Colossians 1

Background of Colossians:

Although Paul is writing to the church there, he did not start it and had not met them.  He had apparently won some of the leaders to the Lord in Phrygia (not a cold place!)  on his first journey, and they had gone to the city and started a church.  Epaphras and Philemon were two of them.  But he is concerned about them, and the major theme of this book is clear teaching on the identity of Jesus Christ and what that means.  As usual, there are false philosophical teachers trying to dissuade the Colossians from the doctrine that the church should be teaching and that in some cases is trying to "work out," understand, articulate.  To an extent, it would take 300 or 400 years for all the particulars of the doctrine of Christ to be settled, and there are of course still people who teach the wrong things about the identity (I don't want to use "nature" here) of Jesus Christ.

There were two particular types of false teachers:  the Judaizers, and the Gnostics.  The Judaizers speak for themselves; a convert had to go through Jewish rituals to really be right with God.  The Gnostics are the problem in Colossians.  It’s hard to understand the history of the early church or the New Testament without understanding them.  In short, they were:

• ·         Dualistic, with the body being of no importance compared to the spirit or mind.  This led to either a punishment of the body or an indulgence of the flesh (since it didn’t matter either way.  We see a lot of dualism today.
• ·         Layers of “beings.”  A good example would be the caste system of Hinduism.   Some religions apply evolutionary theory to spirituality and are therefore Gnostic.
• ·         The need to be secretly initiated into “knowledge” by various systems and teachers so that you reach higher levels; this reminds me of Masons. 
• ·         Therefore, faulty ideas about Christ, especially in ways like the DaVinci Code and Nag Hamadi manuscripts.  Gnosticism also lends itself to a lot of wacky theology and myths.

On the contrary, the true gospel of Christ teaches the importance of the body (Jesus had one, and we are “the body” of Christ); that every human being is equally sinful and in need of grace; that God freely reveals himself in the Word.

We have talked in class about a lot of issues over the years.  Just last week we talked about lotteries as ways to get state revenues, and whether gambling is wrong.  A few weeks back we talked about heaven and hell--when do people actually go there.  We have talked about various lifestyle choices, such as drinking. 

In some of these kinds of issues, there is latitude, and I would not make a big deal over them.  I personally strongly believe that gambling is evil in all its forms, especially state-sponsored gambling.  However it could also be argued that my job exists because of state-sponsored gambling; I have bought two lottery tickets in my life; and I buy raffle tickets all the time.  So I admit to being a tad inconsistent on this.

Second, the whole heaven-and-hell, who and when issue is complicated.  "Absent from the body, present with the Lord" is enough for me; "It is appointed unto man once to die and after that the judgment" pretty much takes care of it; and " Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.  And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure" satisfies me in terms of the second coming.  It astounds me that Christians who make such a big deal about trusting God in the future can't just trust God about what eternity will be like, so they spend a lot of time arguing over heaven and what we will look like.  I actually heard someone on the radio say we would be 30 years old forever in heaven!  Please.  How can anyone say that?  Then, whether we, or anyone, "sleeps" until the final resurrection, without consciousness, seems to go against who we are as human beings, but I am not going to argue about it.  I just disagree.

Then, things like drinking.  "Take a little wine for your stomach's sake."  Yesterday I was up for two awards at my college.  I lost both of them--dissed twice in one day!!!  But I lost to two phenomenal people, so I couldn't complain.  But I joked that I was going to go out and get drunk.  My friend, who was also up for an award and "lost" and whom I invited to go get drunk with me, laughed and said, "What kind of way is that for a Baptist Sunday School teacher to act!"  (She's a good Baptist herself, so she knew I was kidding.)  Several years ago I would have argued over drinking; my conviction today is that spirits (liquor) should be shunned but beer and wine are not worth arguing over.  But I can respect those who disagree with me, and a true abstinence stand is probably the wisest.

But I said all that to say this:  There are a group of issues that are non-negotiable; they are some doctrines and teachings that are "deal-breakers" as Dr. Phil would say.  And the main one is the identity of Christ.  If you get that wrong, I just don't think you get to call yourself a Christian.  And I'll say something even more radical.  You can talk all you want to about the cross, about the sufferings of the passion, but they don't matter if you get who Jesus Christ was, wrong.  He was just another executed person.  And he wouldn't have been resurrected.

So, Christology is central.  There are several key passages in the New Testament (and a few in the Old) that mature Christians should study with all their hearts and minds.  John 1; Hebrews 1; Philippians 2:5-11; Isaiah 53; and today's passage, Colossians 1.

 That is not to say these are easy passages.  They have been studied and argued about for two thousand years.  For the first 400 years there were some violent contentions about them, and several "councils" of the early church were held to work out how the deity of Christ could be understood in relation to the humanity of Christ.  Some examples: (I'm not going to get into the actual names and councils and creeds here--if you are interested, I can recommend or give you a good book on the history of Christianity.)

• ·         One teacher taught that Jesus was just a created, but special being who got to his status by the cross and resurrection.  There is some indication in the New Testament that there was a "reward" or "change in role" due to the incarnation, cross, and resurrection, but it didn't change the eternal nature of Christ.  It made him savior as well as creator.
• ·         One teacher/group taught that Jesus was not fully human, but he was fully God. 
• ·         One teacher/group taught that Jesus was half-way God and half-way human. 
• ·         One teacher/group taught that Jesus stopped being God when he was on earth.
• ·         One teacher/group taught that Jesus did not have a real body, but was a spirit.

The language had to be refined over the years to make it clear to everyone what exactly was taught in scripture about Christ's identity.  In the various creeds--Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian, Calcedonian--the early church leaders tried to clarify the doctrine of the trinity and thus Christ's identity.  They can be found here: http://reformed.org/documents/index.html

I do not consider myself linguistically or theological capable of explaining these matters; there are plenty of resources to do so, but every Christian needs a clear idea within himself or herself so that he or she can defend it, not be swayed by false teachers, and truly worship with an informed mind as well as eager heart.

Some Baptists and evangelicals would say, "Just read the Bible and go by that, don't get caught up in these old-time creeds and confessions."  I guess that's where I differ.  To ignore these documents is to be proud of one's own abilities to study the Word; to disrespect those who suffered for the faith and either served, gave, or studied their lives away for it; and to misunderstand what Bible study is about, because we  always study in a context.

So, all that said, let's look at the passage.

Colossians 1:1-8  Greeting.  Again, I am both warmed and convicted by the affection shown here.  I want that.  But it has to be the focus of our lives.  Let me mention here that verses 3-8 is one sentence in the original Greek.  The modern translations often break those up for shorter sentences, but some translations will be more faithful to the complexity of the Greek.

Colossians 1:9-12:  A prayer.  This is in some ways similar to Paul's prayers in, for example, Ephesians 1. There are two basic "requests" in this prayer, with a lot of related "subpoints" (obviously prayers are not divided up like sermons or essays, but I am left-brained and think that way, so forgive).

I.  that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, 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.

      This part of the prayer focuses on the mind, if you will, but in Bible thinking there is not a separation between the head and "heart", the intellect and the emotions.  That is a Descartes, Enlightenment introduction.  In the Bible, the two work together, and I wish they did for us--that we had informed emotions and warm, spiritually guided intellects.  Paul asks for them to have knowledge and wisdom so that they can walk worthy and bear fruit.  In other words, you can't do the "walk worthy and bear fruit" part unless you have something to base it on.  Yes, you can conform and do what the preacher says, but you won't be grounded or knowledgeable or firm.  

I am reading Mark Noll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.  It is quite a read, and I will blog on it later.  This is his main point:  that evangelicals just did not develop a strong intellectual foundation for what they do and practice.  I see that so much, it's frightening.  Paul says, "I ask that you know God's will, that you have understanding."  And we don't get it just by osmosis or a lightning strike from heaven.  We have to work at it by study.  This will lead to a walk that is worthy and pleasing.  A Christian that works for understanding can't help but walk worthy.  A Christian that just studies for the sake of proudly showing off his/her  so-called knowledge will not apply that knowledge to every day walk.

II.  The second request (11 and 12) is that we would be internally strengthened by the Holy Spirit according to his great power and "glorious might."  This is the flip side of the coin, the completion of the picture.  They can't be separated.

In verses 13-20 is one of the great Christological passages, which I would encourage you to read every day this Holy Week, because it focuses on both the who and the what of Christ.  I will just read with a few comments.

The Father has "delivered" us in the fullest sense--rescued, birthed, transported.   Our new place of residence is the kingdom of God's beloved Son, about whom there are many things to be said.

He is "the" image.  We are created "in the image" of God, but Christ is the image.  Big difference.  The Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown Commentary states that this means "exact likeness and perfect Representative. Adam was made “in the image of God” (Gen 1:27). But Christ, the second Adam, perfectly reflected visibly “the invisible God” (I Tim. 1:7), whose glories the first Adam only in part represented."  The commentary goes on to distinguish between "likeness" and "image", the second being exact counterpart of that from which it is drawn, not just resemblance, which is "likeness."

He is the "firstborn of all creation."   Now, this is a little confusing.  "Born" is not theologically the same as "begotten," which is the word here.  The significance is "priority and superlative dignity."  (JFB Commentary).  Firstborn here is about pre-eminence and rule, because the firstborn got "everything" in that day and time.  The meaning here is his rulership and authority, not that somewhere in the past Jesus was born, which could lead to all kinds of crazy speculation and doctrine (who was the mother?).    So the question is, did the Son of God come around after God the Father?  We are not led to think so by the rest of Scripture, especially the next four verses, which teach that the Son had and has all the creative responsibilities, physically sustaining responsibilities, ruling responsibilities, and saving responsibilities, of the created universe.

The result:  (not in time but in fact).  He is head of the body, the church; all fullness of the Godhead dwells in the Son; he reconciled all things; he made peace through the cross (which had to involve a bloody death--it was not just any death).   Does reconciling all things teach universalism?  I don't think so--I think it refers to the future "making right" of the physical world. 

I can't help reading this and scratching my head over the popularity of a book like The Shack, a true cult favorite in the worst meaning of that word.  It appealed to the emotions, not the understanding.

I would like to end this lesson with a little exercise like the church did last week in the worship service.  That made a huge impact on me, and I've been talking about it all week.  I hope you made your own mental "homeless" signs this week as a way to praise God.   I have some based on this passage that I'd like each of you to show now.

IN THE DOMAIN OF DARKNESS

TRANSLATED INTO KINGDOM OF GOD’S BELOVED SON

IN SLAVERY TO SIN

REDEEMED

GUILTY

FORGIVEN

ALIENATED

RECONCILED

HOSTILE IN MIND TO GOD

BLAMELESS AND ABOVE REPROACH

UNSTEADY

NOT SHIFTING, FIRM

BARREN

FRUITFUL

SPIRITUALLY WEAK

STRENGTHENED WITH ALL POWER ACCORDING TO HIS GLORIOUS MIGHT

LACKING KNOWLEDGE

FILLED WITH

KNOWLEDGE OF HIS WILL IN ALL SPIRITUAL WISDOM AND UNDERSTANDING