Colossians 4

The end of Colossians has a lot of great tidbits.

Paul refers to "chains" twice (vv. 3, 18) and that Aristarchus is a "fellow-prisoner (v. 10).  I think we can reasonably infer from this language that he wrote the letter while imprisoned in Rome.

A doctor named "Luke" is with Paul (in Rome?).  This man sends his greetings (v. 14) and I think the traditional view is that he is the Gospel writer Luke.

Paul refers to a letter from Laodicea (v. 16).  This would indicate a second letter, which appears to be lost to history.  There is an outside chance it could be the Book of Revelations by Apostle John, but I personally think Paul is referring to a letter he wrote to Laodicea that did not make it into the Scriptural canon.

The men carrying the letter to Colosse are Onesimus and Tychichus (vv. 7-9).  We know Onesimus as the escaped slave at the heart of the book of Philemon.  Putting these details together, Onesimus might be bringing two letters to the city of Colosse.  One letter is addressed to the church while the other is personally directed to Philemon.  These letters we know today as the Book of Colossians and the Book of Philemon.  

Further, the personal greetings in Colossians match those of the Book of Philemon.

Essentially, it seems the church of Colosse received both letters at once.  This escaped slave context of the Book of Philemon provides an interesting framework to view the very passages in Colossians where Paul discusses slavery.  There, he spoke at length of the requirement for slaves to obey, but only a single sentence about the reciprocal duty of a master to be fair.

Questions to ponder - is Paul implicitly saying that Philemon abused Onesimus?  If Paul focuses Colossians on obedience, why is the focus of the Book of Philemon about Philemon's forgiveness of Onesimus?  Likewise, it is silent about reinstituting Philemon's ownership of Onesimus.

Christian duties in Colossians (chapter 3-4:1)

Colossians 2 focused on grace and freedom within church.  He even said that the written law (i.e., Mosaic code) was nailed to the cross.  Paul does not leave it there, but in chapter 3, he lays down the lifestyle responsibilities of the Christian.  They include the main list of things we see elsewhere in other epistles (do not lie, cheat, steal; avoid lust, greed, anger, sexual immorality, etc...)

Interestingly, he puts a greater emphasis on the rules of the household, which parlays into slavery/employment.

What is the duty of parents?

This is an interesting question and I don't think it is addressed a lot specifically in the Bible.  Paul touches on it here.

The household should have mutual respect and love.  Children must obey their parents (3:20), which made it into the original 10 commandments.  But likewise, fathers must not embitter their children (3:21).  

On one hand, this juxtaposition of the mutual responsibilities between children and parents feels new.  For instance, children are told to honor their parents in Commandment 5, but the 10 Commandments are silent about what parents must do for their children in addition to obeying the rest of the Commandments. 

 If parents set an example of lying and cheating in the household, then they would be breaking some of the Commandments, but they would not necessarily violate a duty to raise their children well.  

That said, there are places throughout the Bible where parents are given child-rearing advice.  They just do not tend to appear alongside a requirement for children to obey their parents.  For instance, Proverbs 22:6 advises a parent to train a child in the way he should go.

Likewise, there are instances where the sins of parents impact their children.  The Old Testament speaks of generational blessings and curses, but we could also consider all the times in the kings of Israel where God invited a king for a dynasty, but the king's failure to follow God destroyed or limited the dynasty.  This happened with Saul (I Samuel 13:13) and Jeroboam (I Kings 11:38).

Slaves and Masters

Paul tells slaves to obey their masters (3:22).  Paul says that they must work as if they are working for the lord (3:23).  I have heard people cite this latter verse in the modern employment context, which I think is fair.

Paul balances this directive with a requirement that masters must treat their slaves fairly because they have a Master in heaven (4:1).

On one hand, here is a new testament verse implying that slavery is a proper social relationship among Christians.  If we honestly look at the text, it does seem to suggest that.  But it is also must be balanced with fairness, otherwise it loses its legitimacy.

We can also point to the Jewish slavery custom as an analogy.  There, it is more like what we would call indentured servanthood where the "slave" is released after a certain amount of time.  Likewise, there is no generational slavery in that being born to a slave parent does not make the child a slave.

A slight problem with using the Jewish slave analogy is that Paul already said that the Mosaic law is cancelled.  This would include the requirement to release one's slaves after a certain time.

The Colossus of Epistles (Colossians 1-2)

A giant statute, the Colossus of Rhodes, once stood at the port of Rhodes.  This giant statute became the inspiration for the Statue of Liberty in New York harbor.

This is not the same thing as Colosse or Paul's epistle to the church of Colosse.  However, there is an analogy.  

Colossians is, in my humble opinion, an overlooked book that explains the Christian faith in very simple and concrete terms.  It does not go into the detail that we find in Romans or 1 Corinthians, but stands as a precise summary of many essentials expounded on elsewhere.  It is a tiny book that casts a very large shadow, like a Colossus.

Paul did not establish the church at Colosse.  Rather, they heard the gospel from Epaphras (1:7) who reported to Paul (1:8).  For this, Paul prays continuously for the church of Colosse (1:9).  

A question to ponder - how often do we pray for other churches or Christians that we have never met?  Paul does not say we should, but he did "continuously".

Much of the first two chapters are about the supremacy of Christ.  I find the language beautiful.  Here is what stands out to me:

The Kingdom of the Son (1:13)

God rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us to the Kingdom of the Son. The Bible discusses a lot about the Kingdom of Heaven.  Christ's statements in the Gospels about it in Gospels tended to be strange.  In fact, they obfuscated the crowd of original hearers to the point they thought Jesus referred to a political kingdom.  

This verse does not address all the implications and characteristics of a Kingdom of Heaven.  But it does address a few.

First, we are in it.  The statement is a present-state description.  This fits the analogy I have heard that the world is "pregnant" with the Kingdom of Heaven.  It is here, but not yet fully come.

Second, it stands opposed to the "dominion of darkness".  There are two kingdoms, darkness and "of the Son".  To me, I think of heaven and hell clashing on the earth.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all Creation (1:15)

The language of this is amazing.  How can something that is invisible cast an image?  God found a way.  That way is Christ.

That said, the text sparks to mind the creation of man in which man was made in the image of God.  (Genesis 1:26).  However, the author of Genesis did not specify that God is actually "invisible", whereas Paul does.  Paul further elaborates that Christ was the beginning of Creation and that Christ implemented Creation.

I don't want to read more into the text than is there.  But at the very least, Paul explains Christ role at the beginning of time in a similar way that John 1 expounds on "in the beginning".  

Paul struggles for the church of Laodicea (2:1)

In the context, Laodicea seems to be another church that Paul has not visited, but has a great interest in.  Paul does not explain what he means by his struggles for it.  It seems to me that he might want to write a letter to them.  If so, that letter is likely lost to history.  

However, the book of Revelations is a letter to Laodicea and six other churches.  From Revelation 3:14-22, we know the problem with the church at Laodicea is that it is "lukewarm".  This may be what Paul is referring to.  Granted, the situation in Laodicea may have changed because Revelations may have been written several decades after Paul died.  In short, we will never know precisely what Paul is referring, but yet again, Paul is concerned about churches and Christians he never met.

Problems with the church of Colosse

We can reasonably infer the problems with the church of Colosse relate to the advice that Paul gives them.  From this, we can gather the church had the following problems.

1.  Circumcision

Many other epistles deal with this, indicating it was a widespread problem that Christians thought they needed to be circumcised. Colossians is no different.  Paul goes further than other epistles and states we were "circumcised in Christ", implicitly by our faith in Christ.  

What is interesting about the statement is that it could apply equally to women, since it is a spiritual circumcision and irrelevant to anatomical differences.

A question to ponder - why is circumcision still so popular today among Christians?  In fact, I remember meeting a Christian who said he was circumcised as an adult.

Paul then goes very, very far.  He says the "written code" was cancelled and taken away by Christ and nailed on the cross.  (2:13-14) 

I grew up in a church that overlooked that statement, so this rings deep personally.  

It also clarifies the nebulous statement Jesus made in the Sermon on the Mount, that not one jot or tittle of the Law will be taken away.  (Matthew 5:17-18). Here, Paul explains what it means that Christ fulfilled the law, but yet it still exists.  

2.  Dietary laws, Festivals, Sabbath Days (2:16-17)

Paul gives the advice that no one should judge them with regard to what they eat, the festivals they keep, or of Sabbath days.  The reason is that these were a shadow of Christ.

I have kept track and this is the strongest statement in the New Testament about the freedom of keeping the Sabbath or festivals.  It is also a bold statement about the dietary laws, but I think it is on par with regard to Peter's vision when he visited Cornelius in Acts 10-11.

What it does now say?  It does not say we should never take a Sabbath or celebrate a festival for God.  Rather, it gives freedom to personalize them among cultural traditions or even individuals.  Likewise, it gives freedom to determine what exactly is a "Sabbath" rest to people.  

For instance, why drop the Jewish holy festivals that God gave to Moses in favor of Christmas?  This gives us the freedom to do so.  

The inverse is also true, that people are free to drop Christmas in favor of the holy festivals that God gave to Moses.  

3.  Worship of Angels (2:18-19)

It seems to come out of nowhere, but people are worshipping angels based on angelic encounters they had.  The people go into long detail about their encounters.  The same people have no actual connection to Christ, which would explain why they are worshipping angels and not God.

Personally, I think a lot of other religions and folk beliefs of the world can be attributed to someone interacting with some sort of "angel", quite possibly a fallen angel.  That kind of stuff has happened all throughout history and will continue to do so.

Angels exist, they interact with us, and they interacted with tons of people in the Bible.  Many of the people in the Bible explained in detail what the angel did, so that is not the problem that Paul wants to address.

I think Paul's point is that regardless of angel and angelic encounters, worship belongs to Christ, and Christ alone.