark may simply be rhetorical and a polite wish to visit but with no intent to actually do so (my in-laws in Australia threaten to visit me in Scotland all the time but [thankfully] only rarely do so). Fourth, according to ancient sources there was an earthquake that destroyed parts of the Lycus valley especially Laodicea during ca. 60-61. Although Colossae was rebuilt without assistance we do not hear of any reference to Christians there again and only Laodicea is mentioned among the seven churches that John the Seer wrote to (Rev. 1.11; 3.14). Even so, we do not know for sure how the Christians in Colossae were affected by the earthquake and what impact it had upon their lives. True, Paul does not mention the earthquake when we might expect him to do so, but neither does he mention other ‘seismic’ events such as the expulsion of Jews from Rome under Claudius (49 AD) and their return under Nero (54 AD) when he wrote to the Romans.

The evidence is tightly balanced (and I confess to having changed my mind a number of times). The answer, I think, lies not with internal evidence from Colossians or Philemon, but with the letter to the Philippians and the movements of Timothy. Timothy is named as co-sender of Colossians and Philemon (Col. 1.1; Philm. 1). To that we can add the observations that Timothy is also named as co-sender of Philippians (Phil. 1.1), Philippians is also writen from captivity (Phil. 1.13-14), and that Philippians is similar to Philemon in at least two other respects: both look forward to Paul’s eventual release from prison (Philm. 22 and Phil. 1.19-26; 2.24) and several the stylistic similarities noted by Francis Watson. By way of deduction, my line of reasoning runs Timothy → Philippians → Philemon → Colossians → Location! Thus, the circumstances of Philippians and Timothy are crucial for the provenance and date of Colossians/Philemon. Philippians could have been written from either Rome or Ephesus too, this might sound like back to square one, but the internal and external evidence is better. There is a reference to the ‘praetorian guard’ in Phil. 1.13 which may denote the elite body guard unit of the Emperor in Rome who also functioned as a police force in the capital. There is also a reference to a greeting from those of ‘Caesar’s household’ in Phil. 4.22 which would naturally fit a Roman setting. However, ‘praetorian’ can mean more generally ‘palace guard’ or ‘military headquarters’ (Mt. 27.27; Mk. 15.16; Jn. 18.28, 33; 19.9; Acts 23.35). And ‘Caesar’s household’ might denote the imperial staff stationed at an imperial residence in Ephesus since Ephesus was also the Roman capital of western Asia. It is also unlikely that Roman prisoners would be incarcerated in the Emperor’s own residence. Furthermore, there is no reference to Timothy accompanying Paul to Rome in Acts 28, but he is placed in Ephesus during Paul’s extended ministry there (1 Cor. 16.8-10). We also know from Acts that Timothy engaged in one or more trips to Greece and Macedonia from Ephesus (Acts 19.22). Thus, Paul’s intent to send Timothy to Philippi (Phil. 2.19) is more likely to comport with his travellings to Greece and Macedonia during Paul’s stay in Ephesus than during Paul’s imprisonment in Rome. Moreover, 1-2 Timothy, though perhaps stemming from a second Roman imprisonment, places Timothy in Ephesus (1 Tim. 1.3). Timothy was asked to join Paul in Rome because Demas had deserted him and Tychicus had been sent to Ephesus, meaning that even if Timothy got to Rome, Demas and Tychichus would not be there to send their greetings during the composition of Philemon and Colossians, which rules out their composition during the later stages of Paul’s imprisonment (2 Tim. 4.9-13).As I see it, this is how it all stands:

For Rome:
1. There is a strong possibility that Philippians was written in Rome and, if so, Timothy’s presence with Paul in Rome can be verified and then linked with the letters to Philemon and to the Colossians.
2. The theology of Colossians appears to be ‘developed’ in some sense.
3. There is no clear reference to an Ephesian imprisonment and it is hard to place John Mark in Ephesus.

For Ephesus:
1. An Ephesian setting for Philippians remains plausible.
2. There is no clear reference to Timothy in Rome during Paul’s imprisonment there, but we can place him easily in Ephesus.
3. An imprisonment in Ephesus makes for a more plausible scenario regarding the movements of Onesimus and others to and from Colossae.
4. Colossae may have been destroyed in 61-62 AD.

The marginally less problematic of these options then is the Ephesian provenance. I surmize that the epistle to Philemon was written by Paul himself during an imprisonment in Ephesus ca. 54-55 AD and Philemon subsequently discharged Onesimus to Paul’s service where he became thereafter part of Paul’s entourage. Colossians was written co-operatively by Paul and his co-workers (Col. 1.1; 4.7-17) from Ephesus ca. 54-56 AD and was delivered by Tychichus and Onesimus (Onesimus a natural choice as coming from Colossae). Ephesians was written by a secretary of Paul at Paul’s behest and composed on the basis of Colossians in order to be given to the Pauline churches of Asia Minor, including Ephesus and Laodicea, as the letter carriers passed through those regions on their way to deliver the correspondence to Colossae. In editorial language, Paul is the author of Philemon, the managing editor and chief contributor to Colossians, and the commissioning editor of Ephesians.

Colossians Commentary - Lessons Learned (Part 1)

I'm nearing the end of my Colossians/Philemon commentary and this is what I've learned:

On commentary writing:

1. Commentary writing ain't all that easy. It is hard because you have to say something on nearly everything and you might not have something new, special, or particularly innovative to say on every single topic or issue that arises. Some issues and problems apprehend your attention more than others.

2. Commentary writing can go on ad infinitum. There are so many grammatical matters you could go into and so much secondary literature to read and interact with. In a fairly short commentary (55K in my case) I had to pick the issues and debates I was gonna enter into and select the commentators that I was gonna principally dialogue with. This was an intermediate commentary so there wasn't gonna be stacks of critical discussions on manuscript variations and massive discussions on every possible view.

3. How to write a commentary? For me, it is important that you don't end up writing a commentary on other commentaries (which can be easily done). I think it's important to read the text in Greek a few times, read a few English translations, look at one or two commentaries to get a grip on the major issues (grammatical and theological), then write your comments with only lexical aids in hand, and then consult the secondary literature.

4. What are the best Colossians commentaries? This is a hard one (but see the list over at Best Commentaries - so many commentaries are still coming out: Sumney, Pao, Beale, Moo). If I had to pick one, it would probably be N.T. Wright's in the TNTC series, which is a good pocket size commentary packed with adequate detail and thoughtful reflection and is great value for money. My second choice is a tie between Peter O'Brien (WBC - soon to be revized by Clinton Arnold) and James Dunn (NIGTC) for their thoroughness and clarity. My third tier pick is Markus Barth's Colossians (AB) and Philemon (ECC) volumes since I continue to enjoy his writings immensely - even if he is opaque at times - and also Andrew Lincoln (NIBC) has some great stuff too and is always to the point. Fourth, Lohse (Hermeneia) provides good background in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, McL. Wilson (ICC) shows the relevance of the Nag Hammadi literature, and Charles Talbert (Paideia) has some background info from Greco-Roman literature. In terms of multi-volume commentaries, Andrew Lincoln's is a standout in the NIBC vol. 10 and it is a great volume with Richard Hays on Galatians and James Dunn on the Pastorals as well - one I recommend to buy! Although I have not been able to get hold of Todd Wilson's Colossians' contribution in the Revised Expositor's Bible Commentary just yet, that might well be another big gem in a diamond mine. Best German commentaries are probably Michael Wolter and Joachim Gnilka, but more so the former (sadly Schlatter was disappointing). Best commentary on the Greek is Murray Harris hands down, but don't neglect Moule. Best older commentaries are easily Lightfoot and Chrysostom. Sadly, once Colossae has been excavated (which is beginning!), the critical commentaries will need to be re-written in light of archaeological evidence that comes to the fore.

5. Studies on Colossians to consult are: Clinton Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism - argues for a syncrestic background to the Colossian heresy. While I think his overall thesis is wrong this volume is a paragon of how evangelicals can do really good cutting biblical scholarship. He almost convinced me! Christian Stettler, Der Kolosserhymnus - great piece of work, I shall have to read it again more slowly, he argues that the hymn emerged from Greek-speaking Jewish Christians circles in the context of their worship of Jesus.

In a future post, I'll nail my colours to the mast of a number of issues on Colossians itself.

Circumcision of the Messiah

Here's my translation of Col. 2.11-13: "In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision done without human hands, in the putting off of the body of flesh in the circumcision of the Messiah. Having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the operation of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in the trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with him, having forgiven us all of our trespasses".

What is the 'circumcision of the Messiah?

A number of commentators see circumcision of the Messiah as refering to Jesus’ death. This makes sense given that Paul refers to union with Messiah in circumcision, burial, and resurrection in vv. 11-12, whereas in Romans 6 Paul there refers to sharing in Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. Yet I would maintain that (1) circumcision of the Messiah is coordinate to putting off of the body of flesh and is the opposite of the uncircumcision of your flesh in v. 13. The content of v. 11 then does stand not for the indicative (death of Jesus) and imperative (putting off evil deeds) elements, but underscores the transformative power of being in-Messiah. Paul is giving a messianic rewording to ‘circumcision of the heart’. (2) The actual indicative aspect of Paul’s exhortation is provided in vv. 12-15, while v. 11 states the reality that is created by Jesus’ triumphant death. (3) Any attempt to find an identical linear sequence to Romans 6 fails because baptism in v. 12 encompasses death and resurrection with Jesus and in v. 13 it is their individual spiritual death and spiritual quickening that is in view. (4) There seems to be a two stage scheme of participation based on baptism/burial (= death) and resurrection in vv. 12-13 and there is no wooden imitation of the pattern in Romans 6.

Colossians 2.8-23 - Significance

I have been (and still am) working through Col. 2.8-23 for a writing project. I am convinced that this section shows fairly convincingly that Paul is countering a form of Jewish Mysticism. It is certainly the most theological and polemical section of the entire letter, which has led me to reflect on its significance for the contemporary church. Here's my thoughts so far:

The new covenant community has always been a creedal community confessing its faith as to what God has done in creation, in the history of Israel, in Jesus, and in the life of the church. The triune God has made himself known in his acts of reconciliation and renewal and this fills the content of sermons, Bible studies, liturgies, songs, prayers, and statements of belief from ancient times until even now. For this reason, the early church developed creeds as short programmatic summaries of its faith. These creeds enabled the church to know its own mind and to state how it distinguished itself from Judaism and paganism and from unwholesome derivations of its own beliefs. While no one likes people who are doctrinaire and unduly infatuated with doctrinal precision over every minor issue, nonetheless, we cannot help but notice that the content of faith matters immensely. A common faith is what ultimately defines the centre and boundaries of the church and even forms the fulcrum of our common fellowship.

It is vitally important, then, that the church in all ages guard its theological vision of the nature of God, Christ, and salvation without being pointlessly puritanical or vacuously broad. Even though it might seem unpopular, we should maintain the language of ‘heresy’ and warnings against it, as perversions of our distinct theological vision can endanger the integrity of our message, the focus of our worship, detract from our mission, and even risk shipwrecking our faith upon the jagged rocks of cultural conformity. Heretics never intend to distort the biblical and ancient faith, rather, they intend to make it more palatable and pliable to the spirit of the age, and so remove barriers to belief. For the second century gnostics this meant marrying Christianity to platonic cosmology and for the old liberals of the early twentieth century it required revizing Christian doctrines in light of rationalistic critiques of revealed religion. We should embody the virtue of tolerance, especially in matters that are adiaphora or ‘indifferent’, but at the same time we should think carefully of what we tolerate and not allow anyone to bring sin or false teaching into the church and expect it to be baptized and blessed in Jesus’ name.

We live in an age where, in some circles, inclusiveness has become the new orthodoxy and where exclusiveness has become the new heresy. This is where Col. 2.8-23 is so important. It informs us that some things are not for negotiation, such as the sufficiency and supremacy of Christ, and that nothing can supplement or detract from God’s actions in his annointed Son. Colossians demands no compromise to the creed of solus Christus or ‘Christ alone’. To capitulate this point will result in a theology that is at first imprecise, then wishy-washy, then populalist, then worldly, and finally trivial. Paul calls on Christian communities to confess their faith with courage and fidelity against the philosophies of this world, be they within the church or external to it, and to singularly propound without reservation the absolute finality and ultimacy of Jesus Christ in all things. From this faithful confession emerges a unity rooted in one faith, one Lord, and one baptism, it unites believers from all over the world, it brings them together in a common mission, it entreats them to recline at a common table, and forges their shared identity as those who are in the Messiah.

N.T. Wright on Col. 2.15

NTW is at his best when he writes on Col. 2.15:

"The 'rulers and authorities' of Rome and of Israel - as Caird points out, the best government and the highest religion of the world of that time had ever known - conspired to place Jesus on the cross. These powers, angry at his challenge to their sovereignty, stripped him naked, held him up to public contempt, and celebrated a triumph over him. In one of his most dramatic statements of the paradox of the cross, and one moreover which shows in what physical detail Paul could envisage the horrible death Jesus had died, he declares that, on the contrary, on the cross God was stripping them naked, was holding them to public contempt, and leading them in his own triumphal procession - in Christ, the crucified Messiah. When the 'powers' had done their worst, crucifying the lord of glory incognito on the charge of blasphemy and rebellion, they have overreached themselves. He, neither blasphemer nor rebel, was in fact their rightful sovereign. They thereby exposed themselves for what they were - usurpers of the authority which was properly his. The cross therefore becomes the source of hope for all who had been held captive under their rule, enslaved in fear and mutual suspicion. Christ breaks the last hold that the 'powers' had over his people, by dying on their behalf. He now welcomes them into a new family in which the ways of the old world - its behaviour, its distinctions of race and class and sex, its blind obedience to the 'forces' of politics and economics, prejudice and superstition - have become quite simply out of date, a ragged and defeated rabble." (Colossian, pp. 116-17).

Lightfoot on Col. 2.15

Lightfoot's commentaries are not dry remarks on ancient Greek, but are powerfully sermonic at certain points. Consider this quote on Colossians 2.15:

"The final act in the conflict began with the agony of Gethsemane; it ended with the cross of Calvary. The victory was complete. The enemy of man was defeated. The powers of evil, which had clung like a Nessus robe about His humanity, were torn off and cast aside for ever. And the victory of mankind is involved in the victory of Christ. In His cross we too are divested of the poisonous clinging garments of temptation and sin and death" (p. 190).

Lincoln on the Christ Hymn of Col. 1.15-20

The NIB commentary series is good value and I particularly enjoy the "Reflections" section by most writers. Lincoln has this reflection on Col. 1.15-20:

"All the talk about the use of the hymn and its possible structure should remind us that the writer of Colossians has chosen to use the language of praise of Christ at a vital point in his message in order to reinforce the perspective he and his readers shared and to draw out its implication. It is an effective means of communication because it builds on religious experience - that of worship - and taps the religious emotions so frequently associated with songs of praise. From the perspective of Old Testament studies, Brueggemann has called attention to the power of doxology in the encounter with contemporary idolatries and ideologies. In its response to God, he claims, praise is also an assertion of an alternative world. The liturgy sings and proclaims that God reigns, disestablishing worldly powers and exposing their claims to ultimacy and control. Much the same can be said of the hymn in praise of Christ in Colossians. Its doxological language reinforces for its readers the alternative vision of the Pauline gospel in which Christ is supreme over the cosmos over all powers and has dealt with their disintegrating threat threat through his work of reconciliation. The language of worship still has both educative and affective force. Theological reflection and preaching would do well, therefore, to learn to employ the sources of traditional and contemporary hymns and poetry and to include a rhetoric of devotion in its repertoire in the attempt to instruct, to move, and to motivate congregations to live out of the alternative world of gospel values, where the crucified and risen Christ is cosmic Lord" (p. 611).

Summary of Colossians 1

It is amazing how Col. 1.21-23 presents such a neat little summary of several major themes in the epistle so far. This short little section, Witherington regards it as a partitio, recapiulates a number of ideas already presented, including: hope and gospel (1.5), world-wide mission (1.6), perseverance (1.11), salvation as transference to a new state (1.12-14), and reconciliation through Jesus’ death (1.20). Sounds like a good five point sermon on Colossians 1!

The rhetorical function of Col. 1.15-20

I doubt that the NT epistles are woodenly structured according to the types of outlines for speeches given in the rhetorical handbook. Yet given the prevalence of rhetoric in the ancient world and the aural/oral nature of the New Testament's, rhetoric probably figured somewhat in the structure and function of various units. What rhetorical function does the hymn/poem of Col. 1.15-20 have then? Andrew Lincoln argues that it is part of the exordium and Ben Witherington places it in a narratio. I would be more inclined to see it akin to a propositio since it contains a summary of many of themes of the letter (see also Markus Barth and Margaret MacDonald who hold a similar view). But if Col. 1.15-20 is a preview of the theological contents of the letter how does that relate to the hymn's origin? Would a pre-written hymn/poem just happen to fit so neatly with Paul's exhortation to the Colossians? Or was the hymn/poem selected precisely because it was suited to the context of Colossae and perhaps embellished only slightly to make it more direct?

N.T. Wright on Evangelism

In his Colossians commentary, Wright asserts: 'The task of evangelism is therefore best understood as the proclamation that Jesus is already Lord, that in him God's new creation has broken into history, and that all people are therefore summoned to submit to him in love, worship and obedience. The logic of this message requires that those who announce it should be seeking to bring Christ's Lordship to bear on every area of human and worldly existence' (pp. 79-80).

The Preeminence of Christ in Colossians

Gradually working my way through a commentary on Colossians. I much enjoyed writing this section of the supremacy or preeminence of Christ:

Paul provides two reasons why God has purposed to launch this new creation through his Son and what singularly suited him to this redemptive role. First, God’s plan was that in all things that Jesus would have preeminence or we could say ‘supremacy’ (NIB, NIV, NJB) or ‘first place’ (NRSV, NASB, NET). Here we are talking about far more than being a very important person. We are talking about authority, honour, and power rolled into one. The most analogous background I can think of was the Roman Emperor Augustus who claimed to exceed everyone in auctoritas, that is, a combination of power and prestige. The Augustan age created a pyramid of power and hierarchy that put him inviolabily at the top. Indicative of this is that Augustus held the proconsulship of Rome well beyond the normal limitations of service, he was invested with the power of the tribunate with power of veto over the senate, he was the princeps or chief citizen of the government, he had direct military command of over three-quarters of the Roman legions, the power of invention in imperial provinces, he was given titles like pontifex maximus or ‘high priest’ of the Empire and Imperator Caesar divi filius that is ‘emperor and son of a god’. The implied rhetoric in this poem is that Jesus as the preeminent one, Jesus is the real auctoritas over and against the pretentious claims of Caesar to be sovereign and divine. This becomes all the more powerful if we remember that Paul is perhaps imprisoned in Rome under the meglomaniac emperor Nero when writing this. Caesar is at best a twisted parody of the real Lord of the world and at worst a malevolent tyrrant who creates ‘peace’ through the application of violence. A second thought is proffered by Paul and that is Jesus’ unique qualification to be the agent of reconciliation. Paul say that in him [God] was pleased to have all his fullness dwell. The subject for the verb pleased (eudokeō) is missing, but the implied subject is God. God was pleased to have all his fullness inhabit the Messiah. The word for fullness (plērōma) was a near technical term in Valentian gnosticism for the totality of intermediaries or emmendations radiating from the supreme God. There may be an implied critique here of something from hellenistic philosophy that eventually became part of a gnostic cosmological framework and might even be part of the Colossian philosophy, but the main point is surely christological, the fullness of God - that is God’s word, wisdom, glory, spirit, and power - dwell in the Messiah.

Faithful in Colossae

I'm working my way through Colossians (translation and commentary) and I'm convinced that a number of the references to pistis should be translated as "faithfulness" rather than "faith". Consider the following:

1. Pistos as "faithful"

• Colossians 1:2 - To the holy and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father.
• Colossians 4:7, 9 - Tychicus will tell you all about my activities. He is a beloved brother and faithful minister and fellow servant1 in the Lord ... and with him Onesimus, our faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you. They will tell you of everything that has taken place here.
• Colossians 1:7 - just as you learned it from Epaphras our beloved fellow servant. He is a faithful minister of Christ on your behalf.

This is the standard adjectival use of pistos, but it is prominent in describing members of the Pauline circle. The Colossians are also lauded as "faithful" and I wonder if much of Paul's instruction is going to hedge up this point in light of the Colossian "philosophy".

2. Pistis as "faithful"

• Colossians 1:4-5 - since we heard of your faithfulness in Christ Jesus and of the love that you have for all the saints, because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel. This could be "faith" but the surrounding description clearly sees the faith as something that is or becomes displayed in action, i.e. in love.
• Colossians 1:23 - if indeed you continue in faithfulness, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. Again "faith" does make sense here, but the surrounding description sounds far more like "faithfulness".
• Colossians 2:5-7 - For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faithfulness in Christ. Same as above, "faith" could work, but "faithfulness" seems supported by the context.

3. Pistis as "faith" or "believing"

• Colossians 2:7 - rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.
• Colossians 2:12 - having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

These seem to be clearer expositions of faith as the act of believing (2.12) or that which is believed (2.7).

What does this mean: Colossians is not simply about right doctrinal belief, but about a life lived in faithfulness to the Lord under adverse circumstances. It is also about ministers of the gospel remaining faithful to their calling. It evidently does include a reference to believing and that which is believed, even if that does not become the primary focus.

Colossians Conference

Now I really do wish I was back in Australia because there is a conference on that I'd love to go to, the Colossae Conference on September 21-23, 2007 in Adelaide, Australia (the land of plenty and the city of churches). The keynote speakers include Paul Trebilco, Rosalinde Kearsley, Rick Strelan (my doktorvater). When they finally excavate Colossae, I'd love to be there!

HT: Alan Bandy

The Gospel According to Transformers

I just got back from seeing the new Transformers movie which I would rate at about 6.5-7.0 on the cool-movie-o-metre. Being an early 30s Gen-Xer, watching Transformers brought back alot of childhood memories. My brother and I had lots of the toys: Optimus Prime, Megatron, Starscream, Dinobots, Constructacons, Soundwave, and my personal favourite Sunstreak. One theme that kept emerging out of the movie was "no sacrifice, no victory". This I think is a fitting summary of Col. 2.15 where death and triumph are key elements of the function of Christ's death. Atonement and triumph go hand in hand. The divine victory comes ironically in the midst of death, degradation, and disempowerment. Mark 15 is a parody of the Graeco-Roman triumphal procession and the Evangelist wants us to see that Christ's death is also his coronation. Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God and yet in the titulus above the cross, we find proclaimed the kingship of the crucified. For further details on the movie see the review by Mark Hadley.