The Letter to the COLOSSIANS

SCOT MCKNIGHT

WILLIAM B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 2140 Oak Industrial Drive N.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49505 www.eerdmans.com

© 2018 Scot McKnight All rights reserved Published 2018

ISBN 978-0-8028-6798-8

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Mcknight, Scot, author. Title: The letter to the Colossians / Scot Mcknight. Description: Grand Rapids : Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2018. | Series: The new international commentary on the New Testament | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017031037 | ISBN 9780802867988 (hardcover : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Colossians—Commentaries. Classification: LCC BS2715.53 .M35 2018 | DDC 227/.7077—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017031037

Scriptures taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com. The “NIV” and “New International Version” are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™

THE NEW INTERNATIONAL COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT

General Editors

NED B. STONEHOUSE (1946–1962)

F. F. BRUCE (1962–1990)

GORDON D. FEE (1990–2012)

JOEL B. GREEN (2013–)

To my friend and colleague Claude Mariottini, who reminds me of what Paul said of Epaphras:

Ἐπαφρᾶς ὁ ἐξ ὑμῶν, δοῦλος Χριστοῦ [Ἰησοῦ], πάντοτε ἀγωνιζόμενος ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς, ἵνα σταθῆτε τέλειοι καὶ πεπληροφορημένοι ἐν παντὶ θελήματι τοῦ θεοῦ.

Almighty and everlasting God, whose will it is to restore all things in your well-beloved Son, the King of kings and Lord of lords: Mercifully grant that the peoples of the earth, divided and enslaved by sin, may be freed and brought together under his most gracious rule; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen. The Book of Common Prayer

When a preacher opens the Bible and interprets the Word of God, a mystery takes place, a miracle: the grace of God, who comes down from heaven into our midst and speaks to us, knocks on our door, asks questions, warns us, puts pressure on us, alarms us, threatens us, and makes us joyful again and free and sure. DIETRICH BONHOEFFER The Collected Sermons of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

The ideal interpreter would be one who has entered into that strange first-century world, has felt its whole strangeness, has sojourned in it until he has lived himself into it, thinking and feeling as one of those to whom the Gospel first came; and who will then return into our world, and give to the truth he has discerned a body out of the stuff of our own thought. If there are other qualifications of which it is less fitting to speak in an academic lecture, I may be allowed to hint at them in a phrase familiar to theologians—testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum. C. H. DODD inaugural lecture at Cambridge, in F. W. Dillistone, C. H. Dodd: Interpreter of the New Testament

Contents

General Editor’s Preface
Author’s Preface
Abbreviations
Bibliography

INTRODUCTION

      I.      AUTHORSHIP: THE LOGIC OF THE KNOWN TO THE UNKNOWN
  A.      Authority of Paul
  B.      Christology
  C.      Ecclesiology
  D.      Eschatology
  E.      Other Themes Absent
  F.      Colossians and Ephesians
  G.      Philemon
      II.      OPPONENTS AND SETTING: THE HALAKIC MYSTICS OF COLOSSAE
  A.      Methodology
  B.      The Opponents
      III.      DATE AND IMPRISONMENT
  A.      Options
  B.      Discussion
      IV.      PAUL’S THEOLOGY IN COLOSSIANS
  A.      Paul’s Theology: What Scholars Are Saying
  B.      Paul’s Theology in Colossians: A Brief Sketch
      V.      THE STRUCTURE OF COLOSSIANS

TEXT AND COMMENTARY

      I.      INTRODUCTION (1:1–2:5)
  A.      Salutation (1:1–2)
  B.      Thanksgiving (1:3–8)
  C.      Intercession (1:9–23)
  D.      Authorizing Biographical Disclosure (1:24–2:5)
      II.      DOCTRINAL CORRECTION (2:6–3:4)
  A.      The Essential Exhortation (2:6–7)
  B.      Correction of False Religion (2:8–19)
  C.      Exhortation to True Religion (2:20–3:4)
      III.      PRACTICAL EXHORTATION (3:5–4:6)
  A.      Christian Life: Old and New Existence (3:5–17)
  B.      Christian Life: Household Regulations (3:18–4:1)
  C.      Christian Life: Ecclesial Instructions (4:2–6)
      IV.      CONCLUSION (4:7–18)
  A.      Messengers (4:7–9)
  B.      Greetings (4:10–15)
  C.      Directions (4:16–17)
  D.      Superscription (4:18)

Index of Subjects
Index of Authors
Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Texts

General Editor’s Preface

As Acts tells the story, the Lord choreographed an encounter between Philip and an Ethiopian eunuch on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza. This Ethiopian, who had a copy of at least some of the Scriptures, was reading from the prophet Isaiah. Hearing him read, Philip inquired, “Are you really grasping the significance of what you are reading?” The Ethiopian responded, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” The result was that Philip shared the good news about Jesus with him, and the Ethiopian was baptized as a new Christ-follower (Acts 8:26–40). It is difficult to imagine a more pressing mandate for the work of a commentary than this: to come alongside readers of Scripture in order to lead them so that they can grasp the significance of what they read—and to do so in ways that are not only informative but transformative. This has been and remains the aim of the New International Commentary on the New Testament. The interpretive work on display in this volume and, indeed, in this commentary series can find no better raison d’être and serve no better ambition. What distinguishes such a commentary? First and foremost, we are concerned with the text of Scripture. It does not mean that we are not concerned with the history of scholarship and scholarly debate. It means, rather, that we strive to provide a commentary on the text and not on the scholarly debate. It means that the centerpiece of our work is a readable guide for readers of these texts, with references to critical issues and literature, as well as interaction with them, found in our plentiful footnotes. Nor does it mean that we eschew certain critical methods or require that each contributor follow a certain approach. It means, rather, that we take up whatever methods and pursue whatever approaches assist our work of making plain the significance of these texts. Second, we self-consciously locate ourselves as Christ-followers who read Scripture in the service of the church and its mission in the world. Reading in the service of the church does not guarantee a particular kind of interpretation—say, one that is supportive of the church in all times and places or that merely parrots what the church wants to say. The history of interpretation demonstrates that, at times, the Scriptures speak a needed prophetic word of challenge, calling the church back to its vocation as the church. And at other times, the Scriptures speak a word of encouragement, reminding the church of its identity as a people who follow a crucified Messiah and serve a God who will vindicate God’s ways and God’s people. We also recognize that, while the Scriptures are best read and understood through prayerful study and in the context of the church’s worship, our reading of them cannot be separated from the world that the church engages in mission. C. S. Lewis rightly noted that what we see is determined in part by where we are standing, and the world in which we stand presses us with questions that cannot help but inform our interpretive work. It is not enough to talk about what God once said, for we need to hear again and again what the Spirit, through the Scriptures, is now saying to the church. Accordingly, we inquire into the theological significance of what we read, and into how this message might take root in the lives of God’s people. Finally, the New International Commentary on the New Testament is written especially for pastors, teachers, and students. That is, our work is located in that place between the more critical commentaries, with their lines of untranslated Greek and Aramaic and Latin, and the homiletical commentaries that seek to work out how a text might speak to congregations. Our hope is that those preparing to teach and preach God’s word will find in these pages the guide they need, and that those learning the work of exegesis will find here an exemplar worth emulating. JOEL B. GREEN

Author’s Preface

When I began teaching Greek exegesis to seminary students in the early 1980s, one of the first books we examined was Paul’s Letter to the Colossians. If the first cut is the deepest, the first class taught in exegesis is also the deepest. I taught Colossians nearly every year for the next dozen or so years until I took a post at an undergraduate institution where Colossians was no longer on offer. When I was invited to write Colossians (as well as a separate commentary on Philemon) by Jon Pott, I was more than excited to accept the offer. Joel Green’s capacities as editor are not only legendary but well deserved: his comments on the first draft led to a deep revision that improved the commentary in many ways. Academic careers form deep memories, and one of mine has been a journey alongside Joel my entire career. Joel engaged his doctoral students to bring the footnotes into conformity with the newer guidelines for the series. Trevor Thompson’s extraordinary editorial work brought all of this into shape. When it comes to the exegesis of this letter, I cannot recommend highly enough M. J. Harris’s Colossians and Philemon for its incomparably close reading of the grammar and syntax of Paul. As a professor of Greek exegesis, I examined carefully, and was much helped by, commentaries by C. F. D. Moule and Eduard Lohse. As I wrote this commentary, I was constantly aware that three of my professors have published commentaries on Colossians (Harris, Dunn, Moo), and two of my “successors” at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School have done so as well (Pao, Campbell). That now six commentaries on Colossians have emerged from the same institution reveals the place the letter plays in that exegesis curriculum. I am regularly asked by preaching pastors which of the commentaries on Colossians is the best, and I answer each time,“The one by Marianne Meye Thompson.” Her gifted prose, judicious exegesis, and theological breadth give supreme value to her commentary, brief as it is. I count it a privilege to have been an academic associate of hers for our entire careers; her work on Colossians reflects how she excels as a teacher at Fuller, a scholar, and an author. Time and time again, I turned to Marianne when I could not make up my mind on a passage, and each time I found that she offered wisdom, routinely punctuated with exegetical common sense. The translation used here is that of the NIV (2011), compared with the Common English Bible. In my James commentary in this series I gave serious attention to the text-critical apparatus because the full display of evidence had been published, but that same evidence has not yet been published for Colossians or Philemon, so I have reduced text-critical details to a minimum in this commentary. I cannot fail to acknowledge my thanks to Eerdmans for an advance copy of John Barclay’s newest book, Paul and the Gift, which reshaped my thinking and will feature at times in the commentary. Scholarship moves on, and it grieves me that Paul Foster’s judicious commentary on Colossians in Black’s New Testament Commentaries became available too late for use in the work that follows. Thanks to Tara Beth Leach for running down endless details for this project. In addition, ever the skilled technician with all things computerish, Tara Beth turned articles and chapters into a digital format for my iPad, which made my work simpler and easier. To Northern Seminary—the Board of Trustees, the administration, and my colleagues—for the privilege of a sabbatical to finish this commentary, I cannot express my thanks enough. Thanks to Fr. Michael Gaudoin-Parker for the lease of Apartment Elena in April 2015 in Assisi, Italy. Kris and I were surrounded by the beauty of Umbria and the incomparable evocations of St. Francis—and in the mornings I spent my time reading scholarship on Colossians. To Jay Greener, Amanda Holm Rosengren, and Stephanie Booth for their leadership at Church of the Redeemer, North Shore, Kris and I both express our deepest gratitudes. To Justin Gill, one of my students at Northern, thanks for comments on an earlier draft of the introduction. The commentary is dedicated to my friend and colleague Claude Mariottini upon his retirement after a full career of teaching Old Testament at Northern Seminary. Claude is not just a good friend and wise counselor but a careful scholar, sensitive to theology and church life, and one whose door is always open for conversation. To him and his good wife, Donna, Northern will be eternally grateful, but I will sorely miss his kind presence in my life. Finally, and most important, I express my gratitude for Kris. She has been with me since I was taught Colossians in seminary, when I began teaching Colossians as a young professor, and she has been with me as I wrote this commentary. Our time in Assisi will be with us forever.

Abbreviations

       AB      Anchor Bible
       ABD      Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freeman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
       ABRL      Anchor Bible Reference Library
       ANTC      Abingdon New Testament Commentaries
       Antioch Bible      The Syriac Peshitta Bible with English Translation: Galatians-Philemon. Translated by J. Edward Walters. Text by G. A. Kiraz. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2013.
       ATANT      Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments
       BDAG      Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
       BDF      Blass, Friedrich, Albert Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.
       Bib      Biblica
       BibSac      Bibliotheca Sacra
       BIS      Biblical Interpretation Series
       BJRL      Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester
       BNTC      Black’s New Testament Commentaries
       BR      Biblical Research
       BThSt      Biblisch-theologische Studien
       BZNW      Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft
       CEB      Common English Bible
       CGTC      Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary
       CTJ      Calvin Theological Journal
       CurBS      Currents in Research: Biblical Studies
       CurTM      Currents in Theology and Mission
       DBW      Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works
       DCH      The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by David J. A. Clines. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011.
       DJG      Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013.
       DNTB      Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.
       DOTWPW      Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, and Writings. Edited by Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008.
       DPL      Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.
       ECNT      Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
       EDEJ      Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
       EDNT      Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990–93.
       EFN      Estudios de Filología Neotestamentaria
       EGGNT      Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament
       ETL      Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses
       EvQ      Evangelical Quarterly
       ExpTim      Expository Times
       FRLANT      Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments
       GEL      Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. Edited by Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida. 2 vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988.
       GLAJJ      Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Edited by Menahem Stern. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974–84.
       HNT      Handbuch zum Neuen Testament
       HTKNT      Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
       HUT      Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie
       ICC      International Critical Commentary
       Int      Interpretation
       ITQ      Irish Theological Quarterly
       JAC      Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum
       JBL      Journal of Biblical Literature
       JETS      Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
       JJS      Journal of Jewish Studies
       JSJSup      Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism
       JSNT      Journal for the Study of the New Testament
       JSNTSup      Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series
       JSOTSup      Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series
       JSPL      Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters
       JTS      Journal of Theological Studies
       KJV      King James Version
       LCL      Loeb Classical Library
       LEC      Library of Early Christianity
       LNTS      The Library of New Testament Studies
       LXX      Septuagint (Greek Old Testament)
       MM      Moulton, James Hope, and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1930. Repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.
       NCB      New Century Bible
       NCCS      New Covenant Commentary Series
       Neot      Neotestamentica
       NewDocs      New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Edited by G. H. R. Horsley and S. R. Llewelyn. North Ryde, NSW: Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, 1976–; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998–.
       NICNT      New International Commentary on the New Testament
       NIDNTT      New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Edited by Colin Brown. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975–78.
       NIDNTTE      New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by Moisés Silva. 2nd ed. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014.
       NIGTC      New International Greek Testament Commentary
       NIV      New International Version, 2011 ed.
       NLT      New Living Translation
       NovT      Novum Testamentum
       NovTSup      Supplements to Novum Testamentum
       NRSV      New Revised Standard Version
       NTD      Das Neue Testament Deutsch
       NTL      New Testament Library
       NTOA      Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus
       NTS      New Testament Studies
       Omanson      Omanson, R. L. A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006.
       ÖTK      Ökumenischer Taschenbuch-Kommentar
       OTP      Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983–85.
       ResQ      Restoration Quarterly
       RGG      Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Edited by Kurt Galling. 3rd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957–.
       RILP      Roehampton Institute London Papers
       RSV      Revised Standard Version
       SBLDS      Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
       SBLMS      Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
       SJLA      Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
       SJT      Scottish Journal of Theology
       SNTSMS      Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
       SNTSU      Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt
       SP      Sacra Pagina
       Spicq      Spicq, Ceslas. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. Translated by James D. Ernest. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
       ST      Studia Theologica
       Str.-B.      Strack, H. L., and P. Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. Munich, 1922–61.
       TDNT      Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76.
       THNT      Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament
       TLG      Thersaurus Linguae Graecae: Canon of Greek Authors and Works. Edited by Luci Berkowitz and Karl A. Squitier. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
       TLNT      Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. C. Spicq. Translated and edited by J. D. Ernest. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
       TNTC      Tyndale New Testament Commentaries
       TynBull      Tyndale Bulletin
       TZ      Theologische Zeitschrift
       VE      Vox Evangelica
       WBC      Word Biblical Commentary
       WTJ      Westminster Theological Journal
       WUNT      Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
       ZNW      Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

Bibliography

I. COMMENTARIES

These commentaries are cited by last name, volume number where appropriate, and page.

Aletti, Jean-Noël. Saint Paul Épitre aux Colossiens: Introduction, traduction et commentaire. Etudes bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1993. Andria, Solomon. “Colossians.” Pages 1475–84 in Africa Bible Commentary. Edited by Tokunboh Adeyemo. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. Barclay, John M. G. Colossians and Philemon. T&T Clark Study Guides. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2004. Barth, Markus, and Helmut Blanke. Colossians. Translated by Astrid B. Beck. AB 34B. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005. Bird, Michael F. Colossians and Philemon: A New Covenant Commentary. NCCS. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2009. Bormann, Lukas. Der Brief des Paulus an die Kolosser. THNT 10.1. Leipzig: Evangelischer Verlagsanstalt, 2012. Bruce, F. F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. 2nd ed. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. Caird, C. B. Paul’s Letters from Prison in the Revised Standard Version. New Clarendon Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981. Campbell, Constantine. Colossians and Philemon: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2013. Decker-Lucke, Shirley A. “Colossians.” Pages 714–21 in IVP Women’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Catherine Clark Kroeger and Mary J. Evans. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002. Dibelius, Martin. An die Kolosser, Epheser, an Philemon. Edited by H. Greeven. 3rd ed. HNT 12. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1953. Dunn, James D. G. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Gnilka, Joachim. Der Kolosserbrief. HTKNT 10.1. Freiburg: Herder, 1980. Gupta, Nijay K. Colossians. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2013. Harris, Murray J. Colossians and Philemon. EGGNT. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010. Hay, David. Colossians. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 2000. Hübner, Hans. An Philemon, an die Kolosser, an die Epheser. HNT 12. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Iralu, Sanyu. “Colossians.” Pages 1660–68 in South Asia Bible Commentary. Edited by Brian Wintle. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015. Lewis, Lloyd A. “Colossians.” Pages 380–89 in True to Our Native Land: An African American New Testament Commentary. Edited by Brian K. Blount. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Lightfoot, J. B. Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970. Lincoln, Andrew T. “The Letter to the Colossians.” Pages 551–669 in vol. 11 of The New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Leander E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 2000. Lohse, Eduard. Colossians and Philemon. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Luz, Ulrich. “Der Brief an die Kolosser.” Pages 181–244 in Die Briefe an die Galater, Epheser und Kolosser. Edited by Jürgen Becker and Ulrich Luz. NTD 8.1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. MacDonald, Margaret Y. Colossians and Ephesians. SP 17. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2008. Martin, Ralph P. Colossians and Philemon. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Moo, Douglas J. The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon. Pillar New Testament Commenary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Moule, C. F. D. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. CGTC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957. Pao, David W. Colossians and Philemon. Edited by Clinton E. Arnold. ECNT 12. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. Perdue, Leo G. Wisdom Literature: A Theological History. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Pokorný, Petr. Colossians: A Commentary. Translated by Siegfried S. Schatzmann. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991. Schweizer, Eduard. The Letter to the Colossians: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1982. Seitz, Christopher R. Colossians. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2014. Sumney, Jerry L. Colossians: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008. Thompson, Marianne Meye. Colossians and Philemon. Two Horizons New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Thurston, Bonnie. Reading Colossians, Ephesians, and 2 Thessalonians: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2013. Walsh, Brian J., and Sylvia C. Keesmaat. Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2004. Wilson, Robert McL. Colossians and Philemon. ICC. Edinburgh: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014. Witherington, Ben, III. The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on the Captivity Epistles. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Wolter, Michael. Der Brief an die Kolosser. Der Brief an Philemon. ÖTK 12. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1993. Wright, N. T. Colossians and Philemon. TNTC. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008.

II. ANCIENT SOURCES

Ambrosiaster. Commentaries on Galatians-Philemon. Edited by Gerald L. Bray. Ancient Christian Texts. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009. Apuleius. The Transformation of Lucius Otherwise Known As ‘The Golden Ass’ by Lucius Apuleius. Translated by Robert Graves. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1950. Aristotle. Politics. Translated by Harris Rackham. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition. Translated and edited by Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. Leiden: Brill, 1997–1998. Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Roman Antiquities. Translated by Earnest Cary. 6 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1937–1950. Elliott, J. K. The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. Josephus. Translated by Henry St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965. Justin Martyr. First Apology. In vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Translated and edited by A. Cleveland Coxe. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985. Philo. Translated by F. H. Colson et al. 12 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965. Plato. Translated by R. G Bury et al. 12 Vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1921–2017. Plutarch. Lives. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. 11 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914–1926. Shelton, Jo-Ann. As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Yonge, Charles David. The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged. London: H. G. Bohn, 1854–1855. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993.

III. GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aasgaard, Reidar. “My Beloved Brothers and Sisters!” Christian Siblingship in Paul. JSNTSup 265. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Achtemeier, Paul J. “Omne Verbum Sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity.” JBL 109 (1990): 3–27. Adams, Edward. The Earliest Christian Meeting Places: Almost Exclusively Houses? Rev. ed. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. Adams, Samuel V. The Reality of God and Historical Method: Apocalyptic Theology, in Conversation with N. T. Wright. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015. Adewuja, J. Ayodeji. “The Sacrificial-Missiological Function of Paul’s Sufferings in the Context of 2 Corinthians.” Pages 88–98 in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice. Edited by Trevor J. Burke and Brian S. Rosner. LNTS 420. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Aland, Kurt. Did the Early Church Baptize Infants? Translated by George R. Beasley-Murray. London: SCM, 1963. Alexander, Loveday. “Ancient Book Production and the Circulation of the Gospels.” Pages 71–112 in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Alfeyev, Hilarion. Christ the Conqueror of Hell: The Descent into Hades from an Orthodox Perspective. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009. Allen, Ward. “The English Word for ἀγῶνα at Colossians 2.1.” Reformation Biblical Studies Bulletin 1 (1990): 10–12. Allison, Dale C., Jr. Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. ———. The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Anderson, Charles P. “Who Wrote ‘the Epistle from Laodicea’?” JBL 85 (1966): 436–40. Anderson, Gary A. Sin: A History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Argall, Randal A. “The Source of a Religious Error in Colossae.” CTJ 22 (1987): 6–20. Arnold, Clinton E. The Colossian Syncretism: The Interface between Christianity and Folk Belief at Colossae. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996. ———. Ephesians: Power and Magic; The Concept of Power in Ephesians in Light of Its Historical Setting. Repr. ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992. ———. Powers of Darkness: Principalities and Powers in Paul’s Letters. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1992. Arterbury, Andrew. Entertaining Angels: Early Christian Hospitality in Its Mediterranean Setting. New Testament Monographs 8. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005. Ascough, Richard S. The Formation of Pauline Churches. New York: Paulist Press, 1998. ———. “What Are They Now Saying about Christ Groups and Associations?” Currents in Biblical Research 13.2 (2015): 207–44. Ascough, Richard S., Philip A. Harland, and John S. Kloppenborg. Associations in the Greco-Roman World: A Sourcebook. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012. Attridge, Harold W. “On Becoming an Angel: Rival Baptismal Theologies at Colossae.” Pages 481–98 in Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World. Edited by Lukas Bormann, Kelly Del Tredici, and Angela Standhartinger. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Augustine. The Confessions. Translated by Philip Burton. Everyman’s Library 128. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2001. ———. Saint Augustine’s Childhood: Confessiones Book One. Translated by Garry Wills. New York: Viking, 2001. Aune, David E., Timothy J. Geddert, and Craig A. Evans. “Apocalypticism.” Pages 45–58 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Bacon, Francis. Essays. Edited by Michael J. Hawkins. Everyman’s Library. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle, 1999. Bain, Katherine. Women’s Socioeconomic Status and Religious Leadership in Asia Minor in the First Two Centuries C. E. Emerging Scholars. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014. Baker, Mark D., and Joel B. Green. Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011. Baker, William R. Personal Speech-Ethics in the Epistle of James. WUNT 2.68. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Balch, David L. “Household Codes.” Pages 25–50 in Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament: Selected Forms and Genres. Edited by David E. Aune. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Balchin, John F. “Colossians 1:15–20: An Early Christian Hymn? The Arguments from Style.” VE 15 (1985): 65–94. ———. “Paul, Wisdom, and Christ.” Pages 204–19 in Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie. Edited by Harold H. Rowdon. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982. Balla, Peter. The Child-Parent Relationship in the New Testament and Its Environment. WUNT 155. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Balthasar, Hans Urs von. Paul Struggles with His Congregation: The Pastoral Message of the Letters to the Corinthians. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1992. Bandstra, Andrew. “Did the Colossian Errorists Need a Mediator?” Pages 329–43 in New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974. Banks, Robert. Paul’s Idea of Community. Rev. ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Barclay, John M. G. Colossians and Philemon. New Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. ———. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. ———. “Ordinary but Different: Colossians and Hidden Moral Identity.” Australian Biblical Review 49 (2001): 34–52. ———. Paul and the Gift. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. ———. Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews. WUNT 275. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Barclay, John M. G., and Simon Gathercole, eds. Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment. LNTS 335. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Barnett, Paul W. “Apostle.” Pages 45–51 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Barth, Karl. Fragment: The Foundation of the Christian Life: Baptism. Vol. IV/4 of Church Dogmatics. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Study Edition. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Barth, Markus. Die Taufe—ein Sakrament? Ein exegetischer Beitrag zum Gespräch über die Kirchliche Taufe. Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1951. Barton, S. C., and G. H. R. Horsley. “A Hellenistic Cult Group and the New Testament Churches.” JAC 24 (1981): 7–41. Bates, Matthew W. The Hermeneutics of the Apostolic Proclamation: The Center of Paul’s Method of Scriptural Interpretation. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012. Bauckham, Richard. The Bible and Ecology: Rediscovering the Community of Creation. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2010. ———. “Colossians 1:24 Again: The Apocalyptic Motif.” EvQ 47 (1975): 168–70. ———. “James and the Jerusalem Church.” Pages 415–80 in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Vol. 4 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Edited by Bruce W. Winter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. ———. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. ———. “Pseudo-Apostolic Letters.” JBL 107 (1988): 469–94. ———. “Where Is Wisdom to Be Found? Colossians 1.15–20 (2).” Pages 129–38 in Reading Texts, Seeking Wisdom: Scripture and Theology. Edited by David F. Ford and G. N. Stanton. London: SCM, 2003. Bauckham, Richard, and Trevor Hart. Hope against Hope: Christian Eschatology at the Turn of the Millennium. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Baugh, Steven M. “The Poetic Form of Col 1:15–20.” WTJ 47 (1985): 227–44. Baum, Armin D. “Authorship and Pseudepigraphy in Early Christian Literature: A Translation of the Most Important Source Texts and an Annotated Bibliography.” Pages 11–63 in Paul and Pseudepigraphy. Edited by Stanley Porter and Gregory P. Fewster. Pauline Studies 8. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Beasley-Murray, George R. Baptism in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962. Beasley-Murray, Paul. “Colossians 1:15–20: An Early Christian Hymn Celebrating the Lordship of Christ.” Pages 169–83 in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Donald A. Hagner and Murray J. Harris. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Becker, Jürgen, and Ulrich Luz. Die Briefe an die Galater, Epheser und Kolosser. NTD 8/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. Beetham, Christopher A. Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians. Biblical Interpretation Series 96. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Behr, John. “Colossians 1:13–20: A Chiastic Reading.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 40 (1996): 247–64. Beker, J. Christiaan. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. Bell, Catherine. Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. Rev. ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. ———. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Belousek, Darrin W. Snyder. Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The Message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Benoit, Pierre. “L’hymne christologique de Col 1.15–20.” Pages 226–63 in Christianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty. Edited by J. Neusner. Leiden: Brill, 1975. ———. “The ‘Plérôma’ in the Epistles to the Colossians and the Ephesians.” Svensk exegetisk årsbok 49 (1984): 136–58. ———. “Reflections on the Designations of the Heavenly Powers and on the Origin of Angelic Evil according to Paul.” Religious Studies Bulletin 3 (1983): 1–18. Benoit, Pierre, M. D. Hooker, and S. G. Wilson. “Agioi en Colossiens 1.12: Hommes ou Anges?” Pages 83–99 in Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C. K. Barrett. Edited by M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson. London: SPCK, 1982. Bergmeier, Roland. “περιπατέω.” Pages 75–76 in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. Vol 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Berkhof, Hendrik. Christ and the Powers. Translated by John Howard Yoder. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1977. Bernat, David A. “Circumcision.” Pages 471–74 in Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Best, Ernest. Paul and His Converts. The Sprunt Lectures 1985. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988. ———. “Who Used Whom? The Relationship of Ephesians and Colossians.” NTS 43 (1997): 72–96. Beuttler, Ulrich. “Christus, der Heil der Natur.” Glaube und Denken 12 (1999): 81–88. Bevere, Allan R. “The Cheirograph in Colossians 2:14 and the Ephesian Connection.” Pages 199–206 in Jesus and Paul: Global Perspectives in Honor of James D. G. Dunn. Edited by B. J. Oropeza, C. K. Robertson, and Douglas C. Mohrmann. London: T&T Clark, 2009. ———. Sharing in the Inheritance: Identity and the Moral Life in Colossians. JSNTSup 226. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003. Bird, Michael F. A Bird’s-Eye View of Paul: The Man, His Mission, and His Message. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008. ———. Crossing over Sea and Land: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010. ———. Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013. ———. The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification, and the New Perspective. Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Bletchley, Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster/Authentic Media, 2007. Bird, Michael F., and Preston M. Sprinkle, eds. The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Sage, Priest, and Prophet. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Blomberg, Craig L. “Neither Hiearchicalist nor Egalitarian: Gender Roles in Paul.” Pages 283–326 in Paul and His Theology. Edited by Stanley Porter. Pauline Studies 3. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Bock, Darrell L. “ ‘The New Man’ as Community in Colossians and Ephesians.” Pages 157–67 in Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands: Biblical and Leadership Studies in Honor of Donald K. Campbell. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994. Bockmuehl, Markus. “A Note on the Text of Colossians 4:3.” JTS 39 (1988): 489–94. ———. Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Bockmuehl, Markus, and Guy G. Strousma, eds. Paradise in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Views. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Boersma, Hans. Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross: Reappropriating the Atonement Tradition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Bohlen, Maren. Sanctorum Communio: Die Christen als “Heilige” bei Paulus. BZNW 183. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011. Borchert, Gerald L. “Wrath, Destruction.” Pages 991–93 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Bormann, Lukas. “Psalm 110 im Dialog mit dem Neuen Testament.” Pages 171–205 in Heiligkeit und Herrschaft: Intertextuelle Studien zu Heiligkeitsvorstellungen und zu Psalm 110. Edited by Dieter Sänger. BThSt 55. Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 2003. Bornkamm, Günther. “The Heresy of Colossians.” Pages 123–45 in Conflict at Colossae: A Problem in the Interpretation of Early Christianity, Illustrated by Selected Modern Studies. Edited by Fred O. Francis and Wayne A. Meeks. Rev. ed. Sources for Biblical Study 4. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Bouttier, Michel. “Complexio Oppositorum: Sur les Formules de I Cor 12:13; Gal 3:26–28; Col 3:10, 11.” NTS 23 (1976): 1–19. Bowers, W. Paul. “A Note on Colossians 1:27a.” Pages 110–14 in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney, Presented by His Former Students. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Bowma-Prediger, Steven. The Greening of Theology: The Ecological Models of Rosemary Radford Ruether, Joseph Sittler, and Jürgen Moltmann. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Boyarin, Daniel. A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. Boyd, Greg A. “Christus Victor View.” Pages 23–49 in The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views. Edited by James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006. Brannon, M. Jeff. The Heavenlies in Ephesians: A Lexical, Exegetical, and Conceptual Analysis. LNTS 447. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2011. Brodd, Jeffrey, and Jonathan L. Reed, eds. Rome and Religion: A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on the Imperial Cult. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Bromiley, Geoffrey W. Children of Promise: The Case for Baptizing Infants. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. Brown, Peter. The Body and Society. Repr. ed. Lectures on the History of Religions 13. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988. Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1997. ————. The Semitic Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament. Facet Books 21. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968. Bruce, F. F. The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, with Introduction and Commentary. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. ———. “Colossian Problems I: Jews and Christians in the Lycus Valley.” BibSac 141 (1984): 3–15. ———. “Colossian Problems II: The ‘Christ Hymn’ of Colossians 1:15–20.” BibSac 141 (1984): 99–111. ———. “Colossian Problems III: The Colossian Heresy.” BibSac 141 (1984): 195–208. ———. “Colossian Problems IV: Christ as Conqueror and Reconciler.” BibSac 141 (1984): 291–302. ———. “Hierapolis.” Pages 195–96 in Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 3. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ———. The Pauline Circle. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 1985. ———. Tradition, Old and New. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970. Brueggemann, Walter. The Psalms and the Life of Faith. Edited by Patrick D. Miller. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. ———. Theology of the Old Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. ———. Tradition Old and New. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974. Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. 2 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s, 1951–55. Burke, Trevor J., and Brian S. Rosner, eds. Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice. LNTS 420. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Burney, C. F. “Christ as the APXH of Creation.” JTS 27 (1925): 160–77. Burns, Joshua Ezra. “Conversion and Proselytism.” Pages 484–86 in Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Byron, John. Recent Research on Paul and Slavery. Recent Research in Biblical Studies 3. Sheffield: Phoenix, 2008. Cadwallader, Alan H., and Michael Trainor, eds. Colossae in Space and Time: Linking to an Ancient City. NTOA 94. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Cahill, Michael. “The Neglected Parallelism in Colossians 1,24–25.” ETL 68 (1992): 142–47. Caird, G. B. New Testament Theology. Edited by L. D. Hurst. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. ———. Principalities and Powers: A Study in Pauline Theology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956. Campbell, Constantine. Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008. ———. Paul and Union with Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. Campbell, Douglas A. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. ———. Framing Paul: An Epistolary Biography. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. ———. The Quest for Paul’s Gospel. London: T&T Clark, 2005. ———. “The Scythian Perspective in Col 3:11: A Response to Troy Martin.” NovT 39 (1997): 81–84. ———. “Unravelling Colossians 3:11b.” NTS 42 (1996): 120–32. Campbell, Ted A. The Gospel in Christian Traditions. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Canavan, Rosemary. Clothing the Body of Christ at Colossae: A Visual Construction of Identity. WUNT 2.334. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Cannon, George E. The Use of Traditional Materials in Colossians. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983. Carr, A. Wesley. Angels and Principalities: The Background, Meaning, and Development of the Pauline Phrase “hai archai kai hai exousiai.” SNTSMS 42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Carson, D. A. “Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy.” Pages 857–64 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. ———. “The Wrath of God.” Pages 37–63 in Engaging the Doctrine of God: Contemporary Protestant Perspectives. Edited by Bruce L. McCormack. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Cavin, Robert L. New Existence and Righteous Living. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. Chapell, Bryan. Why Do We Baptize Infants? Basics of the Faith. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2006. Childs, Brevard S. The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Ciampa, Roy E. “Paul’s Theology of the Gospel.” Pages 180–91 in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice. Edited by Trevor J. Burke and Brian S. Rosner. LNTS 420. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Clines, David J. A. “Image of God.” Pages 426–28 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Cohen, Shaye J. D. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Hellenistic Culture and Society 31. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. ———. Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised? Gender and Covenant in Judaism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. Cohick, Lynn H. Women in the World of the Earliest Christians: Illuminating Ancient Ways of Life. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. Cole, H. Ross. “The Christian and Time-Keeping in Colossians 2:16 and Galatians 4:10.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 39 (2001): 273–82. Colijn, Brenda B. Images of Salvation in the New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010. Collins, Adela Yarbro, and John J. Collins. King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Collins, John J. “Apocalyptic Literature.” Pages 40–45 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000. ———. “Exodus, The.” Pages 617–18 in Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Collins, John N. Diakonia: Re-interpreting the Ancient Sources. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Comfort, Philip. “Idolatry.” Pages 424–26 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Constantelos, Demetrios J. “Religious Cultural Diversity and Christian Unity in the Church of Colossae: An Exegesis of Colossians 2.16 to 3.4.” Pages 53–61 in Agape and Diakonia: Essays in Memory of Bishop Gerasimos of Abydos. Edited by Peter A. Chamberas. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1998. Conzelmann, Hans. “Die Schule des Paulus.” Pages 85–96 in Theologia crucis, signum crucis: Festschrift für Erich Dinkler zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Carl Andresen and Günter Klein. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979. Copan, Victor A. Saint Paul as Spiritual Director: An Analysis of the Concept of the Imitation of Paul, with Implications and Applications to the Practice of Spiritual Direction. Repr. ed. Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008. Cope, O. Lamar. “On Rethinking the Philemon-Colossians Connection.” BR 30 (1985): 45–50. Cox, Ronald. By the Same Word: Creation and Salvation in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity. BZNW 145. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007. Crenshaw, James L. Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1998. ———. Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. Rev. ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998. Crouch, J. E. The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafel. FRLANT 109. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972. Cullmann, Oscar. Baptism in the New Testament. Translated by J. K. S. Reid. Studies in Biblical Theology 1. London: SCM, 1950. ———. The Early Church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology. Edited by A. J. B. Higgins. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966. Das, A. Andrew. Paul and the Stories of Israel: Grand Thematic Narratives in Galatians. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016. Davies, W. D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Davis, C. J. The Name and Way of the Lord. JSNTSup 129. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Davis, Ellen F. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000. Deissmann, Adolf. Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World. Translated by Lionel R. M. Strachan. 4th ed. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1922. DeMaris, Richard E. The Colossian Controversy: Wisdom in Dispute at Colossae. JSNTSup 96. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. deSilva, David A. Transformation: The Heart of Paul’s Gospel. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014. Dibelius, Martin. “The Isis Initiation in Apuleius and Related Initiatory Rites.” Pages 61–121 in Conflict at Colossae: A Problem in the Interpretation of Early Christianity, Illustrated by Selected Modern Studies. Edited by Fred O. Francis and Wayne A. Meeks. Rev. ed. Sources for Biblical Study 4. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Dickson, John P. Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities. WUNT 2.159. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Dixon, Susan. The Roman Family. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992. Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures: The Sub-structure of New Testament Theology. Welwyn, Hertfordshire, UK: James Nisbet, 1952. ———. The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments: Three Lectures. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1964. ———. New Testament Studies. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1953. Doering, Lutz. Ancient Jewish Letters and the Beginnings of Christian Epistolography. WUNT 298. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Donaldson, Terence L. Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. Doty, William G. Letters in Primitive Christianity. Guides to Biblical Scholarship: New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973. Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. New York: Routledge, 2002. Drake, Alfred Edwin. “The Riddle of Colossians: Quarendo invenietis.” NTS 41 (1995): 123–44. Dunn, James D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Holy Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970. ———. Beginning from Jerusalem. Vol. 2 of Christianity in the Making. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. ———. The Christ and the Spirit: Christology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. ———. The Christ and the Spirit: Pneumatology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. ———. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1989. ———. “The Colossian Philosophy: A Confident Jewish Apologia.” Bib 76 (1995): 153–81. ———. Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New Testament Evidence. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010. ———. Jesus Remembered. Vol. 1 of Christianity in the Making. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. ———. Neither Jew nor Greek: A Contested Identity. Vol. 3 of Christianity in the Making. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. ———. The New Perspective on Paul. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. ———. New Testament Theology: An Introduction. Library of Biblical Theology. Nashville: Abingdon, 2009. ———. The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991. ———. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. ———. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity. 3rd ed. London: SCM Press, 2006. Easton, B. S. “New Testament Ethical Lists.” JBL 51 (1932): 1–12. Ebel, Eva. “The Life of Paul.” Pages 97–109 in Paul: Life, Setting, Work, Letters. Edited by Oda Wischmeyer. Translated by Helen S. Heron and Dieter T. Roth. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2012. Edsall, Benjamin, and Jennifer R. Strawbridge. “The Songs We Used to Sing? Hymn ‘Traditions’ and Reception in Pauline Letters.” JSNT 37 (2015): 290–311. Ehrensperger, Kathy. Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement. LNTS 325. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Elliott, J. K. The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. Elliott, Neil, and Mark Reasoner, eds. Documents and Images for the Study of Paul. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010. Ellis, E. Earle. “Colossians 1:12–20: Christus Creator, Christus Salvator.” Pages 415–28 in Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Exegesis. Edited by Darrell L. Bock and B. M. Fanning. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006. ———. Pauline Theology: Ministry and Society. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. ———. Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity: New Testament Essays. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Engle, Paul E., John Castelein, Robert Kolb, Thomas J. Nettles, and Richard Pratt Jr. Understanding Four Views on Baptism. Edited by John H. Armstrong. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007. Erdemir, Hatice. “Woolen Textiles: An International Trade Good in the Lycus Valley in Antiquity.” Pages 104–29 in Colossae in Space and Time: Linking to an Ancient City. Edited by Alan H. Cadwallader and Michael Trainor. NTOA 94. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Esler, Philip Francis. New Testament Theology: Communion and Community. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Estes, Daniel J. “Wisdom and Biblical Theology.” Pages 853–58 in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, and Writings. Edited by Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008. Evans, Craig A. “The Colossian Mystics.” Bib 63 (1982): 188–205. ———. “Images of Christ in the Canonical and Apocryphal Gospels.” Pages 34–72 in Images of Christ: Ancient and Modern. Edited by Stanley Porter et al. RILP 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. ———. “The Meaning of πλήρωμα in Nag Hammadi.” Bib 64 (1984): 259–65. Falk, Daniel K. “Festivals and Holy Days.” Pages 636–45 in Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Fee, Gordon. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. ———. “Hermeneutics and the Gender Debate.” Page 364–81 in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy. Edited by Ronald W. Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, and Gordon D. Fee. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2005. ———. Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007. Ferguson, Everett. Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. ———. Early Christians Speak: Faith and Life in the First Three Centuries. 3rd ed. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1999. ———. “Spiritual Circumcision in Early Christianity.” SJT 41 (1988): 485–97. Ferguson, Sinclair B., Bruce A. Ware, and Anthony N. S. Lane. Baptism: Three Views. Edited by David F. Wright. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009. Fesko, J. V. Word, Water, and Spirit: A Reformed Perspective on Baptism. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010. Finney, Mark T. Honour and Conflict in the Ancient World: 1 Corinthians in Its Greco-Roman Social Setting. LNTS 460. London: T&T Clark, 2012. Fishbane, Michael. Sacred Attunement: A Jewish Theology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010. Fitzgerald, John T. “Paul and Friendship.” Pages 319–43 in Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook. Edited by J. Paul Sampley. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2016. Flemington, W. F. “On the Interpretation of Colossians 1:24.” Pages 84–90 in Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament. Edited by H. Merklein. London: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Fossum, Jarl. “Colossians 1:15–18a in the Light of Jewish Mysticism and Gnosticism.” NTS 35 (1989): 183–201. Foster, Robert L. “Reoriented to the Cosmos: Cosmology and Theology in Ephesians through Philemon.” Pages 107–24 in Cosmology and New Testament Theology. Edited by Jonathan T. Pennington and Sean M. McDonough. LNTS 355. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Francis, Fred O. “The Background of embateuein in Legal Papyri and Oracle Inscriptions.” Pages 197–206 in Conflict at Colossae: A Problem in the Interpretation of Early Christianity, Illustrated by Selected Modern Studies. Edited by Fred O. Francis and Wayne A. Meeks. Rev. ed. Sources for Biblical Study 4. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. ———. “The Form and Function of the Opening and Closing Paragraphs of James and 1 John.” ZNW 61 (1970): 110–26. ———. “Humility and Angelic Worship in Colossians 2:18.” Pages 163–95 in Conflict at Colossae: A Problem in the Interpretation of Early Christianity, Illustrated by Selected Modern Studies. Edited by Fred O. Francis and Wayne A. Meeks. Rev. ed. Sources for Biblical Study 4. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Francis, Fred O., and Wayne A. Meeks, eds. Conflict at Colossae: A Problem in the Interpretation of Early Christianity, Illustrated by Selected Modern Studies. Rev. ed. Sources for Biblical Study 4. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Francis, Fred O., and J. Paul Sampley, eds. Pauline Parallels. 2nd ed. Foundations and Facets. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Fredrickson, David E. “Paul, Hardships, and Suffering.” Pages 172–97 in Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook. Edited by J. Paul Sampley. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2016. Friedrich, Johannes H. “κλῆρος.” Pages 299–300 in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Froese, Paul, and Christopher Bader. America’s Four Gods: What We Say about God—and What That Says about Us. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Funk, Robert W. “The Apostolic Parousia: Form and Significance.” Pages 249–68 in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox. Edited by William R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, and Richard R. Niebuhr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Gamble, Harry Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Gardner, Paul D. “ ‘Circumcised in Baptism—Raised through Faith’: A Note on Col 2:11–12.” WTJ 45 (1983): 172–77. Gathercole, Simon. “Paul’s Christology.” Pages 172–87 in The Blackwell Companion to Paul. Edited by Stephen Westerholm. Blackwell Companions to Religion. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Gaventa, Beverly Roberts, ed. Apocalyptic Paul: Cosmos and Anthropos in Romans 5–8. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2013. ———. “Finding a Place for Children in the Letters of Paul.” Pages 233–77 in The Child in the Bible. Edited by M. J. Bunge. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. ———. From Darkness to Light: Aspects of Conversion in the New Testament. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. ———. Our Mother Saint Paul. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Gebauer, Roland. “Der Kolosserbrief als Antwort auf die Herausforderung des Synkretismus.” Pages 153–69 in Die bleibende Gegenwart des Evangeliums: Festschrift für Otto Merk. Edited by Roland Gebauer and M. Meiser. Marburger Theologische Studien 76. Marburg: Ewert, 2003. Gehring, Roger W. House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004. Gibson, Richard J. “Paul the Missionary, in Priestly Service of the Servant-Christ (Romans 15:16).” Pages 51–62 in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice. Edited by Trevor J. Burke and Brian S. Rosner. LNTS 420. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Gielen, Marlis. “Zur Interpretation der Paulinischen Formel τὴν κατʼ οἶκον αὐτῆς ἐκκλησίαν.” ZNW 77 (1986): 109–25. Giem, Paul. “Sabbaton in Col 2:16.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 19 (1981): 195–210. Giles, Kevin. “The Genesis of Confusion: How ‘Complementarians’ Have Corrupted Communication.” Priscilla Papers 28 (2015): 22–29. Glancy, Jennifer A. “Obstacles to Slaves’ Participation in the Corinthian Church.” JBL 117 (1998): 481–501. ———. “The Sexual Use of Slaves: A Response to Kyle Harper on Jewish and Christian Porneia.” JBL 134 (2015): 215–29. Goldenberg, David. “Scythian-Barbarian: The Permutations of a Classical Topos in Jewish and Christian Texts of Late Antiquity.” JJS 49 (1998): 87–102. Goldingay, John. Reading Jesus’s Bible: How the New Testament Helps Us Understand the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. Goodman, Martin. The Roman World, 44BC–AD 180. London: Routledge, 1997. Gordley, Matthew E. The Colossian Hymn in Context: An Exegesis in Light of Jewish and Greco-Roman Hymnic and Epistolary Conventions. WUNT 2.228. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. ——. Teaching through Song in Antiquity: Didactic Hymnody among Greeks, Romans, Jews, and Christians. WUNT 2.302. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Gorman, Michael J. Apostle of the Crucified Lord. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2016. ———. Becoming the Gospel: Paul, Participation, and Mission. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. ———. Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. ———. Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Gräbe, Petrus J. “Salvation in Colossians and Ephesians.” Pages 287–304 in Salvation in the New Testament: Perspectives on Soteriology. Edited by Jan G. van der Watt. NovTSup 121. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Green, Joel B. Seized by Truth: Reading the Bible as Scripture. Nashville: Abingdon, 2007. Grindheim, Sigurd. “A Deutero-Pauline Mystery? Ecclesiology in Colossians and Ephesians.” Pages 173–95 in Paul and Pseudepigraphy. Edited by Stanley Porter and Gregory P. Fewster. Pauline Studies 8. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Gruen, Erich S. Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004. ———. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. ———. Rethinking the Other in Antiquity. Repr. ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. Guelich, Robert A., ed. Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology: Essays in Honor of George E. Ladd. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Gunton, Colin. “Atonement and the Project of Creation: An Interpretation of Colossians 1:15–23.” Dialog 35 (1996): 35–41. ———. “Christus Victor Revisited: A Study in Metaphor and the Transformation of Meaning.” JTS 36 (1985): 129–45. Hafemann, Scott J. “Paul and His Interpreters.” Pages 666–79 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Hahn, Scott W. Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises. Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Hanson, A. T. The Wrath of the Lamb. Repr. ed. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010. Harding, Mark, and Alanna Nobbs, eds. All Things to All Cultures: Paul among Jews, Greeks, and Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Harmon, Matthew S. “Letter Carriers and Paul’s Use of Scripture.” JSPL 4 (2014): 129–48. Harper, Kyle. “Porneia: The Making of a Christian Sexual Norm.” JBL 131 (2012): 363–83. Harrill, J. Albert. The Manumission of Slaves in Early Christianity. HUT 32. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. ———. “Using the Roman Jurists to Interpret Philemon.” ZNW 90 (1999): 135–38. Harrington, D. J. “Christians and Jews in Colossians.” Pages 153–61 in Diaspora Jews and Judaism. Edited by J. Andrew Overman and Robert S. MacLennan. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Harris, H. A. Greek Athletes and Athletics. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1966. ———. Greek Athletics and the Jews. Trivium Special Publications 3. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1976. Harris, Murray J. Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Reference Resource for Exegesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. ———. Slave of Christ: A New Testament Metaphor for Total Devotion to Christ. New Studies in Biblical Theology 8. Leicester: Apollos/InterVarsity Press, 1999. Harris, William V. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989. Harrison, James R. “Paul among the Romans.” Pages 143–76 in All Things to All Cultures: Paul among the Jews, Greeks, and Romans. Edited by Mark Harding and Alanna Nobbs. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Hartman, Lars. “Code and Context: A Few Reflections on the Parenesis of Col 3:6–4:1.” Pages 237–47 in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of E. Earle Ellis for His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. ———. “Humble and Confident: On the So-Called Philosophers in Colossae.” Pages 25–39 in Mighty Minorities. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995. ———. “Into the Name of Jesus”: Baptism in the Early Church. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. ———. “Some Unorthodox Thoughts on the ‘Household-Code Form.’ ” Pages 219–32 in Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism. Edited by J. Neusner. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. ———. “Universal Reconciliation (Col 1,20).” SNTSU 10 (1985): 109–21. Harvey, A. E. “The Use of Mystery Language in the Bible.” JTS 31 (1980): 320–36. Hatch, Edwin. The Organization of the Early Christian Churches. Repr. ed. The Bampton Lectures 1880. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1999. Hatina, T. R. “The Perfect Tense-Form in Colossians: Verbal Aspect, Temporality, and the Challenge of Translation.” Pages 224–52 in Translating the Bible: Problems and Prospects. Edited by Stanley Porter and R. S. Hess. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Hauerwas, Stanley, and William H. Willimon. Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony. Nashville: Abingdon, 1989. Hawthorne, Gerald F., Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid, eds. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Hay, David M. “All the Fullness of God: Concepts of Deity in Colossians and Ephesians.” Pages 163–79 in The Forgotten God: Perspectives in Biblical Theology. Edited by A. Andrew Das and Frank J. Matera. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. ———. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110:1 in Early Christianity. SBLMS 18. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973. Hayes, Holly Diane. “Colossians 2:6–19.” Int 49 (1995): 285–88. Hays, J. Daniel. “Paul and the Multi-Ethnic First-Century World: Ethnicity and Christian Identity.” Pages 37–50 in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice. Edited by Trevor J. Burke and Brian S. Rosner. LNTS 420. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Hays, Richard B. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. ———. Echoes of Scripture in Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. ———. The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. ———. Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014. Heil, John Paul. “Paul and the Believers of Western Asia.” Pages 79–83 in The Blackwell Companion to Paul. Edited by Stephen Westerholm. Blackwell Companions to Religion. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Hellerman, Joseph H. The Ancient Church as Family. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. ———. Embracing Shared Ministry: Power and Status in the Early Church and Why It Matters Today. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2013. ———. Reconstructing Honor in Roman Philippi: Carmen Christi as Cursus Pudorum. SNTSMS 132. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. ———. When the Church Was a Family: Recapturing Jesus’ Vision for Authentic Christian Community. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2009. Helyer, Larry R. “Arius Revisited: The Firstborn over All Creation (Col 1:15).” JETS 31 (1988): 59–67. ———. “Colossians 1:15–20: Pre-Pauline or Pauline?” JETS 26 (1983): 167–79. ———. “Recent Research on Col 1:15–20 (1980–1990).” Grace Theological Journal 12 (1991): 51–67. Hengel, Martin. Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity. Translated by John Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1983. ———. The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels. Translated by John Bowden. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000. ———. Jews, Greeks, and Barbarians: Aspects of the Hellenization of Judaism in the Pre-Christian Period. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. ———. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine in the Early Hellenistic Period. Translated by John Bowden. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. ———. The Pre-Christian Paul. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991. ———. Studies in Early Christology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995. Herion, Gary A., and Stephen H. Travis. “Wrath of God.” Pages 989–98 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 6. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Highfield, Ron. Great Is the Lord: Theology for the Praise of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Hill, Wesley. Paul and the Trinity: Persons, Relations, and the Pauline Letters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Hock, A. “Christ Is the Parade: A Comparative Study of the Triumphal Procession in 2 Cor 2,14 and Col 2,15.” Bib 88 (2007): 110–19. Hock, Ronald F. “Paul and Greco-Roman Education.” Pages 198–227 in Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook. Edited by J. Paul Sampley. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2016. ———. The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Holcomb, Justin S. Christian Theologies of Scripture: A Comparative Introduction. New York: New York University Press, 2006. Holmén, Tom. Jesus and Jewish Covenant Thinking. Biblical Interpretation Series 55. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Holmes, Arthur F. All Truth Is God’s Truth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. Hood, Jason B. Imitating God in Christ: Recapturing a Biblical Pattern. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013. Hooker, M. D. “Were There False Teachers in Colossae?” Pages 315–31 in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: Studies in Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule. Edited by Barnabas Lindars and Stephen S. Smalley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. ———. “Where Is Wisdom to Be Found? Colossians 1.15–20 (1).” Pages 116–28 in Reading Texts, Seeking Wisdom: Scripture and Theology. Edited by D. F. Ford and G. N. Stanton. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Hubbard, Moyer V. New Creation in Paul’s Letters and Thought. SNTSMS 119. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Hubbard, Thomas K., ed. A Companion to Greek and Roman Sexualities. London: Blackwell, 2014. ———. Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. Hübner, Hans. “πληρόω, ἀναπληρόω, ἀνταπληρόω.” Pages 108–10 in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Hultgren, Arland. “Paul’s Christology and His Mission to the Gentiles.” Pages 115–27 in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice. Edited by Trevor J. Burke and Brian S. Rosner. LNTS 420. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Hunt, J. P. T. “Colossians 2:11–12, the Circumcision/Baptism Analogy, and Infant Baptism.” TynBull 42 (1990): 227–44. Hunter, Archibald M. Paul and His Predecessors. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961. Hunter, W. Bingham. “Prayer.” Pages 725–34 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Hurtado, Larry W. At the Origins of Christian Worship: The Context and Character of Earliest Christian Devotion. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. ———. How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. ———. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Huttner, Ulrich. Early Christianity in the Lycus Valley. Translated by David Green. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 85. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Hyde, Daniel R. Jesus Loves the Little Children: Why We Baptize Children. Grandville, MI: Reformed Fellowship, 2012. Ilan, Tal. Integrating Women into Second Temple History. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001. ———. Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996. ———. “Women.” Pages 1346–49 in Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Jacobs, Alan. Original Sin: A Cultural History. New York: HarperOne, 2008. ———. A Theology of Reading: The Hermeneutics of Love. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2001. Jensen, Robin M. Baptismal Imagery in Early Christianity: Ritual, Visual, and Theological Dimensions. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012. Jeremias, Joachim. Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries. Translated by D. Cairns. London: SCM, 1960. ———. The Origins of Infant Baptism: A Further Study in Reply to Kurt Aland. Translated by Dorothea M. Barton. Studies in Historical Theology 1. London: SCM, 1963. Jewett, Paul K. Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Jewett, Robert. Dating Paul’s Life. London: SCM Press, 2012. Johnson, Adam J. Atonement: A Guide for the Perplexed. Bloomsbury Guides for the Perplexed. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Judge, Edwin A. Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays by E. A. Judge. Edited by David M. Scholer. Repr. ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. ———. The Social Pattern of Christian Groups in the First Century. London: Tyndale, 1960. Karris, Robert J. A Symphony of New Testament Hymns. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996. Käsemann, Ernst. “A Primitive Christian Baptismal Liturgy.” Pages 149–68 in Essays on New Testament Themes. Translated by W. J. Montague. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964. Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. ———. “Family and Household.” Pages 353–68 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. ———. “Man and Woman.” Pages 583–92 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. ———. The Mind of the Spirit: Paul’s Approach to Transformed Thinking. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016. Keith, Chris. “ ‘In My Own Hand’: Grapho-Literacy and the Apostle Paul.” Bib 89 (2008): 39–58. ———. Jesus’ Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee. JSNTSup. London: T&T Clark, 2013. Kiley, Mark C. Colossians as Pseudepigraphy. Biblical Seminar 4. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987. Kim, Jung Hoon. The Significance of Clothing Imagery in the Pauline Corpus. JSNTSup 268. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Kim, Seyoon. The Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. ———. Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. ———. “Paul as an Eschatological Herald.” Pages 9–24 in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice. Edited by Trevor J. Burke and Brian S. Rosner. LNTS 420. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Kirkland, Alastair. “The Beginnings of Christianity in the Lycus Valley: An Exercise in Historical Reconstruction.” Neot 29 (1995): 109–24. Klauck, Hans-Josef. Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Content and Exegesis. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006. Knowles, Michael P. “ ‘Christ in You, the Hope of Glory’: Discipleship in Colossians.” Pages 180–202 in Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Knox, John. Chapters in a Life of Paul. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1950. ———. Philemon among the Letters of Paul. New York: Abingdon, 1935. Kreitzer, Larry J. “Living in the Lycus Valley: Earthquake Imagery in Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians.” Pages 81–94 in Testimony and Interpretation: Early Christology in Its Judeo-Hellenistic Milieu: Studies in Honour of Petr Pokorný. Edited by Jiří Mrázek and Jan Roskovec. JSNTSup 272. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Kremer, Jacob. “Was an den Bedrängnissen des Christus mangelt. Versuch einer bibeltheologischen Neuinterpretation von Kol 1,24.” Bib 82 (2001): 130–46. Kugler, Chris. “Wright, Campbell, and the Four Beasts from the Sea.” CurBS 15 (2016): 65–73. Kuhn, Karl Allen. Luke: The Elite Evangelist. Paul’s Social Network: Brothers and Sisters in Faith. Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 2010. Ladd, George Eldon. The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. ———. A Theology of the New Testament. Edited by Donald A. Hagner. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Laes, Christian. Children in the Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Lamp, Jeffrey S. “Wisdom in Col 1:15–20: Contribution and Significance.” JETS 41 (1998): 45–53. Lampe, Peter. From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries. Edited by Marshall D. Johnson. Translated by Michael Steinhauser. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. ———. “Keine ‘Sklavenflucht’ des Onesimus.” ZNW 76 (1985): 135–37. Langkammer, Hugolinus. “πρῶτος.” Pages 189–91 in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Laniak, Timothy. Shepherds after My Own Heart: Pastoral Traditions and Leadership in the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006. Lattke, Michael. “κεφαλή.” Pages 284–86 in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Laughlin, Peter. Jesus and the Cross: Necessity, Meaning, and Atonement. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014. Lemke, Werner E. “Circumcision of the Heart: The Journey of a Biblical Metaphor.” Pages 299–319 in A God So Near: Essays on Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller. Edited by Brent A. Strawn and Nancy R. Bowen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Levenson, Jon D. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Levine, Amy-Jill. “Lilies of the Field and Wandering Jews: Biblical Scholarship, Women’s Roles, and Social Location.” Pages 329–52 in Transformative Encounters: Jesus and Women Re-viewed. Edited by Ingrid Rosa Kitzberger. BIS 43. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Levison, John R. Filled with the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. ———. Inspired: The Holy Spirit and the Mind of Faith. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. ———. “2 Apoc. Bar. 48:42–52:7 and the Apocalyptic Dimensions of Colossians 3:1–6.” JBL 108 (1989): 93–108. Lewis, C. S. The Four Loves. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1960. Lieu, Judith M. “ ‘Grace to You and Peace’: The Apostolic Greeting.” BJRL 68 (1985): 161–78. Lightfoot, J. B. “The Colossian Heresy.” Pages 13–59 in Conflict at Colossae: A Problem in the Interpretation of Early Christianity, Illustrated by Selected Modern Studies. Edited by Fred O. Francis and Wayne A. Meeks. Rev. ed. Sources for Biblical Study 4. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Lillie, W. “The Pauline House-Tables.” ExpTim 86 (May 1974): 179–83. Lincoln, Andrew T. “The Household Code and Wisdom Mode of Colossians.” JSNT 74 (1999): 93–112. ——— “Liberation from the Powers: Supernatural Spirits or Societal Structures?” Pages 336–54 in The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Rogerson. Edited by M. Daniel Carroll R., David J. A. Clines, and Philip R. Davies. JSOTSup 200. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. ———. Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought, with Special Reference to His Eschatology. SNTSMS 43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Lindsay, Dennis R. Josephus and Faith: Πίστις and Πιστεύειν as Faith Terminology in the Writings of Flavius Josephus and in the New Testament. Arbeiten zur Geschichte 19. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Loader, William. Making Sense of Sex: Attitudes towards Sexuality in Early Jewish and Christian Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. ———. The New Testament on Sexuality. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Long, Frederick J. “Ephesians: Paul’s Political Theology in Greco-Roman Culture.” Pages 255–309 in Political Context in Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts. Leiden: Brill, 2013. ———. “Roman Imperial Rule under the Authority of Jupiter-Zeus: Political-Religious Contexts and the Interpretation of ‘The Ruler of the Authority of the Air’ in Ephesians 2:2.” Pages 113–54 in The Language of the New Testament: Context, History and Development. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts. Linguistic Biblical Studies 6. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Longenecker, Bruce W., ed. Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. ———, ed. The Road from Damascus: The Impact of Paul’s Conversion on His Life, Thought, and Ministry. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Longman, Tremper, III. Proverbs. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. Longman, Tremper, III, and Peter Enns, eds. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, and Writings. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008. Longman, Tremper, III, and Daniel G. Reid. God Is a Warrior. Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. Lorenzen, Stefanie. Das Paulinische Eikon-Konzept: Semantische Analysen zur Sapientia Salomonis, zu Philo und den Paulusbriefen. WUNT 2.250. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Lührmann, Dieter. “Neutestamentliche Haustafeln und Antike Ökonomie.” NTS 27 (1981): 83–97. ———. “Wo man nicht mehr Sklave oder Freier ist: Überlegungen zur Struktur frühchristlicher Gemeinden.” Wort und Dienst, n.s., 13 (1975): 53–83. Luttenberger, Joram. “Der gekreuzigte Schuldsein: Ein Aspekt der Deutung des Todes Jesu im Kolosserbrief.” NTS 51 (2005): 80–95. Lyonnet, Stanislas. “Paul’s Adversaries in Colossae.” Pages 147–61 in Conflict at Colossae: A Problem in the Interpretation of Early Christianity, Illustrated by Selected Modern Studies. Edited by Fred O. Francis and Wayne A. Meeks. Rev. ed. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. MacDonald, Gregory (pseud.). The Evangelical Universalist: The Biblical Hope That God’s Love Will Save Us All. London: SPCK, 2008. MacDonald, Margaret Y. “Can Nympha Rule This House? The Rhetoric of Domesticity in Colossians.” Pages 99–120 in Rhetoric and Reality in Early Christianities. Edited by Willi Braun. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2005. ———. “The Ideal of the Christian Couple: Ign. Pol. 5.1–2 Looking Back to Paul.” NTS 40 (1994): 105–25. ———. The Pauline Churches: A Socio-historical Study of Institutionalization in the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline Writings. SNTSMS 60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. ———. The Power of Children: The Construction of Christian Families in the Greco-Roman World. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014. ———. “Slavery, Sexuality, and House Churches: A Reassessment of Colossians 3.18–4:1 in Light of New Research on the Roman Family.” NTS 53 (2007): 94–113. ———. “Women in the Pauline Churches.” Pages 268–84 in The Blackwell Companion to Paul. Edited by Stephen Westerholm. Blackwell Companions to Religion. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Maier, Harry O. Barbarians, Scythians, and Imperial Iconography in the Epistle to the Colossians. WUNT 2.193. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. ———. “Reading Colossians in the Ruins: Roman Imperial Iconography, Moral Transformation, and the Construction of Christian Identity in the Lycus Valley.” Pages 212–31 in Colossae in Space and Time: Linking to an Ancient City. Edited by Alan H. Cadwallader and Michael Trainor. NTOA 94. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. ———. “A Sly Civility: Colossians and Empire.” JSNT 27 (2005): 323–49. Malherbe, Abraham J. Moral Exhortation: A Greco-Roman Sourcebook. LEC 4. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1989. ———. Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987. ———. Social Aspects of Early Christianity. 2nd ed. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003. Malina, Bruce J. Timothy: Paul’s Closest Associate. Paul’s Social Network: Brothers and Sisters in Faith. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2008. Malina, Bruce J., and Jerome H. Neyrey. Calling Jesus Names: The Social Value of Labels in Matthew. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1988. Maloney, Elliott C. Saint Paul: Master of the Spiritual Life “in Christ.” Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 2014. Marshall, I. Howard. “The Development of the Concept of Redemption in the New Testament.” Pages 153–69 in Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L. L. Morris on His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Robert Banks. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. ———. Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1969. ———. “The Meaning of ‘Reconciliation.’ ” Pages 117–32 in Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology: Essays in Honor of George E. Ladd. Edited by Robert A. Guelich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Marshall, Peter. “A Metaphor of Social Shame: θριαμβεύειν in 2 Cor. 2:14.” NovT 25 (1983): 302–17. Martin, Dale B. Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. Martin, Ralph P. Carmen Christi: Philippians ii.5–11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. ———. “Reconciliation and Forgiveness in the Letter to the Colossians.” Pages 104–24 in Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L. L. Morris on His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Robert Banks. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. ———. Reconciliation: A Study of Paul’s Theology. New Foundations Theological Library. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981. ———. “Some Reflections on New Testament Hymns.” Pages 37–49 in Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie. Edited by Harold H. Rowdon. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982. ———. Worship in the Early Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Martin, Troy. “But Let Everyone Discern the Body of Christ (Colossians 2:17).” JBL 114 (1995): 249–55. ———. “Pagan and Judeo-Christian Time-Keeping Schemes in Gal 4.10 and Col 2.16.” NTS 42 (1996): 105–19. ———. “The Scythian Perspective in Col 3:11.” JBL 114 (1995): 253. ———. “Scythian Perspective or Elusive Chiasm: A Reply to Douglas A. Campbell.” NovT 41 (1999): 256–64. Marty, Martin E. Baptism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1962. Martyn, J. Louis. “The Apocalyptic Gospel in Galatians.” Int 54 (2000): 246–66. Mason, Steve. “Theologies and Sects, Jewish.” Pages 1221–30 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000. Matthews, Victor Harold. Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East. 3rd ed. New York: Paulist Press, 2007. McKnight, Scot. A Community Called Atonement. Nashville: Abingdon, 2007. ———. “The Ego and I: Galatians 2:19 in New Perspective.” Word and World 20 (2000): 272–80. ———. Embracing Grace: Discovering the Gospel That Restores Us to God, Creation, and Ourselves. Brewster, MA: Paraclete Press, 2012. ———. “Ethics of Jesus.” Pages 242–51 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013. ———. A Fellowship of Differents: Showing the World God’s Design for Life Together. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015. ———. “Few and Far Between: The Life of a Creed.” Pages 168–86 in Earliest Christianity within the Boundaries of Judaism: Essays in Honor of Bruce Chilton. Edited by Alan J. Avery-Peck, Craig A. Evans, and Jacob Neusner. Leiden: Brill, 2016. ———. The Heaven Promise: Engaging the Bible’s Truth about Life to Come. Colorado Springs, CO: WaterBrook, 2015. ———. It Takes a Church to Baptize. Grand Rapids: Brazos, forthcoming. ———. “James’ Secret: Wisdom in James in the Mode of Receptive Reverence.” Pages 203–6 in Preaching Character: Reclaiming Wisdom’s Paradigmatic Imagination for Transformation. Edited by David Fleer and David Bland. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 2010. ———. Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005. ———. Kingdom Conspiracy: Returning to the Radical Mission of the Local Church. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2014. ———. The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011. ———. The Letter of James. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. ———. The Letter to Philemon. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. ———. A Light among the Gentiles. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. ———. A Long Faithfulness: The Case for Christian Perseverance. Denver: Paraclete Press, 2013. ———. “The New Perspective and the Christian Life: The Ecclesial Life.” Pages 125–51 in The Apostle Paul and the Christian Life: Ethical and Missional Implications of the New Perspective. Edited by Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016. ———. A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. ———. Praying with the Church: Following Jesus Daily, Hourly, Today. Brewster, MA: Paraclete Press, 2006. ———. The Sermon on the Mount. Story of God Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013. ———. “Slowing Down the Runaway Forgiveness Truck.” Books and Culture, July/August 2004, 36–37, 39. ———. Turning to Jesus: The Sociology of Conversion in the Gospels. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. ———. “The Unexamined Grace.” Books and Culture, January/February (2016): 19–21. ———. “Was Paul a Convert?” Ex Auditu 25 (2009): 110–32. McKnight, Scot, and Joseph B. Modica, eds. The Apostle Paul and the Christian Life: Ethical and Missional Implications of the New Perspective. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016. ———, eds. Jesus Is Lord, Caesar Is Not: Evaluating Empire in New Testament Studies. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013. Meade, David G. Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation into the Relationship of Authorship and Authority in Jewish and Earliest Christian Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. ———. The Moral World of the First Christians. LEC 6. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. ———. The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two Centuries. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993. ———. “ ‘To Walk Worthily of the Lord’: Moral Formation in the Pauline School Exemplified by the Letter to Colossians.” Pages 37–58 in Hermes and Athena: Biblical Exegesis and Philosophical Theology. Edited by Eleonore Stump and Thomas P. Flint. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1993. Mengestu, Abera M. God as Father in Paul: Kinship Language and Identity Formation in Early Christianity. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2013. Merkel, Helmut. “καταλλάσσω, ἀποκαταλλάσσω, καταλλαγή.” Pages 261–63 in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. Vol 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: United Bible Societies, 1971. Middleton, J. Richard. The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2005. ———. A New Heaven and a New Earth: Reclaiming Biblical Eschatology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. Miller, Patrick D. They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Minear, Paul S. Images of the Church in the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960. Moir, Ian A. “Some Thoughts on Col. 2,17–18.” TZ 35 (1979): 363–65. Moltmann, Jürgen. Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian Eschatology. New York: Harper & Row, 1967. Morgan, Christopher, and Robert A. Peterson, eds. Hell under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004. Morgan, Robert. “C. K. Barrett and New Testament Theology.” JSNT 37 (2015): 432–57. Morrice, William G. “Joy.” Pages 511–12 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. ———. Joy in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985. Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965. ———. Testaments of Love: A Study of Love in the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981. ———. “Truth.” Pages 954–55 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Mott, Stephen C. “Ethics.” Pages 269–75 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Motyer, Stephen. “The Relationship between Paul’s Gospel of ‘All One in Christ Jesus’ (Galatians 3:28) and the ‘Household Codes.’ ” VE 19 (1989): 33–48. Moule, C. F. D. The Birth of the New Testament. 3rd ed. BNTC. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1981. ———. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. ———. The Meaning of Hope: A Biblical Exposition with Concordance. Facet Books 5. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963. ———. “A Note on ὀφθαλμοδουλία.” ExpTim 59 (1947–1948): 250. ———. The Origin of Christology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. ———. The Phenomenon of the New Testament. London: SCM Press, 1967. Moulton, James Hope, and Nigel Turner. Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. 3: Syntax. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963. Müller, Peter. Anfänge der Paulusschule: Dargestellt am Zweiten Thessalonicherbrief und am Kolosserbrief. ATANT 74. Zürich: Theologischer, 1988. Mullins, T. Y. “Disclosure: A Literary Form in the New Testament.” NovT 7 (1964): 44–50. ———. “The Thanksgivings in Philemon and Colossians.” NTS 30 (1984): 288–93. Murphy, Roland E. The Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Najman, Hindy. “Torah and Tradition. Pages 1316–17 in Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Nanos, Mark D. “Paul’s Relationship to Torah in Light of His Strategy ‘to Become Everything to Everyone’ (1 Corinthians 9.19–23).” Pages 106–40 in Paul and Judaism: Crosscurrents in Pauline Exegesis and the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations. Edited by Reimund Bieringer and Didier Pollefeyt. JSNTSup 463. London: T&T Clark, 2012. Nanos, Mark D., and Magnus Zetterholm. Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First Century Context to the Apostle. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Nash, Robert Scott. “Heuristic Haustafeln: Domestic Codes as Entrance to the Social World of Early Christianity; The Case of Colossians.” Pages 25–50 in Religious Writings and Religious Systems. Edited by Jacob Neusner. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Nauck, W. “Salt as a Metaphor in Instruction for Discipleship.” ST 6 (1952): 165–78. Neufeld, Vernon H. The Earliest Christian Confessions. New Testament Tools and Studies 5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963. Neville, David J. A Peaceable Hope: Contesting Violent Eschatology in New Testament Narratives. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. Newberg, Andrew, and Mark Robert Waldman. How God Changes Your Brain: Breakthrough Findings from a Leading Neuroscientist. New York: Ballantine, 2009. Newman, Elizabeth. Untamed Hospitality: Welcoming God and Other Strangers. The Christian Practice of Everyday Life. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2007. Nida, Eugene A. “Implications of Contemporary Linguistics for Biblical Scholarship.” JBL 91 (1972): 73–89. Nida, Eugene A., and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Noll, Stephen F. Angels of Light, Powers of Darkness: Thinking Biblically about Angels, Satan, and Principalities. Repr. ed. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003. Nordling, Cherith Fee. “ ‘Being Saved’ as a New Creation: Co-Humanity in the True Imago Dei.” Pages 115–36 in What Does It Mean to Be Saved? Edited by John G. Stackhouse Jr. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. ———. “The Human Person in the Christian Story.” Pages 65–78 in The Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology. Edited by Timothy Larsen and Daniel J. Treier. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. ———. “ ‘Living as Jesus Did’: Practicing an Embodied Future in the Present.” Pages 195–214 in Revisioning, Renewing, and Rediscovering the Triune Center: Essays in Honor of Stanley J. Grenz. Edited by Derek J. Tidball, Brian S. Harris, and Jason S. Sexton. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014. ———. “Resurrection.” Pages 178–90 in Prophetic Evangelicals: Envisioning a Just and Peaceable Kingdom, ed. Bruce Ellis Benson, Malinda Elizabeth Berry, and Peter Goodwin Heltzel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Novenson, Matthew V. Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Nutton, Vivian. Ancient Medicine. 2nd ed. Sciences of Antiquity Series. London: Routledge, 2013. Oakes, Peter. Reading Romans in Pompeii: Paul’s Letter at Ground Level. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. Oden, Amy G., ed. And You Welcomed Me: A Sourcebook on Hospitality in Early Christianity. Nashville: Abingdon, 2001. O’Donovan, Oliver. Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Olbricht, Thomas H. “The Stoicheia and the Rhetoric of Colossians: Then and Now.” Pages 308–28 in Rhetoric, Scripture, and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference. Edited by Stanley Porter. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Omanson, Roger L. A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2006. Osiek, Carolyn, and Margaret Y. MacDonald. A Woman’s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. Painter, John. “World.” Pages 979–82 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Pao, David W. “Gospel within the Constraints of an Epistolary Form: Pauline Introductory Thanksgivings and Paul’s Theology of Thanksgiving.” Pages 101–28 in Paul and the Ancient Letter Form. Edited by Stanley Porter and Sean A. Adams. Pauline Studies 6. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Pennington, Jonathan T. Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. Peppard, Michael. The Son of God in the Roman World: Divine Sonship in Its Social and Political Context. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Peppiatt, Lucy. Women and Worship at Corinth: Paul’s Rhetorical Arguments in 1 Corinthians. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2015. Perriman, Andrew. “The Pattern of Christ’s Sufferings: Colossians 1:24 and Philippians 3:10–11.” TynBull 42 (1991): 62–79. Peterson, Jeffrey. “ ‘The Circumcision of Christ’: The Significance of Baptism in Colossians and the Churches of the Restoration.” ResQ 43 (2001): 65–77. Pierce, Ronald W., Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, and Gordon D. Fee, eds. Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2005. Pitts, Andrew W. “Hellenistic Schools in Jerusalem and Paul’s Rhetorical Education.” Pages 19–50 in Paul’s World. Edited by Stanley Porter. Pauline Studies 4. Leiden: Brill, 2008. ———. “Style and Pseudonymity in Pauline Scholarship: A Register Based Configuration.” Pages 113–52 in Paul and Pseudepigraphy. Edited by Stanley Porter and Gregory P. Fewster. Pauline Studies 8. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Pohl, Christine D. Making Room: Recovering Hospitality as a Christian Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Poliakoff, Michael B. Combat Sports in the Ancient World: Competition, Violence, and Culture. Sport and History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Polkinghorne, John. The God of Hope and the End of the World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002. Pollard, T. E. “Colossians 1.12–20: A Reconsideration.” NTS 27 (1981): 572–75. Popkes, Wiard. “δεῖ.” Pages 279–80 in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Porter, Stanley. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. Biblical Languages: Greek 2. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. ———. Καταλλάσσω in Ancient Greek Literature, with Reference to the Pauline Writings. EFN 5. Córdoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 1994. ———, ed. Paul and His Theology. Pauline Studies 3. Leiden: Brill, 2006. ———. “Paul’s Concept of Reconciliation, Twice More.” Pages 131–52 in Paul and His Theology. Edited by Stanley Porter. Pauline Studies 3. Leiden: Brill, 2006. ———. “P.Oxy. 744.4 and Colossians 3,9.” Bib 73 (1992): 565–67. ———. “Reconciliation as the Heart of Paul’s Missionary Theology.” Pages 169–79 in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice. Edited by Brian S. Rosner and Trevor J. Burke. LNTS 420. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2011. ———. “When and How Was the Pauline Canon Compiled? An Assessment of Theories.” Pages 95–127 in The Pauline Canon. Edited by Stanley Porter. Pauline Studies 1. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Porter, Stanley, and Sean A. Adams, eds. Paul and the Ancient Letter Form. Pauline Studies 6. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Porter, Stanley, and K. D. Clarke. “Canonical-Critical Perspective and the Relationship of Colossians and Ephesians.” Bib 78 (1997): 57–86. Porter, Stanley, and Anthony R. Cross, eds. Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies. JSNT 234. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Porter, Stanley, and Gregory P. Fewster, eds. Paul and Pseudepigraphy. Pauline Studies 8. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Przybylski, Benno. Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought. SNTSMS 41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Purves, Andrew. The Crucifixion of Ministry: Surrendering Our Ambitions to the Service of Christ. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007. ———. Pastoral Theology in the Classical Tradition. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. ———. Reconstructing Pastoral Theology: A Christological Foundation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004. Rambo, Lewis R. Understanding Religious Conversion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993. Rapske, Brian. The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody. Vol. 3 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Edited by Bruce W. Winter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Rawson, Beryl, ed. A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Reasoner, Mark, ed. Roman Imperial Texts: A Sourcebook. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. Rees, Valery. From Gabriel to Lucifer: A Cultural History of Angels. London: I. B. Tauris, 2013. Reeves, Rodney. Spirituality according to Paul: Imitating the Apostle of Christ. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011. Reid, Daniel G. “Prison, Prisoner.” Pages 752–54 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Rendtorff, Rolf. The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation. Translated by M. Kohl. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. Reumann, John. “Colossians 1:24 (‘What Is Lacking in the Afflictions of Christ’): History of Exegesis and Ecumenical Advance.” CurTM 17 (1990): 454–61. Reyes, Luis Carlos. “The Structure and Rhetoric of Colossians 1:15–20.” Filología Neotestamentaria 12 (1999): 139–54. Richards, E. Randolph. Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition, and Collection. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004. ———. The Secretary in the Letters of Paul. WUNT 2.42. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Ridderbos, Herman. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Translated by John Richard De Witt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Riesenfeld, Harald. “Faith and Love Promoting Hope: An Interpretation of Philemon v. 6.” Pages 251–57 in Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C. K. Barrett. Edited by M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson. London: SPCK, 1982. Riesner, Rainer. Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der Evangelien-Überlieferung. WUNT 2.7. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981. ———. “Pauline Chronology.” Pages 9–29 in The Blackwell Companion to Paul. Edited by Stephen Westerholm. Blackwell Companions to Religion. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. ———. Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Roberts, J. H. “Jewish Mystical Experience in the Early Christian Era as Background to Understanding Colossians.” Neot 32 (1998): 161–89. Roose, Hanna. “Die Hiearchisierung der Leib-Metapher im Kolosser- und Epheserbrief als ‘Paulinisierung’: Ein Beitrag zur Rezeption Paulinischer Tradition in Pseudo-Paulinischen Briefen.” NovT 47 (2005): 117–41. Rosner, Brian S. Greed as Idolatry: The Origin and Meaning of a Pauline Metaphor. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. ———, ed. Understanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth-Century Approaches. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Rowe, C. Kavin. World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Rowland, Christopher. “Apocalyptic Visions and the Exaltation of Christ in the Letter to the Colossians.” JSNT 19 (1983): 73–83. ———. “Apocalypticism.” Pages 345–48 in Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. ———. The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity. New York: Crossroad, 1982. Royalty, Robert M. “Dwelling on Visions: On the Nature of the So-Called ‘Colossians Heresy.’ ” Bib 83 (2002): 329–57. Ruden, Sarah. Paul among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time. New York: Pantheon Books, 2010. Rusam, Dietrich. “Neue Belege zu den στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου (Gal 4,3.9; Kol 2,8.20).” ZNW 83 (1992): 119–25. Russell, Jeffrey Burton. A History of Heaven. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997. ———. Paradise Mislaid: How We Lost Heaven—and How We Can Regain It. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Sampley, J. Paul, ed. Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2016. Sanders, E. P. Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990. ———. Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66 CE. Philadelphia: SCM, 1992. ———. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. ———. Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters, and Thought. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Sappington, Thomas J. Revelation and Redemption at Colossae. JSNTSup 53. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Schäfer, Peter. The Origins of Jewish Mysticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009. Schenk, Wolfgang. “Christus, das Geheimnis der Welt, als dogmatisches und ethisches Grundprinzip des Kolosserbriefes.” Evangelische Theologie 43 (1983): 138–55. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. “Apostles before and during Paul’s Time.” Pages 287–303 in Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce on His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970. Schnelle, Udo. Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. ———. Paulus: Leben und Denken. De Gruyter Lehrbuch. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003. ———. “Transformation und Partizipation als Grundgedanken Paulinischer Theologie.” NTS 47 (2001): 58–75. Schottroff, Luise. “Ist Allein in Christus Heil? Das Bekenntnis zu Christus und die Erlösung (Kol 1,15–20).” Pages 79–89 in Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament? Grundlagen für die Arbeit mit biblischen Texten. Edited by D. Henze. Gütersloh: Kaiser, 1997. Schrage, W. “Zur Ethik der Neutestamentlichen Haustafeln.” NTS 21 (1975): 1–22. Schürer, E. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135). Edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973. Schweizer, Eduard. “Askese nach Kol 1,24 oder 2,20f?” Pages 340–48 in Neues Testament und Ethik. Edited by H. Merklein. Freiburg: Herder, 1989. ———. “Colossians 1:15–20.” Review and Expositor 87 (1990): 97–104. ———. “Slaves of the Elements and Worshipers of Angels: Gal 4:3, 9 and Col 2:8, 18, 20.” JBL 107 (1988): 455–68. Scott, James M. Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. JSJSup 56. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Scruton, Roger. Sexual Desire: A Philosophical Investigation. Repr. ed. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2006. Seesengood, Robert. Competing Identities: The Athlete and the Gladiator in Early Christian Literature. LNTS 346. New York: T&T Clark, 2006. Segal, Alan F. Life after Death: A History of the Afterlife in the Religions of the West. New York: Doubleday, 2004. ———. Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992. Seifrid, Mark A. “In Christ.” Pages 433–46 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Shelton, Jo-Ann. As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Shelton, R. Larry. Cross and Covenant: Interpreting the Atonement for Twenty-First-Century Mission. Tyrone, GA: Paternoster, 2006. Shiell, William D. Delivering from Memory: The Effect of Performance on the Early Christian Audience. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011. Shogren, Gary S. “Presently Entering the Kingdom of Christ: The Background and Purpose of Col 1:12–14.” JETS 31 (1988): 173–80. Shults, F. LeRon. Reforming the Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Skinner, Marilyn B. Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013. Sloyan, Gerard S. “Jewish Ritual of the First Century C. E. and Christian Sacramental Behavior.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 15 (1985): 98–103. Smallwood, E. M. The Jews under Roman Rule. SJLA 20. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Smith, Christopher. The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2011. Smith, Gary Scott. Heaven in the American Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Smith, Ian K. Heavenly Perspective: A Study of the Apostle Paul’s Response to a Jewish Mystical Movement at Colossae. LNTS 326. London: T&T Clark, 2006. ———. “The Later Pauline Letters: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon.” Pages 302–27 in All Things to All Cultures: Paul among Jews, Greeks, and Romans. Edited by Mark Harding and Alanna Nobbs. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Snodgrass, Klyne. “Justification by Grace—to the Doers: An Analysis of the Place of Romans 2 in the Theology of Paul.” NTS 32 (1986): 72–93. ———. “Reading to Hear: A Hermeneutics of Hearing.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 24 (2002): 1–32. Son, Sang-Won Aaron. “τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ in Colossians 2:17.” Pages 222–38 in History and Exegesis: New Testament Essays in Honor of Dr. E. Earle Ellis for His Eightieth Birthday. Edited by Sang-Won Aaron Son. New York: T&T Clark, 2006. Sprinkle, Preston M. Paul and Judaism Revisited: A Study of Divine and Human Agency in Salvation. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013. Stackhouse, John G., Jr. Making the Best of It: Following Christ in the Real World. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Standhartinger, Angela. “Colossians and the Pauline School.” NTS 50 (2004): 572–93. ———. “The Origin and Intention of the Household Code in the Letter to the Colossians.” JSNT 79 (2000): 117–30. Stanton, Graham N. Jesus and Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. ———. “Paul’s Gospel.” Pages 173–84 in The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul. Edited by James D. G. Dunn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Starling, David I. UnCorinthian Leadership: Thematic Reflections on 1 Corinthians. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014. Stendahl, Krister. Paul among Jews and Gentiles, and Other Essays. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Stettler, Christian. Der Kolosserhymnus: Untersuchungen zu Form, traditionsgeschichtlichem Hintergrund und Ausssage von Kol 1,15–20. WUNT 2.131. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. ———. “The Opponents at Colossae.” Pages 169–200 in Paul and His Opponents. Edited by Stanley Porter. Pauline Studies 2. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Stettler, Hanna. “An Interpretation of Colossians 1:24 in the Framework of Paul’s Mission Theology.” Pages 185–208 in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles. Edited by Jostein Ådna and Hans Kvalbein. WUNT 127. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Stewart, Alistair C. The Original Bishops: Office and Order in the First Christian Communities. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. Still, Todd D. “Eschatology in Colossians: How Realized Is It?” NTS 50 (2004): 125–38. Stott, John R. W., and J. Alec Motyer. The Anglican Evangelical Doctrine of Infant Baptism. London: Latimer Trust, 2008. Stowers, Stanley K. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. LEC 5. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Strecker, Georg. “Die neutestamentlichen Haustafeln (Kol 3,18–4,1 und Eph 5,22–6,9.” Pages 349–75 in Neues Testament und Ethik. Edited by H. Merklein. Freiburg: Herder, 1989. Sumner, Susan. Men and Women in the Church. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003. Sumney, Jerry L. “The Argument of Colossians.” Pages 339–52 in Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts: Essays from the Lund 2000 Conference. Edited by Anders Eriksson, Thomas H. Olbricht, and Walter Übelacker. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002. ———. “The Function of Ethos in Colossians.” Pages 301–15 in Rhetoric, Ethic, and Moral Persuasion: Essays from the 2002 Heidelberg Conference. Edited by Thomas H. Olbricht and Anders Eriksson. Emory Studies in Early Christianity 11. New York: T&T Clark, 2005. ———. Identifying Paul’s Opponents: The Question of Method in 2 Corinthians. Repr. ed. Bloomsbury Academic Collections. Biblical Studies: The Epistles. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015. Swartley, Willard M. Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Tachau, Peter. “Einst” und “Jetzt” im Neuen Testament. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 105. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972. Taylor, Charles. Modern Social Imaginaries. Public Planet Books. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003. Theissen, Gerd. “The Social Setting of Pauline Communities.” Pages 248–67 in The Blackwell Companion to Paul. Edited by Stephen Westerholm. Blackwell Companions to Religion. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Thielicke, Helmut. Theological Ethics: Sex. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. Thiselton, Anthony C. New Horizons in Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. ———. The Thiselton Companion to Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Thompson, James W. Moral Formation according to Paul: The Context and Coherence of Pauline Ethics. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011. ———. Pastoral Ministry according to Paul: A Biblical Vision. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. ———. “Paul as Missionary Pastor.” Pages 25–36 in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice. Edited by Trevor J. Burke and Brian S. Rosner. LNTS 420. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Thompson, Marianne Meye. The Promise of the Father: Jesus and God in the New Testament. Louisville: Westminster, 2000. Thompson, Michael B. “The Holy Internet: Communication between Churches in the First Christian Generation.” Pages 49–70 in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. ———. “Teaching/Paraenesis.” Pages 922–23 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Thornton, T. C. G. “Jewish New Moon Festivals, Galatians 4:3–11, and Colossians 2:16.” JTS 40 (1989): 97–100. Thurman, L. Duane. How to Think about Evolution and Other Bible-Science Controversies. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1978. Thurston, Bonnie. “Paul’s Associates in Colossians 4:7–17.” ResQ 41 (1999): 45–53. ———. The Widows: A Women’s Ministry in the Early Church. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989. Tilling, Chris, ed. Beyond Old and New Perspectives on Paul: Reflections on the Work of Douglas Campbell. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014. Tobin, Thomas H., S. J., “Logos.” Pages 894–96 in Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Tomlin, Graham, ed. Philippians, Colossians. Reformation Commentary on Scripture: New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013. Torrance, James B. “Covenant and Contract, a Study of the Theological Background of Worship in Seventeenth-Century Scotland.” SJT 23 (1970): 51–76. Towner, Philip H. “Households and Household Codes.” Pages 417–19 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Trainor, Michael. “Colossae: The State of Forthcoming Excavations.” JSPL 1 (2011): 133–35. ———. “The Cosmic Christology of Colossians 1:15–20 in the Light of Contemporary Ecological Issues.” Australian Biblical Review 53 (2005): 54–69. ———. Epaphras: Paul’s Educator at Colossae. Paul’s Social Network: Brothers and Sisters in Faith. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2008. ———. “Excavating Epaphras of Colossae.” Pages 232–46 in Colossae in Space and Time: Linking to an Ancient City. Edited by Alan H. Cadwallader and Michael Trainor. NTOA 94. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Travis, Stephen H. “Judgment.” Pages 516–17 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Trebilco, Paul. “Christians in the Lycus Valley: The View from Ephesus and from Western Asia Minor.” Pages 180–211 in Colossae in Space and Time: Linking to an Ancient City. Edited by Alan H. Cadwallader and Michael Trainor. NTOA 94. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. ———. The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. ———. Jewish Communities in Asia Minor. SNTSMS 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. ———. Self-Designations and Group Identity in the New Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Tromp, Johannes. “Idols and Images.” Pages 758–59 in Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Turner, Nigel. Christian Words. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1980. Van Broekhoven, Harold. “The Social Profiles in the Colossian Debate.” JSNT 66 (1997): 73–90. van der Toorn, Karel. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007. van der Watt, Jan G. “Colossians 1:3–12 Considered as an Exordium.” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 57 (1986): 32–42. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005. Van Kooten, George H. Cosmic Christology in Paul and the Pauline School. WUNT 2.171. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. van Unnik, Willem Cornelis. “Die Rücksicht auf die Reaktion der Nicht-Christen als Motiv in der Altchristlichen Paränese.” Pages 221–34 in Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche: Festschrift für Joachim Jeremias. Edited by Walther Eltester. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1960. Verner, D. C. The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles. SBLDS 71. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. Viviano, Benedict T. “Education.” Page 561–63 in Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Volf, Judith M. Gundry. Paul and Perseverance: Staying In and Fallling Away. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1990. Walls, Jerry L. Hell: The Logic of Damnation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992. Walsh, Brian J. “Late/Post Modernity and Idolatry: A Contextual Reading of Colossians 2:8–3:4.” Ex Auditu 15 (1999): 1–17. Waltke, Bruce, and David Diewert. “Wisdom Literature.” Pages 295–328 in The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches. Edited by David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999. Walton, Steve. “Paul, Patronage, and Pay: What Do We Know about the Apostle’s Financial Support?” Pages 220–33 in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice. Edited by Trevor J. Burke and Brian S. Rosner. LNTS 420. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Ware, James P., ed. Synopsis of the Pauline Letters in Greek and English. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. ———. “ ‘The Word of Life’: Resurrection and Mission in Philippians.” Pages 209–19 in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice. Edited by Trevor J. Burke and Brian S. Rosner. LNTS 420. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Watson, Francis. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2004. ———. Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Watts, Rikki E. Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. Webb, William J. Slaves, Women & Homosexuals. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001. Weima, J. A. D. Neglected Endings: The Significance of Pauline Letter Closings. JSNTSup 101. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Wells, Kyle B. Grace and Agency in Paul and Second Temple Judaism: Interpreting the Transformation of the Heart. NovTSup 157. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Wenham, David. “The Christian Life: A Life of Tension? A Consideration of the Nature of Christian Experience in Paul.” Pages 80–94 in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Donald A. Hagner and Murray J. Harris. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Westerholm, Stephen, ed. The Blackwell Companion to Paul. Blackwell Companions to Religion. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. ———. Justification Reconsidered: Rethinking a Pauline Theme. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. ———. Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. White, Benjamin L. Remembering Paul: Ancient and Modern Contests over the Image of the Apostle. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. White, John L. Light from Ancient Letters. Foundations and Facets. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. White, L. Michael. “Paul and Pater Familias.” Pages 457–58 in Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook. Edited by J. Paul Sampley. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2016. Wilkins, Michael J. Discipleship in the Ancient World and Matthew’s Gospel. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995. Willard, Dallas. Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998. ———. Renovation of the Heart: Putting On the Character of Christ. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2002. Wills, Lawrence M. “Asceticism.” Pages 390–92 in Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Wilson, Walter T. “The ‘Practical’ Achievement of Colossians: A Theological Assessment.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 20 (1998): 49–74. Wink, Walter. Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. ———. “The Hymn of the Cosmic Christ.” Pages 235–45 in The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John in Honor of J. Louis Martyn. Edited by R. T. Fortna and Beverly R. Gaventa. Nashville: Abingdon, 1990. ———. Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1984. ———. Unmasking the Powers: The Invisible Powers That Determine Human Existence. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1986. Winter, Bruce W. Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens. First Century Christians in the Graeco-Roman World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Wischmeyer, Oda, ed. Paul: Life, Setting, Work, Letters. Translated by Helen S. Heron and Dieter T. Roth. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2012. Witherington, Ben, III. “Christ.” Pages 95–100 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. ————. Troubled Waters: The Real New Theology of Baptism. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007. Witherington, Ben, III, and G. François Wessels. “Do Everything in the Name of the Lord: Ethics and Ethos in Colossians.” Pages 303–33 in Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament. Edited by Jan G. van der Watt. BZNW 141. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006. Wright, J. Edward. The Early History of Heaven. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Wright, N. T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. ———. Evil and the Justice of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006. ———. Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009. ———. The Kingdom New Testament. New York: HarperOne, 2011. ———. The New Testament and the People of God. Vol. 1 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. ———. Paul and His Recent Interpreters. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. ———. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. 2 vols. Vol. 4 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. ———. Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul, 1978–2013. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. ———. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Vol. 3 of The New Testament and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. ———. Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today. Rev. ed. New York: HarperOne, 2011. ———. Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. New York: HarperOne, 2008. ———. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Yates, Roy. “The Christian Way of Life: The Paraenetic Material in Colossians 3:1–4:6.” EvQ 63 (1991): 241–51. ———. “Colossians and Gnosis.” JSNT 27 (1986): 49–68. ———. “Colossians 2:14: Metaphor of Forgiveness.” Bib 71 (1990): 248–59. ———. “Colossians 2:15: Christ Triumphant.” NTS 37 (1991): 573–91. ———. “From Christology to Soteriology.” ExpTim 107 (1996): 268–70. ———. “Note on Colossians 1:24.” EvQ 42 (1970): 88–92. ———. “A Reappraisal of Colossians.” ITQ 58 (1992): 95–117. ———. “ ‘The Worship of Angels’ (Col 2:18).” ExpTim 97 (1985): 12–15. Yinger, Kent L. “Judgment.” Pages 853–55 in Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. ———. “Translating καταβραβευέτω [‘Disqualify’ NRSV] in Colossians 2:18.” Bible Translator 54 (2003): 138–45. Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus: Vicit Agnus Noster. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Zetterholm, Magnus. Approaches to Paul: A Student’s Guide to Recent Scholarship. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. Zimmermann, Alfred E. Die urchristlichen Lehrer: Studien zum Tradentenkreis der Didaskaloi im frühen Urchristentum. 2nd ed. WUNT 2.12. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988. Zizioulas, John D. Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002.

Introduction

There were options in the religious environment of earliest Christianity. The apostle Paul—or, for now, the author of Colossians—took a firm position in his taxonomy of world religions, even if he knew nothing about some of the options but, at the same time, plenty about the smorgasbord of religions taking various poses in the Roman Empire. For Paul there was but one true Lord of the empire; his name was Jesus, and he was the Jewish Messiah. Everything in the letter before us, Colossians, flows from those claims about Jesus. Paul’s claims transcend what we in the Western world call religion. Politics, culture, cult, spirituality, power, ethnicity, and one’s moral-religious heritage all come into play for Paul, and at the top of the heap, ruling over all, is Jesus as Messiah and Lord. If Paul does not have a metanarrative, he certainly has a meganarrative, one that offers a wide-ranging explanation of all that has been, is, and will be—and why and how. The entire narrative boasts one central substance: Jesus of Nazareth is the Lord of all. That boast flowed from one and only one source: the resurrection of Jesus. In the Letter to the Colossians we encounter an apostle’s vision that sought to redesign the Roman Empire. In an earlier version, that vision had flourished on Jewish soil in variant forms of Judaism. Paul offers not a new religion one can locate in the privacies of a life but a new vision that challenges the agora, the forum, and the worship centers. In this sense, Paul offers not a soteriological system alone but a comprehensive vision of life under King Jesus. Paul sketched out his missional theology in the Roman world, doing so in specific contexts for specific churches at specific moments in his own life. When the original lector read Colossians aloud to the church, the letter was more than read; it was performed by that lector. In fact, as Loveday Alexander concluded, “The primary means of publication in the Greco-Roman world was oral performance.” We perhaps need to remind ourselves that a majority at Colossae would have been unable to read this letter and that the letter was sent by Paul and Timothy to them along with someone with directions on how to read it publicly. It was not read privately but—and this is our point—was read publicly, and a public reading of the things said in Colossians is a forthright social, economic, and political announcement that King Jesus rules the cosmos. The letter claims that Jesus is the originator and telos of the creation, as well as of all political orders, including, yes, Rome’s. In four relatively brief chapters, then, we get a worldview, not one in all its fullness and particulars, but a worldview nonetheless. This vision, as we have already indicated, begins and ends with King Jesus. Paul’s Christo-theological message of Colossians can be reduced to “God has conquered the powers, delivered all humans from sin and its powers, and reconciled the entire cosmos to himself in, through, and under Christ.” That statement can be sorted out into others:

1.      Humans of all sorts—Jews and Gentiles—are alienated from God and one another and have formed themselves into tribes and nations and empires.
2.      At work in all tribalisms and nationalisms and cosmopolitan imperial designs are the dark powers of death, the gods, powers, and forces of this age.
3.      In Christ, God entered Israel’s story, defeated sin and death, and conquered the powers through his life, death on the cross, resurrection, and ascension to the throne of the one true God.
4.      In union with Christ in baptism, humans of all sorts can break free of their sin and captivities to become the one reconciled family of God and so dwell in love, peace, and justice.

The message of Colossians, then, is about unraveling the systemic forces of the cosmos and living in the freedom of a new kind of community. Or as Margaret MacDonald has expressed this view, “The central aspect of the religious significance of Colossians is that it offers a vision of human victory in the face of an evil that can reach cosmic proportions.” Paul communicates his message not as a professional theologian or a philosopher or a rabbi. He does so as an apostle and missionary and pastor, hence, as a missional, pastoral theologian. This approach reconfigures all of Paul’s letters into manifestations of gospel ministry: evangelism, church formation, and pastoral visitation. His letters focus on the second and third, but they do so, we must remind ourselves, as exercises of apostolic, pastoral care for churches and people. Let this be said: Paul’s Spirit-draped robust self-consciousness gave him the confidence to see his pastoral work in the context of what God was doing in the world, and recent scholarship has drawn attention to Rom 15:15–16 as a window into that self-consciousness: “Yet I have written you quite boldly on some points to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles. He gave me the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” Paul perceives his mission as a “priestly duty” generated by God’s “grace” of calling him to be a “minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles.” Vision for the cosmos with Christ as center—these two motifs strike the reader of Paul’s letters with their breathtaking expanse. Yet, Colossians reveals something profoundly interesting that complements, or fits into, what has already been said: Paul “hermeneuts” his own apostolic mission as part of what God is doing in his inherited narrative about Christ, that is, the gospel itself. His hermeneutic can be reduced at this point in the commentary to the term “mystery,” his term in this letter for God’s plan to reconcile Gentiles with Jews, slaves with free, and all manner of social identities into one large family called church. The impulse to tribalism and nationalism and imperialism at work in the dark powers of this age, then, is what Paul counters in his claim that these powers have been taken captive by Christ—paradoxically, at the cross. It is a pity that so much scholarship focuses on the genuineness of the letter or on the opponents of Paul in Colossae. It is more profitable to recognize that this brief letter reveals a cosmic theology that deserves the attention of both scholars and the church. If anything, this little letter provides a pristine look into what life in a first-century church was really like and how its cosmic Christ turned the empire upside down. Yet, plenty of questions are provoked in a careful examination of this letter of Paul’s, if it was his—that is, if “his” means “his” or “theirs.”

I. AUTHORSHIP: THE LOGIC OF THE KNOWN TO THE UNKNOWN

No one disputes that the Letter to the Colossians appears to have been written by the apostle Paul and Timothy, for it begins, “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother” (1:1). Adding “and Timothy,” who was Paul’s closest companion in ministry (see 2 Cor 1:19), leads to disputes about who said what, but the traditional reading has it that Paul wrote this letter because it says so. Indications of the author bleed through the text in 1:23 (“I, Paul”) and then expand in 1:24–2:5, where the same person of 1:23 is speaking. And it is not unreasonable to think that the prayer requests of 4:3–4 sound like Paul and his mission concerns, while the personal names in 4:7–15 are the sorts of people in Paul’s own circle. The letter closes with clarity: “I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand” (4:18); this closure sounds like Gal 6:11, and everyone agrees that Paul wrote Galatians. At the biggest levels of comparison—greetings, farewells, contents with pastoral asides—the letter sounds like other Pauline letters. Thus, Col 1:1 sounds like other openings (2 Cor 1:1; Phil 1:1), and the “I, Paul, became a servant of the gospel” of Col 1:23 echoes similar ideas in 2 Cor 10:1 about service, and the ending of Col (4:18) is very similar to what we find in other Pauline letters (e.g., Gal 6:11; Phlm 19; 1 Cor 16:21). At some level the grammar and style of Colossians are similar to those of other Pauline letters. Saying that Colossians does not sound Pauline would be similar to saying Death Comes for the Archbishop does not sound like the Willa Cather of O Pioneers! This traditional view of the letter is joined in most studies to three others—Ephesians, Philippians, and Philemon—together called the Prison Epistles. Adding to their stature is a robust history of interpretation of each as written from prison by Paul, and that interpretation of the Prison Letters has allowed the letters to feed on one another. Until the modern era and the seminal critical work of F. C. Baur, no one questioned the Pauline authorship of this letter. Scholarship today, however, is jittery about claiming that Paul wrote this letter. Those who claim he did write it need to justify their claim, a recent example of which comes from Campbell. Perhaps most significantly, a life and theology of Paul hangs by both arms from one’s conclusions about authorship. One of the all-time great lines about authorship comes from Ernst Käsemann in his RGG3 entry on Colossians: “Wenn echt, um des Inhalts and Stiles willen so spät wie möglich, wenn unecht, so früh wie denkbar” (3:1728, “If authentic, on the basis of content and style, as late as possible; if inauthentic, as early as conceivable”). These lines need to be correlated with those of Jerry Sumney, who ramped up the implications of denying Pauline authorship: “If Paul is not the letter’s author, the churches of Colossae are probably not its actual recipients.” Each of the lines in Käsemann’s and Sumney’s formula is rooted in a mode of thinking characteristic of authorship debates, a mode of comparing what is known to what is desired to be known (or not known but presumably knowable). That is, the authorship of Colossians (the unknown and the desired to be known) is compared to, say, the authorship of Galatians or Romans (both knowns, both from Paul) to see whether the several lines of thinking and expressions in Colossians are consistent with, or even the same as, what is known. If Colossians creates too much or perhaps only some tension with Galatians or shows development, then the inference is that Paul did not write the former; for some, Colossae thus becomes a fictional mailbox, little more than a clever avatar. Notice the logic: from the known to the unknown. But lurking in this logic are serious historical problems that infect the entire discussion, for the logic creates manifold conclusions and implications both for Paul’s life and theology and for the chart of early Christian life and theology. This logic, however, is an exegetical and historical boil that deserves to be lanced. To say “Pauline” requires a nondemonstrable and, I believe, false assumption, namely, that the authentic Paulines (say, Galatians or Romans) were written by the man, the apostle, the Jew Paul. Thus, because one has something authentically and demonstrably written by the man Paul (Galatians), one can then compare it with the Prison Letters, such as Colossians, to see whether it measures up to the authentic correspondence. The historical error at work here is repeated over and over by most everyone who denies Pauline authorship of Colossians. What might that be? That solely the man, the apostle, the Jew Paul is responsible for Galatians and that therefore in Galatians or Romans or 1 and 2 Corinthians we have a pure sample of Paul, the authentic voice of Paul. One then compares Colossians to, say, Romans, sees the former in tension with the latter, and decides that the former is inauthentic because it is not Pauline. However, this conclusion rests on one key assumption: that Romans is pure Paul. It’s not, for as Rom 16:22 says, the author (or the one who wrote the letter) of Romans was “Tertius.” Here’s an example, this one from my own Doktorvater, from whom I have learned so much and whose own commentary on Colossians has been delightful to study. I agree so often with him below that I do not mind bringing up a disagreement here. His summarizing words reflect this logic of comparison: “The fact is that at point after point in the letter the commentator is confronted with features characteristic of flow of thought and rhetorical technique that are consistently and markedly different from those of the undisputed Paulines.” Let me be clear what I am saying. I am not saying there are not tensions between Romans and Colossians, for there are, though they can be exaggerated and overcooked. What I am saying is that the unknown author (of Colossians) is being compared with something assumed to be certain, factual, and clear: that Romans or Galatians or 1-2 Corinthians are pure Paul. I contest not the tension but the assumption that those other letters are pure Paul. Dunn, admirably and not atypically, admits that Paul’s “style” may have “changed over a few years” but concludes that “it is more probable … that the hand is different.” Indeed, I would contend in fact that both hands are different—the hand many think at work in Romans or Galatians or 1-2 Corinthians and the hand at work, say, in Colossians or Ephesians or Philippians. I recently found the same logic—from the supposedly known to the unknown—in a footnote in The Politics of Jesus, a famous book by John Howard Yoder, himself not a Pauline specialist. “Perhaps,” he observes, “I should write ‘Paul.’ It is not crucial for present purposes whether the same man who wrote Romans also wrote to the Ephesians and Colossians.” Notice this very common logic: Since we know who wrote Romans (Paul) and since we can grasp his thought and his syntax, and since we can compare that author (Paul) and syntax with what we see in Colossians, we can determine by comparison whether Paul wrote Colossians. The failure here is the assumption that it was Paul alone or Paul himself who wrote Romans and that, since Romans is supposedly pure Paul, one must test Colossians against this pure sample to see whether Colossians passes the test. Methodologically, however, this assumption is nondemonstrable and demonstrably wrong. In fact, authorship questions about Paul’s letters are more complex today than ever before. Given what we know today about how letters were produced and how “authorship” would have worked for an apostle like Paul, who was not good at writing himself (see Gal 6:11) and who certainly used co-workers and probably professional secretaries who were more skilled at writing and at articulation (in Greek) and who also contributed theologically to the letters, we have to say that Galatians itself was not written by Paul the way it is often assumed in this kind of comparison about authorship. The foundation of a pure Pauline sample for this kind of comparison, then, is undermined: what we have in each of the letters attributed to Paul is Paul and his co-workers and a secretary or two, and some discussions and some drafts and contributions by one or more others in varying degrees. The most notable point here is that this mode of letter production applies as much to Galatians as it does to Colossians. Galatians is not a pure Pauline letter, with Colossians a less pure product. It is far more likely that we need to see it as follows: Galatians reflects the style and grammar of one or more secretaries and one or more co-workers mediating Paul, while Colossians reflects another set of the same, mediating Paul. Paul is being mediated by each, to one degree or another, but we need to abandon the historically simplistic, assumptive theory that Paul wrote Galatians and, because we know what Paul’s style and theology are, we can know whether he is the one responsible for Colossians. How can anyone compare the author of one letter when it is produced by committee with the author of another letter produced far more likely than not by another committee? At best, all one can do is posit generalizations. Generalizations, however, destroy the game called comparison of authorship. But this is the game Pauline specialists play with one another and, like Homer’s gods, both know and acknowledge one another while ordinary mortals seem left in the dark. (I include myself in the former group, even though I am a latecomer to writing about Paul.) The irony is that the bulk of historians would not countenance such dissection and pretend knowledge about authorship of Pauline books. There is simply not enough evidence to know what many think they know. The argument from style, then, slides down the mountainside at this point. To make the issue more complex, the issues of style and theology, inasmuch as they are often seen as the tension points between Colossians and the so-called genuine Paulines, may also be a case of mediating traditional materials within the letter. George Cannon long ago made the case that the tensions in style and theology in Colossians are often instances of Paul using existing traditions. Cannon, who is playing the old game of comparing the known with the unknown, finds tradition being brought into play in Col 1:12–15; 1:15–20, and 2:9–15, as well as in the paraenetic sections (e.g., 3:5–12). If the style and theological tensions revolve around the unusual vocabulary, style, and theology rising to the surface in new language games, then the tension can be explained as easily as tension with tradition more than with genuine and suspect Pauline letters. It is highly probable that not all of these sections are simply Pauline (or whoever the author might be) but at least in part traditions the author utilizes, however difficult detection might prove to be. All I would add is that we could expand the word “tradition” to include the contribution of others in all of Paul’s letters in their final act of production. I should perhaps make it clear that I am under no obligation to defend the Pauline authorship of Colossians, and by obligation I mean theologically, canonically, or confessionally. More than two decades ago I taught a course on the authorship of the pastoral letters of Paul; at that time I concluded that authorship itself was far more of a contested matter than is acknowledged or discussed, and at that time I came basically to the conclusions above. Time after time since then, I have watched as a spectator the logic from the known to the unknown. My contention is not with the unknown side but with the known side. Hence, now, the question: Who wrote the letter? Did Paul actually write this letter? Some say Yes, but a slight majority favors those who say No, and the deniers often include intelligent discussions about ancient pseudepigraphy. Roy Yates, working the logic of the known to the unknown, says, “Colossians is a round peg that cannot be forced into the square hole of the genuine Paulines.” The “round” is the unknown and the “square” is the known. Some say it was actually Timothy, but that’s often by way of the same logic. And the same observation about logic can be said of the nuanced discussions and debates about the Pauline school, whether it was written at the time of Paul, after Paul, or by an alternative-to-institutions-of-the-time school. The orientation achieved by admitting that the so-called canon of genuine Pauline letters (Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, 1-2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, and Philemon) is itself formed and framed by more than Paul necessarily reshapes the questions of both vocabulary and style. To be sure, there are nearly ninety terms in Colossians not found in that so-called canon of Paulines, but once one recognizes there are close to eighty terms in one of the genuines (Philippians) not found in the other genuine Pauline letters, the case on the basis of numbers shifts yet again. But if we press the “known-to-unknown” logic harder, we must surrender the arguments from both vocabulary and style. If we cannot assume the so-called genuines are pure Paul, then the logic of comparison is seriously, if not fatally, weakened. So we surrender the case in the other direction: yes, the vocabulary varies from the vocabulary, say, in Galatians and Romans. Yes, too, the style varies, especially in that Colossians prefers the abundance of genitives (e.g., 1:27; 2:2) and seemingly more liturgically sensitive expressions (1:15–20). While some might say subject matter as well, though Paul’s own development as a writer can explain some of these shifts, our logical argument is that appeal to subject matter is needed only because one assumes too much of a pure Paul in those so-called genuine letters. If we but grant that those letters were produced in conjunction with writers and co-workers other than those in Colossians, the issue of style largely disappears—not because it is certain, but because we are not comparing apples with apples but first-picked oranges with ripened bananas. This line of thought leads to what is perhaps the most substantive argument against a Pauline authorship—again, on the assumption of the known-to-unknown logic—namely, the theology of Colossians when compared with the assumed genuine Pauline letters. Is Colossians the last of Paul’s genuine letters or the beginning of the deutero-Paulines? What separates these two options is subtle and is an almost intuitive discernment, not something empirically demonstrable. Here, too, the logic from the known to the unknown is a hefty unbalancing of the scale of evidence. But the traditional points of contention are clear, involving four themes or development of themes not found in other Pauline letters: authority, Christology, ecclesiology, and eschatology.

A. AUTHORITY OF PAUL

The authority of Paul in Colossians outstrips the authority of Paul in the so-called canonical Paulines. Where? In the emphasis on the language of “the faith” (1:23; 2:7), in the passing on of traditions in 2:6–7, and in the universality of Paul’s apostolic authority (1:23–24), which can be transmitted by Pauline fiat to others, say, Epaphras (1:7–8; 4:12–13). For some writers, this concern with the authorization of others indicates a pseudepigraphic survival maneuver to keep the Pauline churches intact. There are, on the contrary, argument-diminishing observations: (1) the letter itself makes it clear that Paul did not establish the church (2:1) and that Epaphras did, making this kind of statement about Epaphras organic rather than artificial or imposed; (2) Philippians does the same with Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25–29); and (3) it must be noted that early in his ministry Paul himself passes on the core gospel tradition (so-called pure letters; e.g., 1 Cor 15:1–8). Passing on traditions, then, and authorizing tradents is not a necessary indicator of later tradition. If we admit that Paul was behind only the so-called genuine letters, then this contention about the growth of apostolic authority might be considered from a different angle: namely, Paul and his co-worker associates have come to terms with the enhanced authority he is playing in the churches he and his co-workers have established. Why would they not, then, express themselves in ways indicating a more authoritative tradition? In fact, the whole point may be an overreach: “There is nothing in Colossians, then,” Doug Moo concludes, “about authority that can even be called an advance on what we find in the teaching of the seven critically accepted letters.” I agree, except when it comes to the matter of Paul’s authorizing of himself on the basis of his sufferings. Sumney already has his hands on the bread when it comes to the depiction of Paul sufferings (1:24) as something that probably does go beyond what we find anywhere else in Paul.

B. CHRISTOLOGY

The Christology of Colossians, it is claimed, exceeds the christological grasp of the earlier letters. One good read of the famous hymn of Col 1:15–20, noticing also that hymn’s echoes in 2:2–3 or 2:9–10 or 2:13–15, reveals categories and themes barely touched upon in the so-called genuine Pauline letters. As Dunn puts it, “The christology … looks to be further along the trajectory … than that of the undisputed Paulines.” In Colossians Christ is the beginning of life and the goal of all creation, the Creator as well as the Redeemer; in fact, Christ is the fullness of God’s god-ness incarnate. Once again, we call attention both to the limitation of the logic from the known to the unknown and to the rather obvious thematic touches of these themes in other Pauline letters (e.g., Phil 2:5–11), not to mention that many think Col 1:15–20 could be early church tradition in hymnic form. If the christological themes of our hymn derive from tradition, the themes are both as early as Paul’s own ministries and perhaps not to be discounted against Paul himself. Development and difference are apparent, but I would contend that one can just as logically contend that the co-workers around Paul—in situ, of course—could have pressed upon Paul to use such terms, and one could also argue that these themes were perhaps the creative reshaping of Paul’s own Christology by Paul himself or that Paul in fact had similar ideas earlier but the other letters were pressed in other directions. In the commentary below we will observe that some scholars today are not as convinced Col 1:15–20 is a hymn but more likely an on-the-spot poetic creation by the apostle Paul. And as I nod my head in agreement with that suggestion, I think to myself that his co-workers may well have helped his poetry along. To conclude, while the terms are special to Colossians, the theology at work here can be tied into fundamental christological themes in Paul’s other writings. That is, while vocabulary may vary, a powerful set of creation and eschatology themes is at work even in Paul’s amendment of the Shema in 1 Cor 8:6; furthermore, one cannot ignore the reconciliation-of-all-creation theme of Rom 8.

C. ECCLESIOLOGY

The ecclesiology of Colossians has become more universal and institutional in scope, while the “earlier” Paulines had an ecclesiology more shaped by specific location. This generalization is true and well documented. From seemingly creative metaphor in 1 Cor 12, the universal church has now been reified into the “body of Christ” in the Prison Letters (e.g., Colossians, Ephesians). This point could be a distinction without a difference and instead a rather organic and inevitable development of the seminal thought itself. Once again, too, the known-to-the-unknown logic may have too big of an influence—perhaps one of Paul’s co-workers suggested the body image, and over time Paul and his co-workers developed it; perhaps, too, Paul earlier thought of the church more universally, but his ministry had not grown enough to put meat on the bones; and perhaps, too, one of Paul’s associates (Timothy?) was keen on “church” being a universal phenomenon and being seen most clearly in the whole church as the “body of Christ” in this world. As well, there are no offices here as we find in the Pastorals but a seeming congregational charismatic giftedness (see Col 3:16). The ecclesiology of Colossians strikes me as very close to that of Ephesians, and more like Corinthians than the Pastorals. A part of this argument against Pauline authorship is another consideration: the household regulations are unlike what we find in the so-called genuine Pauline letters, and they are understood to be an affirmation of conventional Greco-Roman ways of life over against the genuine Pauline more radical form of living. To be sure, the household regulations are found at best in the later Pauline letters and then also in late-first-and early-second-century Christian writings—that is, if one embraces the reading of the regulations that sees in them a conventional urban Roman way of life, a kind of residue of Aristotle’s Politics. I will leave it to the commentary to challenge this reading, but for now readers must observe: the routine concern in Colossians, not to mention Ephesians, with the evil of this world, dominated as it is by the powers, deconstructs the notion that the regulations affirm the conventions of that world. One cannot simply affirm the conventions of the world if one thinks the world is evil. And many have observed that what Paul exhorts the superordinate person in the regulations is anything but conventionally Roman or Greek (and especially not Aristotelian, with its robust commitment to the aristocracy).

D. ESCHATOLOGY

The eschatology of Colossians is less futuristic compared with the earlier and genuine Pauline teachings on eschatology. Agreed. There is a realized dimension of eschatology at work in Colossians, alongside which we encounter less focus on the future than in the other Paulines. But it must be noted that this is not an either-or contrast but instead one of a degree of emphasis. Resurrection has moved from the future (1 Cor 15; 2 Cor 5:1–10) to baptism (Col 2:12; 3:1), and the powers have been sacked already (2:15 and 1 Cor 15:24). The emphasis on the present cannot be denied, though that emphasis sometimes is an overemphasis, for surely the future is at work in a number of texts. And one can catch hints of the present resurrection already in Rom 6:4, 13. If we factor into this argument the logic from the known to the unknown, I am at least intrigued by the possibility that the eschatology of Colossians is not so much a contrast with “pure” Paul as a configuration of eschatology in Pauline circles that shows a marked pastoral development for the situation at Colossae.

E. OTHER THEMES ABSENT

This kind of logic also helps explain the absence of so-called pure Pauline teachings like justification and faith as a personal response, not to mention the near absence of the Holy Spirit in the letter (but see 1:8, 9; 3:16). Reading the emphasis on sin in Romans and then noticing the absence of that language in Colossians is like turning from John Calvin’s discussions of sin to Marilynne Robinson’s gentler Calvinism. Even if one is ready (as I am) to explain justification as a theme that is evoked by specific contexts and not the center of Pauline soteriology, the observations about absent themes in Colossians are nonetheless accurate. And even more is this the case if one sees Paul opposing Judaizing tendencies in Colossae at 2:16–23, for it is precisely in such contexts that Paul offers in Galatians and Romans his “pure” teaching about justification, law, faith, and grace. To use a particularly telling observation made by N. T. Wright in his book Justification, we might back up just a moment to observe that we often read Paul through the lens of Romans (and Galatians) because they are not only canonically earlier but because we think of them as earlier in chronology—and they have become without doubt the seminal categories into which all of Paul’s theology is said to fit. What if we first encountered Paul’s theology through Colossians or Ephesians? We’d all be, Wright answered, new-perspective thinkers! The logical argument is everywhere apparent here: since Romans is pure Paul and since Romans has lots of justification, then we must see whether the unknown Colossians has the pure-Paul theme of justification. But we ask yet again, is Romans that purely Pauline? I think not. It is one kind of Pauline theology that emerges out of the genuine Pauline circle but not the whole of Pauline theology, and Colossians is yet another. The same can be said about the Spirit, which is not as apparent in Colossians as in other letters.

F. COLOSSIANS AND EPHESIANS

Before we press all this into a conclusion, there is another matter to consider in brief, namely, the relationship of Colossians to Ephesians. In what many consider to be the seminal study on this topic, Ernest Best argued, in conjunction with the nineteenth-century study of H. J. Holtzmann, that parallels between these letters can be explained in either direction and that there’s nothing that conclusively proves direction in only one way. Holtzmann said that six places indicate that Ephesians is using Colossians (Col 1:1–2, 3, 4, 9; 1:5; 1:25, 29; 2:4, 6–8; 4:5; 4:6), while others suggest Colossians is using Ephesians (Eph 1:4; 1:6–7; 3:3, 5, 9; 3:7–18; 4:16; 4:22–24; 5:19)! Best thinks four can simply go either way:

Eph 5:19–20 = Col 3:16–17 Eph 6:5–9 = Col 3:22–4:1 Eph 6:18–20 = Col 4:2–3 Eph 6:21–22 = Col 4:7–8.

It is accurate to say that this sort of conclusion can be explained in a few ways: that Ephesians used Colossians, that Colossians used Ephesians, that a later pseudepigrapher used Ephesians to create Colossians, or that Paul wrote both—in conversation with probably the same co-workers, including Timothy for Colossians—at about the same time, and the echoes are therefore organic rather than forced or imitative. To quote Barth and Blanke, “At about the same time, but in addressing different congregations in different situations, one and the same author wrote both letters.”

G. PHILEMON

And then there is the similarity of Philemon (1; 23–24), commonly judged to be authentic, and Col 4:7–17. Either one must posit intentional deception or something close to it or one must admit that such a passage simply sounds like the sort of thing Paul himself would say, and something like what no one else could say with integrity. Dunn says it well: “And when we recall the possibility that Colossae was almost destroyed in the earthquake of 60 or 61, confidence in the hypothesis that the letter was written to Colossae some years later takes a further knock.” Dunn himself thinks this letter stands in the borderland, in fact as “the theology of Paul as understood or interpreted by Timothy,” a conclusion quite close to the one I am proposing here. I would contend, however, that what is often posed as a difference between the genuine Paul and the “Paul” of Colossians is not so much the difference between Paul and Timothy’s interpretation but between the Timothean Paul and the Paul as interpreted and inscribed by others of his associates. I am left, then, with a rather contrarian dialectical conclusion: I do not think Paul wrote any of the letters because it is far more likely that Paul was behind all of the letters. We have no pure Pauline letters, no “undisputed” or “genuine” Pauline letters, but only letters in which we hear the voice of Paul standing alongside co-workers and (probably) professional scribes. Colossians, then, is Pauline as much as but not more than Galatians and Romans and the Corinthian letters. What this means for mapping the so-called development in Paul’s mind is now worth a brief reminder. If Paul wrote Galatians in, say, 48 CE, 1 (and 2?) Thessalonians in the early 50s, then from about 53 to 57 CE, in rapid succession from Ephesus, Macedonia, and Corinth, he produced the following letters: 1 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Corinthians, and Romans. If this is the case, this latter collection of letters is a complex of interrelated theological articulations spanning a decade or more, during which time Paul’s mind shifted.

II. OPPONENTS AND SETTING: THE HALAKIC MYSTICS OF COLOSSAE

The questions about the audience and the city of Colossae, a city south of the Menander River in Phrygia—at one time a prominent crossroad city in the Lycus Valley and known for its wool and textiles, but by the time of the apostle Paul declining—are complicated by two factors: (1) the probable destruction of the city by an earthquake during the lifetime of Paul and (2) the lack of investigation of the city by archaeologists. Put differently, we do not have the scholarship for Colossae comparable to what has been done for Ephesus. As well, there is presently very little evidence about the church in Colossae, the archaeological project has not yet begun, and there never will be the kind of evidence we have for Rome that has been sketched in such careful detail by Peter Lampe. Casting aside what we do not and perhaps cannot know, Colossae was in the middle of a network of cities in western Asia Minor, including Ephesus, Tralles, Laodicea, Hierapolis, as well as Apamea, Pisidian Antioch, and south to Attalia and Perga. Therefore, a summary statement about the city at the time of Paul by Barth and Blanke reminds us of the sorts of things we can begin to know about Colossae: “It was exposed to grim winters, lovely springs, and hot summers. Its central section, including a theater of modest size and an acropolis of less than majestic dimensions, lay south of the river Lycus. This tributary of the Maeander rushes into and through a gorge near ancient Colossae. The Lycus Valley is dominated on its northeastern side by the mountain Salbacus, and in the southwest by the snow-capped Cadmos. Precipices, partly covered with gleaming white travertine, form walls on both sides of the valley.” Tacitus places the earthquake probably in 61 CE (Annals 14.27), while Eusebius writes of an earthquake affecting Hierapolis, Laodicea, and Colossae (Chronicle 1.21–22), but he seems to date it in 64 CE. We are safe thinking these reports are referring to the same event, with the implication that Colossae was more or less destroyed or at least seriously damaged during Paul’s imprisonment in Rome or shortly thereafter. The city of Colossae was predominantly Gentile, though there is solid evidence for the presence of Jews, the first hints of which we get from Josephus, who said that two thousand families were settled in Colossae (Jewish Antiquities 12.3–4). Cicero, too, witnesses to sizable taxes for Jerusalem’s temple being collected in Colossae (For Flaccus 28). We infer, then, that Paul’s audience was predominantly Gentile (see Col 1:12, 21, 27; 2:13; 3:5–7 as Gentile vices), even if the so-called opponents were Jewish. There is also solid evidence that Colossae was active with religious cults. Nothing illustrates the sort of indigenous, mysterious, at times bizarre, but always probing the transcendent, religious practices that emerged in the ancient world any better than Strabo’s description of the Ploutonion in nearby Hierapolis:

But the Ploutonion is a moderate-size opening below a small elevation in the mountainous country above it; it can accommodate a man, and it goes deep into the earth. Next to it is a rectangular enclosure with a circumference of half a plethrum. It is full of a smoke so dense that the ground is hardly visible. The air is harmless to anyone who approaches outside the rail, since the outside is free from that smoke when there is no wind, since it stays within the enclosure. But death comes immediately to any living creature that remains inside. Even bulls that are shoved into it and collapse are pulled out dead. We have let sparrows loose, and they have fallen lifeless at once. But the castrated Galli [cultic personnel of mother goddess] pay no heed and are not harmed, so that they can even approach the opening, bend over it, and even enter it, to the extent that they can hold their breath (for we have seen on their faces the symptoms of a kind of painful suffocation)—whether all who are so mutilated have this immunity or only those in the vicinity of the sanctuary, or whether it comes through divine providence, as it is similarly enjoyed by those who are possessed by the deity, or after the receipt of powerful antidotes.

With this sort of religious mix in Colossae and its nearby cities, we are not surprised to hear there were provocations for the Christians in Colossae. As Barclay expresses it, “New Testament scholars love polemics, and they are attracted to this letter by the sound of gunfire.” Who, to use his imagery, was behind the gunfire? We begin with the observation that Paul was at some distance from this church and was responding to hearsay because he did not found the church. That honor should be laid at the feet of fellow Colossian Epaphras (Col 1:7, 8; 4:12, 13), who was probably a convert of Paul’s through his ministry in Ephesus from 52 to 55 (see Acts 18:19–20:38) and hence a missioner back to his home town. He was probably also the one responsible for talking about the gunfire back home. As one who was also in prison with Paul (Phlm 23), Epaphras was unable to deliver the letter, so Paul sent Tychicus along with Onesimus as his couriers (Col 4:7–9). But what he did deliver was news about polemics at work in Colossae. What can we know? And how can we know it?

A. METHODOLOGY

If we know precious little about Colossae compared with what we now know about Ephesus or Pompeii, the theological context is another matter, and it highlights methodology for understanding the provocations. The letters of Paul are not theoretical exercises in theological exploration, and neither are they objective descriptions of the context; rather, they are pastoral letters driven by mission. Hence, the letters have what has been called a contingent expression of a coherent (apocalyptic) gospel. Questions about the setting and the beliefs of the supposed opponents of the letter of Paul (and Timothy) to the Colossians can be examined in almost complete independence of the author(s) of the letter, but there is a local, contingent reality to Colossians that must be respected. That is, the coherent message in Paul’s overall theology comes to expression in this particular contingency called Colossians in a dialectical manner. To the degree that we can determine this contingency (the context, the setting, the date, the opponents), to that same degree we can determine how Paul’s theology came to expression for that context. Our inability to define with precision that contingency does not make it any less contingent, however, and neither does it mean that the historian ought not to search for that contingency. No, we need to do what we can to determine the exigencies of this letter and admit all we can, as well as our ignorance concerning what we cannot yet discern. For example, we can learn more about the precise context of this letter from those who study Colossians from the angle of rhetorical criticism. As with the discussion about authorship, so methodology deserves more than its usual share of attention. No one has been more rigorous and insightful than Sumney, and the effect of his work is to bring caution to the table. I shall use his conclusions in what follows, adding here and there my own vantage points. We are driven to use what can be demonstrably shown to be texts contemporary with an apostle at work roughly in the middle decades of the first century. Whatever reconstructions historians might offer about what the opponents believed can serve only as possibilities for reading Colossians, not probabilities. The reconstructions, then, are not the evidence itself. Sumney further reminds us that we cannot assume that Paul and Timothy had a laser-like accurate description of what the opponents believed or that they would agree with his terms—no doubt, they would not have! Exegesis, however, is not about historical reconstruction but about the patient reading of a text as the deposit of the author. Whatever Paul wrote down is what exegetes concern themselves with, even if all of us seek to comprehend that exegesis in a historical context. Sumney aruges that, by way of procedure, we must read the letters individually first and adduce parallels that have the same conceptual framework and terms that have the same meaning. In a bold move that counters much of what happens in historical exegesis, Sumney rightfully argues that parallels are not determinative for meaning and cannot be the primary evidence, for the letter itself is the primary evidence. Parallels, he continues, can “add details.” Thus, “Our treatment of issues relating to reconstructions and the use of sources other than the primary text shows that the individual letter itself is the only acceptable source of information about its opponents. Other sources can only guide us in setting the general context and in adding detail after we identify the specific situation. We cannot even accept other writings by the same author as sources when identifying the specific situation that a particular letter addresses. So the real source for studying opponents is the letter in which they appear” (117). He then sorts out, in an important methodological clarification, the sorts of passages we encounter in Pauline letters that reveal solid information about the opponents of Paul. The whole of his discussion deserves quotation and careful reading:

Types of passages were assessed according to two factors: how certain we can be that they refer to opponents and how reliable the comments about them are (i.e., how little distortion is present). We identified three types of statements (explicit statements about opponents, allusions to them, and affirmations) and four categories of contexts (polemical, apologetic, didactic, and conventional epistolary periods) and examined each type of statement in each category of context. Some kinds of statements in particular contexts were excluded as sources of information about opponents. Other kinds certainly and reliably refer to opponents. Even though each type of statement in each kind of context must be evaluated individually, some grouping is possible. We identified five levels of certainty of reference. Explicit statements in all contexts have a higher level of certainty of reference than any other sort of statement. Proposed allusions in polemical and apologetic contexts belong together in a second level because these contexts are quite likely occasions for authors to refer indirectly, as well as directly, to opponents. A third level of certainty of reference contains supposed allusions in polemical contexts which require us to use mirror exegesis, affirmations in polemical and apologetic contexts, and supposed allusions in didactic contexts and thanksgiving periods. We must remain less certain that these statements refer to opponents. There must be firm supporting evidence to claim a reference to opponents at this level. The fourth level contains the main themes of epistolary greetings and thanksgivings. These themes can only function as corroborative evidence. Non-explicit statements in epistolary closings and hortatory contexts, individual non-explicit statements in greetings, individual affirmations in thanksgivings, and affirmations in didactic sections belong in the fifth level of certainty of reference. These statements cannot be admitted as evidence because we cannot show that they refer to opponents. We identified four levels of reliability. The most reliable information about opponents is in explicit statements and allusions in didactic contexts, and explicit statements, allusions, and major themes in thanksgiving periods. Affirmations in apologetic and polemical contexts and major themes in extended greetings belong in the second level of reliability. We expect distortion in these contexts, but since these statements do not refer directly to the opponents the distortion is reduced. A group of yet less reliable statements is composed of explicit statements and allusions in apologetic and polemical contexts and explicit statements in epistolary greetings and closings. In this third level we have statements about opponents in contexts where we must expect distortion. The lowest level of reliability contains only explicit statements in hortatory contexts. These statements are extremely unreliable. (117–18)

Sumney’s monograph on methodology for identifying Paul’s opponents was focused on 2 Corinthians, but he eventually wrote an important commentary on Colossians as well. Here is what he concludes for Colossians: “If we begin with explicit statements about the other teaching, we see that its advocates urge acceptance of some food and drink regulations and the observance of holy days, at least some of which they draw from Judaism (e.g., observance of the Sabbath; see 2:16–17, 21–23). They observe these regulations as a means to attain heavenly visions in which they see angels worship, and they probably join in that angelic worship directed to God (2:18).” But more can be said if we then move to “less direct statements.” Sumney concludes: “They argue that Christians who do not adopt these practices and attain these visions do not have as close a relationship with God as those who have such experiences. In fact, these teachers go so far as to assert that such mystic flights are necessary for forgiveness of sins. This judgment against others in the church is the crux of the problem (2:16).” In light of this methodology and its implications for discerning the opponents of Paul at Colossae, Sumney continues to observe what Paul is saying in response: Paul formulates a theology over against that theory, arguing that forgiveness is in Christ through baptism. Paul is not against experiences but against their being “mandatory,” and therefore he rejects these teachers (11). Methodologically, I am close to Sumney’s approach, though I wonder whether we should admit into the room more evidence drawn from the moral sections in the letter. Paul encounters the opponents not on a local billboard advertising local philosophical public discussions but in the moral lives of the fellowship at Colossae. One might argue, then, that the moral sections of the letter are the portal through which Paul enters Colossae and then explores the theology he sees at work leading to such moral teachings and practices. This suggestion expands what Sumney has concluded but expands only by adding more while not subtracting anything he argues.

B. THE OPPONENTS

I have assumed to this point that there were theological or philosophical opponents, and that there was one group of them, but it is time now to lay out in brief the evidence. In particular, when Paul says in Col 2:4 “so that no one may deceive you” and in 2:8 “see to it that no one takes you captive,” and then again at 2:16 (“do not let anyone judge you”) and at 2:18 (“do not let anyone who delights”), he is using language that refers to someone—and probably only one front is in view—who is teaching something about which Epaphras, Paul, and Timothy have major concerns. The emphasis in Colossians on wisdom (1:9, 28; 2:3, 23; 3:16; 4:5), mystery (1:26–27; 2:2; 4:3), fullness (1:19; 2:9), and knowledge (1:10; 2:3) no doubt reflects Paul’s concerns with the opponents’ theology or philosophy. The issue for scholarship is the specifics of the provocation of these opponents. One of the earliest observations of the provocation comes from the author now known as Ambrosiaster. In his preface to a fourth-century commentary on Colossians, Ambrosiaster observed: “After the preaching of Epaphras and Archippus, false apostles had tried to seduce the Colossians by corrupting the straightforward devotion of their minds with philosophical disputations, so that they would not renounce the principles of the elements by which human life is more or less governed. Therefore the apostle exhorts and admonishes them by letter not to think that there is any hope anywhere outside Christ, and thus be deceived.” To put it mildly, scholarship has probed many times into this Colossian provocation, so that now more can be known than in the days of Ambrosiaster. I had already worked out an outline to the scholarship when I discovered Ian Smith’s sketch, so his thorough study will provide a template for the sketch that follows. I begin with a variety of scholars who tilt the opponents toward Hellenism. Some see at work behind the letter a combination of streams from Essene Judaism and some form of Gnosticism, a view made influential by J. B. Lightfoot. Others find a more accurate environment for the so-called opponents arising out of Hellenism, Hellenistic religions, and Hellenism’s sorts of dualisms. A recent proposal from Richard DeMaris contends that Middle Platonism is at work behind the Letter to the Colossians; I quote his own summary:

This analysis reaches the following conclusions and results. It criticizes the tendency among existing reconstructions of the philosophy to classify it as either Jewish or pagan, or to label it syncretistic without accounting for why that particular blend of elements arose. This study offers instead a portrait of philosophically-inclined Gentiles drawn to the Jewish community and then to the Christian congregation by ideas and practices congenial with their view of the world. Central to the Colossian philosophy’s outlook was the pursuit of divine knowledge or wisdom through (1) the order of the cosmic elements (2:8, 20), (2) a bodily asceticism that sets free the investigative mind (2:18, 23), and (3) intermediaries between heaven and earth (angels or demons; 2:18). These features are typical of Middle Platonism in the NT period. At the same time, the philosophy’s calendar (2:16) and stress on humility (2:18, 23) indicate Jewish and Christian influences. Hence, the Colossian philosophy appears to be a distinctive blend of popular Middle Platonic, Jewish, and Christian elements that cohere around the pursuit of wisdom.

Clinton Arnold’s thorough searches into street religion of the pagans in the Lycus Valley has led to a conclusion that Paul is addressing a kind of syncretism between Judaism and Phrygian folk religion, and he has been joined by others as they expand on the earlier proposals of the history of religions school. Others tilt the whole discussion more toward Judaism. If there is a consensus in this discussion, it emerges from a number of scholars following in the paths of Fred O. Francis and Andrew Bandstra, who think the opponents are much more directly from Judaism in its diverse permutations of wisdom and apocalyptic and mysticism in the diaspora, but all this usually combined with various elements, not least Christology, of the Christian faith. Mysticism essentially seeks to bridge the gap between earth and heaven, between one person and God or the supernatural realm; that is, it seeks a direct experience of God. This view of the opponents focuses on the praxis of the Colossians in their desire to follow ascetic acts that lead to mystical experiences like that of angels (though some think they are worshiping angels). Morna Hooker, ever willing to run the tilt of consensus through a careful screening, argued some years back that the various lines and terms in Colossians—taken to be a mirror of some opponents—are too circular in argumentation, that the letter’s tone is too calm, and that there might not even be specific opponents. She is supported by considering Paul’s positive statements of the church in Colossae at 1:3–8 as well as 2:5—one wonders how Paul could have said the church’s faith is “firm” if it were sliding into sub-Christian ideas and practices. Barth and Blanke, watching this conversation with analytic eyes, threw up their hands, concluding that the context finally remains an “unsolved puzzle.” Hooker, Barth, and Blanke notwithstanding, the following statement by Thomas Sappington appears to summarize the largest share of judgment today:

The Colossian error is strikingly similar to the ascetic-mystical piety of Jewish Apocalypticism. The errorists sought out heavenly ascents by means of various ascetic practices involving abstinence from eating and drinking, as well as careful observance of the Jewish festivals. These experiences of heavenly ascent climaxed in a vision of the throne and in worship offered by the angelic hosts surrounding it. It seems that these visions also pointed to the importance of observing the Jewish festivals, probably as evidence of submission to the law of God. These visionary experiences provided the basis for the errorists’ judgments, by which they attempted to move the Colossian Christians to obedience and true Christian piety, as they understood it.

While this might be called the consensus, or at least the most common, approach to the Colossian opponents, it is not, at least in this writer’s judgment, impossible that Paul has transposed the problems he’s facing at Ephesus (if he wrote it from there) onto the canvas at Colossae in his more polemical moments in the letter. But if Sappington, who has carried on the tradition of Francis and Bandstra, represents a near consensus, what does that consensus look like? This is where Ian Smith’s fulsome analysis of the opponents of Paul offers for us an outline of what was at work at Colossae and in the Letter to the Colossians. Smith himself is not alone in thinking there is some kind of Jewish mysticism at work in the opponents to the letter of Colossians, and for each point he offers solid and methodologically insightful conclusions. I shall riff off his work as approximating the kind of consensus I think most likely. First, the opponents were operating with a Jewish set of ideas and practices, and Paul chose to call this a vain kind of Jewish-shaped “philosophy” (2:8 uses “philosophy,” while 2:23 uses “wisdom”). I hold the Jewishness to be firmly rooted in what is said about the opponents’ practices in Col 2:16–17, 21–22. One who has explored the Jewishness well, with a view toward the ethics of Colossians, is Allan Bevere, who, like his mentor, Dunn, sees the issue surrounding “badges of identity.” In particular, “the Jews of Colossae dismissed the claims made by Gentile Christians that they shared in the inheritance of Israel.” At the core of Colossians are expressions for Israel from the story of Israel that Paul uses for the church, and surely he’s got at least a majority of Gentile believers in mind: the exodus in 1:12–14, wisdom in 1:15–20, and the Torah in Christ (1:25, 27; 2:2, 4, 6–7, 14). As well, Bevere demonstrates that there are substantive connections, with variations, between Colossians and Galatians (circumcision, Sabbath and calendar, food laws, and the stoicheia). All of this reveals that the opponents emerged from some kind of Judaism. As a side comment on this Jewish philosophy, it is not clear to some whether this Jewishness is within the Christian congregation or not. That Paul is so consternated to say what he does about the Christian fellowship in Col 2:8–15, especially recalling the tone of warning in 2:8 that is designed for Christians, indicates far more likely that this is a problem within the Colossian fellowship. Dunn has further argued that the Jews are not so much evangelizing the Christians as they are involved in a healthy and compelling Jewish apologetic with the synagogue across town. Here’s how he frames it:

In short, given the various factors outlined above, including the likely origin of the Colossian church from within synagogue circles, the possibility of Israelite sectarianism in the diaspora, the lack of other evidence of Jewish syncretism in Asia Minor, and the readiness of some Jews to promote their distinctive religious practices in self-confident apology, we need look no further than one or more of the Jewish synagogues in Colossae for the source of whatever influences were thought to threaten the young church there. The more relaxed style of the Colossians’ polemic, and the absence of anything quite like the fierceness of the reaction in Galatians, further suggests that what was being confronted was not a sustained attempt to undermine or further convert the Colossians, but a synagogue apologetic promoting itself as a credible philosophy more than capable of dealing with whatever heavenly powers might be thought to control or threaten human existence. To describe this as “heresy” is quite inappropriate, and to brand it simply as “false teaching” (maintained by Colossian “errorists”) reduces that teaching to its controverted features and completely fails to appreciate the strength and attractiveness of a confident Jewish apologia.

The issue in world religions, not least in our Western pluralist cultures, might make us more sensitive to this kind of accusatory language, but the exegete lets Paul say what he says, and he sees these people as opponents of the gospel, Jewish or not, Jewish Christian or not. I suspect Paul would have called them errorists and heretics. Second, allied to this Jewish-Christian theology is a kind of dualism that can be found among Jews but probably owes its origins in some kind of Hellenism, and the most recent proposals for Middle Platonism are at least suggestive of further clarity. Older works about the opponents can be combined with more recent work to tip the balance in favor of some Hellenistic idea penetrating the kind of Jewish-Christian set of beliefs and practices that concern Paul so much at Colossae. Third, we note the Colossian errorists’ propensity to entangle themselves with what Paul calls the “elemental powers of this world”:

The world of evil elemental spirits was both recognized and feared. This fear of the powers of evil led Jews to participate in legalism. The philosophy stressed distinctively Jewish practices such as circumcision, Sabbath observance and dietary restrictions as means whereby the adherents could release themselves from the powers of evil. Such “good” practices would help the errorists overcome the “evil” forces. These practices, however, inasmuch as they were centred upon human obedience rather than divine grace, actually enslaved the Colossians to the very forces from which they wanted to be liberated. Furthermore, submission to such practices denied the sufficiency of the atonement by Christ and his lordship over creation, especially over the elemental spirits.

In other words, we can identify the opponents’ beliefs in part by mapping what they feared (or seemed to have feared), namely, the powers of this age. We are probably safe to think they found themselves somehow enslaved to such powers and wanted release from them (1:13; 2:8, 15); we are also on firm ground to think the opponents believed their teaching and practices would enable them to find victory over the powers. Fourth, this Jewish-Christian-Hellenistic and dualistic worldview of the opponents led rather inevitably to a kind of world-denying asceticism. This self-denying asceticism was tied by the opponents to a desire to enter into the depths of mystical experiences and ascent into the heavenly world. For now, we have in hand a set of observations that helps us to define the so-called opponents: Jewish, Christian, Hellenistic, dualistic, and ascetic. We add a fifth observation: to the degree this group is Jewish and/or Christian, to that same degree it is far less probable that they were worshiping angels, as some have contended over the years. What has been concluded so far has been framed into larger categories: at work is a group of teachers advocating an asceticism designed to lead worshipers into ecstatic, sensory, and mystical experiences. Through these experiences the powers of this world—the elemental spirits—could be defeated or transcended. Perhaps, then, we can call the opponents halakic mystics, and will do so throughout this commentary—or Torah-shaped transcendentalists. The following imaginative letter that Nijay Gupta wrote to express what he thought the halakic mystics were thinking, with terms in bold distinctive to Colossians, brings our discussion into focus:

Dear Colossians, we know you are experiencing hardships: no doubt you are aware that there are evil spirits and powers that have authority over our mortal world. These powers prey on the weakness of human bodies and flesh. Thus our world is fraught with cosmic chaos. We can offer, though, knowledge, wisdom, and teachings (traditions) that can protect you from these malevolent forces. By controlling, combating, and disciplining your own frail body, you can resist these powers. Circumcision and strict ritual Torah obedience are particularly effective in counteracting these hostile spirits. Once you have submitted yourself to such disciplines of the body, you will gain access to the celestial world—receiving divine wisdom, visions, and provisions to fight against the weakness of the flesh that the evil powers use against you. We can offer you the proper route to spiritual fullness and perfection.

I demur here from Gupta’s “transcendent-ascetic philosophy” sketch only because the sketch lacks expression of the opposition by the halakic mystics to Paul’s robust Christology. My suspicion is that they saw in Christ someone who pointed them to their kind of wisdom, but not wisdom itself (as Paul will say in 2:3). This confluence of ideas in the construction of the halakic mystics’ philosophy points, then, to Paul’s substantive response and thus also to the irony of this letter, which Ian Smith brings out in these lines:

The irony within Paul’s attack on the errorists is apparent throughout the text. The errorists are not associating with heavenly angelic beings but with fallen angels. Fullness is found in Christ alone, whereas the philosophy is empty deceit. This fullness does not depend on a heavenly ascent but on a divine descent. Asceticism results in bondage to regulations that thereby makes the participant subject to the flesh. Within a world dominated by Platonic categories, it is ironic to say that those who partook of practices associated with a heavenly ascent were not entering into the reality, but a shadow. Reality is found in Christ alone.

Paul turns against the ideas and practices of the halakic mystics at Colossae on the basis of Christology, or more narrowly focused, on the basis of what it means to have been baptized in Christ (2:12) or to have died and to have been raised in/with Christ (2:20–3:17), which indicates that the authors of this letter think the ideas attack or diminish the core Christian belief. It was at the cross and in the resurrection that God conquered the powers, not through some mediating religious experience. Fear of the powers and resolving that fear through mystical experiences form a countergospel alternative, not a complementary-to-the-gospel theology. Paul’s gospel resolves both fear and the powers in the cross, but this means that Paul’s sense of forgiveness transcends the person and becomes individual-cosmic all at once (2:13–15): forgiveness occurs because Christ conquers the powers on the cross. Because the Christ of the cross is a conquering, liberating, forgiving Lord, the Colossians are to enter into his victory through a baptism that plunges them into both a death and a resurrection, which, if we do some mirror reading, needs to be seen simultaneously as criticism of the halakic mystics’ understanding of experiential redemption. For Paul, God has reconciled all things in Christ at the cross and resurrection, and therefore fear of God, enslavement to elemental forces, and the power structures that assign all humans to a hierarchy of statuses have all been undone by Christ. The church is to be the place where this victory and new creation are to be lived out in all relationships and in all directions. Hence, the household regulations of 3:18–4:1 can hardly be understood as affirmation of the Roman way of life; they are instead a radical new-creation alternative in an empire that has set the categories. Again, Paul’s concern here is to contend that this entrance into new creation does not occur through mystical practices or rituals but through baptism into Christ, the Lord of all.

III. DATE AND IMPRISONMENT

The date of Colossians remains tied to our conclusion about authorship. If the letter is by Paul, then the letter is before the mid-60s CE, but if not, then anywhere from the late 60s to the second century. I assume Paul died somewhere in the second half of the sixth decade of the first century. I have concluded above that Colossians is Pauline, but since it is clear he was imprisoned when this letter was produced, we will have to determine the precise imprisonment to determine the date. Besides the absence of clear evidence about Colossae in much of what we know about Paul’s own travels, three elements come into play when it comes to dating this letter, one of which we have already discussed sufficiently to give it here a mere mention, namely, the place Colossians fits in the development of Paul’s theology. This is the least helpful of orientations to dating Colossians on methodological grounds because of the problems associated with arguing from the known to the unknown. A second element is the earthquake that destroyed Colossae in either 61 or 64 CE. I find it next to impossible to believe anyone would write a letter to the Colossians after the earthquake. I consider this conclusion solid. Most significant, third, is that Paul is in prison (Col 4:3, 18), and this detail notably connects Colossians to Philemon (1; 9; 10; 13; 23), Philippians (1:7, 12–30; 2:17; 4:22?), and Ephesians (3:1; 4:1; 6:20)—called the Prison Letters and usually assumed to have been written from the same prison at roughly the same time (measured by seasons, not hours). A problem arises at precisely this point: Which imprisonment is the setting for Colossians—Philippi? Caesarea? Ephesus? Apamea? Rome? The arguments for various imprisonments as the setting for Colossians emerge after a careful analysis of the evidence and weighing judgments, surmises, and informed guesses. In spite of the rich history of a Roman imprisonment, the evidence for other imprisonments as the setting counters some of the traditional view, with the result that a firm and compelling conclusion is now under challenge.

A. OPTIONS

Philippi is unlikely as the place of imprisonment, since it seems to have lasted only one night (see Acts 16:19–34). Paul was in Caesarea’s prison under Roman guard for two years (Acts 24:1–26:32), making Caesarea a possibility, even if the evidence at the end of Colossians does not sound like Caesarea. Philippi and Caesarea have the least amount of evidence in their favor. Many have also said Paul was imprisoned some time during his several years of ministry in Ephesus, even if Acts does not say so, and that Colossians came from that imprisonment and thus perhaps written 52–55 or perhaps as late as 57. One point at least in favor of Ephesus is the apparent recentness of the conversion of the Colossians. Campbell suggested recently that it was an imprisonment in Apamea (thus, a date of 50). If we take the ordering of the cities mentioned in Col 4:13 and 4:15 and 4:16, as does Campbell, in the order a trip would be from his current location, we get the following:

Place of letter writing → Colossae → Laodicea → Hierapolis

If this indicates a set of locations on one trip, then we’d have to think Paul is looking/thinking of a westward, though hardly straight, trip from his eastern location (Campbell’s Apamea). Thus, Apamea down to Colossae and up the valley to Laodicea and Hierapolis. This proposal is reasonable, though not compelling. In fact, the same geographic order would follow if Paul were envisioning an entry into Asia Minor from a southern port. Traditionally, scholars have argued that it is Paul’s Roman imprisonment (Acts 28:16–31; cf. Phil 1:13; 4:22), which would put the dating of the letter in 60 or 61. We return to a point just made: Paul suffered more than one imprisonment (2 Cor 6:5; 11:23), and there’s nothing in the Prison Letters that clearly proves which imprisonment is assumed. In fact, Paul probably spent plenty of time in prisons, with most of them not being mentioned. Other factors deserve to be discussed before we can be more confident in our judgment.

B. DISCUSSION

What, then, is the best defense for the traditional imprisonment location in Rome? First, a subscript to manuscripts K and L says “written from Rome by Tychicus and Onesimus.” Second, Eusebius informs his readers that Paul was taken to Rome, and “Aristarchus was with him; whom also somewhere in his epistles he suitably calls a fellow-prisoner” (Ecclesiastical History 2.22.1). This comment connects to Col 4:10 but also to Rome, since the Macedonian Aristarchus accompanied Paul to Rome (Acts 27:2). In addition, what we know from Acts 28 about Paul’s Roman imprisonment can be squared with what we find in Colossians, namely, a measure of freedom to visit with friends, which would entail the freedom to communicate with others. However, this impression hardly establishes a Roman imprisonment, since the same kind of imprisonment conditions would obtain empire-wide. What most harms the Roman-imprisonment theory is distance from Colossae, some 1,200 miles—it requires all these Lycus Valley believers to be present in Rome, have the financial wherewithal to return, and then again go back to Rome. We can tighten the arguments by looking at the names of people that appear in the letters that impinge on the location of the imprisonment. There is slightly more connection in the names to an imprisonment in Rome than in Ephesus, but the argument is not foolproof. In one dense footnote Michael Bird put this argument into exquisite shape, so I quote his summary:

(1) Timothy can be placed in Ephesus (Acts 19:22; 1 Cor 16:10; 1 Tim 1:3) but not Rome (unless Phil 1:1 was written from Rome). (2) Tychicus is linked to Rome and Ephesus (2 Tim 4:12) but towards the end of Paul’s imprisonment. (3) Aristarchus was apparently in Ephesus during the riot there (Acts 19:29) and he probably sailed on to Rome with Paul (Acts 27:2). (4) Demas is only linked with Paul in his final imprisonment and noted for his desertion (2 Tim 4:10). (5) If Luke was Paul’s travelling companion after Troas (Acts 16:11) he may have been with Paul in Ephesus and probably accompanied him to Rome, hence “we came to Rome” (Acts 28:14, 16; cf. 2 Tim 4:11). (6) John Mark had broken off from Paul (Acts 15:37–41) during an earlier missionary journey so the reference to him with Paul in Col 4:10 and Phlm 24 is all the more peculiar. It means that reconciliation has probably occurred. He is placed in Rome by 1 Pet 5:13 and in Ephesus by 2 Tim 4:11.

The names, then, do not resolve the issue. As indicated above, there is a problem for the Roman imprisonment theory that is at the same time an opportunity for the Ephesian theory, namely, trips are mentioned in these letters that make Rome far less likely than Ephesus. That is, one needs to consider indications of travel in Col 1:7–8; Phlm 8–12; Col 4:7–8, and Eph 6:22, as well as Phlm 12; 22. Four trips, all to the same region of Asia Minor, sometimes involving less than prominent people (Onesimus being chief—back and forth, as it turns out; see Phlm 15). How such people could all be in Rome is harder to explain than an Ephesian imprisonment. In fact, I am inclined to think that, for the slave Onesimus, traveling 1,200 miles to Rome, being sent back home 1,200 miles to Colossae, and then, at Paul’s request, returning 1,200 miles to Rome yet again beggars the imagination at the level of historical realities. How long did Paul imagine he’d be imprisoned in Rome? With this hesitation about Rome in mind now, there is, one might suggest, a sense of proximity to Colossae in the comments found at Col 4:9–12: Mark “if he comes to you”; Epaphras, “who is one of you.” And on a Roman origination, “They will tell you everything that is happening here” runs the risk of being seriously outdated by the time the travelers would be arriving. These considerations tip the balance in favor of Ephesus, and like others, I have myself resiled from the traditional Roman imprisonment theory. Along this line and leading in the same direction, Bird makes the point that the “circumstances of Philippians and Timothy are crucial for the provenance and date of Colossians/Philemon.” Here is how he puts it: “[Timothy] is named as cosender of Colossians and Philemon (Col 1:1; Phlm 1). To that we can add the observations that Timothy is also named as cosender of Philippians (Phil 1:1), Philippians is also written from captivity (Phil 1:13–14), and Philippians is similar to Philemon in at least two other respects: both look forward to Paul’s eventual release from prison (Phlm 22; Phil 1:19–26; 2:24), and there are several stylistic similarities between them, as noted by Francis Watson.” The final and perhaps strongest pieces of evidence are (1) that Aristarchus is in prison with Paul (Col 4:10), and he was arrested in Ephesus according to Acts 19:29. In addition, (2) Paul tells Philemon to prepare a room for him as he is coming that way (Phlm 22), but the book of Romans has already indicated that Paul was on his way west to Spain after being in Rome, not back to Asia Minor (Rom 15:14–33). Philemon 22, thus, suggests Ephesus as the origin. If we take an Ephesian origin to this letter, one is tempted to hear Ephesian echoes in the letter. Thus, Paul argued with Jews in the synagogues (Acts 18:19; 19:8–9), and one might wonder, then, whether the very Jewish-sounding problems at Colossae could be Paul’s transference to Colossae of issues arising with Jews in Ephesus (e.g., Col 2:16–17, 21–22). The “savage wolves” of Paul’s speech to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:29–30) is another possible instance of transferring to his Letter to the Colossians the sorts of problems he’s finding in Ephesus, which will no doubt also be the case in the Lycus Valley. The presence of exorcists and powers at Ephesus (Acts 19:13–20, 23–41) might help explain their presence and theology of defeat in Col 2 as well. If Colossians was written from Ephesus, we would need to date the letter in the mid-50s, or perhaps even 57, one date for the riot of Demetrios (Acts 19:23–41).

IV. PAUL’S THEOLOGY IN COLOSSIANS

We might best define Paul’s theology as “that integrated set of beliefs which may be supposed to inform and undergird Paul’s life, mission and writing, coming to expression in varied ways throughout all three.” In other words, it is not simply a matter of exegesis of the texts discerned to be from Paul but a reconstruction of his theology in its historical context, and such a reconstruction would not be found in any of Paul’s letters in complete form. If New Testament theology as a discipline transcends an individual author’s theology, so Paul’s theology transcends what we find in any one letter of his and is thus a reconstruction of what we think Paul’s theology looked like on the basis of those letters as they interact with the Greco-Roman and Jewish worlds as we understand them. Pauline theology, in other words, is a construct that transcends exegesis.

A. PAUL’S THEOLOGY: WHAT SCHOLARS ARE SAYING

Articulating Paul’s theology depends on where one begins, and most think the door to Pauline theology is the door called soteriology. For example, in Dunn’s tour de force, Paul’s theology is gathered into the following themes: God and humankind, humankind under indictment, the gospel of Jesus Christ, the beginning of salvation, the process of salvation, the church, and ethics (called “How should believers live?”). One can be forgiven if reminded here of the traditional loci in systematic theology, but Dunn chose to construct Paul’s theology at the time of writing Romans; in so doing he chose also to orient Paul’s theology through soteriology, which itself gave rise to the loci. Dunn acknowledged that Paul was a missionary and that his theology was shaped by mission, but these points are not given a formative role in determining or shaping the categories. Dunn’s new-perspective approach to Paul comes by way of a revised understanding of Judaism (it was not a works-based religion but instead “covenant nomism”), leading him often enough in a more sociological understanding of Paul and the law, namely, that the works of the law are deeds done by Jews that create Jewish exclusivism (e.g., circumcision, food laws, Sabbath practices) instead of the human attempt to justify oneself before God on the basis of merit. Dunn has at times understood the problem in Judaism to be “nationalistic righteousness,” but he constantly presses against efforts to show that Paul viewed Judaism and Christianity as discontinuous, and he notes a lack of critique of Judaism per se on Paul’s part. In spite of his sociological precision, Dunn’s default perception of Paul and Romans maintains the centrality of soteriology, with less role for either eschatology or ecclesiology. In his favor, however, is a robust sense of transformation that the gospel unleashes. His understanding of the gospel is that it is about the death and resurrection of Jesus and about justification by faith, but even more about participation in Christ and becoming like Christ and—in contrast to most—through an unblinkered emphasis on the power of the Spirit. A second example, again from what is called the new perspective, illustrating the formative importance of the starting point comes from N. T. Wright’s similar tour de force, Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Here Wright’s essential concern is to demonstrate at length that Paul’s theology emerges in both dramatic continuity and discontinuity with the story Israel told of itself. Israel’s story was reworked through Christology and pneumatology on the basis of the resurrection of Jesus from among the dead, the decisive event that ushered in new creation. Hence, his categories are (1) the one God of Israel freshly revealed, (2) the people of God freshly reworked, and (3) God’s future for the world freshly inaugurated. The three themes, then, are monotheism, election, and eschatology, all three reformed by Christology and pneumatology. Wright’s formative point is eschatology, or a salvation-historical approach to fulfillment in Jesus as Messiah and Lord. In other words, his entry point is the narrative or story of Israel, rather than the tradition’s ubiquitous soteriology. Beside these two framings of the new perspective over against the “old,” or claiming the Reformation perspective (the soteriological-justification Paul flowing out of the Augustinian-shaped Reformation and its various theological articulations over the last five centuries), there are of course other approaches and mixtures in all directions, three of which I want to detail more, since they will figure less in the commentary itself. I begin with the apocalyptic approach to Pauline theology. Campbell thinks Romans is the summation of Pauline theology but, perhaps most notably, thinks the substance of Rom 1–4 is not specifically Pauline theology, for it contains too much conditionality. Rather, Paul’s theology is to be found in Rom 5–8, where one encounters the apocalyptic Paul of pure grace from a God of pure love. His theory beggars summary, so I shall use his own outline that proceeds through four phases of a theocentric, apocalyptic deliverance by a loving God, which are formed in antithesis to the contractual approach of what he calls “justification theory.”

The First Phase: Unconditional Deliverance 1a. Salvation has arrived for the “brothers” unconditionally, at the behest of the Father, through the Son, bringing a spectrum of blessings—life, peace, hope, glory, dominion, reconciliation, atonement, ethical capacity, and more. 1b. It is a dramatic, apocalyptic deliverance inaugurating certain fundamental changes, thereby prompting a reevaluation of the human problem in its light.

The Second Phase: A Retrospective Characterization of the Problem 2a. The powers of Sin and Death have entered the world by way of the original transgression of God’s commandment by humanity—an Adamic narrative. 2b. These hostile powers have taken up residence in human flesh. 2c. Humanity, powerless ultimately to resist, is effectively enslaved—ruled and oppressed by way of “sinful passions,” and hence oriented by and toward Sin and Death. 2d. The existence of humanity is consequently wretched, and its destiny is death. 2e. Any ongoing presence of a divine commandment exacerbates the problem, as Sin manipulates such instructions to create more transgressions! 2f. Unredeemed humanity now cannot comprehend either the problem or the solution.

The Saving Phase: The Father Sends the Son 3a. The Father views enslaved humanity with benevolence, desiring to help them. 3b. He sends his only beloved Son into this situation, to assume its distorted, Adamic ontology—its flesh. (3a is proved by 3b.) 3c. The Son consents to enter this existence, to suffer, and to die, thereby demonstrating his benevolence. In this act, Adamic ontology, or the flesh, as it is present in him, is also executed—an event that can be described in some sense as atoning. 3d. The Son is raised from the dead to new life, thereby entering the new age—the age to come—as its firstborn and “image.” 3e. The Son is glorified and enthroned on high; his eternal messiahship and inheritance are thereby affirmed.

The Saving Phase: The Spirit Incorporates Humanity in Christ 4a. The Spirit now “maps” humanity onto Christ’s trajectory. 4b. Humans participate first in his martyrological journey, thereby dying; in so doing, their Adamic ontology is executed. 4c. Humans participate also in Christ’s messianic and eschatological journey, thereby living; in so doing, they receive a new ontology—a new flesh free from the powers of Sin and Death, and a new inheritance. 4d. This salvation is fundamentally liberative (in an instance of negative liberty); it is a deliverance from slavery! 4e. The salvific process is best symbolized by immersion, that ritual being interpreted as a dying and rising with Christ. 4f. The new situation for Christians is typically summarized by Paul with the phrase “in Christ” or its close equivalent—a metaphor of location. 4g. This new situation is fundamentally communal and interpersonal: Christians join a community rooted in a divine communion. 4h. Implicit in this is a new conception of personhood, as precisely relational—within a communion.

Campbell’s work is a lengthy treatise that exits the road for conversations with alternative interpretations; it can be appreciated for what it does only by engaging the entire study. We cannot do so here, except to register the observation that Campbell’s work entails unnecessarily hazardous suggestions upon which much is based. The manifold nuances of his approach, however, do not undo the larger theory at work—an apocalyptic Pauline theology. The indisputable contribution of Campbell is a breathtaking exposition of what the gospel of grace looks like through the grid of Rom 5–8, an exposition that will become a permanent contribution to Pauline scholarship. What we need is a condensed statement of this apocalyptic gospel. The following is a widely used summary of the apocalyptic gospel by J. Louis Martyn:

If God’s idea of good news is a stranger to the circular exchange [quid pro quo], to the corrupted doctrine of the Two Ways, and to the assumption of the autonomous decision, what does it look like? Two parts of Paul’s answer have already begun to emerge. (A) God’s good news looks like power, power that actually does something. In and through good-news power, the performative word of the gospel, God is making right what has gone wrong, doing so, not by the Law, but rather by the faith of Christ [Jesus’s faithfulness, not our faith in Christ], his death in [sic] our behalf ([Gal] 2:16). (B) God’s good news of Jesus Christ is also the power that elicits faith, and that, in so doing, plays its role in God’s act of giving the Spirit of Christ.

It is fair now to say that the old war between the old perspective, what Campbell calls justification theory, and the new perspective is passé. The battle today is how best to build on the revised, or new, perspective of Judaism so that Paul both fits within Judaism and yet reveals substantive tension points. The new-perspective approaches in Dunn and Wright (which are not the same) and the apocalyptic Paul of Martyn and Campbell (neither are they the same) are both revisions of how we understand Paul on the basis of a revised understanding of Judaism. A special example of this post-new-perspective-apocalyptic Paul today is the new study of Barclay, Paul and the Gift. Barclay agrees mainly with Sanders’s sketch of Judaism but thinks Sanders has underread the meaning of “grace” or “gift,” and hence his view of Judaism and Paul is in need of much finer analytics. While Barclay agrees with Sanders on the pervasive presence of grace in Judaism, he thinks Sanders’s emphasis on the priority of grace simplifies what grace meant in the Greco-Roman and Jewish worlds. Rooting his theory in anthropological studies of gift, Barclay defines grace or gift as follows: “ ‘Gift’ denotes the sphere of voluntary, personal relations, characterized by goodwill in the giving of benefit or favor, and eliciting some form of reciprocal return that is both voluntary and necessary for the continuation of the relationship.” But there’s far more in Barclay than redefining gift into a few lines. The Western church’s theology of grace has embraced a theory of grace that does not square with how grace or gift was understood in the first century. That theology of grace in Western theology owes much to Augustine, Luther, and Calvin and less to the Greco-Roman and Jewish contexts. Hence, Barclay explores six “perfections” of grace, or grace worked out to its maximum in six different ways. What is most important to say is that no author in the ancient world has all six, and few in the history of theology (apart from Campbell) have all six. The implication is that one can have a theology of grace without having to toe the line on one particular “perfection” of grace, and here he points to someone like Sanders for reducing grace to the perfection of the priority of grace, or to others who think grace is reductive to what he calls its incongruity or also noncircularity. Here, then, are Barclay’s six perfections of grace—that is, taking the theme to one of its maximal qualities:

1.      Superabundance
2.      Singularity
3.      Priority
4.      Incongruity
5.      Efficacy
6.      Noncircularity

If superabundance is clear, the singularity theme draws out the grace of God as the Giver who is pure benevolence, heard today in language like God’s unconditional love or that God is love (pure and simple and always and therefore, therefore, therefore …). The priority of grace, while it may be seen at different moments (creation, conversion), is more or less pervasive in Judaism, but the theme of incongruity has become the watchword for many in a theology of grace. In other words, incongruity refers especially to God’s love and benevolence toward humans who are not worthy of it and who, in Barclay’s important sketch, are brought into the family of God in spite of their lack of status and honor in the Roman Empire. The theme of incongruity creates tension with the idea of grace or gift in the ancient world—Jewish and Greco-Roman—for gifts were often given to those who in some senses were worthy of the gift. This theme is also brought to the fore at times in Judaism, and Barclay is quick to point out that this does not disqualify the author (or Judaism) from a theology of grace but instead reveals differing concerns with various perfections of grace. One can speak, he observes, of both grace and reward without contradiction. To be sure, Augustine and Calvin both brought the incongruity perfection to the forefront; in fact, some think there is no grace if incongruity is not the fundamental perfection (forgetting perhaps all the other themes!). The efficacy perfection is once again quite clear on the surface, but the noncircularity theme ties us back with tension to the perfection of incongruity. Namely, in the ancient world gift and grace entailed reciprocity, at least at the level of gratitude but often in the sense of reciprocal gift-giving. At times in Western theology and anthropology this perfection is stood on its head to mean that, if there is circularity, there has been no gift, and there is then no grace. This side glance at Barclay’s exquisite study of grace will come into play in Colossians but will be influential in the decades ahead for all Pauline scholars. By reframing our understanding of grace, we will have to revisit both the diversity of grace in Judaism and how grace is perfected in the Pauline letters, with some serious implications for Christian theology, not least in its heavy accusations laid at the feet of others by those advocating the old perspective. What we have in Barclay is someone whose approach to Paul leaps the common boundaries of old, new, and apocalyptic in Paul’s theology. One final glance—and it reveals once again that old vs. new vs. apocalyptic are not tidy boxes—is at the various studies of Michael Gorman, a view that can be called “participationist.” Gorman’s studies on cruciformity are for me some of the finest articulations of a Pauline theology; they avoid getting lost in articulation without praxis for the simple reason that Gorman has always kept mission in mind. When Gorman summarizes all of his work into the length of a sentence known in English only among the Puritans, we are obligated to give it the attention it deserves:

Paul preached, and then explained in various pastoral, community-forming letters, a narrative, apocalyptic, theopolitical gospel of God’s shocking faithfulness and grace, (1) in continuity with the story of Israel and (2) in distinction to the imperial gospel of Rome (and analogous powers), that was centered on God’s crucified and exalted Messiah Jesus, whose incarnation, life, and death by crucifixion were validated and vindicated by God in his resurrection and exaltation as Lord, which inaugurated the new age or new creation, in which all members of this diverse but consistently covenantally dysfunctional human race who respond in self-abandoning and self-committing faith thereby participate in Christ’s death and resurrection and are (1) justified, or restored to right covenant relations with God and with others, and adopted into God’s family; (2) incorporated into a particular manifestation of Christ the Lord’s body on earth, the church, which is an alternative community to the status-quo human communities committed to and governed by Caesar (and analogous rulers) and by values contrary to the gospel; and (3) infused both individually and corporately by the Spirit of God’s Son so that they may lead “bifocal” lives, focused both back on Christ’s first coming and ahead to his second, consisting of Christlike, cruciform (1) faith(fulness) and (2) hope toward God and (3) love toward both neighbors and enemies (a love marked by peaceableness and hospitality), thereby bearing witness in word and deed to the one true God and the Lordship of Christ, and participating by the power of the Holy Spirit in God’s mission of reconciliation and restorative justice in Christ, even at the risk of suffering and death, all in joyful anticipation of (1) the return of Christ, (2) the resurrection of the dead to eternal life, and (3) the renewal of the entire creation.

This summary is framed in terms of both a narrative and an apocalyptic moment, but unlike most other studies of Paul, Gorman takes us here into the importance of Christology, soteriology, mission, sociocritical politics, social ethics, and ecclesiology. If one compares this to any of the other sketches above, it becomes clear that Gorman’s got the most comprehensive statement to date of Pauline theology. I make one nuanced revision of Gorman’s work by suggesting instead of “cruciformity” we use “Christoformity,” and I do so for two reasons: The former term means formed into the cross, but (1) the Christian formation entails not just formed to the cross but to the cross and resurrection, and (2) the second term makes Christ, not just his seminal saving events, the substance into which or whom we are formed. But Gorman’s own work here often means nothing less that what I mean by “Christoformity.” But I now lay a charge against how Pauline theology is done by many today. Too much of Pauline theology has forcefully entered Pauline theology through soteriology—Sanders’s famous pattern of religion, Dunn’s salvation categories, Campbell’s central theme of redemption, Barclay’s central theme of grace—each of these is shaped by a soteriology more than anything else. To be fair, each seeks to bring out the social or ecclesial manifestation of Pauline theology, and Barclay’s book simply is not a full theology of Paul but a focus on grace/gift. However, to his credit, Wright’s theology of Paul is more a narrative-shaped eschatology than a soteriology, though soteriology emerges pervasively in his works. Too much critique of Wright emerges from older paradigms that yield unhistorical soteriological expectations. Gorman’s approach, much to his credit, balances neatly all the emphases in modern Pauline scholarship as he drives it all through Christology toward ecclesiology and missiology by means of a robust soteriology. However, in the broader trends of Pauline studies, in spite of protestations to the contrary, the all-too-common soteriological orientation to Pauline theology ultimately furthers the frequently criticized Augustinian and Reformed models of Christian theology more than most Pauline scholars care to admit. Too many end up tweaking that system rather than flashing new lights on old texts. What flows from the soteriological portal, nearly inevitably, are the ethical postures one focuses on when framing how Paul understands the Christian life. The soteriological portal tends toward individualism, virtue ethics, and spiritual formation—that is, toward personal growth. The apocalyptic Paul tends, in contrast, toward social justice and global ethical issues. The new perspective, I would argue, if followed consistently, leads toward group formation or toward the ethics needed for the Christian fellowship. In what follows, then, I shall build on but slightly reorient Dunn and Wright and Gorman, especially building on where Wright concludes his Paul and the Faithfulness of God and where Gorman always lands: with reconciliation and mission. I shall also give full heed to Barclay’s conclusion that Paul’s theology of grace ultimately has a social and ethical realization (he calls it habitus). But I assume in this commentary that Paul’s theology begins with a missional, ecclesial theology and not with a rescue soteriology for individuals who happen to gather together for church. Paul’s ecclesiology, one might say, then, is the gospel because it embodies the gospel in a given location. In fact, and happily for this author, the Letter to the Colossians points us in the direction we need to go to compose a theology of Paul that transcends the soteriological schemes of Western theology. It begins not with the notes of soteriology (God, humans, sin, salvation) but with the christological mystery, God’s plan for the ages to bring all things under Christ through the formation of the one people of God, the church. Even more, it begins where Paul first came to this realization: on the road to Damascus. I cannot write a full Pauline theology here, of course, so I will sketch in brief the kind of theology at work in the Letter to the Colossians.

B. PAUL’S THEOLOGY IN COLOSSIANS: A BRIEF SKETCH

Paul did not begin Christian theology. He stood tall and proud long after many actors had opened on the stage, performed their work, and then exited. In other words, Paul entered the stage at a given point in time and with a huge governing story shaping him and at his disposal. For all the chest-thumping I see among the apocalyptic Paul scholars in their claims of an apocalyptic newness and revelation in the Christ-event, that “newness” and that “Christ-event” could not have made sense to Paul or any of his Jewish converts or co-workers without knowing that governing story found in Israel’s Scriptures. In the terms of the debate, there is no apocalyptic moment of revelation until the stage has been set by salvation history. That is, there is continuity before one can speak of discontinuity. To be sure, in Judaism there was not one and only one story to tell, but that admission does not entail the implication that there was not a core story—creation and covenant and law and kings and prophets as come to reality in Adam and Eve and Abraham and Moses and David and Jeremiah. Each moment in that core story could encapsulate the whole and could take the core story in new directions; even more, each moment could be explained in light of that core story. That is, various authors shaped Israel’s story to fit their needs, but there is a core story that constrains the variants. Hence, one must pay careful attention to Paul’s use of Israel’s Scriptures to decode his theology. There is a rather widespread, mostly Protestant biblical narrative that moves from creation to fall to redemption and then on to consummation. That narrative, for all its many benefits for articulating the soteriology of the Bible, is rooted especially in one reading of Rom 5:12–21 and not infrequently anchored to an Augustinian anthropology. Hence, that common narrative is part of the old perspective. I would argue, however, that the gospel of Jesus and the apostles does not enter the stage through the door of soteriology but instead through the door of Christology, which means that, for a narrative that counts as Christian, we need one that leads to the fundamental gospel claim that Jesus is the Messiah, not simply to the message of salvation. The gospel, then, is a claim about Jesus before it is a claim about salvation; in Christology we discover soteriology. This suggestion is not “either soteriology or Christology” but the belief that there is only one door of entry. Instead, a christological portal reorders who does what and when on the stage. I have proposed that that narrative is a threefold developing story:

1.      theocracy (Gen 1 to 1 Sam 8)
2.      monarchy (1 Sam 8 to the Gospels/Jesus)
3.      christocracy, which will be handed over to an eternal theocratic-christocratic kingdom (e.g., 1 Cor 15; Rev 20–22).

Paul’s theology, so I would argue, emerges from this christocracy story, fits into that story, and takes that story forward. That is, Paul’s theology is first a Christology and then an eschatology, ecclesiology, and soteriology. None of these themes is less central, but the entry to the stage is the eschatological claim that Jesus is none other than the long-awaited Messiah King—who lived, died, was buried, was raised, ascended, and rules until the parousia, when God will conquer evil and establish a kingdom of justice and reconciliation. This is Paul’s gospel—in fact, this is the apostolic gospel (1 Cor 15:3–8).

1. Conversion/Call

Theology springs from a narrative and context that is baked in a mind, or set of minds, and that mind is a human being, and therefore theology and humans dialectically relate. Because each major theologian brings theology into expression out of a personal narrative, to comprehend Paul we will need to begin with his story. Much has rightly been made of Paul as convert at his Damascus encounter. That event has also spawned not a few debates among Pauline scholars, and one major issue revolves around whether it was a call (only), a conversion (only), or both—and complicating this debate is how much theology was at work: was Paul’s theory of justification at work already in his Damascus encounter, was his Christology discovered there, and so forth? Yes, this event is both a conversion and a call, and at the same time, Paul’s mission to include Gentiles in the one family of God gets its impetus in this Damascus experience, and this theology unfolds from that event, and in some sense even justification is already in play. But that event clearly expanded over times in directions not anticipated in that encounter with the resurrected Lord, who appeared to Paul in glory as the one who had been crucified but who was now alive and in solidarity with his suffering servants of the gospel. The summary words in the encounter are those to Ananias, who as a prophet divulges to Paul what God is doing: “This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name” (Acts 9:15–16). Paul himself says much the same: “But when God … was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles” (Gal 1:15–16). Those words are unfolded in Colossians in the term “mystery” (1:26–27; 2:2; 4:3), and defined by Paul himself as “to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (1:27). At work, then, in the portal to Paul’s theology is God. who providentially acts in history, who indwells history in such a manner that revelation occurs over time in his people Israel and the church, and this history is oriented toward a theocratic-christocratic consummation—the return of Christ in glory to judge and to establish his kingdom. That same God worked a mighty deed on the road to Damascus and altered both the course of Paul’s life and theology as a result. Paul’s conscious role in that history is to expand the people of God (Israel) to include Gentiles under the one and only Lord, King Jesus.

2. Christology

The portal we discover in Paul’s conversion/call experience, then, is thoroughly christological, with Col 3:11 standing high in our letter to express that conversion/call Christophany: “but Christ is all, and is in all.” Any reading of the Pauline letters will eventually lead to the attention-grabbing gasp of the claims about Christ in Col 1:15–20. The crucified man from Galilee—we must take a breath to hear the depth and breadth and height of the claims of Paul—is in this set of poetic lines the originator and terminator of the cosmos itself. Marianne Meye Thompson frames this well: “In the categories of traditional systematic theology, every christological statement has a theological implication. Similarly, christological assertions have cosmological and soteriological implications. Paul’s statements about Christ are in fact claims about the origins and destiny of creation, the human predicament, and God’s solution to it on the cross. Finally, creation and cross together determine the shape of the life of faith, which in turn falls under the headings of spirituality and ethics.” So instead of finding the soteriological port of entry and then creating an ordo, we prefer the port of Paul’s own conversion-and-call and showing, origami-like, how that conversion story unfolds from Christology without it forming an ordo. Hence, it was the Lord who spoke to Paul, and this Lord features prominently in Colossians—to such a degree that Paul’s Christology in Colossians expands theological horizons as much as (if not more than) anything else in the New Testament. Here we stand alongside especially the recent work of Wright, who rightly opens his theological section on Paul with “the one God of Israel, freshly revealed.” Too, we must stand alongside the apocalyptic-Paul proponents in seeing the Christ-event as the revelation of God that both fulfills and radically reorients our view of Israel’s story. It is not so much that we encounter a “high Christology” vis-à-vis a view of monotheism but instead a monotheism now revealed anew in the life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. Hence, we find such claims in Colossians as these: God is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ (1:3), while the Colossians have faith in Christ Jesus (1:4) as God’s grace expands into Gentile lands (1:6). Like Paul and his co-workers, Epaphras is a “faithful minister of Christ” (1:7) as they are inspired to love by the “Spirit” (1:8). Paul and Timothy pray to God to fill them with Spirit-based knowledge so they can live a life worthy of the Lord (Jesus) (1:9–10). God (the Father) rescues Gentiles to enter into the kingdom of his Son (1:14). But in Col 1:15–20, that famous hymn, Paul explodes into a series of lines that point to the all-supremacy of the Lord Jesus—as Creator and as Redeemer and as Lord of the church and Reconciler of the entire cosmos. No sectarian here, nor someone with small plans: Paul knows God is at work in the entire cosmos to bring it both to its knees and into reconciliation with God and all God has made. No one has a more comprehensive theology of redemption than the Paul (and Timothy) of Colossians, and it is engulfed by a historiography and eschatology and most especially a christological monotheism. Notice the christological framings of Col 1:15–20: Christ is the Son of the one God, the image of the invisible and one God, the firstborn over all creation, Creator of the universe and the telos of all creation; in addition, the Son is preincarnate and sustainer of all creation. But this Creator Christology leads to a Redeemer/Reconciler Christology: he is the head of the body, the church, which as we have seen above is the new-creation fellowship of Jews and Gentiles; this “head”ship theology of Paul (or the tradition he mediates here) emerges from the new-creation resurrection of Jesus from among the dead and leads to his ascension and rule over all the cosmos. His mission (and hence what defines the Western church’s obsession over the term “missional”) is “to reconcile to himself all things” through the crucifixion death of Jesus. Just in case anyone misses the point, Paul defines “all” as “whether things on earth or things in heaven.” Christ’s mission is nothing less than cosmic reconciliation, but this Christology has a dramatic balancing factor: the cosmic Christ—Creator, Redeemer, and the eschatological telos—is simultaneously dwelling “in” each of the believers (1:27; 3:11) as the cruciformed Lord (2:9–15, 20). In all this Creator-Redeemer Christology, by far the most stretching and stunning comment concerns incarnation: “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him” (1:19). This is reexpressed in 2:9: “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.” It is precisely here that the conversion mission of Paul gains its clarity: because God indwelt the Son fully bodily and because the mission of that indwelt Son is cosmic reconciliation, the mystery of Paul’s mission is to incorporate the Gentiles into the one family of God under this ascended and cosmic Lord Jesus.

3. Soteriology

The mission of cosmic reconciliation of this indwelt Son unfolds into a profound cross-and-resurrection soteriology that is as tied to the mission of Paul as it is to his christological framing terms of 1:15–20 and 2:9, where we find the emphasis on the fullness of God indwelling the Son. That is, the Son’s cosmic reconciliation explodes from the ontology of the Son’s indwelt-ness, and that indwelt-ness—not some transactional problem—prompts the divine choice of love that enters into cosmic chaos in the indwelt Son in order, through the cross, to conquer the powers and liberate all creation from bondage to the chaos that is provoked and exacerbated by the Torah’s pointed finger of accusation. This all from Col 2:13–15, which circles back to 1:13–14 (rescue and redemption through the Son), which itself prompted the cosmic christological reflection. The human condition in this chaos of powers is sorted out in a variety of ways in Colossians (e.g., 1:13–14, 21–22; 2:13–15; 3:5–11). Soteriology is all bundled into the Christology of Paul. One enters into this salvation by union with Christ through baptism, a rite that embodies both co-crucifixion and co-resurrection (2:11–13; esp. also 2:20–3:5). In other words, one enters by entering into Christ, who is the cosmic Creator and Reconciler. So it must be observed here that Paul’s soteriology transcends the individual because it does not begin or end with the individual. That is, Paul’s vision of soteriology, rooted as it is in a transcendent Christology, is cosmic: in Christ, God reconciles the entire cosmos, and those baptized participate in that cosmic redemption. To reiterate a point made: the focal point of cosmic redemption is the cross, where is to be found forgiveness (1:13–14), victory over powers (2:15), reconciliation of people groups (2:9–12; 3:11), and entrance into new-creation life (3:1–3).

4. Ecclesiology

Ecclesiology, then, cannot be separated from Christology, for ecclesiology is the embodied manifestation in a universal fellowship of union with Christ. Inasmuch as Christology is cruciform, so also is ecclesiology: the people of God in Christ have died and have been raised with Christ. That universal union with Christ makes itself manifest in a local fellowship of that union. Once again, the mystery’s mission to include Gentiles in the new-creation fellowship emerges from the mission of the indwelt Son to reconcile the cosmos. Thus, and only thus, the ecclesia of the indwelt Son taps into the Son’s mission to reconcile, with the result that the ecclesia is a particular embodiment of cosmic reconciliation. To treat the church simply from the angle of sociology—as an instance of an association or a club or a political movement or even a yahad as at Qumran—will fail to see the church’s fundamental essence, namely, an embodied manifestation of cosmic reconciliation. Furthermore, it is this perception of the ecclesia that alone frames the ethics of Colossians (and Paul’s theology): the ethic of Colossians is an ethic for a church.

5. Ethics

Ethics cannot be divorced from Christology and the indwelt-Son’s mission of cosmic, cruciform reconciliation manifested in an embodied fellowship. One might then say that “ethics” is more about moral formation in a community aimed toward cosmic reconciliation than what is commonly understood by the term “ethics.” As such, Pauline ethics demonstrates both a different entry point and focus than one finds in Jesus, say, in the Sermon on the Mount. The entry point for Jesus is his divine command word (see Matt 5:17–48; 7:28–29), and the substance is to follow Christ and his teachings, while for Paul the entry point is new life in Christ and life in the Spirit. Pauline theology, however, does display an eschatological tension between life now and life as it will be in the final kingdom. One should not separate Jesus from Paul as if they were two ethics, but one also ought not to ignore their differences. Two dimensions of ethics follow: first, since ethics flows from Christology, mission, and soteriology, identity is formed in that nexus. Being “in Christ” forms identity, which emerges out of the concrete realities of conversion, fellowship in the church, and ethical habits. That is, “In general, Paul is trying to construct pretty strict moral boundaries around the community while rejecting ethnic, social and gender barriers as ways of defining the community.” That identity is a cruciform identity: the Christian indwells the crucified and raised Lord in communion with others living out that cruciform existence. Second, even though Witherington III and Wessels diminish the significance of ritual in Colossians, seeing instead a moral reality as more operative, I would veer slightly from their path on ritual’s importance here and argue that virtue ethics takes us far afield from Pauline ethics. Virtue ethics is a theoretical framing of personal virtue based on Aristotelian aristocratic theory and then reformed under Thomas Aquinas, but the central theory of virtue ethics—that a person becomes good by embodied habits—lacks the radical kind of universal and egalitarian communal foundation that flows out of a christological framework reshaped by grace and pneumatology. So, if one wants to work the ethics of Paul into a framework of virtue ethics, one must begin at a completely different location. That is, not with the individual in accountable friendship with another of the same status, but with Christology and eschatology that are focused more on the “virtues” of a faithful community: the indwelt Son enters into cosmic chaos to reconcile opposing forces through the cross, resurrection, and ascension and on that basis alone Christian ethics in the Pauline mode becomes learning to live in loving fellowship with those who are unlike us and from possibly wildly different statuses. Hence, I cannot agree with the thrust of Michael Knowles, even if in particulars we do agree. Knowles begins with something indisputable: “discipleship in this letter demands a choice between competing visions of the cosmos—that is, between competing visions of reality itself” (180). Relying upon the work of scholars like Francis, Knowles frames the ethic of Colossians as follows:

In practical terms, the primary axiom of discipleship in Colossians is that neither heavenly visions that promise mystical access into the divine realm nor “otherworldly” longings for eschatological fulfillment are sufficient justification for the asceticism and escapism that seem to have captured the Colossian church. Rather, being presently “in Christ” and eagerly awaiting God’s final consummation of all things through Christ should lead believers in just the opposite direction—into practical and concrete expressions of their faith that are demonstrated in their individual lives, in relationships within their Christian community, and within the wider society in which they live. (181)

Here I think the emphasis on difference with the so-called opponents disorders the substance of Pauline ethics in Colossians, which is an embodied fellowship of the cosmic reconciliation found in the new-creation life in Christ. I find a more helpful orientation in Barclay’s newest study of gift (sketched above), which emphasizes the grace of God in Christ to be a force for revolutionizing worth and the subversion of especially Roman Empire status and worth. He locates the Pauline ethics precisely in this ecclesial, or at least social, orientation. As we will show in the commentary below, the very praxis Paul is most concerned with is the praxis that is communal in orientation. If virtue ethics—from Aristotle to Aquinas to modern proponents in the spiritual-formation movement—is shaped for the individual, Pauline ethics is far more concerned with the “virtues” that are community-shaped. Furthermore, Paul’s concern is not so much with the individual being formed into virtues good for a community but for the community itself taking on this theme of an embodiment of cosmic reconciliation. This is where I locate the Pauline/Colossian difference: the ethic is not so much how individuals grow personally or even how individuals might take on a more group focus, but on how a new-creation fellowship takes shape over against the Roman Empire. The primary “virtue,” then, is a community shaped by individual Christians who indwell it (2:6–3:4). Hence, the claim made by some today that the household regulations are a step back into the Roman world’s world of status and worth misses the radicalizing of these instructions “in Christ” or “in the Lord” and as ways of life that counter the Roman world at the deepest levels.

6. Eschatology

Eschatology unfolds from Paul’s own conversion but even more so from his Christology. The standard claim is that in Paul’s “genuine” letters there is a consistently futuristic eschatology or at least an inaugurated eschatology, while in Colossians the focus has shifted to a realized eschatology. There can be no doubt that Colossians, not unlike the Fourth Gospel, spells out a more realized emphasis in eschatology. But the construction of a classroom graph of Paul’s eschatology with more instances on the right (future) than on the left (present) misses the core of the eschatology of Colossians. Once again, the indwelt-Son’s mission is to reconcile the cosmos, and from that vantage point all of history finds its origin, its meaning, and its teleology. To be sure, there is a plotting that we can do, with some texts clearly focusing on the present and other texts on the future. The eschatology plot does not look like the imminent-parousia texts (like 1 Thess 4:15 or 1 Cor 15:51 or Rom 13:11–12), but what Colossians does is swallow up the plot of the future into a cosmic vision. That is, the imminent is more immanent, the future resurrection becomes more a present reality in an ongoing transformation, but it nonetheless anticipates the future resurrection, and it means that hope is not just what will happen in the future but what is driving the ecclesial group forward in anticipation.

7. Antiempire?

The emphasis above on a christologically formed theology that flows from a historiography of mystery and leads to an in-Christ soteriology and ethic that are embodied in a local ecclesia prompts the question whether Colossians is antiempire. We should open this brief set of observations by noting that both Plato and Aristotle, the two most formative thinkers for all things ethical in the Greco-Roman world and differing from each other in important ways, were group-oriented in ethical systems—Plato especially in Gorgias and Republic, and Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics and Politics. Both landed heavily on justice, and both had strong words for whoever ruled. Each was profoundly aristocratic/elitist, hierarchical, ethnocentric, and status-driven. Both also saw the ekklēsia in the polis as the center of both politics and how a good life was to be lived. The good life was lived in and for their visions of the polis. It makes sense, then, to connect Paul to a world shaped by these Platonic and Aristotelian ideas. Of course, Paul lived some four centuries later, and by then the pragmatics, and some would say manipulations, of someone like Cicero had reshaped philosophy into politics itself. Regardless, we ought not to have some instinctual reaction against anything that sets Paul over against (or within or above) a Greco-Roman politics. To be sure, Paul was Jewish, but he was nurtured in the Roman Empire, and he could not have used the term ekklēsia without evoking in his own mind and all his Greek-reading churches some kind of response to Roman local politics. And even if Plato’s ultimate political theory was about creating a society in which politics was no longer needed, and even if Aristotle’s and then Cicero’s were more of a Realpolitik favoring aristocrats and monarchy, these ideas no longer mean that Paul was closer to Aristotle or Cicero than Plato or critical of either or even oblivious to either. Instead, Paul could not but have expressed himself in ways that spoke into the Realpolitik of Rome, and one thinks then of a Ciceronian version of politics closer to the time of Paul. Paul’s theology, Paul’s ecclesiology, and Paul’s ethics to their core were casting a vision of an ecclesial politics in the crucible of the Roman Empire. Some have pressed the antiempire theme hard, so hard at times to hurt the cause. Harry O. Maier speaks appropriately of (possible) echoes (which he thinks are more certain) in an impressively researched article:

The Son whose crucifixion reconciled all and makes a cosmic peace expresses the triumph and divine favour of this rule in governing a kingdom (1:12) in which not only peace reigns (3:15), but all, including those at the furthest boundaries of the Roman Empire—e.g., Scythians (3:11b)—have been embraced by the universal moral renewal of his reign (3:5–17), and govern themselves in ‘good order [taxis]’ (2:5), as harmonious members of the body of his realm (3:14–15) according to the civilizing political ideals of right household management (3:13–4:1).

Maier is also accurate in at least suggesting that the traditional reading offers a “parochial reading of an imperially charged text.” But there’s a lurking assumption here, namely, if it is an imperially charged text. He continues: “If [Colossians] echoes imperial-sounding ideals, it does not replicate them. Colossians twists Empire and makes it slip. This hybrid vision from the cross disavows Empire even as it mimics it.” The same sort of observation is found throughout the more popular but highly informed work of Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat. Karl Galinsky has recently called the whole game to attention by pressing home the diversity of imperial cults and arguing that Paul’s vision was more supra-imperial than anti-imperial. This detection business is tricky and easily falls into circular reasoning: if we gather Roman sources about empire and read them carefully and then read Colossians in light of those sources, it is circular reasoning then to conclude the evidence favors empire readings. The issue is not whether Paul would have seen tension between imperialism and the kingdom of God—of course he would. Paul’s theology is theopolitics as much as Jesus’s were; hence, Galinsky’s supra-imperial description of Paul takes us closer to accuracy. The issue is how direct Paul is in this concern and whether he was a political subversive. Scholarship like this (of Maier, Walsh and Keesmaat) probes significant evidence that could well have been echoing in the minds of either Paul or his readers or both. The conclusion that Paul had a consistent message of political subversion, however, seems to be particularly favored by those who prefer to keep their eyes focused on America’s so-called imperial designs. One is at least entitled to ask why former generations of Pauline scholars, most of whom were trained thoroughly in Roman sources and history, failed to detect such resonances. Perhaps they missed them as easily as did the first-century readers? Perhaps they all missed them because such a posture toward Rome was too grandiose even to consider for the apostle Paul. Most important, Paul was typically Jewish, which means he believed in one God, who was Creator and Ruler of all, which meant that the idols of the nations were not Israel’s God (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 14.228) and therefore false or no gods at all, and their rulers were, at worst, rebellious overlords or, at best, destined someday to surrender to Israel’s God. How then do we explain Paul—his mission, his theology, and his tensions with both the Jewish synagogue and the Roman/Greek world environments? The following words from Barclay carry us to the mission called Paul:

Here, then, we encounter the truly anomalous character of Paul. In his conceptuality Paul is most at home among the particularistic and least accommodated segments of the Diaspora; yet in his utilization of these concepts, and in his social practice, he shatters the ethnic mould in which that ideology was formed. He shows little inclination to forge any form of synthesis with his cultural environment, yet he employs the language of a culturally antagonistic Judaism to establish a new social entity which transgresses the boundaries of the Diaspora synagogues. By an extraordinary transference of ideology, Paul deracinates the most culturally conservative forms of Judaism in the Diaspora and uses them in the service of his largely Gentile communities.

It is hardly surprising that this anomalous Jew should meet both puzzled and hostile reactions in Diaspora synagogues! The majority of Paul’s Jewish contemporaries (both Christian and non-Christian) found his mutation of the Jewish tradition incomprehensible or unattractive. The majority of his Gentile converts, and most subsequent readers of his letters, could see only their distance from, not their common destiny with, Jews. Thus, mostly unwittingly, Paul fostered the fateful division between Christianity and Judaism.

V. THE STRUCTURE OF COLOSSIANS

My contention is that this charming letter is a seamless pastoral event that is less literary than pastoral and theological. I appreciate rhetorical moves, seen above all in the fine commentaries of Witherington and Sumney, but I am not as confident as they are in conscious rhetorical moves by Paul (and Timothy). The outlines below are but a sampling of commentaries, but this sampling provides for the enthusiast in all things structural the general lay of the land. Above all, Sumney’s may be the most visually stimulating proposal to date, since it combines both rhetorical moves with substantive content. One cannot possibly replicate on paper the argument of this letter because, while it floats in the one direction, the captain of the ship is always scanning what surrounds him and making observations. Following this list, I offer the outline to be followed in this commentary.

N. T. Wright

  I.      Opening Greeting (1:1–2)
  II.      Introduction of Paul and His Theme (1:3–2:5)
     A.      Thanksgiving (1:3–8)
     B.      Prayer and Meditation (1:9–23)
       1.      Paul’s Prayer: The Knowledge of God (1:9–12a)
       2.      Reasons for Thanksgiving (1:12b–23)
         a.      The New Exodus (1:12b–14)
         b.      Creation and New Creation in Christ (1:15–20)
         c.      New Creation in Colossae (1:21–23)
     C.      Paul’s Ministry and His Reasons for Writing (1:24–2:5)
       1.      Paul’s Ministry in Christ (1:24–29)
       2.      Paul’s Ministry to the Colossians (2:1–5)
  III.      The Appeal for Christian Maturity (2:6–4:6)
     A.      Introduction: Continue in Christ (2:6–7)
     B.      Let No-One Exclude You (2:8–23)
       1.      Already Complete in Christ (2:8–15)
         a.      Christ and His Rivals (2:8–10)
         b.      Already Circumcised in Christ (2:11–12)
         c.      Already Free from the Law’s Demands (2:13–15)
       2.      Therefore, Do Not Submit to Jewish Regulations (2:16–23)
         a.      These Things Were Mere Preparations for Christ’s New Age (2:16–19)
         b.      With Christ You Died to This World and Its Regulations (2:20–23)
     C.      Instead, Live in Accordance with the New Age (3:1–4:6)
       1.      Live in Christ, the Risen Lord (3:1–4)
       2.      Knowledge and Life Renewed according to God’s Image (3:5–11)
       3.      Do All in the Name of the Lord Jesus (3:12–17)
       4.      New Life—at Home (3:18–4:1)
       5.      New Life—in the World (4:2–6)
  IV.      Final Greetings (4:7–18)
     A.      Introduction of Messengers (4:7–9)
     B.      Greetings from Paul’s Companions (4:10–14)
     C.      Greetings to Christians in the Colossae Area (4:15–17)
     D.      Signature of the Apostle (4:18)

Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke

  I.      Epistolary Address (1:1–2)
  II.      Thanksgiving, Intercession, and Hymn (1:3–23)
  III.      Paul, Servant of the Colossians (1:24–2:5)
  IV.      Threat to the Community (2:6–23)
  V.      Exhortations (3:1–4:6)
  VI.      Conclusion (4:7–18)

James D. G. Dunn

  I.      Address and Greeting (1:1–2)
  II.      Extended Thanksgiving (1:3–23)
     A.      Thanksgiving (1:3–8)
     B.      Prayer for the Colossian Recipients (1:9–14)
     C.      A Hymn in Praise of Christ (1:15–20)
     D.      Reconciliation and Response (1:21–23)
  III.      Personal Statement (1:24–2:5)
     A.      Paul’s Commitment to the Gospel (1:24–29)
     B.      Paul’s Commitment to the Colossians (2:1–5)
  IV.      The Theme of the Letter (2:6–4:6)
     A.      The Thematic Statement (2:6–7)
     B.      The Cross of Christ Renders Unnecessary Any Further Human Tradition and Rules (2:8–23)
       1.      The Scope of Christ’s Accomplishments on the Cross (2:8–15)
       2.      Beware of Claims That There Are More Important Practices and Experiences (2:16–19)
       3.      Life in Christ Does Not Depend on Observance of Jewish Practices (2:20–23)
     C.      The Pattern of Living That Follows from the Cross (3:1–4:6)
       1.      The Perspective from Which the Christian Life Should Be Lived (3:1–4)
       2.      General Guidelines and Practical Exhortations (3:5–17)
       3.      Household Rules (3:18–4:1)
       4.      Concluding Exhortations (4:2–6)
  V.      Conclusion (4:7–18)
     A.      Maintaining Communication (4:7–9)
     B.      Greetings (4:10–17)
     C.      A Final, Personal Greeting (4:18)

Margaret Y. MacDonald

  I.      Greeting (1:1–2)
  II.      Thanksgiving for the Colossians (1:3–8)
  III.      Prayer on Behalf of the Colossians (1:9–14)
  IV.      The Christ-Hymn (1:15–20)
  V.      Application of the Hymn to the Situation in Colossae (1:21–23)
  VI.      Paul’s Authority in Colossae and Laodicea (1:24–2:7)
  VII.      Debate with the Opponents: The Power of the Risen Christ (2:8–15)
  VIII.      Debate with the Opponents: Warnings against Ascetic Practices (2:16–23)
  IX.      New Life in Light of the Resurrection (3:1–4)
  X.      Ethical Guidelines for a New Life (3:5–17)
  XI.      The Household of Believers (3:18–4:1)
  XII.      Prayer, Mission, and Contact with Outsiders (4:2–6)
  XIII.      Conclusion: Personal Notes and Greetings (4:7–18)

Jerry L. Sumney

  I.      Epistolary Greeting (1:1–2)
  II.      Introductory Thanksgiving and Prayer (1:3–23)
     A.      The Initial Thanksgiving (1:3–8)
     B.      Intercession for the Colossians (1:9–12)
     C.      God’s Saving Acts (1:13–14)
     D.      Poetic Confession of the Place of Christ (1:15–20)
     E.      You Have Been Reconciled and Forgiven in Christ (1:21–23)

Argument 1: Accept this letter’s teaching and instruction because Paul is the trustworthy bearer of the true gospel.

  III.      Paul Is the Trustworthy Bearer of the True Gospel (1:24–2:5)
     A.      Paul Suffers for the Benefit of the Church (1:24–29)
     B.      Paul Toils to Help the Church Remain Faithful to the True Gospel (2:1–5)

Argument 2: Accept the letter’s teaching and instruction because only this message is consistent with the faith you have already received.

  IV.      Remain Faithful to the Gospel You Received (2:6–23)
     A.      Hold On to the Faith (2:6–7)
     B.      Reject the Visionaries’ Teaching Because You Already Possess God’s Blessings (2:8–15)
     C.      Reject the Visionaries’ Practices and Judgments against You (2:16–23)
       1.      Reject the Visionaries’ Judgments (2:16–19)
       2.      The Visionaries’ Teachings Have No Value (2:20–23)

Argument 3: Accept the letter’s teaching and instruction because you have been granted holiness in baptism.

  V.      Granted Holiness in Baptism, Live Holy Lives (3:1–4:6)
     A.      Seek the Things Above (3:1–4)
     B.      Put Away the Old Life (3:5–11)
     C.      Put On the New Self (or, Since You Have Put On the New Self, Act Like It) (3:12–17)
     D.      The Household Code (3:18–4:1)
     E.      Concluding Exhortations (4:2–6)
  VI.      Final Greetings and Instructions (4:7–18)

John Paul Heil

A (1:1–2): Grace from Paul an apostle by the will of God B (1:3–14): Thanking God when praying for you to walk in wisdom C (1:15–23): The gospel preached to every creature under heaven D (1:24–2:5): We are admonishing and teaching every … E (2:6–23): Walk and live in Christ … E′ (3:1–7): You died and were raised … D′ (3:8–16): In all wisdom teaching and admonishing … C′ (3:17–4:1): You have a master in heaven B′ (4:2–6): Pray for us in thanksgiving and walk in wisdom A′ (4:7–18): Full assurance in all the will of God and grace from Paul

David W. Pao

  I.      Opening Greetings (1:1–2)
  II.      Continuous Work of the Father (1:3–14)
     A.      Thanksgiving (1:3–8)
     B.      Intercession for the Colossians (1:9–14)
  III.      Climactic Work of the Son (1:15–23)
     A.      Supremacy of Christ (1:15–20)
     B.      Response to the Work of Christ (1:21–23)
  IV.      Apostolic Mission of Paul (1:24–2:5)
     A.      Paul’s Suffering in the Plan of God (1:24–29)
     B.      Paul’s Toil for the Local Churches (2:1–5)
  V.      Faithfulness of the Believers (2:6–4:1)
     A.      Call to Faithfulness (2:6–7)
     B.      Sufficiency in Christ (2:8–23)
       1.      Against Deceptive Philosophy (2:8–15)
       2.      Against Human Rituals and Regulations (2:16–23)
     C.      Reorientation of Christian Living (3:1–4:1)
       1.      Focus on the Risen Christ (3:1–4)
       2.      Take Off the Old Humanity (3:5–11)
       3.      Put On the New Humanity (3:12–17)
       4.      Lord of the Household (3:18–4:1)
  VI.      Eschatological Mission to the World (4:2–6)
     A.      Prayer in Eschatological Alertness (4:2)
     B.      Prayer for Paul and His Mission (4:3–4)
     C.      Witness to Outsiders (4:5–6)
  VII.      Final Greetings (4:7–18)
     A.      Messengers of the Letters (4:7–9)
     B.      Greetings from Paul’s Co-workers (4:10–14)
     C.      Greetings to and Instructions for Others (4:15–17)
     D.      Paul’s Signature (4:18)

Outline for the Commentary

  I.      Introduction (1:1–2:5)
     A.      Salutation (1:1–2)
     B.      Thanksgiving (1:3–8)
     C.      Intercession (1:9–23)
       1.      The Prayer (1:9–12)
       2.      Digression on the Messiah’s Work (1:13–23)
         a.      The Redemption of the Messiah (1:13–14)
         b.      The Preeminence of the Messiah (1:15–20)
         Excursus: A Wisdom Hymn (1:15–20)
         c.      The Reconciliation through the Messiah (1:21–23)
     D.      Authorizing Biographical Disclosure (1:24–2:5)
       1.      Paul’s Ministry (1:24–29)
       Excursus: Sharing Christ’s Sufferings (1:24)
       2.      Paul’s Concern for the Colossians (2:1–5)
  II.      Doctrinal Correction (2:6–3:4)
     A.      The Essential Exhortation (2:6–7)
     B.      Correction of False Religion (2:8–19)
       1.      Philosophical Problems (2:8–15)
         a.      The Opening Warning (2:8)
         b.      The Solution of Fullness “in” Christ (2:9–10)
         c.      The Solution of Baptism “in” and “with” Christ (2:11–13a)
           (1)      The Assertion of Circumcision in Christ (2:11)
           (2)      The Reassertion of Circumcision in Baptism (2:12)
           (3)      The Rearticulation of Circumcision in Baptism (2:13a)
         d.      The Solution of Victory in Christ (2:13b–15)
           (1)      New Creation … in Forgiveness (2:13b)
           (2)      New Creation … in Cancellation (2:14a)
           (3)      New Creation … in Taking It Away (2:14b)
           (4)      New Creation … in Making a Spectacle (2:15)
           Excursus: The Powers as Polluted Structures (1:16; 2:15)
       2.      Practical Manifestations (2:16–19)
         a.      Part 1: The Practices (2:16–17)
         b.      Part 2: The Opponents (2:18–19)
     C.      Exhortation to True Religion (2:20–3:4)
       1.      In Light of Corporate Death (2:20–23)
         a.      The Question about the Rules (2:20)
         b.      Clarifying the Rules (2:21)
         c.      Deconstructing the Theology of the Rules (2:22–23)
       2.      In Light of Corporate Resurrection (3:1–4)
         a.      The Exhortation (3:1–2)
         b.      The Reason (3:3)
         c.      The Promise (3:4)
  III.      Practical Exhortation (3:5–4:6)
     A.      Christian Life: Old and New Existence (3:5–17)
       1.      Negative (3:5–11)
         a.      The Exhortation (3:5, 8–9a)
         b.      The Theology (3:6–7, 9b–11)
       2.      Positive (3:12–17)
         a.      Love (3:12–14)
         b.      General Instructions (3:15–17)
     B.      Christian Life: Household Regulations (3:18–4:1)
     Excursus: Household Regulations in Search of Order (3:18–4:1)
       1.      Marital Relationships (3:18–19)
       2.      Parental Relationships (3:20–21)
       3.      Socioeconomic Relationships (3:22–4:1)
     C.      Christian Life: Ecclesial Instructions (4:2–6)
       1.      Prayer as a Devotion (4:2)
       2.      Prayer for Paul’s Mission to Outsiders (4:3–4)
       3.      Concern for Relations with Outsiders (4:5–6)
  IV.      Conclusion (4:7–18)
     A.      Messengers (4:7–9)
     B.      Greetings (4:10–15)
       1.      Aristarchus, Jewish Co-worker #1 (4:10a)
       2.      Mark, Jewish Co-worker #2 (4:10b)
       3.      Jesus Who Is Called Justus, Jewish Co-worker #3 (4:11)
       4.      Epaphras: Gentile #1 (4:12–13)
       5.      Luke and Demas: Gentiles #2 and #3 (4:14)
       6.      Greet Laodicea and Nympha (4:15)
     C.      Directions (4:16–17)
     D.      Superscription (4:18)

The Letter to the COLOSSIANS

Text and Commentary

Why, one might ask even this late in the game called church history, write a commentary? Paul’s letter to the now nearly forgotten city of Colossae is ancient, after all; not only is it ancient, there are endless debates about everything important and even more about what is not so important. The number of commentaries on Colossians itself proves the point. I could perhaps turn this around to ask, Why read a commentary? Let me offer a few observations. I hope you are not reading this only to get stuff for your sermon or for what you are teaching or simply to resolve some debate. To read a commentary only (I emphasize) for such utilitarian aims is crass, if not irreligious. Of course, we all dip into commentaries for what we can get out of them, but I did not write this commentary for that purpose alone. The point of writing this commentary is existential or ontological. I read Colossians to hear from God in order to become more Christlike, and I would ask any reader to redirect any reading of this letter (and then to read this commentary) to Christlikeness. My prayer is that you and I will read in order to love God and to love others more. Participation in truth, then, is the aim of writing and reading the Bible. Who cannot now quote the wondrous words of Francis Bacon?

But howsoever these things are thus in men’s depraved judgments and affections, yet truth, which only doth judge itself, teacheth that:

  The inquiry of truth, which is the love-making or wooing of it,
  The knowledge of truth, which is the presence of it,
  And the belief of the truth, which is the enjoying of it

Is the sovereign good of human nature.

I write with the aim that the truth of Colossians will woo us to the presence of truth and joy in its very presence. It is, Bacon continued, “heaven on earth, to have a man’s mind move in charity, rest in providence, and turn upon the poles of truth.” Truth, however, exacts its price. That price is the pain of listening through our sinful condition to the glistening truth, the pain of enduring time well spent on our knees and faces before God as God speaks, and the pain of letting this text teach us what to know and how to live, even if that requires the pain of altering our mental and behavioral maps. Every time I sit down to Colossians I expect this text to reshape my mind and my life. Sometimes this text will take you to places you probably do not even care about, but patient, humble listening will turn our cares toward what God through Paul cares about. Sometimes Colossians is painfully irrelevant, but our task is not to make it relevant but to bend our world toward the glistening light of what God reveals in Christ. This is how Paul opens up this letter—with the simple claim that he has been sent by Jesus the Messiah by God’s will, and this letter is what God is speaking through him to them. This is the only right way to begin reading Colossians.

I. INTRODUCTION (1:1–2:5)

A. SALUTATION (1:1–2)

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, 2To God’s holy people in Colossae, the faithful brothers and sisters in Christ: Grace and peace to you from God our Father.

Paul’s letters were longer than ordinary letters of the ancient world. In addition, Paul’s letters have predictable sections, including a salutation or greeting, a thanksgiving, and the main body. We ought to remind ourselves that “grace and peace” in Paul’s salutations are, after all, the apostle’s way of saying “hello” or “greetings.” The opening to this letter identifies salient features of both the authors and their audience, with the rhetorical intent of creating an impression of trustworthiness. Too, a letter functioned as the personal presence (parousia) of the letter writer. The Letter to the Colossians was written by both Paul and Timothy, which raises the important topic of how letters were written. A brief word description is all that is possible here: we are to imagine Paul at work sketching ideas, talking to his companions, composing drafts of his letters, hiring at considerable cost a secretary/scribe for the more official writing with a copy or two for himself, and then hiring or finding a letter carrier to deliver the letter. At work in this sketch is the reality that Paul probably did not write out by hand any of his letters, that each of his letters reflects the grammar and style and contribution of his secretary and companions in the process, that his letters were drafted in conversation and debate with his companions in a home or under a shaded tree. This scenario leads to two negatives: Paul did not dictate his letters to his secretary, and he probably did not write them out in one sitting. Timothy, in other words, contributed to this letter in content, which is why his name follows the word “and.” 1:1 Letters of the first century began with the author, the recipients, and a brief word of greeting. A good example of a typical greeting is found in Acts 15:23: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the believers of Gentile origin in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings.” In Paul’s case the name “Paul” is sometimes said to be his missionary name, though this is probably mistaken. Roman citizens had two or three names, and apparently Paul’s were “Saul” and “Paul,” his Hebrew and perhaps a Roman name that sounded like the Hebrew. According to the book of Acts, he was Saul until he entered into his Gentile mission (13:9), at which time his name shifts to Paul. Paul never calls himself Saul. It is, then, as likely that the name shift is more to his Roman name, since he was now a missionary to Gentiles in the Roman world, as it is that he, like Peter, acquired a new name as an apostle. Paul describes himself (1) as an apostle of King Jesus, and this apostolic mission came (2) through the will of God. Paul identifies his missional calling as an “apostle.” Jesus himself formed a nucleus for the church around twelve apostles (Mark 3:13–19; Matt 10:2–4; Luke 6:13–16; Acts 1:13), and the term “apostle” no doubt was related to the Jewish concept of the shaliach, that is, the “ambassador.” By the time of Paul the term “apostle” was being used for more than the Twelve, and so it could be technical for the Twelve (as in Mark 3:13–19), it could be generic (Phil 2:25; 2 Cor 8:23), or it could refer to a missionary or church-planter (Rom 16:7; 2 Cor 11:13; Acts 14:14; Rev 2:2). Junia, a woman, is called an apostle at Rom 16:7 in this latter sense. Paul combines the original sense of the twelve apostles (1 Cor 15:5–9) along with the third sense with a prophetic-calling dimension because Paul has been commissioned by Jesus and is a church-planting Gentile missionary. To be called an apostle in this sense requires that one was an eyewitness of Jesus (1 Cor 9:1; Acts 1:21–22), that one had a commission from the Lord to represent and speak for him, and that one had performed miracles. Apostles are ranked at the top of the spiritual gifts by Paul (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 2:20; 4:11). Most important, Paul’s apostleship is described as grace, a gift from God, a theme developed in Col 1:25–27. As such, to be an apostle is to claim a Spirit-given authority (see 1 Cor 15:5–11 and 1 Tim 2:7: “a true and faithful teacher”). The authority of an apostle, to be sure, emerges not from a title or authority assumed but from the source (God, Christ, Spirit) and also from the power of his or her charismatic giftedness (Col 1:11, 29). Alongside belief in his calling from God comes opposition to that very calling on the part of others (see 1 Cor 9:1–18; 2 Cor 2:17–3:1; 11–12), which may well be a reason for Paul here calling himself apostle. That Paul claims his apostolic ministry with respect to the Colossians, a church he did not personally establish (Epaphras did), reveals his conviction that he is called to supervise Gentile churches, including also those established by his associates. Paul was sent by King Jesus. Some think “Christ” is not so much Jesus’s role as Messiah but more a second name with barely a whiff of that historic role. This view has its supporters, but more recent studies have concluded that whenever Paul uses christos, he never loses touch with the historic claim that Yeshua (Jesus) is the Messiah of Israel. To call Jesus “Messiah” is to tell Israel’s story as fulfilled in the story of Jesus. But this title cuts in two directions at once—into Israel’s story and against the grain of Rome’s honor. Remember that the Romans despised having a king (rex), so from the days of the idealistic but ever-central notion of Rome as a Republic through Julius Caesar into the period of Octavian (Caesar Augustus), who established not a “kingdom” or a “king” but the Principate (symbolizing the one true Roman senator/citizen leading and representing all true Roman citizens), the Romans would not call their leader “Rex.” Thus, to call Jesus “Messiah” was evocative of sinister intentions for Romans. Never mind that Israel was a backwater nation or that the term belonged to their story not Rome’s, the claim was being made across the empire that Jesus was “king” and that he was bringing a “kingdom,” terms that aroused deep suspicion. While it is easy to overdo this undercurrent in the term “king,” one must keep one’s ears alert enough to know that the term used for Jesus—Messiah—was courting danger. Paul’s claims, as noted in the introduction, were not so much anti-as they were supra-imperial critique. Paul’s commission to be an apostle of King Jesus comes about “by [or through] the will of God,” which signals God’s providential shaping of history and appointment of Paul to a designated task in God’s purposes, namely, the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles and thereby the expansion of the people of God, Israel, to include Gentiles. It cannot be forgotten, even though it often is, that Paul’s inclusion of Gentiles is not by way of replacing Israel but by way of expanding Israel. His own image is that Israel is the tree trunk into which the Gentiles are grafted (Rom 11:11–24). Paul constantly sees his task, which he often calls the “mystery,” to be gospeling the Gentiles (Col 1:24–27). Paul states in 4:18 that he did not write out this letter. Timothy is likely the co-author, or contributing author. Timothy is Paul’s best friend, closest co-worker and associate, and a man about whom we know plenty, even if he is always in the background. Thus, Timothy’s father was a Gentile but his mother a Jew; he was probably converted to following Christ during Paul’s first missionary journey to Lystra, where Timothy surely saw Paul being stoned. Timothy’s mother was a believer; Paul chose Timothy to be “with” him on his second missionary journey, and Timothy received a special endowment of the Spirit through the laying of hands. To regulate his “status,” Paul had Timothy circumcised, and when Paul traveled to Athens, Timothy stayed with Silas in Berea and then joined Paul in Athens. In addition, Timothy encouraged the Christians in Thessalonica and reported good news about the Thessalonians to Paul later, part of that good news expressed by a gift of money for the poor saints in Jerusalem. Though his name never appears in titles of books written by him, Timothy helped Paul write both 1 and 2 Thessalonians, helped evangelize Corinth, helped write 2 Corinthians and probably also Romans. He traveled with Paul to Jerusalem as Lystra’s delegate to the Jerusalem church, and he helped Paul in writing Colossians, Philemon, and Philippians. Later, Paul may have sent him to Philippi, and he was encouraged to stay in Ephesus and eventually to meet Paul in Rome (?) during a winter. Also, Timothy was imprisoned for the gospel and eventually released. All of this friendship and ministry together is at work when Paul calls Timothy, in Col 1:1, “our brother.” The term “brother” here indicates spiritual or fictive kinship in the church-as-family, as well as co-worker in the gospel, but it also conveys Paul’s special love for him (1 Cor 4:17; Phil 2:19–23). We see here not a hierarchy but coordination in a mutual calling to the gospel; if anything, calling him “brother” elevates Timothy to Paul’s status. 2 Paul and Timothy’s letter is sent to “God’s holy people in Colossae,” but this phrase continues in the NIV with “the faithful brothers and sisters in Christ.” Because there is but one definite article (“the holy people”) and that article includes “faithful brothers and sisters,” it is more accurate to translate “to the holy and faithful brothers and sisters in Christ in Colossae” (CEB) or, even better, “to the saints and faithful brothers and sisters in Christ in Colossae.” The Christians in the house church(es) in Colossae are marked by two descriptors: they are saints (holy people), and they are faithful. The word “saints,” or “holy people,” is commonly connected to the idea of separation, but C. F. D. Moule gets it right when he says the term is “perhaps best rendered ‘dedicated’, ‘God’s own’, because it represents the O.T. conception of ‘the dedicated people’ whose members are ‘the dedicated ones.’ ” To define holiness as “separation from” is only half the story this term tells, and in fact it tells only the second and less important half. A “saint” is someone dedicated to God and, because of that dedication, separated from common (worldly) usage. In fact, it is not the act of dedication that makes someone or something holy; it is the presence of God that makes something holy. If one connects the presence of the (Holy) Spirit in a believer one has all that is needed to make someone “holy” or a “saint.” “Saints,” however, does not refer to a special kind of Christian—the fully devoted ones vs. the less-than-full-devoted—but to all Christians. The Old Testament and Jewish context for this term is that an item (grain) or a piece of furniture (lampstand) or a person (priest, Levite) or the nation of Israel (Exod 19:6; Pss 16:3; 34:9; Dan 7:18) or the Qumran community itself is devoted and given over to God’s holy presence and, because of that donation, is withdrawn from normal usage (eating, lighting, living an ordinary life, etc.). In Pauline theology one becomes a holy person by God’s saving work, by the Spirit’s sanctifying work in Christ, and by the Word’s effects (Rom 15:16; 1 Cor 1:2; 6:11; Eph 5:26; 1 Thess 5:23; 2 Tim 2:21); furthermore, this divine work of grace is transformative and is the basis for Paul’s imperatives (Col 3:12). So convinced is Paul that the messianic community is holy that he can claim that one’s spouse or parent makes one holy, as Paul says in 1 Cor 7:14: “For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” This perspective is altogether continuous with what Paul had learned as a Jew: as a Jewish child was made holy by being born of Jewish parents, so now Paul can say Christian children are made holy by their believing parents (and probably as well by their baptism). But there is a deeper hermeneutical story at work here in the word “saints.” It is the story that God has chosen one nation (Israel). Accordingly, the word “saints” and “Jews” or “Israelites” or “Judeans” became synonymous. Hence, Paul refers to the believers in Jerusalem as the “saints” (1 Cor 16:1). There is something vitally important here for the word “saints” in this letter. Gentiles, in a most unusual move, have somehow become part of God’s holy people (Israel). It is not that both Jews and Gentiles are now utterly devoted to God; it is more that Gentiles, formerly anything but holy, are now part of the holy people of God. “Saints” then means here what Paul meant when he said “Israel of God” in Gal 6:16. Not only are the believers in Colossae saints, they are also “faithful brothers and sisters.” The word “faithful” entails both the distinct act of trust (believer, believing) and trust over time (faithfulness, trusting). In fact, “faithfulness” is the sense for each use in Colossians and is not found so much in the earlier Pauline letters. Paul used only the generic “brothers,” though the context makes clear he’s writing to all the Christians, men and women and children and slaves, in the church at Colossae. The term expresses fictive kinship, that is, a new kind of family formed in Christ that becomes the center of their identity; it is one of Paul’s favorite terms for the church as comprising all sorts (3:11). Two other expressions define the church at Colossae: they are “in Colossae” and they are “in Christ,” the former their geographic (and rather humble) location, and the latter their spiritual and sociopolitical (and exalted) location. Thus, “in Christ” pertains to both their saint-status and their faithful-status. The meaning of “in Christ.” One can say that all of Paul’s theology is contained in this expression, and within that very circle of “in Christ” we can locate even the doctrine of justification. If one counts all the letters attributed to Paul, the expression occurs eighty-three times, but this number expands considerably when we also consider the similar expressions “in the Lord,” “with Christ,” “into Christ,” and “through Christ.” This expression “in Christ” includes both objective and the subjective dimensions. As for the objective, “in Christ” we are justified (Rom 3:24), we have eternal life (6:23), freedom (8:2), new-creation life (8:39), grace (1 Cor 1:4), resurrection life (15:22), removal of the veil (2 Cor 3:14), reconciliation (5:19), expansion of Israel to include Gentiles in the church (Gal 3:14; 5:6), a renewed mind (Phil 2:5), and abundant riches (4:19). As for the subjective, we reckon ourselves dead in Christ (Rom 6:11), there is no condemnation (8:1), we are a one-body people (12:5; Gal 3:28), we labor with others in Christ (Rom 16:3), we are sanctified in Christ (1 Cor 1:2), we enter into new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:17), we find freedom in Christ (Gal 2:4)—that is, the churches are all “in Christ” (1:22). It expands: in Col 1:16 all things were created “in Christ.” In summary, “Paul’s perception of his whole life as a Christian, its source, its identity, and its responsibilities, could be summed up in these phrases.” This expression, then, is the inaugurated eschatological reality into which the Christian has been placed, and it also evokes the new-creation realities that a person discovers. Christ both indwells the believer (Gal 2:19–20), and the believer dwells “in Christ.” Paul’s greeting, it is commonly said, combines the Greek and Jewish greetings: “Grace and peace to you from God our Father.” Translation theorists have said that a text has no more meaning in a given context than it has to have. This restriction could suggest “grace and peace” means little more than “hello.” However, at the end of this letter Paul will use the more mundane word for greetings—aspazomai (4:10, 12, 14, 15). This mundane term contrasts with the terms “grace” and “peace” in the salutation and may well indicate that ordinary greetings to open this letter have been shifted to a kind of Christian greeting or blessing. But what makes me think these terms have more than ordinary weight is that Paul shifts this greeting significantly by adding “from God our Father.” In doing so, Paul turns himself and Timothy into mediators of God’s grace and peace, and these terms are no longer simply a human greeting one to another but divine greetings. In fact, they are “Fatherly” greetings, which is both an Old Testament term for God and a specially sensitive New Testament term for God. God is father of Israel (e.g., Hos 11:1), God is father of David (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7), Jesus teaches his disciples to address God as Father (Matt 6:9), and the apostles lead their churches to see that their adoption as sons derives from their union with the Son (Gal 4:7; Rom 8:15–17). Briefly, “grace” refers to God’s goodness and redemptive work showered upon unworthy or nonstatus humans (Gentiles, slaves; see Col 3:11) who are transformed by that grace into saints who become grateful, contributing members of the body of Christ, while “peace” refers to the general well-being, including material flourishing and inner and relational wholeness of God’s people now that they have found themselves in Christ (Col 3:15; cf. Jas 3:18). Some manuscripts include “and from our Lord Jesus Christ,” which would make this salutation like the salutations in most of Paul’s letters (see note above). That alone would lead one to think Paul may have included it, and this dual referent would make for a matching opening in 1:3. Either way, Paul’s prayer is for grace and peace, and they are given by the Father (or by the Father and the Son).

B. THANKSGIVING (1:3–8)

Taking in the wider sweep of the organization of this letter, and not discounting the rather remarkable excurses of Paul (like his hymn in 1:15–20), the introduction proper most likely comprises 1:3 all the way through 2:5. We join Wright in seeing three moves by Paul to introduce himself to the Colossians: his thanksgiving for them (1:3–8), his prayer for them (1:9–23), and his ministry for them (1:24–2:5). Paul’s letters often begin with a thanksgiving, and these thanksgivings are often enough noted by long sentences, complex associations, and logical shifts. The thanksgiving at Philemon shows enough parallels to this prayer in Colossians that it deserves to be quoted here:

I always thank my God as I remember you in my prayers, because I hear about your love for all his holy people and your faith in the Lord Jesus. I pray that your partnership with us in the faith may be effective in deepening your understanding of every good thing we share for the sake of Christ. Your love has given me great joy and encouragement, because you, brother, have refreshed the hearts of the Lord’s people. (4–7)

There is a long and rich history of thanksgiving in both the surrounding world and in the Bible on which these eucharistic words of Paul rest. An important comparative letter with thanksgiving is found at 2 Macc 1:10–17; here I quote vv. 10–12 and 17:

The people of Jerusalem and of Judea and the senate and Judas, To Aristobulus, who is of the family of the anointed priests, teacher of King Ptolemy, and to the Jews in Egypt, Greetings and good health. Having been saved by God out of grave dangers we thank him greatly for taking our side against the king, for he drove out those who fought against the holy city.… Blessed in every way be our God, who has brought judgment on those who have behaved impiously.

The Jewish context, theocentric and enchanted to the core, focuses on thanksgiving offered to God because “what God has done is always the ‘perch’ (so to speak) from which Christian prayer takes its flight and to which it returns.” These thanksgivings are not premeal blessings said perfunctorily but the theology of the entire letter expressed in prayer or, as many have argued, grateful praise in response to God’s salvation in Christ. The particular thanksgiving in Colossians also seeks to establish good will with the Colossians in order that they receive more affirmatively what is to follow in the letter.

3We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, 4because we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love you have for all God’s people—5the faith and love that spring from the hope stored up for you in heaven and about which you have already heard in the true message of the gospel 6that has come to you. In the same way, the gospel is bearing fruit and growing throughout the whole world—just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and truly understood God’s grace. 7You learned it from Epaphras, our dear fellow servant, who is a faithful minister of Christ on our behalf, 8and who also told us of your love in the Spirit.

3 When Paul says “we,” he includes Timothy. This view is clinched by Paul’s more frequent use of the singular in other letters. The thanksgiving here is not self-congratulations but a form of praising God for what God is doing. Thus many see here an expression of early Christian liturgical worship: Paul’s thanksgiving is directed at “God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This modification of “God, the Father” exemplifies Paul’s Christocentric thinking: Israel’s God, the one who liberated at the exodus and from exile, this God is the Father of the Messiah and the Messiah’s people (the church). Paul pulls the God of Israel’s Scriptures into this new messianic faith and frames his belief in God through the realities of Christ and the Spirit. Paul’s choice of “Lord” for Jesus is monotheistic and more Jewish than anti-Roman. Thus, Lord (kyrios) is the standard Greek translation of Israel’s one and only God YHWH. Accordingly, by calling Jesus “Lord,” it does not necessarily entail “Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not.” One could say, however, that the latter is implied on the grounds of Roman idolatry. At work in declaring Jesus “Lord” is incarnation, resurrection, exaltation, rule, and parousia (Col 1:15–20; 2:9–10; Rom 8:34). Perhaps most notably, in the daily recitation of the Shema, the word “Lord” for Paul now referred to Jesus as Lord (1 Cor 8:4–6). Paul and Timothy give thanks “when we pray for you.” Paul’s prayer life was marked by the Shema-based hours of prayer, along with the afternoon prayer of thanksgiving (at the temple). Hence, “always” will indicate not “all day long” but more probably “at the set hours of prayer.” 4 The reason or ground for thanksgiving to God is now given. In Greek there is a sudden shift in tenses from the present tense participle (“when we pray”) to an aorist participle (“we have heard”), but this is not because they always pray now but heard in the past. What they heard about was earliest Christianity’s famous triad of faith, love, and hope, beginning here with salvation history’s focal shift (Gal 2:15–21; 3:19–29), with “faith” in Christ Jesus. The expression “faith in Christ Jesus” could mean faithfulness in the sphere of Christ or personal faith in Jesus as the Messiah or their theological faith and soundness in the sphere of Christ. The closest parallels, Paul’s other Prison Letters (Eph 1:15; Phlm 4–5), where both faith and love appear as they do here in Colossians, lead me to think Paul is speaking of the virtues of the Colossians, rather than of their conversion faith or theological soundness. Because love is an ongoing practice, there is a slight favoring of “faith” here meaning “faithfulness.” Too fine of a distinction collapses on itself, since faith always entails trust in Christ as the object, and faithfulness is trust over time, and thus “faith” here means faithful trusting. They are faithful in or to Christ Jesus, and here once again Phlm 4–5 provides for some a potential clue: “I always thank my God because I hear of your love for all the saints and your faith toward the Lord Jesus.” Thus, in this parallel Christ is the object of faith. However, Paul is not as casual in his usage of prepositions as some might think, and the preposition in Philemon is pros, while here it is en. In Col 2:5 the signal for Christ as object of faith is found with the preposition eis, so I am inclined to see “in Christ Jesus” as the sphere in which their faithfulness is sustained; this view is confirmed by the “in Christ” usage we noted at 1:2. Their faithfulness in Christ is accompanied or typified by devotion to others, that is, by the “love you have for all God’s people.” We looked at “God’s people” (or “saints”) at 1:2, so our focus here is on “love.” Love lacks definition in most discussions, and hence assumptions often creep into our perceptions. First, it is not true, regardless of the number of times repeated, that agapē is to be radically distinguished from philia. The two words overlap in meaning, and any distinction is dependent upon a specific author’s use. Second, love is central to the Christian ethic—from Jesus’s great commandments (Mark 12:28–32) and the upper room discussion (John 13:34–35) to Paul (Gal 5:6, 13, 22; Rom 13:10; 1 Cor 13; 16:14; Eph 5:2; 1 Tim 1:5; here in Col 2:2; 3:14). Third, love is defined in the Bible by how God loves, which leads straight to understanding love as a covenantal relationship, or a commitment to someone. Thus, we are to think of Gen 12; 15; 17; 22; Exod 19–24; 2 Sam 7, and then eventually to the new covenant of Mark 14:24, not to ignore Gal 4:24; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6, 14, and Eph 2:12. God’s covenant is a commitment of presence, advocacy, and protection, and his commitment entails both summoning his people into, and providing for, their transformation into Christlikeness. All of this is at work in Israel’s covenant formula. Fourth, an emphasis of the Pauline mission is that love is, as Bonnie Thurston said it so well, a “disinterested concern and active good will … toward ‘all the saints,’ all believers in Jesus, not just those with whom they were in agreement or toward whom they were naturally favorably disposed.” The Gentile mission forced Jews to love Gentiles, males to love females, slaves to love the free, and Scythians were to love barbarians (Col 3:11). Finally, the paradigmatic expression of divine love is the cross (2 Cor 5:14–15; Rom 5:6–8; 8:31–35). Since Paul specifies the object of their love—“for all God’s people”—we see here an expression of ecclesial-shaped commitment to one another in presence, advocacy, and participation in Christoformity. He does not have in mind a general humanitarian benevolence but instead, as at Gal 6:10, a devoted commitment to presence, advocacy, protection, provision, and mutual sanctification with other followers of Jesus. 5 A most unusual move is now made by Paul. He gives thanks to God for the Colossian saints’ faith and love and anchors these qualities in the eschaton, the hope. The question arises immediately: Do Paul and Timothy give thanks because of this hope, or are faith and hope for all the saints (v. 4) rooted in their hope (v. 5)? The question provokes discussion, sheds little light, and is ultimately insoluble because in other places the order of this triad of terms is different (cf. 1 Cor 13:13; Gal 5:5–6). It appears in this context to say that both faith and love are grounded in their hope. Thus, their hope, “the hope stored up for you in heaven,” is connected (CEB: “because of”) to their faithfulness and their love. More important, what does Paul have in mind when he speaks of hope, and is this hope what they believe in (its content—like the general resurrection and life eternal or ultimate salvation or Christ himself), or is it the act of hoping? The content of Christian hope is indicated not only in this letter (1:23, 27; 3:1–4) but in other Pauline letters (Gal 5:5; Titus 2:13). More important, because Paul can say that this hope is “stored up” or “put on reserve”—like an eternal layaway—he is referring more to a series of events that will become objective reality. Hence, we are inclined to see the specific hope at work in this word to be future, final, and eternal salvation (as at Gal 5:5 and Titus 2:13, but already glimpsed in the present: Col 1:27; 3:1–4). Christian hope is contained in the gospel in that Jesus now rules but will eventually assert his rule over all. Love and faith are secure because this hope is “stored up for you in heaven.” This term “stored up” is used only a few times in the New Testament: at Luke 19:20 for the servant who kept in reserve a mina in a piece of cloth; in 2 Tim 4:8 it is the “crown of righteousness” that is reserved for the apostle and will be given in honor to Paul at the final judgment; and the writer of Hebrews says that death itself is on reserve, awaiting its distribution to each person (9:27). A good illustration of this term is found in Joseph and Aseneth 15:10–11: “And now listen to me, Aseneth, chaste virgin, and dress in your wedding robe, the ancient and first robe which is laid up in your chamber since eternity, and put around you all your wedding ornaments, and adorn yourself as a good bride, and go meet Joseph.” Because the Colossians know that a string of eschatological blessings are reserved for them as their destiny, they now live faithfully and lovingly, with confidence of the coming kingdom. This hope is held in reserve for the saints of Colossae “in heaven.” An important corrective has been offered by Wright in his many writings that the Christian hope is not about going to heaven when we die, and even more emphatically he resists the Christian tendency toward a disembodied eternal existence. Instead, the biblical shape of hope is found in Rev 20–22, namely, a much more earthly new heavens and new earth. Of course, the language in Revelation is metaphoric and apocalyptic and symbolic, but the intent of such language is to describe an eternal city, that is, an eternal society or fellowship where union with God, worship, justice, love, peace, and holiness are unthwarted in endless, pulsating, growing flourishing of the people of God. Hence, when Paul says this hope is stored up for them “in heaven,” it is not because they will go to that place, stand in line until their names are called, and then be given their reward to enjoy up there in that kind of heaven. Instead, the future plans of God are all stored up in the divine throne room, and from there God, who rules over all the heavens with their principalities and powers (Col 1:16), will issue forth the realization of those very hopes in the new heavens and the new earth, where the Colossian saints will experience not only personal eternal blessedness but also a society of justice, peace, and love. Hope, and therefore its implications in faithfulness and love, is inherent to the gospel itself, “about which [hope] you have already heard in the true message of the gospel.” The word “heard,” which derives from the very common Hebrew term “Shema,” draws us into the fundamental posture of Israel before God: God speaks, Israel listens. Found more than 1,500 times in the Bible, the term revolves around three poles: attentiveness to the words being spoken (1 Cor 14:2), absorbing the words into one’s mind and heart and soul (1 Kgs 3:9, 12), and acting on the word spoken (Matt 7:24)—hence at times “hear” means “obey.” Paul knows the Colossians “hear” the hope of the gospel, that is, they are fully attentive to the words of Epaphras, they absorbed the hope of the gospel, and they acted upon those words in baptism and entering into the ecclesial community and its discipline. What they responded to in obedience was “the true message of the gospel.” Three weighty words: “word/message,” “true,” and “gospel,” and translations vary. One can translate literally “in the word of the truth of the gospel.” In this instance, we take the words backward because all the weight rests on the word “gospel.” Because church folks today understand “gospel” more in terms of how to get saved or simply the saving message, it is especially important for us to refocus our energies on the texts that really do define gospel in the New Testament, which themselves are anchored in Isa 40:9; 52:7; 60:6, and especially 61:1. Those texts begin with 1 Cor 15:1–8 (or 15:1–28), the gospel sermons in the book of Acts (2:14–39; 3:12–26; 4:8–12; 10:34–43; 11:4–18; 13:16–41; 14:15–17, and also 7:1–53; 17:22–31), and the stubborn reminder that the first four books of the New Testament were called the Gospels because they are in fact the gospel itself. One should also take a look at the simplest of gospel statements in all of Paul’s letters: “Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel” (2 Tim 2:8). In short, the gospel of Jesus and the apostles was the announcement that Jesus was Israel’s Messiah, the true Lord who saves by making all things right, and that this Messiah lived, died, was raised and exalted, and will come again to establish the eternal kingdom (the new heavens and the new earth). Salvation is entailed in the gospel, but the gospel was first and foremost an announcement about Jesus in which the resurrection played a central role. Hence, I am fond of saying, when it comes to gospel, first Christology and second soteriology. When the latter is first, Christ becomes a means; when Christ is first, the message is about him (and the salvation he brings). This Christ vs. salvation is not an either-or but an issue of which comes first. This announcement about Jesus as the Messiah and world’s Lord is “true.” It is impossible to avoid the notion of correspondence in the meaning of the word “true/truth” in the Bible, for in this case it is true because the gospel’s inherent announcement about Jesus as Messiah corresponds to who God is and what God is doing in this world. But it is also impossible to forget the important Old Testament sense that truth refers to reliability and firmness. Thus, we are to see the truth of God (Rom 1:25; 3:7; 15:8) to be revealed in the truth of/about/in Jesus Christ (1 Cor 5:8; 2 Cor 4:2; Rom 9:1; Eph 2:21; 4:21), and all this is declared in the truth of the gospel (2 Thess 2:13; Gal 2:5, 14; 5:7; Eph 1:13; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Tim 2:15). Perception and reception of, as well as obedience to, that truth makes one a Christian (1 Tim 2:4; 2 Tim 3:7; Titus 1:1). There is a polemical edge to Paul’s claim that the gospel about King Jesus is the truth, for in saying so, he claims Rome’s alternatives are false (Rom 1:18, 25), and he knows there is a pervasive human rejection of the truth (Rom 2:8; 2 Tim 2:18; 3:7; 4:4; Titus 1:14). That polemical edge may cut from the other side, too, in that the true gospel contrasts with the falseness of the opponents’ message. Truth, then, for Paul is the revelation of God’s mission in King Jesus—his life, his death, his resurrection, his exaltation, and his rule with a view toward the coming kingdom. Everything, therefore, is measured over against that one truth. This true gospel is declared verbally, and its content—God’s speech, Scripture, and the incarnate Son—is summed up in the “word” (NIV and CEB: “message”). If we back up to the first word of focus in 1:6b, to the word “heard,” we get our bearings: God speaks, and people are to listen to the “word” spoken. In our case, the gospel was spoken through Epaphras, and the saints of Colossae responded in obedience. “Word” (or “message”) here refers to the spoken, declared, announced word in gospeling the Colossians (1:25; 3:16–17; 4:3; also 1 Thess 1:9–10), and the content of that word is the “true gospel.” With Paul (Phil 2:16) and the sermons in Acts at the heart of this true word is the resurrection of Jesus. 6 Appearing rather awkwardly in the Greek text, the first expression of v. 6 is “that has come to you” and describes the gospel of v. 5. Some find a past sense (“that came to you”), while both the NIV and CEB find a more perfective sense (“that has come to you”), but the tense is present. We are convinced Paul wants to depict the presence of the gospel with them in a more vivid sense (“that is with you” or “that comes to you” or “that is available to you”). Our verse divisions can be confusing, and Paul’s sentences are at times notoriously long, if not convoluted to modern ears and eyes, so both NIV and CEB create a new sentence after the first clause in Greek of v. 6: “In the same way” (NIV) or “This message” (CEB). Grammatically, both the “that has come to you” and the “In the same way” modify “gospel” of 1:5. Hence, the gospel is present with them, and the gospel is bearing fruit and growing in the whole world, according to the plan of Ps 67, and thus we see here an example of Israel expanded (Rom 11:17–24):

Psalm 67 1 May God be gracious to us and bless us and make his face shine on us— 2 so that your ways may be known on earth, your salvation among all nations. 3 May the peoples praise you, God; may all the peoples praise you. 4 May the nations be glad and sing for joy, for you rule the peoples with equity and guide the nations of the earth. 5 May the peoples praise you, God; may all the peoples praise you. 6 The land yields its harvest; God, our God, blesses us. 7 May God bless us still, so that all the ends of the earth will fear him.

Paul’s point concerns the catholicity of the gospel: what the gospel is doing among others in the empire (here “throughout the whole world”), it is doing also among them. And what it is doing is “bearing fruit” and “growing,” two actions that describe how God is at work in the world through the church. Just what Paul (and Timothy) have in mind is not clear, though the parallel at 1:10 spells this expression out more precisely: “bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God.” If we take that verse as our clue, they are bearing fruit in how they live before the Gentiles in the Roman world and growing in their knowledge of God. Note the presence of similar language from the creation story (Gen 1:28), after the flood (8:17; 9:1, 7), with the patriarchs (17:20; 28:3; 35:11), and in Egypt (Exod 1:7), and then also in prophecies of new creation (Jer 3:16; 23:3). Paul believes the original creation promise is fulfilled in the gospel’s work now throughout the world. That inherently powerful gospel has been bearing fruit and growing in their midst “since the day you heard it and truly understood God’s grace.” The hearing of v. 5, picked up here in v. 6 again as a response to the gospel, now is taken one step further with the verb “understood,” a term that also cannot be separated from love (1 Cor 8:3). But most important, hearing the gospel is combined with “knowing” nothing less than “God’s grace” and that “truly.” In Pauline theology, “grace” forms the core of Paul’s missional theology. In Christian theology half the story is often told: grace for Paul is not only God’s merciful forgiveness shown to both Jewish covenant members who have been unfaithful and noncovenant Gentiles who have never known God’s covenant ways (e.g., Rom 3:24; 5:15, 17, 20–21; Eph 1:6; 2:5, 7–9), but that grace also transcends forgiveness of the unworthy, those of no status and no value in the Roman world, to move into transformation of sinners into saints. To use the perfections of grace in Barclay, then, grace here is seen as a gift of superabundant and prior work of God through Paul to include Gentiles, and thus there is a sense both of incongruity and of efficacy in transforming power. One of the more common uses of the word “grace” in Pauline letters is to one’s calling or giftedness or calls to action or one’s ongoing standing in Christ through the Spirit. Douglas Campbell is intent from start to finish on emphasizing incongruity and most especially what Barclay calls noncircularity; hence he defines grace as “unconditional actions by God that deliver salvation to a given constituency with no strings attached, as pure gift.” On this point Campbell has been corrected by Barclay, for grace can be grace and remain circular (or expect response), which is a leitmotif in Barclay’s recent study. Notice again Barclay’s definition: “ ‘Gift’ denotes the sphere of voluntary, personal relations, characterized by goodwill in the giving of benefit or favor, and eliciting some form of reciprocal return that is both voluntary and necessary for the continuation of the relationship.” Far too often, however, grace is aborted in the discussion before its work is done. Grace is not just mercy to the undeserving (incongruity as the whole of it) but the kind of mercy that achieves holistic redemption (effective and at times circular). In Colossians grace accumulates into the perfection of the circular (e.g., 1:10–12 and esp. 1:23). Paul finishes with the observation that the Colossians understood God’s grace “truly.” Here “truly” refers both to the genuineness of their knowledge of the “true message of the gospel” (v. 5) and the correspondence of their knowledge to God’s revelation in Christ. 7 A third kathōs clause now appears: just as “you learned it from Epaphras.” What they learned, though not expressed explicitly, was the gospel, most recently expressed as the grace of God (1:6). The term used for learning here (manthanō) evokes a relationship of discipleship and theological content. It is reasonable to imagine their being discipled, or spiritually formed, at the feet of Epaphras, who himself extends Paul’s ministry. At this point a window has been opened revealing the formation of the church at Colossae: Epaphras was the founding evangelist and disciple-maker, and we can assume the centrality of Christ (as expressed in Col 2:6–7) was the content. The words used by Paul in the three verses where he mentions Epaphras are sufficient to form an impression of the man’s pastoral work: dear, fellow servant, faithful minister, servant, “always wrestling in prayer for you,” and fellow prisoner with Paul (1:7; 4:12; Phlm 23). Four words describe Epaphras in our verse. First, Epaphras was “dear,” or “beloved.” The word “dear” may not contain enough weight to suggest to English readers Paul’s use of agapētos, a word evoking election in Israel’s history (Isa 41:8; 44:1; Jer 31:20) that Paul uses twenty-seven times, most often for the new kind of love in Christian fellowship. Epaphras, if we use our understanding of love defined at v. 4, is the object of Paul’s covenant commitment of presence, advocacy, and direction. Second, Epaphras was a “fellow servant.” It is not entirely clear whether this term syndoulos means one who is in prison alongside Paul (as is the case with Epaphras at this time; see Phlm 23), or whether the syn-compound, of which Paul is so fond, refers to a status as a fellow slave of Christ. Because both Col 1:7 and 4:12 connect slavery or servanthood to Christ, one is inclined to see here a metaphoric relationship of serving Christ. We need to remind ourselves of the abhorrence of the status of slavery in the Roman world, the paradoxical embrace of this term for one’s relationship to King Jesus by the apostle Paul in its denotations of submission, obedience, and devotion to Christ, and therefore the revolutionary subordination at work when the early Christians began to see themselves now as slaves of Christ (e.g., Gal 1:10; 1 Cor 7:21–23; Rom 1:1; 6:16–20; Eph 6:6; Phil 1:1). Third, he was “faithful,” which is modified by “on our behalf,” leading us to ask whether he was faithful “for us” (emphasizing Pauline authority) or “for you” (emphasizing his relationship with the church at Colossae). Among the translations, I lean toward “for your sake” (CEB) instead of “on our behalf” (NIV) because of Col 4:12. Fourth, he was a “servant of Christ.” We refresh an observation made already on how these words are strung together, suggesting that the following translation makes it clearest: “Epaphras … who is a faithful-for-you servant-of-Christ.” Paul depicts Epaphras as devoted to the fellowship at Colossae in serving Christ. In calling Epaphras a “servant” (diakonos, from which we derive “deacon”), there is a question whether he means someone who generically serves Christ or, which is quite likely, whether this is an informal title for leaders in the church fellowships. Since this term becomes official by the time of the Pastorals as “deacons,” which at least in some views will be written not far down the road in the Pauline collection, we are on safe ground to conclude that a “servant” of Christ is a minister of the gospel. The language reveals how Paul shared power with other leaders in his apostolic network. Not only would Epaphras be a minister of the gospel (1:7; 4:12; Phlm 23), but all other references in the Pauline correspondence, including texts like 1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6, and Eph 3:7 and 6:21, suggest the same:

What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task.

He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God’s grace given me through the working of his power.

Tychicus, the dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord, will tell you everything, so that you also may know how I am and what I am doing.

Paul’s words about Epaphras are far less idealistic than they are rhetorical: by labeling him with these terms, Paul presses his case that the Colossians are to listen to Epaphras as an authorized minister of the gospel. From a different angle, these terms describe the ideal minister of the gospel. 8 Paul signs off the thanksgiving (1:3–8) with one more observation about Epaphras that simultaneously connects Paul to the Colossians: “and who also told us of your love in the Spirit.” Epaphras’s priestly, or mediatorial, role is hereby emphasized: not only did he extend the Pauline gospel to the Colossians, but he also “told” of their love back to Paul. The word “told” is used for divulging, revealing, imparting previously unknown information, and clarifying. Paul draws here on their relationship with Epaphras and on their love in order to draw them into his circle of apostolic teaching so they will respond affirmatively to what will be divulged in this letter. The object of the Colossians’ love is not divulged, however, and we are left to guess whether they love Paul or whether they are simply loving people. The letter itself would lead one to the second option because Paul’s emphasis here is on loving the people of God, the church of Jews and Gentiles. Most notably, Paul says that Epaphras revealed their love “in the Spirit [or spirit].” Most think Paul refers here to the new love found among Christians as a result of the (thoroughly Pauline sense of the) eschatological gift of the Spirit (Gal 5:22; Rom 5:5; 15:30). We need not reduce “in the Spirit” to the level of individual transformation, but instead we are to see “in the Spirit” connoting the church’s fellowship where the people of God has expanded to include Jews and Gentiles, barbarians, Scythians, and both slaves and free (Col 3:11).

C. INTERCESSION (1:9–23)

1. The Prayer (1:9–12)

Outlines of Paul’s letters often baffle the outliner, even when the general contours of his argument are bell-ringingly clear. The introduction to this letter evidently extends from 1:1 all the way to 2:5, though some might outline the letter’s contents in other ways. This introduction is made up of a salutation (1:1–2), a thanksgiving (1:3–8), an intercession (1:9–23), and a biographical disclosure (1:24–2:5). We turn now to the intercession, which has two parts: the single-sentence intercession itself (1:9–12) and a digression on the Messiah’s cosmic redemption (1:13–23). A close reading of our passage reveals a number of difficulties. The digression that begins at 1:13 makes me wonder whether the introduction has not ended with the intercession at 1:9–12, and it also makes me wonder whether Paul’s “introductions” are as tidy as we might prefer—and one also wonders whether it is appropriate to speak of an “introduction” at all! One also wonders where the prayer ends and where the digression on redemption begins: the “qualified” of 1:12a begins that transition, but it is not fully in gear until 1:13, where thanksgiving to God shifts to a focus on the Who of salvation, and where “rescued” sets the tone for the Christology at work in the redemption (1:14, 15–20, 21–23). That Christology leads to a reflection on the church and ministry into the beginning of the second chapter of this letter, so that extending the introduction to 2:5 will serve us pragmatically. In addition, this section has a rhetorical strategy of presenting Paul’s concerns in order to show to the Colossians that he has their best interests at heart. Pastoral theologians often turn to the so-called Pastoral Epistles (1–2 Timothy, Titus) for Paul’s pastoral theology, but perhaps the most penetrating observations of Paul at work as a pastor are found in 2 Cor 2:12–7:16, which illustrate a cruciform pastoral theology, and in Col 1:9–12 and 1:24–2:5, which express Paul’s vision and deep passion for his churches. At the heart of Paul’s pastoral life was prayer for his churches, and in 1:9–12 we peer into the nature of his requests. For what did he pray? That they might know God and God’s will (1:9) and that they might walk worthy of God (1:10–12). To walk worthily means to live a productive moral life (1:10), to enjoy a growing theological life (1:10), to partake in a powerful life (1:11), and to be “qualified” to be part of the people of God (1:12), to which is added in vv. 13–14 the theme of redemption, which itself leads to a further expansion (1:15–23). We can then turn this around to ask, What, then, is a Christian according to this prayer of Paul’s? A Christian is one who has been qualified to be part of the family of God (1:12) and who therefore grows through the power of God both morally and theologically (1:10–11).

9For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you. We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives, 10so that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, 11being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, 12and giving joyful thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light.

9 Paul’s opening words, “For this reason” (or CEB: “Because of this”), create a question about specificity: To what does the word “this” point? To what immediately precedes, that is, to the good news about the Colossians divulged by Epaphras (1:8, 9b)? Or, once we factor in the “we” (or we also), does “this” refer to the whole of vv. 3–8? Proximity favors the former view. Epaphras’s witness about their new-creation life was Paul and Timothy’s source of endless prayer for the Colossians “since the day we heard about you.” In fact, he says, “We have not stopped praying for you.” Paul says the same to the Thessalonians (1 Thess 1:2–3), the Romans (1:9–10), and the Ephesians (1:15–16). Jewish prayer customs, at work behind 1:3 as well, are assumed. Jews prayed three times a day, facing Jerusalem, and their prayers included first-century versions of the Shema (Deut 6:4–9). There are clear echoes of the Amidah in Col 1:9–12. Josephus paints Jewish piety as follows:

Let everyone commemorate before God the benefits which he bestowed upon them at their deliverance out of the land of Egypt, and this twice every day, both when the day begins and when the hour of sleep comes on, gratitude being in its own nature a just thing, and serving not only by way of return for past, but also by way of invitation of future favors. They are also to inscribe the principal blessings they have received from God upon their doors, and show the same remembrance of them upon their arms; as also they are to bear on their forehead and their arm those wonders which declare the power of God, and his good will towards them, that God’s readiness to bless them may appear everywhere conspicuous about them. (Jewish Antiquities 4.212–13)

Here we see a twice-daily prayer (cf. Dan 6:10, 13), and if one adds the afternoon prayer at the time of the sacrifice, one realizes that some observant Jews prayed three times per day. Paul did not cease being a Jew in practice when he encountered the risen Jesus and came to the conviction that Jesus was the Messiah. He simply reoriented his existing Jewish practices in a messianic, Spirit-shaped, and ecclesial-rooted manner. Prayer precedes instruction in Paul’s epistle. Paul’s nonstop intercession for the Colossians is expressed in two participles: “praying” and “asking” (CEB). The two participles are completed in two different ways—the first one with “for you” and the second with “to fill you with”—which probably indicates that the two actions of praying and asking are not a simple hendiadys. Paul the pastor makes it abundantly clear that he and Timothy are at work interceding for the Colossians. The content of their prayer, which extends over two verses, begins with “to fill you with the knowledge of his will” (1:9). His desire is that the Colossians be filled, a term used in a number of locations in Colossians and Ephesians for the redemption now unleashed in the fullness himself, Christ, a filling that is all at once eschatological, christological, pneumatological, theological, and cosmic. At this point the language intensifies: Paul (and Timothy) are praying God will fill the Colossian fellowship “with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives.” Knowledge words, echoing in each case Old Testament passages and a Jewish context, abound: knowledge (epignōsis), wisdom (sophia), and understanding (synesis). Each word is modified: the knowledge is of God’s will, the wisdom is “all wisdom,” and the understanding is “that the Spirit gives” (CEB: spiritual). The intense focus on knowledge words at the front of this prayer, along with both the obvious concerns with Paul’s opponents in this letter and the then-emerging Gnosticism, gives this prayer request a historical context that is important yet not easy to discern, and we have sketched this context more completely in the introduction. However the opponents are sketched, and I see them as halakic mystics, the general drift is rather clear: Paul is opposed by some apocalyptic-and mystical-leaning Jewish Christians (or Jews) whose mystical experience, observance of Torah, and knowledge diminish Christ. Paul’s prayer is for a kind of knowledge, wisdom, and understanding that will lead them into Christ. If the apocalyptic mystics were elitists, the Pauline vision for the church counters each: the truth of the gospel is not esoteric and for elitists, it is based on a relationship with God in Christ and not on passwords, it is for all (3:11), and it is all summed in Christ as the truth (2:3). Paul’s terms for knowledge blend the specifics into a kind of generalized prayer for maturation into the truth of the gospel now made known in Christ. The three terms speak of knowledge, of academic excellence and perception, and of analytic perception. Yet, the grammar presses us to see more than knowledge words because “knowledge of his will” is the object, and “will” deserves our attention. Paul and Timothy want the Colossians to comprehend the will of God, a term Paul uses in the Prison Letters for calling (Col 1:1; Eph 1:1), salvation and adoption (1:5, 11), missional vocation to include Gentiles into the people of God (= the mystery) and to reconcile all things to God (1:9, 20), and the moral vision for God’s people (Col 4:12; Eph 5:17; 6:6). Above all, knowledge of this will is a gift of God’s grace (Col 1:6, 9). Knowing God’s will is as Jewish as it is characteristic of the Jesus movement into the earliest churches.

  Teach me to do your will,
  for you are my God;
  may your good Spirit
  lead me on level ground. (Ps 143:10)

May he give you all a heart to worship him and to do his will with a strong heart and a willing spirit. (2 Macc 1:3)

May your will be done. (Matt 6:10)

“My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me.” (John 4:34)

If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. (John 7:17)

… better to suffer for doing good, if suffering should be God’s will, than to suffer for doing evil. (1 Pet 3:17)

While the tendency of Christians today is discerning the specific will of God for one’s life, Paul’s letters see the will of God as the divine narrative of redemption from creation to the kingdom—indeed, to know the will of God is to know God (cf. 1:10)—hence this knowledge is charismatic, hermeneutical, eschatological, and practical. The will of God is to be grasped through “all the wisdom,” a term used in the Jewish world for learning how to live in God’s world in God’s way, with an emphasis on discernment on the basis of experience and observation. Since wisdom fills in the center of Israel’s story and culture, and since most scholarship on Colossians fails to grapple with the essential theology of wisdom and opts instead for citing parallels, it is important to sketch more carefully what wisdom means. I begin with three wisdom experts and how each defines wisdom in Old Testament studies. First, James Crenshaw ties wisdom to the universal human quest to explain the realities of life: “The reasoned search for specific ways to ensure personal well-being in everyday life, to make sense of extreme adversity and vexing anomalies, and to transmit this knowledge so that successive generations will embody it—wisdom—is universal.” He adds its telos: “The goal of all wisdom was the formation of character.” But he observes that no one definition suffices because the evidence is too vast and the points of view too numerous. Still, Crenshaw’s own quest for definition lands on tellingly important observations: first, wisdom finds its way into specific forms, like proverbs and instructions and debate and intellectual reflection; second, its substance concerns “self-evident intuitions” about “order,” and, third, it comes to expression with an almost humanistic propriety and pragmatism—the right idea or right word at the right time and doing the right thing at that moment. Second, Old Testament professor Ellen Davis says wisdom is “living in the world in such a way that God, and God’s intentions for the world, are acknowledged in all that we do.” This way of life, as she wisely points out, is for all: “The fruit of wisdom, a well-ordered life and a peaceful mind, results not from a high IQ but from a disposition of the heart that the sages (wisdom teachers) of Israel most often called ‘fear of the LORD.’ ” One of my favorite lines of hers is this: “The sages of Israel teach that those who would be wise must aim, not at power, but at goodness.” We turn, third, to another veteran wisdom scholar, Leo Perdue, who emphasizes wisdom as human construction. Perdue lands upon three elements to wisdom:

First, wisdom is a body of knowledge, a tradition that sets forth an understanding of God, the world and nature, humanity, and human society.… Second, wisdom is understood as discipline [mûsār], that is, both a curriculum of study and a structured form of behavior designed to lead to the formation of character.… Third, wisdom was moral discourse and behavior that constructed and legitimated a cosmology in which righteousness, both correct and just behavior as well as proper decorum, ordered the world, society, and individual existence.

We turn now to five exegetical observations. A classic passage for understanding wisdom is Prov 1:1–7, a passage that leads to our observations here. First, a wise person, Proverbs informs us, “gains” instruction, or correction, in wise dealing (1:3a); second, the wise person has the attributes of righteousness, justice, and equity (ṣedeq, mišpâṭ, mêšârîm; 1:3b); third, the wise person is prudent and has discretion (ʿormâ, məzimmâ; 1:4; cf. 8:12); fourth, the wise person possesses skill in knowing how to practice these various attributes (1:5b). Finally, “receptive reverence” is my summary translation of Heb. lâqaḥat mûsar haśkēl in Prov 1:3a: “to take, or receive, or absorb the instruction/correction of insight [or discipline].” The Hebrew verb lqḥ is a simple one, used for taking in hand, taking and carrying along, taking for oneself in the sense of procuring, as well as getting and acquiring and gaining. However, the hunt for the precise meaning of “wisdom” and its sociocultural connections to Greek and Ancient Near Eastern parallels is sometimes not accompanied by a similar focus on the necessity and importance of this posture of receptivity by the young man or young woman in absorbing the wisdom of the wise. More directly: a wise person is receptive, malleable, and submissive in a reverent and respectful manner to the wisdom of one’s teachers. Reverent receptivity begins with the “fear of YHWH,” and those who lack either that fear or reverent receptivity are the proverbial “fools” (1:7). Receptive reverence involves observations of nature and the power of learning from experience (6:6–8); it involves learning, memorizing, absorbing, and living out the tradition in which one is nurtured (4:1–4; 22:17–21); it includes learning from one’s mistakes and from correction (10:17); finally, receptive reverence knows it needs to respond to God’s Word as revelation—and for this reason it all begins with the fear of YHWH (1:7). In summary, Paul thinks wisdom entails listening to the voices of the apostles and the Spirit’s guidance as the gospel opens up new doors in the Roman Empire. My contention, then, is that saying a given text comes from the Jewish wisdom tradition is historically important, but until the exegete clarifies how that wisdom tradition functions as wisdom, we are left dangling on a historical hook. We get off this hook when we consider what Paul says next: “understanding that the Spirit gives.” This wisdom is Christocentric (1:19, 27; 2:2–3, 8) and mediated through the Holy Spirit (not just human spirit and not just “spiritual”). Four considerations suggest this process is about the Holy Spirit:

1.      The term pneumatikos has a possessive sense.
2.      The two nouns attached to “Spirit” (wisdom, insight) connect to a similar Spirit-connected tradition (Exod 31:3).
3.      This passage is similar to Ephesians 1:17, which mentions the Spirit.
4.      Most important, it is well nigh impossible to deny that this is the Spirit after one reads 1 Cor 2:6–16, that is, “it is an especially Pauline view that understanding the ways and mind of God is an endowment of the Spirit for those who have come to faith in Christ Jesus.”

Put in contrastive terms, Paul’s Spirit-based knowledge of God’s will intensifies and expands the substance of God’s will as he learned at the hands of Gamaliel as it reshapes it in the direction of Christ. Marianne Meye Thompson takes us to what wisdom ultimately means for Paul: “Without the aid of the Spirit, no one would dream up a comprehensive vision of truth whose ‘focal point’ is Christ, crucified on a cross and raised to new life by God.” Wisdom, then, is a Christoformity that becomes the template for how to live in God’s world. 10–12 Paul and Timothy’s constant intercessions unfold in what could be seen as a list of separable items or as an unfolding of a singular idea—filled with knowledge (1:9). The syntax of 1:9–12 clarifies how to order our thinking. Instead of a series of verbs tied together with “ands”—as if we had “pray and intercede and fill and walk and bear fruit and grow and be empowered and give thanks”—we have a complex mixture of verbal states (verbs, infinitives, and participles). The complexity of ordering Paul’s syntax reflects the complexity of Paul’s way of thinking. We might say he’s a man of digression, one who today would be fond of footnoting and parenthetical remarks and sidebars. Here is a more schematic attempt to put these verses together, which I explain immediately below:

  (9) We have not ceased praying and asking
  (9b) That you may be filled …
  (10) That you may walk worthily …
     That is,
     (10b) Bearing fruit and growing …
     (11) Being empowered …
     (12) (a) Giving thanks … to the one who (b) qualified you …
       (13) Who “rescued us …”
         (14) In whom …
           (15) Who …
              (21) Once you were.…

Colossians 1:9 begins with “we have not stopped praying for,” which is itself unfolded or clarified with a hina clause: “that you may be filled.” Then 1:10 begins with an infinitive that is either coordinate with “filled” as the second item in the content of the prayers (1:9: “praying and asking … that you may walk worthily”) or subordinate to “be filled,” expressing the moral walk of the wisdom and insight of the last clauses of 1:9. After “walk worthily” we have two participles—“bearing fruit and growing”—and they are likely subordinate clarifications or developments of “walking worthily.” The next verbal is “empowering,” a participle clarifying or restating what it means to be bearing fruit and growing (which themselves clarify walking worthily), and then it is all finished off with “giving thanks.” This participle is either parallel with the three previous participles (bearing fruit, growing, being empowered) or a summary participle finishing off the prayer. To complete this discussion of ordering the passage, v. 13 begins with a personal pronoun relative clause (hos, “who”), which is itself a subordinating clarification of “who has qualified you” in v. 12, and then v. 14 adds yet another subordinating (en hō) but parallel (to v. 13) clarification, with vv. 15–20 yet one more relative clause with parenthetical clarification and digression. A man of digression indeed! 10 It so happens that the opening of v. 10 translates one Greek word, an infinitive of purpose: “so that you may live a life.” The idea is that sound thinking is to lead to sound living, and while this theory is often claimed, the connection between thought and behavior is not automatic. Many who know do not do, and many who do do not know. Humans are more than mind, so it is important here to bring to the surface the significance of will in all concerns with virtue. The word behind “live a life” is peripatein, a verb that literally means “to walk,” a Greek equivalent to a deeply traditional Hebrew term for a Torah-observant way of life and often translated “walk” (hlk, from which we get “halakah,” Judaism’s rules and regulations that clarify Mosaic Torah). It is asking too much here to think Paul’s own “theology of Torah” is fully on display in this expression, but there is an echo if not more of his Jewishness. Theological debates notwithstanding, the Bible from Genesis to Revelation makes an indissoluble connection between redemption and practice. As Wright comments, “God is at work, therefore his people are at work.” One can cut up the ordo salutis into a reified rail line, passing the redeemed along from one station to another, and one can then explain the connections as inevitable or optional or “circular,” but the fact remains that those who have been put on the rails are to walk the line. Walking this way is to be “worthy.” The gravity falls on the substantive term that follows “worthy.” As the Romans were to welcome in hospitality Phoebe in a manner “worthy of his people” (which means lovingly; Rom 16:2), so Paul calls the Ephesians to live a life “worthy of the calling” (4:1), the Philippians to live a life “worthy of the gospel of Christ” (1:27), and the Thessalonians to live a life “worthy of God” (1 Thess 2:12). The exhortation to be worthy functions as a moral exhortation of correlation to the standard—in our case, to “of the Lord,” that is, King Jesus. One suspects in “worthy of the Lord” we are to think beyond the Lord’s commands and therefore ahead to the hymn of 1:15–20 and its follow-up in 2:6 as a moral template for the people of the King, and even over to Phil 2:5–11 and to see a life “worthy of the Lord” as one that is cruciform—or Christoform. The sphere or, better yet, direction of a walk focused on the Lord (Christ) is completed with “and please him in every way.” One might translate, “unto all [or every kind of] pleasing [of the Lord].” A deep line is drawn in the sand in Paul’s first letter, to the Galatians, when he said, “Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ” (1:10). This theme of pleasing God and not others is balanced in Paul by not pleasing oneself but serving others (1 Thess 2:4; 4:1; Rom 15:1–3). Walking worthy of the Lord is now reworked to focus on its manifestations: “bearing fruit” and “growing,” each of which participles is modified: bearing fruit with “in every good work,” and growing “in the knowledge of God.” The participles fruitbearing and growing are followed in v. 11 with “being strengthened” and in v. 12 with “giving joyful thanks.” We look at the first two now, with the substance of each being defined by accompanying words. Bearing fruit echoes the new-creation theme (see above at 1:6) and also describes moral and spiritual increase (Rom 7:4; Col 1:6), the increase here defined as “in every good work,” an expression that refers to good deeds done by followers of Jesus in the public sector that bring glory to God. Thus, we are to hear an echo of Jesus himself (Matt 5:16; Luke 6:9, 33, 35) and words of the apostle Peter, who speaks of “good deeds” (1 Pet 2:15, 20; 3:6, 17), as well as John (3 John 11). Paul uses the expression in a similar way at Gal 6:10; Rom 13:3, and Eph 2:10. If this refers to the public manifestations of walking in a manner worthy of a cruciform Lord, the Colossians are to grow “in the knowledge of God,” an expression that circles back to the immediate prayer request in 1:9 and surely includes immersing ourselves in the gospel and Scriptures in order to know God. 11 Walking worthy of the Lord is now clarified or expanded in yet one more way: alongside fruitbearing and growing, we now get “being empowered.” If the former actions are the visible manifestations of a worthy walk, we now meet the source for that holy and loving life: the power of God unleashed through the Spirit of God. Paul’s wording rhetorically intensifies God’s supplying power: (1) the operative word is “empowering” or “being strengthened” (NIV), which is modified (2) by “in power,” which itself is intensified (3) with the adjective “all,” which is then all intensified further (4) with “according to his glorious might.” Overdone, perhaps, but not unclear: the power the Colossians need to live a life worthy of the Lord comes from the Glorious One, the God of the gospel (Rom 1:16–17; Col 1:29; 2:12; see also at Eph 1:19; 3:7, 16, 20; 6:10), and this God’s power and glory are mightily demonstrated in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor 1:18–25; Phil 2:6–11). It is indeed possible that Paul’s emphasis on God’s mighty power at work in them is intended to counter the power claims of these halakic mystics. The intended direction of God’s empowering and mighty strengthening is unto “great endurance and patience.” These two terms are a hendiadys, not two distinguishable ideas: thus, patient endurance. Others, however, would say that the first refers to the external (not succumbing to pressure or persecution), while the second to the internal (self-restraint in not retaliating); or the first to hope, and the second to suffering. Inasmuch as this direction circles back to the worthy walk, and the worthy walk of the Lord was cruciform, patient endurance, too, needs to be connected to the cruciform nature of Christian living made possible by the power of the resurrection and the gift of the Spirit. 12 Verse 11 ends with an expression that has famously created debates for all those who teach Colossians in an exegesis class: the prepositional phrase “with joy.” Is it to be attached to “great endurance and patience” or, which is far more likely and therefore slides into our next verse, to “giving thanks” (NIV, CEB)? The third, and about to be greatly expanded, dimension of walking a worthy life is “giving joyful thanks.” We met Paul’s sense of thanksgiving at 1:3, and here again he has circled back to earlier lines in this introduction and prayer of gratitude to God the Father for what he has done, is doing, and will continue to do among the Colossians. All of this generates joy, a word that is cognate to grace both linguistically and theologically: God’s grace at work in the believers as God inserts them into the story of God for this world and creates a worldview that enables them to deal with suffering and hardship with joy. The Father to whom they give thanks is defined now as the one “who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light.” Here Paul reveals an ecclesiology of both continuity and expansion: the words he is using (“inheritance” and “holy people” and “kingdom”) are terms used for Israel, for the exodus, and for God’s election of Israel, but Paul knows that in the new age God is at work in a new exodus expanding Israel to include Gentiles, and he is doing so in such a way that all humans are now on the level with Israel in the plan of God. Mind you, not by lowering Israel’s level but by elevating Gentiles to Israel’s level. One expression at a time. First, the Father qualifies. One is reminded of John the Baptist knowing himself unequal or unqualified to baptize Jesus (Matt 3:11) or the centurion being unworthy of Jesus’s presence in his home (8:8). So Paul knows no one is worthy or qualified for new-covenant gospeling (2 Cor 2:16; 3:5). Yet, by an act of grace God makes people fit for such a task (3:5; 2 Tim 2:2). Behind the qualifying of sinful humans for gospeling is God’s act of qualifying people by means of God’s redemptive act in Christ, which is the focus in Col 1:12, on the basis of which the qualified saints are assigned gifts of service in the fellowship. The act of qualifying, then, can be added to the list of Paul’s soteriological terms, but the notion of qualifying comes closer to the term “election” than to atonement theory-laden metaphors. The next two terms belong together but need to be separated to catch the nuance of Paul’s language. Second, then, the qualification is so they can enter into the inheritance. Literally, Paul says the Father qualified the Colossians “unto a portion of the lot.” Behind the word “inheritance” or “lot” is the ancient belief in oracles and lots as revealing the decision of a deity, which led to the term focusing on the result of such oracles—the destiny or share or portion so assigned in the decision. But the term became nearly synonymous with the word “inheritance” in some instances, and our text in Col 1:12, as well as Acts 26:18, illustrates this sense. Hence, the term gets close to Israel as God’s possession, or the land as Israel’s portion or inheritance (e.g., Gen 12; 13:14–17; Num 16:14; Isa 57:6)—which leads us to the fundamental focus of the Pauline mission: the inclusion of Gentiles in the Abrahamic inheritance and blessing (Gal 3:7–4:7). Third, we ask a question: Why, then, do Paul and Timothy give thanks for a “share” or, even more nuanced, a “portion” of the inheritance? The terms may explain one another—the share, that is, the inheritance (Deut 10:9; 12:12; 14:27, 29; 18:1). Or perhaps the Greek here speaks of only one part of the inheritance. Here we draw our minds yet again to how Paul sees the Gentile believer’s relation to the Jewish believer—the Gentiles are grafted into the tree trunk of Israel; they are a distinct part of the one people of God—Israel expanded (Rom 11:11–24). The tree, perhaps like a banyan tree sprawling in a Gentile direction, has grown enormously since the days of Paul, but routine reminders are in order to keep the Gentiles in touch with the Israelite origins of the church. It is possible, then, that in Col 1:12 Paul is saying that the Colossians have been qualified by the Father for the Gentile portion of the inheritance. This inheritance is itself the people of God; it is a gift, and therefore they give thanks to God for it. In fact, the whole of 1:9–12 is laced up with gifts of God’s grace—knowledge (1:9), wisdom (1:9), understanding (1:9), a “life that is worthy” (1:10), pleasing God (1:10), bearing fruit (1:10), growing (1:10), being strengthened (1:11), endurance and patience (1:11), being qualified (1:12), inheritance (1:12), with a digression that brings up yet more: rescued from darkness (1:13), entrance into the kingdom (1:13), redemption (1:14), and forgiveness (1:14). Hence, fourth, this portion of the inheritance locates them by God’s grace and power among the saints, which in the first instance refers to the Jewish roots of the Christian church, as well as to those who are devoted and dedicated to God in Christ (see fuller comment at 1:2). Because it can be forgotten, a reminder: to call the Colossians the “saints” is to incorporate them into the story of Israel as the elect people of God (see Rom 15:7–13). Others, however, have noted in the term “saints” a reference to angels, and a noteworthy parallel to v. 12 is found at Rule of the Community (1QS) XI, 6–9:

To those whom God has selected he has given them as everlasting possession; and he has given them an inheritance in the lot of the holy ones. He unites their assembly to the sons of the heavens in order (to form) the council of the Community and a foundation of the building of holiness to be an everlasting plantation throughout all future ages. However, I belong to evil humankind, to the assembly of unfaithful flesh.

The evidence is not clear-cut: those who prefer some mirror reading and think the opponents are intent on joining the angels in worship will see angels here, while those who prefer to see the term in the context of the Jewish story, as I do, will lean toward this being a reference to the people of God. As if to strengthen the notion of holiness, fifth, Paul follows “saints” with “in the kingdom of light.” I take “in the light” to be a widespread moral category (and thus not traceable to any specific context, say, Qumran) that contrasts with darkness, and as such becomes an approximate synonym to “in the inheritance,” so that “in the light” also completes “qualified.” One could then diagram it as a twofold focus of the Father’s qualifying act:

  The Father qualified you
  To share in the inheritance
  To partake in the light.

Conversion for Gentiles was often described as moving from darkness to light, as it implied leaving the world of sin and ignorance and the flesh for a world of love, justice, and peace, but these virtues in the light are all reshaped by the pattern of the revelation of God’s truth in the cross and resurrection (1 Thess 5:5; 2 Cor 4:6; 6:14; 11:14; Rom 13:12; Eph 1:18; 3:9; 5:8, 13). Light, then, evokes both a moral contrast with darkness and an eschatological bringing forward of the kingdom that is to come.

2. Digression on the Messiah’s Work (1:13–23)

a. The Redemption of the Messiah (1:13–14)

Verse 13 expands the meaning of “qualified” in v. 12 as the Father’s redemptive work, while v. 14 expands “Son” of v. 13 as the one in whom that redemption occurs, these two expansions leading to a yet further expansion or digression in vv. 15–20, which will then lead to reflections on how that redemption impacted the Colossians in vv. 21–23. Once again a diagram looks like this:

  (9) We have not ceased praying and asking
  (9b) That you may be filled
  (10) That you may walk worthily
     That is,
     (10b) Bearing fruit and growing
     (11) Being empowered
     (12) (a) Giving thanks … to the one who (b) qualified you
       (13) Who “rescued us”
         (14) In whom
           (15) Who
              (21) Once you were

When does this redemptive work occur? In the immediate context one would have to say it occurs in the incarnational fullness of God in Christ (1:14, 16, 19; 2:9–12), through whom (1:20) God effects the reconciliation for all things. Redemption then occurs through an incarnation to the point of death-by-crucifixion and resurrection and exaltation (as in Phil 2:6–11). Some contend that, since our passage (1:12–14) and a similar passage (2:12–13) are connected by deep conversion themes, and inasmuch as the latter brings in baptism, the former passage implies baptism. This is a good possibility, though the linguistic evidence is not as strong as some have suggested: the former set of verses deals with God’s qualifying, inheritance, light, darkness, kingdom, Christ, and redemptive forgiveness, while the latter passages deals with burial, resurrection, and forgiveness. Substantively, we are looking at the same redemptive event (God in Christ); linguistically, we are approaching the event from different angles. What should not be neglected among the discussions of soteriology and Christology in these opening sections, including our two verses, is ecclesiology. If we back up, say, to v. 9 and run straight through to v. 13, we find a number of important ecclesiological themes: the church prays (1:9), the church is filled with knowledge of God and God’s will (1:9, 10), the church acquires wisdom through the Spirit (1:9), the church walks worthily of the Lord by being conformed to Christ (1:10), the church grows (1:10), the church is empowered to persevere (1:11), the church is made worthy by God to participate in the light (1:12), the church is rescued from darkness by Christ (1:13), the church participates in a present kingdom reality (1:13), the church is in Christ (1:13), and the church is redeemed and forgiven in Christ (1:14). The exodus and exilic themes that abound in these two verses are, after all, descriptive of what God did for God’s people, Israel, leading us to think that Paul’s adaptation of that language has a strong ecclesial orientation. The rest of Colossians confirms this ecclesial focus. A further observation: the christological focus of this passage, leading as it will into the height of early Christian Christology in 1:15–20, leads many to perceive in the opponents a diminishment of Christology. That is, their mystical experience and observance of Torah, all framed probably as a kind of wisdom, decenter Christ. Mirror reading is a game easy to play but fraught with circular reasoning. So, we contend only that if the opponents diminished Christ, then the Christology of 1:13–20 is designed to lead the Colossian Christians back to the source of wisdom and the agent of both creation and redemption.

13For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

13 As noted in our schematic in the note at verses 10–12 above, Paul keeps unpacking in a series of subordinating clauses their prayer, and in v. 13 he parallels the Father’s work of qualification (v. 12b) with the Father’s work of rescuing and relocating in the kingdom of the Son in a way that evokes the exodus. In fact, one might say the parallel is precisely that: an exodus typology parallels the previous qualifying work. That is, the Father qualifies by rescuing. YHWH is the Redeemer (Isa 63:16; cf. Rom 11:26) and rescues, delivers, or saves someone—in particular, Israel (cf. Exod 6:6; 14:30; Matt 6:13). It may well be that the idea of redemptive rescue itself derives from a standard Jewish petition, with the gravity of meaning always shifting to the peril from which someone is rescued. In Paul’s letters, one is rescued from God’s wrath, or the judgment of God against the wicked (1 Thess 1:10), from wicked and evil people (2 Thess 3:2), the deadly peril of persecution (2 Cor 1:10; 2 Tim 3:11; 4:17–18), unbelievers (Rom 15:31), and death (7:24). But Col 1:13 fashions the peril in cosmic terms—“from the dominion of darkness”—and this cosmic rescue work of God emphasizes what has already happened. When redemption comes up, so does atonement, and the theory of atonement at work in this clause emerges from an exodus-from-exile theology. The same verb (ruomai) is found in two classic exodus formulations as translated in the LXX:

Therefore, say to the Israelites: “I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem [lutroō] you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. (Exod 6:6)

That day the Lord saved Israel from the hands of the Egyptians, and Israel saw the Egyptians lying dead on the shore. (Exod 14:30)

Hence, the “theory” at work is the classic theory, namely, that God ransoms us by Christ’s entrance into enemy territory to recapture the captives and take them into freedom—transporting them from enemy territory back home. We will include a full discussion of the principalities and powers below at 2:15, so for now all that needs to be said is that the “dominion of darkness” is the deep, cosmic, demonic personal realities capturing structures and society and people in this world systemically to thwart the good plan of God. That plan is to rescue people from darkness in order to relocate the rescued into the realm of the kingdom of the Son. They have been rescued out of the “dominion of darkness.” The ancient world of both Greco-Roman and Jewish authors, including the New Testament, knows of a moral dualism depicted in terms of light and darkness (1 Thess 5:4; 1 Cor 4:5; 2 Cor 6:14; Rom 2:19; Wis 17:20; 18:4), but the imagery of light vs. darkness can come just as easily from apocalyptic thinking that divides the cosmos into those in the light over against those in the darkness. For instance, 1 Enoch 92:4–5: “The Righteous One … they [or he] shall walk in eternal light. Sin and darkness shall perish forever, and shall no more be seen from that day forevermore.” The imagery of light and darkness reflects boilerplate thinking, so it should not be pinned to any specific group in the first century. God’s rescue operation entails liberation for all believers from the “dominion of darkness,” the qualifying act of God that “transferred us” (CEB) or transported us into “the kingdom of the Son he loves.” What does Paul mean by “kingdom”? To begin an answer we ask, When is the kingdom? Paul’s usual emphasis is on the futurity of the kingdom, though at times the kingdom is present. In v. 13 “kingdom” is the inaugurated/realized reality of the eschatological plan of God, now at work in the world but that will be completed at the eschaton in the new heavens and the new earth. Some contend that the expression “kingdom of the Son he loves” expresses a basic tension between the now and the not yet of the New Testament, where it will be the fuller kingdom of God. This discussion about the now vs. the future does not go far enough in asking the even more important question. We come to another question, How is the kingdom present? This question is answered by nearly all with certitude: the kingdom becomes present in God’s redemptive act in Christ. Hence, “kingdom” is all but synonymous with “salvation.” But this conclusion leads to a further question: Where is the kingdom today? It is my contention, about to be defended, that the presentness of the kingdom, or the inaugurated reality of the kingdom, must be located in the church. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries the Where question has sometimes been answered with “wherever good deeds are done.” Hence, kingdom becomes all but synonymous with ethics and social justice. But the word “kingdom” in the Hebrew Old Testament through the Septuagint and into Josephus entailed more than the rescuing or redeeming act of God (salvation) and more than the justice of the kingdom (ethics). One can easily argue that the term never directly means either salvation or justice, though both are implicated in what kingdom means in the Jewish world. This term “kingdom” entailed five elements, without which we lose contact with what kingdom meant for Israel, for Jesus, and for the apostles:

1.      a king (here the “Son”),
2.      a rule (which includes governing, saving, rescuing, guiding, and protecting),
3.      a people (hence the term is often synonymous with “nation” and “Israel” or “Judah”),
4.      a land or place, and
5.      a law.

All five elements are present when Paul says they have been rescued from darkness and transferred into the kingdom of the Son. Robin M. Wilson says much the same in the following words: “It has been argued that the primary significance is that of sovereignty, the rule of God in the hearts and lives of men and women, rather than that of a realm or kingdom. This, however, may be to introduce a false contrast: sovereignty implies a territory within which that sovereignty is exercised, a community over which the sovereign rules, people who accept that rule.” And Dale Allison has recently observed that “in both this age and the age to come, God’s kingship cannot be separated from the people of Israel, who in turn are inextricably bound up with the fate of their land and its capital, Jerusalem.” That is, this kingdom is more than a saving dynamic or the saving rule of God unleashed in the here and now in pursuits of justice, but the concrete reality of the redeemed people in fellowship under the King’s benevolent and protective rule. Witherington asks where Christ has “overruled” and poses two answers: through his death he now rules over the principalities and powers, and in the lives of believers he rules morally. I add a third: in the body of Christ, the church both universal and local. We speak here yet again however only of the inauguration of that rule, not the full realization of it. The kingdom of the Son is the Son God “loves.” Undoubtedly we have echoes here of Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1, both brought into view christologically in the baptism of Jesus (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17). Son refers to Jesus as King. 14 Yet one more subordinating topic is now raised, which is of importance to all Christians (“in whom we [all] have …”). One could quite easily see this verse as the first verse of a christological aside (vv. 14–20), but one can also (preferably) see it as a deepening reflection on the Son’s role in the rescuing of the people from darkness. Regardless of where one locates Col 1:14 in one’s structural analysis of the passage, the prayer itself dissipates, the way our own prayers sometimes slide into theological reflection and contemplation. In the realm of this beloved Son “we have redemption,” which is defined here as “the forgiveness of sins.” This word “redemption” (apolytrōsis) tells a story as a social-commercial term that involved redeeming, or purchasing back, by payment. That story, transferred into soteriology but also transformed by the elements of that soteriology, entails a situation of humans—in particular Israel—in captivity and slavery (Exod 12; Isa 43:3–4; 44:24; 52–53; Col 1:13a). The text cited above from Exodus 6:6 uses both “rescue” and “redemption” (cognate to the word used here). The story emerges from the condition of slavery: for redemption to occur, a price is paid. In the exodus story it was the Passover lamb, and in the New Testament reconfiguration it is the death of the Son (Col 1:20; Rom 3:24–25). The result of that payment is release-unto-liberation, and paradoxically, the newly liberated become slaves to Christ (Col 1:13b). Much theological speculation and debate surrounds the mechanics of this redemption—is it substitutionary, penal subsitutionary, simply representative, or inclusive representation? The mechanics issue can be overwrought in a text like ours, where mechanics are not on the surface, but it cannot be denied that Jesus endured what was due us (see 2 Cor 5:21) and that his death was in this sense substitutionary and the endurance of our punishment (sin, death). What is often neglected in such debates is that the entire story at work in this image of redemption is not so much how it happened but that it happened and where it happened, namely, in Christ’s death and resurrection. Furthermore, another element sometimes ignored is the theme of the Passover lamb and YHWH’s deliverance. The effect of this death is liberation unto covenant relation and obligation under God. Accordingly, something on the order of the Christus victor theory of atonement undergirds the expressions in v. 14. We see, then, a construct of theology that depicts “victory” over demonic powers by way of crucifixion and resurrection. Hence, Paul draws out the second expression, “forgiveness of sins.” The captivity theme at work in his text is sin, and so the liberation is from the peril of sin. I am persuaded that (we who are) evangelicals are designed to see in “forgiveness of sins” our own experience of personal redemption and release from our guilt and burden, which is part of the package in this expression, but only part. Once again the Bible’s story has a way of speaking of the forgiveness of sins in a much more corporate and salvation-historical manner. Perhaps the best way to make this theme clear is to cite Jer 33:4–11 in its entirety: I have italicized here the expressions that tie forgiveness to return from exile as national redemption:

For this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says about the houses in this city and the royal palaces of Judah that have been torn down to be used against the siege ramps and the sword in the fight with the Babylonians: “They will be filled with the dead bodies of the people I will slay in my anger and wrath. I will hide my face from this city because of all its wickedness. “Nevertheless, I will bring health and healing to it; I will heal my people and will let them enjoy abundant peace and security. I will bring Judah and Israel back from captivity and will rebuild them as they were before. I will cleanse them from all the sin they have committed against me and will forgive all their sins of rebellion against me. Then this city will bring me renown, joy, praise and honor before all nations on earth that hear of all the good things I do for it; and they will be in awe and will tremble at the abundant prosperity and peace I provide for it.” This is what the LORD says: “You say about this place, ‘It is a desolate waste, without people or animals.’ Yet in the towns of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem that are deserted, inhabited by neither people nor animals, there will be heard once more the sounds of joy and gladness, the voices of bride and bridegroom, and the voices of those who bring thank offerings to the house of the LORD, saying,

  ‘Give thanks to the LORD Almighty,
  for the LORD is good;
  his love endures forever.’

For I will restore the fortunes of the land as they were before,” says the LORD.

And Ezekiel, too, connects forgiveness, end of exile, and the redemption of Israel: “This is what the Sovereign LORD says: On the day I cleanse you from all your sins, I will resettle your towns, and ruins will be rebuilt” (Ezek 36:33). It must also be noted that the Old Testament and later Judaism know forgiveness of sins, so that what is taught here by Paul is not something new; instead, what is new is that forgiveness is not achieved through the temple or on Yom Kippur but at the death of Jesus and through the Eucharist. And what is also new is the much grander inclusion of Gentiles. Once we are prepared to hear this theme of forgiveness as Paul himself would have intended it because of his saturation in Israel’s Scriptures, we will be drawn back yet again to a more robust sense of forgiveness and a more ecclesial image: Paul is saying here that the Gentile believers too are drawn into the Israel of God by virtue of the redemptive work of its Messiah, and the blessings of redemption and liberation are being extended to those who formerly were excluded. The transfer work of the Father through the Son is a synonym for the grafting of the branch into the tree trunk of Israel (Rom 11:11–24), and this transfer will be expounded yet further in the rest of chapter 1 and some of chapter 2.

b. The Preeminence of the Messiah (1:15–20)

This so-called introduction to Colossians from 1:1 to 2:5 moves onward, even if its movement is sometimes backward and other times sideways. After the salutation of 1:1–2, Paul and Timothy express their thanks to God for the gift of the Colossians’ faith and love (1:3–8), and they declare their commitment to pray for them (1:9–12), which is followed up with two subtle sideways glances at the God of redemption and the source (Christ) of that redemption (1:13–14), which gives Paul and Timothy the opportunity to explore Christology in what we will call a hymn (1:15–20). At the heart of this Christology is God’s work of reconciliation, a theme that permits them then to look more directly at the church of Colossae to describe their participation in God’s reconciling work (1:21–23). Paul follows up this digression with some disclosures of his own biography (1:24–2:5). The rhetorical strategy of this hymn is to show that the audience and author are allied in a common Christocentric faith, or perhaps more refined, into a christological monotheism. In fact, it is in Christ—the one who lived, who was crucified, who was raised, and who rules, the same one who created and is the goal of creation—that true wisdom is to be found. Morna Hooker’s observation sets the stage for all that is to follow: “Col. 1:15–20 is not simply an example of exegesis; rather it points us to what its author regards as the fundamental principle of exegesis.” That is to say, “The word spoken by God at creation and revealed on Sinai was not, after all, encapsulated in the written Torah, but dwells in Christ.” That is, the whole Bible points us to Christ, empowering us to read it with a hermeneutic of trust and love.

15The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Excursus: A Wisdom Hymn (1:15–20)

Many scholars think Col 1:15–20 reflects or is an early Christian hymn (or confession), including Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke: “It celebrates in song the Jewish Messiah as creator and reconciler of the universe, who has now acceded to his reign not only over Israel, but over all creation.” In using the terms “hymn” or “song” for this passage, it does not mean that we must discover its strict poetical meter. In fact, at this time Greeks, Romans, and Jews composed metrical poetry, and this set of lines in Colossians is not as metrical or poetic as conscious poetry of the day—even if it has poetic flourishes (like the writing of Eugene Peterson). Nor are attempts—and there have been more than plenty such attempts—to prove two stanzas of equal length convincing. Yet, hymns were an element of early Christian worship, as evidenced by Pliny, in Epistles 10.96–97, where he describes an early Christian gathering: “They [the Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ as to a god.” We do not know whether he refers to Col 1:15–20, but the lines in our passage fit the substance of the hymns about which he had heard. Other so-called hymns would include Phil 2:6–11; Heb 1:3, and 1 Tim 3:16, to mention but three, but as Moule once observed with more than a raised eyebrow, “But who is to prove that they were hymns? Prose and poetry, adoration and statement, quotation from recognized liturgical forms and free, original composition, mingle and follow one another so easily in the mind of a Christian thinker that, without some external criterion, one can never be certain how much or how little of ‘common prayer’ one is overhearing.” Scholars have heard Moule’s observations, including his student Dunn (who said that Paul perhaps “simply struck a purple passage”), but the facts remain that this set of lines in Colossians remains for many an example of an early Christian hymn or fragments from such a hymn, or at least poetic lines. After extensive study of ancient hymns and still committed to seeing Col 1:15–20 as a hymn, Gordley found four clear divergences of these lines from ancient hymnody: lack of consistent meter, a lack of invocation, a lack of a request or petition, and current location in the letter. So, to probe Moule’s stricture, how can we know whether our passage is a hymn? We begin with the indisputable reality of singing and hymns in the Jewish and Christian traditions: (1) The Old Testament reveals plenty of singing (Exod 15:21; Ps 134; Ezra 3:11), the Psalter is the deposit of prayers and songs of the Israelites, and singing was passed on to the apostles of Jesus; (2) contemporaries to the earliest Christians sang in their daily prayers (Rule of the Community [1QS] X, 9); (3) Jesus sang (Matt 26:30); (4) most think the canticles of Luke 1–2 are early Christian hymns; and (5) the earliest Christians sang with one another (1 Cor 14:26; Col 3:16; Eph 5:19–20; Rev 4:11; 5:9–10; 15:3–4; 19). Notably, singing occurred among the Colossians (3:16). We can infer that the Psalter, not least those psalms that were understood to refer to King Jesus (e.g., Ps 110), were used in creative ways for Christians to express themselves in song. It is also more than likely at least some of this singing emerged in connection with the Eucharist celebrations. After years of research on hymns among the earliest Christians, Ralph Martin laid out four distinctive Christian forms of hymns:

1.      sacramental (Eph 5:14; Titus 3:4–7; cf. Rom 6:1–11; Eph 2:19–22)
2.      meditative (Eph 1:3–14; Rom 8:31–39; 1 Cor 13)
3.      confessional (1 Tim 6:11–16; 2 Tim 2:11–13)
4.      christological (Heb 1:3; Col 1:15–20; 1 Tim 3:16; John 1:1–14; 1 Pet 1:18–21; 2:21–25; 3:18–21; Phil 2:6–11).

The observations and conclusions from material like this become dialectical, but the following elements indicating the presence of a hymn or liturgical material are now fairly routine: introductory formulas (like hos, “who,” in Col 1:15), the presence of participles over finite verbs, or more important, unusual themes or even narrative tension with what precedes or follows, a rhythmic or poetical style, unusual (for that author) vocabulary, dense theological formulations, and a sense of ardor and enthusiasm. Following the directions of this scholarship, we will consider Col 1:15–20 as an early Christian hymn without assuming that it existed prior to Paul, without speculating on what Paul added to the so-called pre-Pauline hymn, and recognizing the full possibility that Paul composed the entire hymn himself or that he was its genius, perhaps on the basis of preexisting confessional lines that he perhaps also had a hand in himself. Indeed, the term “hymn” is no more preferable than the term “poetic” to describe 1:15–20. So, call it hymn or poetry. As a kind of middle way, Matthew E. Gordley’s extensive research on ancient hymns and their place in reading texts like Col 1:15–20 calls this set of lines a “prose-hymn” that praises Christ as an exalted figure. A noticeable theme of the hymn is the word “all” (1:15, 16 [bis], 17 [bis], 18, 19, 20), a term that captures not only the cosmic and universal scope of the embodied Son’s lordship and redemption, what Nijay Gupta calls Paul’s “all-ness” and “ensomatic” Christology, but also the substantial concern the apostle has in his mission with reconciling Jews and Gentiles, slaves and freed, males and females, and all ethnic and linguistic tribes in the world. One can anchor the Pauline mystery of expanding Israel to include the Gentiles (and all others) in the cosmic, universal lordship and redemption of Christ—which are the keynotes of this hymn of praise. There is little need to speculate on the Sitz im Leben of the preexisting hymn, though I do lean in the direction that the terms employed are from Jewish traditions, as opposed to gnostic or protognostic traditions or Nag Hammadi documents, while there is good evidence that our passage also reflects the Jewish and somewhat Hellenistic wisdom traditions, with themes as well from Middle Platonism that derive from Gen 1 and Prov 8 (and their various developments in noncanonical texts), especially as refracted in Philo. Wherever the material has its origins and in whatever setting it found life (surely worship and devotion, not least Prov 8 and the Psalms), Paul has given it his own distinctive christological revisions while using traditional and culturally connected language. Put differently, this hymn may have origins in the Old Testament, in the Jewish wisdom tradition, as well as in Greco-Roman vocabulary, but Paul—because of Jesus, because of his incarnation and crucifixion and resurrection and exaltation—has swallowed it all up into new expression by means of his own exegesis. It is, then, as much Paul’s as anyone else’s, and probably (so I think) more. Pierre Benoit once observed that far too often Paul’s words and phrases are treated, in photographic terms, as the “negative” over against which one is to find the “positive” in the historical, social, or religious context. Benoit rightly observes that this approach entails deleting the “creative genius of Paul.” This judgment applies perhaps most especially to an entire passage like our so-called hymn. Because the Jewish wisdom context is both so widely discussed (and embraced, if also disputed by some) today and because the texts are often not known, many of them appearing in noncanonical texts, I will now record some of the core texts including that very suggestive link between our hymn in Colossians and Gen 1:1 and Prov 8:22, highlighting terms of significance and focusing finally on some suggestive texts from Philo:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen 1:1)

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created mankind in his own image,

  in the image of God he created them;
  male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” (Gen 1:26–28)

  By wisdom the LORD laid the earth’s foundations,
  by understanding he set the heavens in place. (Prov 3:19)

  The LORD brought me [Wisdom] forth as the first of his works,
  before his deeds of old.
  I was formed long ages ago,
  at the very beginning, when the world came to be.
  When there were no watery depths, I was given birth,
  when there were no springs overflowing with water;
  before the mountains were settled in place,
  before the hills, I was given birth,
  before he made the world or its fields
  or any of the dust of the earth.
  I was there when he set the heavens in place,
  when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
  when he established the clouds above
  and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
  when he gave the sea its boundary
  so the waters would not overstep his command,
  and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
  Then I was constantly at his side.
  I was filled with delight day after day,
  rejoicing always in his presence,
  rejoicing in his whole world
  and delighting in mankind. (Prov 8:22–31; see also Job 28)

  How many are your works, LORD!
  In wisdom you made them all;
  the earth is full of your creatures. (Ps 104:24)

  Wisdom was created before all other things,
  and prudent understanding from eternity. (Sir 1:4)

  Because of him each of his messengers succeeds,
  and by his word all things hold together. (Sir 43:26)

  For it is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists,
  to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements;
  the beginning and end and middle of times,
  the alternations of the solstices and the changes of the seasons,
  the cycles of the year and the constellations of the stars,
  the natures of animals and the tempers of wild animals,
  the powers of spirits and the thoughts of human beings,
  the varieties of plants and the virtues of roots;
  I learned both what is secret and what is manifest,
  for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me. (Wis 7:17–22a)

  There is in her a spirit that is intelligent, holy,
  unique, manifold, subtle,
  mobile, clear, unpolluted,
  distinct, invulnerable, loving the good, keen,
  irresistible, beneficent, humane,
  steadfast, sure, free from anxiety,
  all-powerful, overseeing all,
  and penetrating through all spirits
  that are intelligent, pure, and altogether subtle.
  For wisdom is more mobile than any motion;
  because of her pureness she pervades and penetrates all things.
  For she is a breath of the power of God,
  and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty;
  therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her. (Wis 7:22b–25)

  If riches are a desirable possession in life,
  what is richer than wisdom, the active cause of all things? (Wis 8:5)

  O God of my ancestors and Lord of mercy,
  who have made all things by your word,
  and by your wisdom have formed humankind
  to have dominion over the creatures you have made [cf. image of God in Gen. 1:26–28].…
  With you is wisdom, she who knows your works
  and was present when you made the world;
  she understands what is pleasing in your sight
  and what is right according to your commandments. (Wis 9:1–2, 9)

“And God planted a pleasaunce in Eden toward the sun-rising, and placed there the man whom he had formed” (Gen. 2:8). By using many words for it Moses has already made it manifest that the sublime and heavenly wisdom is of many names; for he calls it “beginning” and “image” and “vision of God”; and now by the planting of the pleasaunce he brings out the fact that earthly wisdom is a copy of this as of an archetype. Far be it from man’s reasoning to be the victim of so great impiety as to suppose that God tills the soil and plants pleasaunces. We should at once be at a loss to tell from what motive He could do so. Not to provide Himself with pleasant refreshment and comfort. (Philo, Alleg. Interp. 1.43)

What, then, the image impressed on it is we shall know if we first ascertain accurately the meaning of the name. Bezalel means, then, “in the shadow of God”; but God’s shadow is His Word, which he made use of like an instrument, and so made the world. But this shadow, and what we may describe as the representation, is the archetype for further creations. For just as God is the Pattern of the Image, to which the title of Shadow has just been given, even so the Image becomes the pattern of other beings, as the prophet made clear at the very outset of the Law-giving by saying, “And God made the man after the Image of God, but that the man was made after the Image when it had acquired the force of a pattern.” (Philo, Alleg. Interp. 3.96)

The Divine Word, Who is high above all these, has not been visibly portrayed, being like to no one of the objects of sense. Nay, He is Himself the Image of God, chiefest of all Beings intellectually perceived, placed nearest, with no intervening distance, to the Alone truly existent One. For we read: “I will talk with thee from above the Mercy-seat, between the two Cherubim” (Ex. 25:21), words which shew that while the Word is the charioteer of the Powers, He Who talks is seated in the chariot, giving directions to the charioteer for the right wielding of the reins of the Universe. (Philo, Flight 101)

In other ways also it is easy to discern this by a process of reasoning. In the first place: God is light, for there is a verse in one of the psalms, “the Lord is my illumination and my Savior” (Ps. 27 [26]:1). And He is not only light, but the archetype of every other light, nay, nor prior to and high above every archetype, holding the position of the model of a model. For the model or pattern was the Word which contained all His fullness—light, in fact; for as the lawgiver tells us, “God said, ‘let light come into being’ ” (Gen. 1:3), whereas He Himself resembles none of the things which have come into being. (Philo, Dreams 1.75)

For just as those who are unable to see the sun itself see the gleam of the parhelion and take it for the sun, and take the halo round the moon for that luminary itself, so some regard the image of God, His angel the Word, as His very self. (Philo, Dreams 1.239)

For this king vies the soul a seal (Gen. 38:18), a gift all-beauteous, by which he teaches it that when the substance of the universe was without shape and figure God gave it these; when it had no definite character God moulded it into definiteness, and, when He had perfected it, stamped the entire universe with His image and an ideal form, even His own Word. (Philo, Dreams 2.45)

The term murder or manslaughter … seeing that of all the treasures which the universe has in its store there is none more sacred and godlike than man, the glorious case of a glorious image, shaped according to the pattern of the archetypal form of the Word. (Philo, Spec. Laws 3.83)

But wisdom is not only, after the manner of light, an instrument of sight, but is able to see its own self besides. Wisdom is God’s archetypal luminary and the sun is a copy and image of it. But he that shews each several object is God, who alone is possessed of perfect knowledge. For men are only said to have knowledge because they seem to know; whereas God is so called because He is the possessor of knowledge though the phrase does not adequately express this nature; for all things whatever that can be said regarding Him fall far short of the reality of His powers. (Philo, Migration 40)

This is what I hold the words “take for me” to suggest. Here is another illustration. When God willed to send down the image of divine excellence from heaven to earth in pity for our race, that it should not lose its share in the better lot, he constructs as a symbol of the truth the holy tabernacle and its contents to be a representation and copy of wisdom. (Philo, Heir 112)

For it well befits those who have entered into comradeship with knowledge to desire to see the Existent if they may, but, if they cannot, to see at any rate his image, the most holy Word, and after the Word its most perfect work of all that our senses know, even this world. For by philosophy nothing else has ever been meant, than the earnest desire to see these things exactly as they are. (Philo, Confusion 97)

And therefore I was moved a few pages above to praise the virtues of those who say that “We are all sons of one man” (Gen. 42:11). For if we have not yet become fit to be thought sons of God yet we may be sons of His invisible image, the most holy Word. For the Word is the eldest-born image of God. (Philo, Confusion 147)

While one might be chary of someone exaggerating the wisdom tradition to see it behind every term in the hymn, one should exercise the same concern over those who deny the tradition’s value for explaining the background to the hymn. John Balchin’s summary of wisdom in the Jewish tradition can set the context for us:

Wisdom originates with God, shares his throne, and was with him from the beginning. Wisdom is the agent of creation, and providence, as well as revelation. Wisdom both comes and is sent into the world, and even returns to heaven again. Wisdom has a soteriological function in the world. Wisdom seeks out men and women and makes personal claims and promises. Wisdom is associated with the Spirit. Wisdom is even the agent of judgment. All this would fuse together in a new pattern when a real person eventually did emerge whose status and origin could only be described in terms like these, and who may even have laid claim to them himself.

The Jewish wisdom tradition does not explain all of the Christology in this hymn, but it sets up a context for us to ponder the magnitude of apostolic hermeneutics that seek to comprehend the meaning of Jesus in God’s plan for history. For the structure of the hymn, which also entangles us in many debates, I propose the following for ease in reading the commentary:

1.0. Supreme in Creation (1:15–17) 1.1 The Image and Firstborn (1:15) 1.2 The Reason: Creator (1:16) 1.3 Recapitulation (1:17) 2.0. Supreme in Redemption (1:18–20) 2.1. Anticipation (1:18a) 2.2. The Beginning and Firstborn (1:18b) 2.3. The Reason: Redeemer (1:19–20)

The text according to this structure looks like this, with v. 17 recapitulating vv. 15–16 and v. 18a anticipating what is to come in vv. 18b–20.

15The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For [hoti] in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18aAnd he is the head of the body, the church. 18bHe is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For [hoti] God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

What is notable here is the repetition of “firstborn” (prōtotokos) in each “stanza” (1:15, 18b), the repetition of the reason (hoti) in each stanza (1:16, 19), the repetition of “all things” in each stanza (1:16, 20), and the “refrains” of vv. 17 and 18a. The emphasis of the first stanza is Christ as the agent of creation (as the firstborn image of God), and the second is Christ as the agent of redemption (as the firstborn and “beginning” [archē]). There is, then, a double opening claim in each stanza, followed by a causal description that cascades into more information, and in the middle are two simple lines, one looking back and the other looking forward and hence forming the pivot. But these two stanzas are not constructed symmetrically. Thus:

Claims: Image, firstborn over creation (15) Causal clause (16) Refrain (17) Refrain (18a) Claims: Beginning, firstborn from the dead (18b) Causal clause (19–20)

In a text like this, later Nicene Christians found a robust Christology of consubstantiality and the Reformation discovered confirmation for its emphasis on “Christ alone.” Others have found here the foundations for a Christian ecology and theology of nature, not with a Stoic worldview of nature but with a radical monotheism, as well as a Christocentricity in Christoformity: God creates and sustains creation in Christ and unto Christ. Colin Gunton frames creation theology as a project (rather than an already perfected state now seeking restitution or restoration): “God created the world so that the created order should be offered back to its creator, perfected, and perfected as the result of the true dominion exercised by God’s vice-regent, the human creature. Corresponding to the creator’s gift of the creation is the creature’s glad and willing praise of the creator’s goodness in a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.” All this and even more have been drawn out of this set of lines in Col 1:15–20, and we will touch on some of these in the commentary below.

1.0. Supreme in Creation (1:15–17)

1.1. The Image and Firstborn (1:15)

15 This christological reflection begins by declaring two titles for Jesus: he is “image of the invisible God,” and he is “firstborn over all creation.” Here Christ’s specific relations to the Father (eikōn) and creation (prōtotokos) are spelled out in terms of his lordship. One cannot in a postmodern world—where the significance (as special creation) of humanity is ironically deconstructed—emphasize enough that humans are God’s eikōns. In the history of discussing the meaning of eikōn, the focus has shifted from the rational to the self-consciousness, to the relational, and now most accurately to the governing evocation of the term. That kind of historical, contextual, and theological work must be accomplished without ignoring the sometimes jarring reality that, for the apostle Paul, Jesus was himself the one and only true eikōn in bodily form, leading to the implication that we can understand Adam only through Jesus, and not Jesus simply as the second instance of the original Adam. This, then, is not so much Adamic Christology, as if Jesus is merely Adam Version 2.0, but instead a christological anthropology, or a christologically reframed Adam, an anthropology both embodied and “storied” in Israel. Our verse makes this explicit: “the Son is the image.” To be sure, in Paul humans—all humans—are made in God’s eikōn (1 Cor 11:7; 15:49; Rom 1:23), but it is particularly King Jesus as Israel and Israel’s Messiah who is the true eikōn (1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18; 4:4; Rom 8:29; Col 1:15; 3:10). Inasmuch as the eikōn of Gen 1:26–27 was created to subrule on behalf of God (cf. Isa 43:7), and inasmuch as Adam and Eve forfeited that task (Gen 3), and inasmuch as God wanted to rule Israel but Israel wanted a human king (1 Sam 8), God did send his Son as the true eikōn to rule over all creation. To call Jesus the eikōn of the invisible God is to say that Jesus is the one who rules over all as the Davidic king (Ps 89:27). Furthermore, eikōn connotes revelation as the physical presence, or the “exact representation” (Heb 1:3), in concrete, embodied reality of the “invisible” God. Such a description of God is found elsewhere in the New Testament (Rom 1:20; Col 1:15, 16; 1 Tim 1:17; Heb 11:27) and ties into the famous line of John’s Jesus where he says God is “spirit” (John 4:24). The New Testament, however, does not take the line of dualism found in Plato or Philo, but instead that of a revelatory realism made manifest in incarnation. Eikōn, then, establishes not only a christological anthropology but also a christological theology or christological monotheism; that is, both God and the human are known most definitively in this single God-man, Jesus (see John 1:18; 2 Cor 4:4). This God-man King or Lord rules and reveals God. That is, in Jesus—the Cruciform One—we see “no error, no failure,” when it comes to an “exactly similar” revelation of who God is. It is right, then, to see in eikōn the “essence” of God now manifest. Discussion of the background to eikōn shapes how one reads the hymn and how one must at least consider Prov 8:22 through the lens of Gen 1:1, but this older observation has recently been expanded: a particularly compelling theory is that eikōn evokes a wisdom tradition deriving from Hellenistic Judaism. Wisdom, it was believed, bridged the invisible God and visible creation, beginning at Prov 8:22:

  The LORD brought me [Wisdom] forth as the first of his works,
  before his deeds of old.

This leads to Wis 7:26, a text with very clear connections to Col 1:15:

  For she [wisdom] is a reflection of eternal light,
  a spotless mirror of the working of God,
  and an image of his goodness.

Or from Philo, Allegorical Interpretation 1.43:

“And God planted a pleasaunce [paradise] in Eden toward the sun-rising, and placed there the man whom He had formed.” By using many words for it Moses has already made it manifest that the sublime and heavenly wisdom is of many names; for he calls it [wisdom] “beginning” and “image” and “vision of God”; and now by the planting of the pleasaunce he brings out the fact that earthly wisdom is a copy of this as of an archetype.

As observed, then, Wisdom and Logos are often indistinguishable as forms by which God reveals. The eikōn who rules reveals the Wisdom of God. As Dunn puts it, “These terms have to be understood as ways of speaking of God’s own outreach to and interaction with his world and his people, ways, in other words, of speaking of God’s immanence while safeguarding his transcendence—in a word, ‘personifications’ of God’s wisdom rather than ‘intermediaries’ or ‘hypostases.’ ” For some Jews, then, the primary form of Wisdom revelation is Torah, while for the Christians it is Jesus and the Spirit. That is to say, this hymn is adopting and adapting the Jewish wisdom tradition, as understood in part in the Torah-revelation tradition, to God’s manifestation in Christ. These terms then come to fulfillment in Christ: rule, revelation, Wisdom, and Torah. The Son is the image of the “invisible God,” a claim that transcends Old Testament categories where God is visible, but humans are incapable of survival if God is seen. In spite of the denial of the human gaze upon God in John 1:18, some texts imply having seen God (Gen 16:13; 32:30). Perhaps, then, God is not so much invisible as not completely revealed or “unseen.” This understanding makes the manifestation of God in Christ, the incarnation itself, a singular advance in revelation history, for now God has been fully manifested in embodied form. In addition, we have the makings of a christological anthropology for, if the Son/Christ is the eikōn, humans are made “according to” or “in” that eikōn. This God-man becomes human, our hymn continues, as the “firstborn over all creation.” Before we examine the sense of “over,” which in flatter translation is no more than “of,” we need to look at the meaning of “firstborn” (prōtotokos). The term is used throughout the Septuagint for the temporally firstborn child from a mother, and the same sense is found in the New Testament (Luke 2:7; Heb 11:28). But the term also indicates the figurative status of preeminence when speaking of Israel as firstborn (e.g., Exod 4:22), the future Davidic king (Ps 89:27), or Wisdom herself (Prov 8:22). In the New Testament, Jesus is the prōtotokos in that he is the one into whom all are conformed (Rom 8:29) and the one to be worshiped (Heb 1:6); the whole church absorbs his identity as the firstborn (12:23), and he is the first one to be resurrected (Rev 1:5). In these references his status, not his birth order, is in view, his superiority more than his temporality. His status is superior because temporally he is before all things, hierarchically he is above all things, and ontologically he sustains all things. This matters for anthropology: if Christ is the Prōtotokos, Adam is not simply the prototype for the Second Adam, but Christ is the prior Eikōn-template used to create Adam and Eve. Christ may be the Second Adam, but Adam, then, is the Second Prōtotokos-Eikōn. One might then say that, in contemplating creation—since all creation is in, through, and unto Christ—we are to encounter a manifestation of nothing less than the Son. The issue in the history of the church has been the specific kind of genitive at work in “firstborn of all creation.” The Greek has no preposition or word stating the kind of relationship between “firstborn” and “all creation.” One must discern the genitive, or more accurately, discern the relationship of the two terms. Is the Son a created being (partitive genitive) or superior to (objective genitive) the created beings of this world? In that the term prōtotokos evokes ontological superiority and that vv. 16–17 explicitly make the Son the creator of all matter, one must conclude that the genitive is objective or comparative: that is, he is the firstborn in comparison to or (even better) the firstborn over all creation. We turn now to the second verse (v. 16) of the hymn, in which the first strophe (vv. 15–17) focuses on Christ as supreme in creation, and our second verse here focuses on the reason why Christ is supreme: Christ is the Creator.

1.2. The Reason: Creator (1:16)

16 The Son is eikōn and prōtotokos, so Paul tells us, because “in him all things were created.” The NIV has only “for” while the CEB, bringing out the causal sense more accurately, has “because.” The incarnation and this comprehensive superiority are grounded in the Son’s life-giving capacity to create “all things.” Everything that is not the Creator is created, and the Son rules the entire created world as its Creator. The theology at work here ought to astound us. Paul says “in him,” that is in Christ, “all things were created.” Did Christ create (“by him,” with “him” as Christ), or did the Father create “in Christ”? And one might ask, what might it mean for the Father to create in Christ? Paul’s well-known instinct to ground the fundamentals of reality in Christ (see above at 1:2) expands here well beyond the redemptive to the entire created order. One might resolve this question by making “in” an instrument or a means, but the more likely reading—consistent with Colossians itself (1:2, 14, 17, 19, 28, etc.)—is that “in” is the sphere in which the creation occurred. Acknowledging that interpretation, however, is not the end of the matter. The decision about the meaning of “in him” is complicated by the verb, which is passive (“was created”) instead of active (“Christ created” or “God/Father created”). Did the Father create in Christ, or is the passive more general and therefore an allusive reference to Christ himself as Creator? Inasmuch as the text itself focuses on Christ in his creative and sustaining work, the second option is preferred. It is not so much that the Father created in the sphere of Christ but that Christ created within the domain of his own powers. One might back off this claim somewhat by saying the text is not concerned with who created as much as where creation occurred: in Christ. The last line of Col 1:16 has “through,” speaking of instrumentality and thus suggesting that God created by/through Christ, which could be confirmed by 1 Cor 8:6 and John 1:3. But I would argue that the “in Christ” here evokes more than instrumentality. Perhaps the boldest statement is that Christ is the creator of “all things,” which is spelled out in location (“things in heaven and on earth”) and essence (“visible and invisible”), and then the essences are given concrete terms: “whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities.” All this, then, is recapitulated in v. 17 in order to make abundantly clear that the Son who redeems is the Creator Son, and therefore there are in the world absolutely no threats to his sovereignty or redemption. A few comments now in the order of the words in v. 16. The “all” is a collective all, and even more generic: he created “the all.” This “all” is broken into two locations, the heavenly and the earthly as constituting the whole universe, and then broken into two essences, the visible and the invisible. And the invisible-visible essences are given specific earthly manifestations in the descending hierarchy of thrones, powers, rulers, and authorities. Are these “supernatural powers or spiritual beings,” or are these more systemic, earthly powers, what Paul will call in 2:8, 20 the stoicheia (“elemental spiritual forces”)? Most New Testament scholars, in clear difference with later theologians (from Pseudo-Dionysius to Aquinas), do not see here an explicit ordering of the hierarchies of heaven, but a more generalized listing of potentates. To anticipate a later discussion from the Excursus on the Powers at 2:15, I read them as earthly, systemic manifestations of (perhaps fallen) angelic powers—hence, the systemic worldly, sociopolitical manifestations of cosmic/angelic rebellion against God. It seems “thrones” (Dan 7:9) and “powers” (Eph 1:20–21) are heavenly, invisible potentates, while “rulers” and “authorities” are more likely their earthly, visible servants (cf. 1 Cor 15:24; Eph 1:21). One, however, cannot be too certain about the location to which these terms refer, nor should preoccupation with such questions cause us to lose touch with the comprehensive, cosmic scope of the Son’s role in creation. The claims for the Eikōn-Prōtotokos Son as Creator are reframed: “all things have been created through him and for him.” This now means that Paul sees Christ at work in creation by means of three prepositions: in, through, and for (unto). He is the essential source of life in creation, he is the agent of creation, and he is the telos of creation. In the last clause of 1:16, Christ is the agent—“through” in the sense of cause and means—and the teleological aim toward which all of creation is heading, namely, to honor Christ as King and Lord (Phil 2:9–11). This kind of thinking clearly derives from Jewish wisdom, pointing us to Prov 8:22–31, as well as to Ps 104:24; Prov 3:19; Wis 8:5; 9:1, and Philo. More to the point, Dunn contends that this verse does not mean what the literal reader might think—namely, that the Jesus of history, the Incarnate One, was the Creator. Rather, as he puts it, we are to move back a further stage to the following: “The powerful action of God, expressed by the metaphor of the female Wisdom, in and through whom the universe came into being, is now to be seen as embodied in Christ, its character now made clear by the light of his cross and resurrection (1:18, 20).” Dunn readily admits that Paul goes well beyond Jewish wisdom in this hymn when Paul sees all of creation heading toward Christ.

1.3. Recapitulation (1:17)

17 With the glories of the Son as Creator—eikōn and prōtotokos—now spelled out in vv. 15–16, the hymn’s author recapitulates the whole in one simple sentence: “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (1:17). Two claims are made, involving the Son’s temporal, hierarchical superiority and his life-enabling sustenance of “all things.” This verse emphasizes what has been said by repetition of vv. 15–16. There are but two concerns for the exegete: the meaning of “before” and the nuances of “hold together.” Some scholars see here a focus on temporal priority: “he was before all in time.” But in light of what has been said in vv. 15–16, the superiority of the Son is complex: temporal, hierarchical, and ontological. The more correct rendering then is “above all.” Evidence for this understanding can be found in the hierarchical nuance of pro in Jas 5:12; 1 Pet 4:8, but even more at Col 1:15, 18, where the Son is given an all-encompassing preeminence. The problem with “above” as a translation is that it erases the temporal priority, but both are involved: the Son is superior in temporal priority as the preexistent one, and he is hierarchically superior in ontology. All of this content is tied into one verb in the perfect tense, a tense (as we have indicated already) that is used by authors to depict hyperpresence: the Son is depicted right now in front of our very eyes as sustaining life, holding all things together by virtue of his temporal priority and hierarchical superiority. Because he is before all and above all, he can sustain life for all things. In fact, the author of the Letter to the Hebrews says that the “Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word” (1:3). Once again, the work of Christ sustaining all things occurs “in him” (see notes at 1:2). As Harris puts it, “What Christ has created he maintains in permanent order, stability, and productivity.” Paul’s language and terms trade in the language of the Hellenistic Jewish wisdom tradition much more than in Stoicism or later gnostic thinking. Wisdom had temporal, creational priority (Sir 1:4), and the Logos sustained all of creation (Sir 43:26; Wis 1:7); though the Greek terms are not identical, the evidence suggests we are in the same world of thought:

  Wisdom was created before all other things,
  and prudent understanding from eternity. (Sir 1:4)

  Because of him each of his messengers succeeds,
  and by his word all things hold together. (Sir 43:26)

  Because the spirit of the Lord has filled the world,
  and that which holds all things together knows what is said. (Wis 1:7)

However much the language reveals a connection with the Jewish wisdom tradition, the startling fact remains that Paul sees cosmic, universal unity, not in an idea or personification (Word, Wisdom), but in a person. And not just a person, but one who had recently been crucified at the hands of Rome but raised from the dead by God. The language may be culturally connected, but the theology at work is remarkably bold.

2.0. Supreme in Redemption (1:18–20)

As outlined above, 1:18a anticipates what comes in 1:18b–20. The theme turns from creation to redemption or to new creation, but it does so by means of ecclesiology: “And he is the head of the body, the church” (1:18a). From ecclesiology, though, we do not first move to the cross as the means of redemption but to the resurrection (1:18b) and then to incarnation (1:19), to the redemption of reconciliation (1:20a), and this redemption is achieved through the cross (1:20b). As Colin Gunton once explained it, “the church is elected as the particular means by which particular anticipations of the promised reconciliation of all things in Christ are achieved.”

2.1. Anticipation (1:18a)

18a This Son (1:13), in whom we have redemption/forgiveness (1:14), who is the Eikōn and Prōtotokos (1:15), in whom all things are created (1:16) and in whom all things are sustained (1:17)—this Son is also the head of the body, namely, the church (1:18a). What does it mean in this context to call Jesus the “head” (kephalē)? Paul uses this term eighteen times, some of which are no more than a physical head (e.g., 1 Cor 11:4), while others are metaphoric. The debate, fired up by evangelical complementarians, is whether it means “authority over” or “source of,” but that debate is mostly shaped by a theology of marriage and a fear of feminism rather than by what it means when Christ is the head. There is an order at work in 1 Cor 11 when Christ is seen as the head (11:3), but at work in that text is not just priority but also source, for in v. 8 Paul says “man did not come from women,” and this verse explains the glory of v. 7. Furthermore, for one important recent reading of this text, Paul’s orientation is not so much authority-submission as it is headship-hair-covering for all women and therefore an equalitarian move for women, including those who because of low status (prostitutes, slaves) were not entitled to head coverings. So we ought to draw a frown over the false dichotomy at work in the source-vs.-authority conversation, and even a question mark over our confidence of reading 1 Cor 11:1–16. When it comes to the Prison Letters, the term “head” trades off between the superiority/priority of Christ over all things (Col 1:18; 2:10; Eph 1:22) and the unity that Christ brings through his life-drawing redemption (Eph 4:15; 5:23; Col 2:19). A parallel Jewish text is found at the Testament of Zebulon:

Pay heed to the streams: When they flow in the same channel they carry along stones, wood, and sand, but they are divided into many channels, the earth swallows them and they become unproductive. And you shall be thus if you are divided. Do not be divided into two heads, because everything the Lord has made has a single head. He provides two shoulders, two hands, two feet, but members obey one head (9:1–4).

In other words, the “head” in this context is the one who grants and sustains life, while also creating a new kind of unity among the members. The Son is therefore the redemptive, unifying Lord of the body, one of Paul’s favorite terms in his ecclesiology. While the word sōma/body was used metaphorically in the Roman Empire by a variety of thinkers and authors, most notably Livy and Epictetus, the term in Paul refers to the organic, unifying, and mutually supporting roles of believers with one another as they exercise the fruit and gifts of the Spirit so they can grow into one body in Christ. Unity emerges in our hymn at 1:20 and at 2:19 as well. One sees a similar emphasis on unity in 1 Cor 12–14; Rom 12, and Eph 4:1–16. Because the language of church-as-body is so typically Pauline, many have concluded that Paul transformed a prior pagan cosmic “body” into the church, and such scholarship points to the routine use of this term (Plato, Timaeus), as well as to its presence in part in Philo. In that case, Col 1:18a continues the theme of creation (body meaning cosmos) rather than expanding to redeemption. That proposal, however, founders on speculation about the tradition history of the hymn; as we have it, the hymn defines the body as the church, and that connection leads the reader (or listener) to the theme of redemption. In addition, others find here support for the transformation of the more democratic sense of “body” in the earlier Pauline letters (1 Cor 12; Rom 12) into a hierarchical arrangement (Christ, church as body, world), as well as into a different soteriology in the post-Pauline letters. One should not dispute differences between the 1 Corinthians-Romans correspondence and the Prison Letters, but to the degree that one can “Paulinize” on the basis of Paul in light of the ideas of one’s environment, one can posit that Paul himself (or Paul and Timothy, or Paul and his various co-workers) might work up over a decade an expansion of the idea of “body.” If our dating of Colossians is correct, namely in the Ephesian imprisonment in the early to mid-50s, then there is no discussion here: both the local and universal sense of “body” found their way into Paul’s letters at about the same time. It is as wise to divide in order to conquer as it is to unify to the same end. The term “body” is defined by an epexegetical genitive: “the body, that is, the church.” Paul’s mission was not simply to increase the church’s numbers through evangelism but to get saved Gentiles at the table with saved Jews to form a new family fellowship called the church (ekklēsia). Perhaps most notable here is that “church” in the Prison Letters shifts in focus from local assemblies to the church universal (so also Eph 1:22–23). Such an expansion, however, is not innovative to the Prison Letters—the same sense is found at 1 Cor 12:27–28. Nor should one think Paul has dropped the local expression as the body: it is a particularization of the universal church gathered. In this context one must also think the term ekklēsia will have evoked a political assembly of citizens; as such, the co-opting of the term by Paul for a Christian kind of politics under King Jesus has overtones of a political alternative.

2.2. The Beginning and Firstborn (1:18b)

18b Already described and labeled as Eikōn and Prōtotokos over all creation (1:15–16), the exalted Son is now depicted in redemptive categories. In 1:15–17 there is a primordial or essential primacy, while in 1:18–20 the primacy is the achievement of the resurrection. In the second stanza, then, the Son is not only head over the universal church (1:18a), but three more successive descriptions are succinctly given:

  He is (#1) the beginning [archē],
  inasmuch as he is (#2) the firstborn [prōtotokos] in the resurrection,
  so that (#3) he might have supremacy [prōteuōn]. (NIV)

The relationship of these three descriptions is not precisely clear from the grammar, but a reasonable proposal is that archē is defined by prōtotokos, thus making “beginning” a reference to the resurrection, with prōteuōn/supremacy describing his exalted status as a result of the resurrection. In other words, we are staring at an alternative way of stating what is found already in Phil 2:6–11: the Son’s humiliation unto death but subsequent resurrection and exaltation to the highest name. The relationship of #1 to #2 shapes how one sees “beginning.” Is it temporal (he is before all things; Matt 19:4, 8; John 15:27; Heb 1:10; 2 Pet 3:4; 1 John 2:24), or is it priority over other archai (he is above all powers; Rom 8:38; 1 Cor 15:24; Eph 1:21; 6:12), or is he the source/founder as the creative initiative behind everything? The temporal sense fits best inasmuch as the next descriptor (#2) clearly focuses on temporal priority, and it also focuses on the life-giving power (thus, founder) of the Son’s redemptive work at work in the second stanza: the Son is the beginning of new-creation life as the first one raised from the dead, resulting in a preeminent status over all the redeemed. Yet, the close parallel to our passage at Ephesians 1:20–23, where archē refers to the powers of this age, leads one to hear also an echo of the “powers” (archai) at work in Col 1:18b: his resurrection and exaltation is thus simultaneously a victory over death and the powers. Evoking a term in the opening sentence of the Greek translation of the Old Testament in the word “beginning” and therefore now opening up new creation, the Son is the beginning of new creation because he is the “firstborn [prōtotokos] from among the dead” (1:18b). At v. 15 the same word was used for the Son in his creative role, but here the term evokes the Son’s temporally prior and redemption-by-defeat-of-death role. We have here, then, new-creation theology that emerges from the Jewish belief in the general resurrection at the eschaton (1 Cor 15:23; Rom 8:29; Acts 26:23; Rev 1:5). Furthermore, following the crucifixion and prior to Easter, this text implies that Christ resided for a moment “among the dead,” evoking what is now called Holy Saturday, which focuses on the descent into Hades and its harrowing (also Eph 4:8–10; 1 Pet 3:19–20; 4:6). Jesus really died and was not asleep; his death led to his invasion of the realm of the dead in order to liberate his people from their temporary captivity. His liberation of the dead comes to expression in the appearing of the saints after his crucifixion, death, and entry into Hades (Matt 27:51–53). His resurrection is the vanguard of the general resurrection. Resurrection cannot be given too much attention either in the apostolic gospel or in Paul’s theology. His death-defeating resurrection makes it possible for the Son’s exaltation. As this hymn puts it, “so that [in order that] in everything he might have the supremacy” (1:18b). His supremacy (prōteuōn) is both temporal and hierarchical, as is the case in the parallel hymn at Phil 2:6–11, where we read the best commentary on our term prōteuōn: “God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow … and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” It is possible that prōteuōn is a title, The Preeminent One. Here we come face to face with the gospel itself, which is more than a message of salvation: the gospel is the declaration that Jesus of Nazareth, who lived, who died, and who is risen to the right hand of the Father, is the world’s true Lord and King. The gospel announces that Jesus is Prōteuōn!

2.3. The Reason: Redeemer (1:19–20)

The bulk of the second stanza (vv. 19–20) describes and extols the redemptive work of the Creator-Son of the first stanza (vv. 15–17). As the Son creates “all things,” so the Son reconciles “all things.” Reconciliation completes the work of creation. There are two foci for the source of the redemptive reconciliation of the Son: the fullness of God in the Son (1:19) and the cross (20); in other words, incarnation and crucifixion. 19 The first word of this verse in Greek (hoti) can be translated softly as “for” (NIV) or more strongly as “because” (CEB). Each explains the relationship of v. 19 to v. 18: that is, the Son is preeminent because God’s fullness dwells in him. But one might opt instead for a softer relationship and take all of v. 18 as grounded in the Father’s decision to locate all of the fullness in the Son. The sentence is not as clear in the original as the NIV’s translation might suggest: “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him.” The CEB’s translation is a little less expansive: “Because all the fullness of God was pleased to live in him.” A wooden rendering would be: “Because/For in him was pleased all the fullness to dwell.” Strict grammatical readings insist that it was the fullness that is both pleased and indwells, but the more expansive translations turn the fullness into the fullness of God and make it God the Father being both pleased and choosing to indwell. The evidence that, in a kind of personification of the Father, the fullness (plērōma) was pleased to indwell boils down to just a few important parallels (1 Cor 10:26; Col 1:19; 2:9; Eph 1:23; 3:19; 4:13). We begin with Colossians, where the parallel expression in 2:9 has “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form”; here it is clear that the fullness is God’s/the Father’s. The same general idea is found at Eph 3:19 (“fullness of God”) and less clear but probably the same at 1:23 (“the fullness of him” or “the fullness of the one”). Because of the indwelling of God’s fullness in the Son, Eph 4:13 transfers the fullness to the “fullness of Christ.” Our conclusion, therefore, is that it is the Father’s fullness, or “God in his fullness,” that is pleased to become incarnate in the Son. Hence, the NIV’s “the fullness of God” makes explicit what is most likely at work in Paul’s syntax. The Father as the subject of “pleased” is found elsewhere in Paul (Gal 1:15; 1 Cor 1:21; 10:5), but its presence in the baptism of Jesus gives it a more concrete depth (Isa 42:1; Mark 1:11 and pars.). But what might fullness (plērōma) mean? A handful of texts in the Old Testament sketch for us a good option: God’s glory fills the temple and in fact the whole earth, and thus glory is God’s extension of himself to fill other spaces (Ps 72:19; Isa 6:3; Jer 23:24; Ezek 43:5; 44:4). This usage approximates what Ephesians 1:23 says: “the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.” Once again, Dunn finds similar ideas in Jewish wisdom. Thus, “For wisdom is a kindly spirit … because the Spirit of the Lord has filled the world, and that which holds all things together knows what is said” (Wis 1:6–7). It is entirely reasonable to speculate that the halakic mystics at work at Colossae were boasting that they had found “fullness” in their mystical encounters with the angels, leading to the inference that Paul’s locating the plērōma in Christ is a polemical move against the mystics (cf. 2:8–9, 16–23). The term plērōma expresses Paul’s theology of incarnation with a powerful sense of revision: as Zion echoes temple and was the mountain where God was pleased to dwell (Ps 68:16 [LXX 67:17]; Isa 8:18), so now God dwells in the Son. Hence, we have here a christological revision of temple theology, with echoes of new-creation theology. This divine glory indwells the Son. The verb is only used three times by Paul, one in which Christ indwells the believer (Eph 3:17) and two in Colossians, where it refers to divine fullness indwelling the Son (1:19; 2:9). But the idea of God’s covenanted presence is found in a number of places in the Old Testament (Lev 26:12; Ps 68:17), reminding of the routine presence of God among Israel most especially in the tabernacle and temple, with its intensive manifestation in the glory of God filling the holy of holies. Hence, for Paul to speak as he does evokes God’s fullness taking on new form in indwelling the Son, that is, in the incarnation. Indeed, the language parallels the incarnational language of John 1:1–18. But in light of the mutual indwelling theme of John 10:38 and 14:10 as a paradigm of how Jesus and the earliest Christians thought of the relationship of the Father and the Son, we ought to think less of essences transferred from Father to Son, the way one might move water from a bottle into a glass, and more of the Father’s fullness indwelling and interpenetrating the Son alongside the Son’s indwelling and interpenetrating the Father (and the Spirit). In other words, it would be more accurate to think more in terms of perichoresis. Hence, Dunn’s summary does not take us far enough: “that the wholeness of God’s interaction with the universe is summed up in Christ” and that the “thought is not yet of incarnation, but it is more than inspiration; rather, it is of an inspiration … so complete … as to be merging into the idea of incarnation.” New Testament historical scholarship fears the use of later Christian theological reflection, most especially Nicaea and Chalcedon. That fear at times misses the organic flow from New Testament into Christian orthodoxy. In this case, I believe perichoresis attempts to unfold what is at work by logical implication in the Father’s fullness indwelling the Son. 20 We turn now to one of the great verses of the Bible about redemption by the Son, who earlier in this hymn is described as the Prōtotokos and the Archē. The Son’s redemption reconciles all things, which is a peacemaking work that brings together Jews and Gentiles into one family of God. The redemption here is less an ecotheology or a sociopolitical theology and more a theological and christological ecclesiology. Like the similar vision at Rom 8:19–23, Paul believes all of creation is out of sorts with its Creator, and all of creation is in need of reconciliation. There is an emphasis in this verse on the Son as the means of reconciliation:

  And he reconciled all things to himself through him—
  [through him] whether things on earth or in the heavens.
  He brought peace through the blood of his cross.

First, through him he reconciles, and second, he makes peace through his blood. Though not noticeable in the NIV or CEB, some manuscripts have another “through him” before “whether things on earth or things in heaven.” With or without this additional “through him,” there is an extraordinary concentration of emphasis here on Christ as the means of reconciliation. The weight of this last set of lines in the second stanza stands on both “to reconcile” and “by making peace.” The second defines the first, creating a more robust understanding of the Son’s redemptive work. Atonement theories often creep into this text and take over the conversation. However important those theories may be in theological discussions, the fact remains that the means of reconciliation here is the Son’s blood/cross, but to speculate how that blood worked is beyond what this text states. The effect of atonement (reconciliation, peace) and the means of atonement (blood, cross) are the focal images but not the mechanics of atonement. The verb in Col 1:20 (apokatallassō) occurs only in the Prison Letters (Col 1:20, 22; Eph 2:16), but the cognate katallassō and the noun katallagē appear in crucial passages in Pauline soteriology (2 Cor 5:18–20; Rom 5:10, 11; 11:15). The linguistic game this term and its cognates play is that, first, humans are out of sorts with God (enemies; see Col 1:21)—including the sense of captivity to the cosmic powers, which is the focus in this hymn—in need of reconciliation; second, the means of that reconciliation is King Jesus, who reconciles by means of his salvation-accomplishing events, most notably the cross and resurrection and exaltation to rule. In a number of publications resulting from extensive research, Stanley Porter has concluded that Paul adapted Hellenistic exchange language and stands virtually alone in describing a subject (God) effecting reconciliation by giving up its own anger through the cross of Christ. Paul, he concludes, innovates with his concept of reconciliation and seems to draw the term “reconciliation” into the orbit of the term “propitiation”; for Porter, this term expresses the heart of Paul’s missionary theology. I agree that reconciliation expresses the heart of Paul’s soteriology and missionary aims but am unconvinced that propitiatory soteriology forms the heart of Pauline theology and missiology or that such a soteriology is present in this hymn or letter. The heart of Paul’s missional theology is more christological, thus, God-in-Christ or theo-christology in Christoformity, and in our context there is a stronger cosmological victory at work in this term. We turn now more to the meaning of the terms “reconciliation” and “peacemaking.” To begin with, we observe they are explicitly clarified by vv. 21–22, which read: “Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation.” Christian instincts connect this alienation to the fall and original sin (Gen 3), but one ought at least to include the incident of the Tower of Babel (Gen 11), where God sets in motion—because of evil behavior—the division of humans by way of confusing languages. The reconciliation of our passage, then, includes the divided peoples of the Roman Empire, and it must be emphasized that that sort of reconciliation is the focus of Pauline ecclesiology in Colossians (see 3:11) and Ephesians (see 2:11–22). It makes no sense to pretend that God simply makes friends with us apart from the incarnation, cross, and resurrection, the latter two events focusing on death and the undoing of death, and therefore it makes no sense to speak of reconciliation until one admits there is need for such, namely, because humans are at enmity against God and have formed an alliance of enmity against God under the powers of this age, all manifested in “evil behavior” (1:21). And it makes no sense to think the reconciliation here is not also between people groups in this world—spelled out in Col 3:11 (and earlier in Gal 3:28). This much is at least clear in the term itself and in how Paul uses the term. Hence, if Col 1:20 can define reconciliation as making peace through the blood of the cross, 2 Cor 5:19 can do so by defining reconciliation as “not counting people’s sins against them.” Reconciliation is reexpressed in the second term, “making peace” (eirēnopoieō), a verb used only here in the entire New Testament. The term expresses the sense of adoption into, and behaving like, God’s family. Though these terms are rare in the New Testament, the word “peace” (eirēnē) appears some forty times in the Pauline letters, and the gravity of eirēnē is that it expresses the fullness of God’s redemptive design and will for the churches. Peace and peacemaking are emphatic in the Prison Letters. The word “peace” becomes a central term in Christian greetings and, though here dependent on the Jewish greeting “shalom,” begins to take on some fresh colorations because of the reconciling work of the Son. Noticeably in our context, God effects reconciliation by conquering warring parties. That is, the world with its hierarchies and divisions is conquered in Christ so that in the body of Christ one can discover unity among all (Col 3:11). What is the direction of reconciliation? God acts to reconcile things “to himself.” The simplistic notion that atonement entails divine child abuse of a father against his son, however important it might be to call attention to potential problems in the rhetoric of atonement, fails to account for the nuanced language one finds in a text like this. For here the Father originates and carries through redemption by means of the Son’s crucifixion in order to reconcile all things “to himself.” One might say the Father acts out of love and in grace to bring all things back to himself. Paul will write shortly to the Corinthians that “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ” (2 Cor 5:19), while in Ephesians 2:14–18 the accent falls on the Son reconciling Jews and Gentiles to the Father. Thus, “world” in 2 Corinthians probably means “Jews and Gentiles” and the other sorts of divisions one finds in Col 3:11. But this redemptive, reconciling work of peace occurs through the crucifixion of Jesus, a crucifixion expressed in two terms: “blood” and “cross.” The term “blood” in the Bible, owing to the deep association of the ancient world, including Israel’s sacrificial system, is connected to death, to a life’s blood spilled on the altar, and to blood as that which satisfies divine requirements for reconciliation. Dunn, observing the Christus victor theme of victory over the powers in our text, sees the “blood of the cross” to be the bloody unjust death of Christ, an idea certainly at least at work in Col 2:15. Our eyes keep being drawn to the object of reconciliation and peacemaking: “all things.” The theme of universal creation and redemption in Christ runs right through this glorious hymn, and once again there is a record of nearly the same conviction on Paul’s part in Rom 8:19–21, where “creation” will be “liberated from its bondage” and “brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God” (rooted in Isa 11:6–9; 65:17). But our text sees here the cosmic forces in the principalities and powers (Col 1:16, 20), in which case, one ought to think of this act of reconciliation alongside the triumph of Christ over the powers in Col 2:15 (see below). As well, one needs to connect this reconciling work to Phil 2:6–11, where Christ is the conqueror. Reconciliation encompasses the fullness of God’s triumph over evil in judgment, subjugation of the powers, and redemption for the saints. At work for Paul’s letter, however, is not just the cosmic powers but also their manifestation on earth: hostility between Jews and Gentiles. Hence, the reconciliation of all things in this text also includes the bringing into one body in Christ both Jews and Gentiles by faith. One needs to add some perspective because so many run from the word “all” straight into full-blooded universalism or the salvation of all humans and all powers and all supernatural beings. The universal scope of redemption needs to be kept in view in Paul’s magnificent vision of both God’s power and relentless grace, but the fact remains in Pauline letters that not all are saved and the enemies of God are defeated (see Col 2:15). Faith, the enduring sort, is required for salvation (Col 1:23; 2:9–13), and those who turn away from God in Christ will experience judgment (2 Thess 1:5–10). The claims of this hymn are astounding and, apart from sharing Paul’s faith, which means grasping the reality of God in the cross and resurrection of King Jesus, one could conclude the man was imbalanced. What the apostle claims here is that the whole created order finds its only lasting peace in the ignominy of a bloody act of execution at the hands of violent Romans, an act God unzipped and reconfigured by raising his Son from among the dead. But let the note be emphasized: the whole of creation finds reconciliation in the death of this one solitary man, King Jesus, and it was the resurrection that generated that kind of faith. As Dunn frames it so well: “The vision is vast. The claim is mind-blowing.… In some ways still more striking is the implied vision of the church as the focus and means toward this cosmic reconciliation—the community in which that reconciliation has already taken place (or begun to take place) and whose responsibility it is to live out (cf. particularly 3:8–15) as well as to proclaim its secret (cf. 4:2–6).” This summary locates precisely where Paul and Timothy will now land: on a church that leads the world by becoming the gospel of reconciliation in the way it embodies the gospel.

c. The Reconciliation through the Messiah (1:21–23)

The intercession of Paul and Timothy, which begins at 1:9 and continues through 1:23, with typical Pauline digressions and extrapolations, now shifts from a more direct digression on the Messiah’s cosmic redemptive work (1:13–14, 15–20) to an application of the soteriological implication of this cosmic reconciliation (1:21–23). Our passage (cited below), Col 1:21–23, is not so much the application of cosmic redemptive themes of the hymn (1:15–20) but the resumption of themes at work in the passage previous to the hymn (1:9–14). Our section can be said to be “hovering on the edge of parenesis” as it functions rhetorically to press the Colossians to continue in the faith in Christ they have affirmed. We reproduce the diagram from above to put our passage in its context:

  (9) We have not ceased praying and asking
  (9b) That you may be filled
  (10) That you may walk worthily
     That is,
     (10b) Bearing fruit and growing
     (11) Being empowered
     (12) (a) Giving thanks … to the one who (b) qualified you
       (13) Who “rescued us”
         (14) In whom
           (15) Who
              (21) Once you were

In the prayer earlier in this chapter (1:9–11) there was a twofold theme of knowledge (1:9b) and of doing the will of God (1:10). That knowledge was effectively articulated in the knowledge of Christology and redemption (1:12b–20), just as that will of God is now explicated in the summons of 1:21–23 to a reconciliation-based faithfulness. In Pauline theology redemption is transformative and not just an acquired legal status. God’s reconciliation, which forms a union between God and his chosen participants, namely, Gentiles (i.e., those who are “alienated from God” and “enemies” marked by “evil behavior,” 1:21), occurs by means of Christ’s physical death (1:22), and the goal of that reconciliation is presentation of an acceptable holy gift to the Father (1:22b). But the required condition for final participation is persevering faith in the gospel (1:23a). At that point Paul forms a segue into his authorizing biographical disclosure in 1:24–2:5, and the segue takes the gospel to which the Colossians are to be faithful and explains as a cosmic ministry in which he is a servant (1:23b). Hence, we have the participants, the means, the goal, and the conditions, followed by Paul’s shift of topics toward the apostolic mystery of preaching the gospel throughout the Roman Empire and beyond.

21Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—23if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

21 Verse 21 shifts the reader from the cosmic reconciling work of Christ to its impact more narrowly on the Colossians, but the narrowing shift retains the central elements found already in v. 20: Christ is the reconciler, and he reconciles through the cross. Four categories are used to describe the past of the Colossians. First, “once.” They were once alienated because “their” past was Gentile. The perfect periphrastic participle (“you [who] were alienated”) depends on the word “once” to clarify that the alienation was in the past. Paul sometimes uses the term “once” (pote) to break up salvation history (Rom 7:9), sometimes specifying a redemptive-biographical history as well. The “once-now” story is often seen in Paul, and in Colossians it can refer to their ecclesial demarcation from the world (Col 2:6–9; 3:5–11). But the deeper reality for Paul and Timothy is that God has already reconciled the world to himself and therefore, if one enters into that reconciliation, one is now paradoxically alienated from the world’s nonreconciled condition. As will be seen in the next chapter of Colossians, the “dynamic border” was crossed at their baptism. Second, the Colossians were “alienated from God.” It is natural for major segments of the Christian tradition to think of alienation as spiritual and existential, an alienation made more intense by Luther and the Puritans and Christan existentialists, but this understanding puts individual angst uppermost in Paul’s mind. Other segments of theology find in this expression a theology of original sin, condemnation in Adam (and Eve), and therefore a foundation for soteriology. But this approach overcooks what Paul says and probably also what he believed. Each of these views is quite comfortable with the words added in most translations, namely, “alienated from God.” But “from God” is not in the Greek text, so its absence deserves consideration. As the near parallel in Ephesians makes clear, alienation is anchored in election, eschatology, and ecclesiology prior to the existential and personal. Here is what Eph 2:12 says: “Remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded [or alienated] from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.” That is, they are alienated from the people of God because they are not Israelites, because they are not the chosen people, because they are not in the ecclesia, and because they have not entered into the new work of God in history. To be Gentile is to be alienated from the work of God in this world through Israel and the church. The term “alienated” is found only in the Prison Letters, and each time it refers to Gentiles who are alienated from God and the people of God (Eph 2:12; 4:18–19; Col 1:21). In Ephesians the alienation gathers around it these ideas: separate from Christ, excluded from Israel and God’s covenantal promise, absent of resurrection hope, apart from God, darkened in understanding, ignorant and blighted by what is otherwise a most notable term connected to election: a darkened heart. That is, the ecclesial alienation the Colossians knew was experienced as separation from the eschatological work of God in and through the new people of God. That, of course, is the focus in reconciliation. This alienation is next broken into two components: a mental hostility and evil deeds. So, third, they were “enemies in your minds.” Paul uses the term “enemy” a few times, but the kind of enmity known among the Colossians was a mental enmity. There is in Paul’s theology a cosmic death-dealing enmity against God and God’s people (1 Cor 15:25), and it appears as opposition to both God (Rom 5:10) and the people of God (Phil 3:18). But Paul and Timothy here specify the type of enmity he knew among the Colossians: “in your minds.” Inasmuch as this chapter has already clarified what Paul means by wisdom and knowledge and truth—namely, the revelation of God in the cosmic Christ, who has reconciled the world to himself through the cross (1:12b–20)—one must see in the enmity of v. 21 an adversarial disposition toward the cross as a manifestation of God’s reconciliation. That is, Paul is not accusing them of being mentally incompetent or irrational. Rather, because for Paul this term “mind” is connected to the Hebrew concept of “heart,” this mental enmity is a deep-seated heart-driven and whole-person rejection. Thus, he saw in their past a rejection of the truth of the gospel that came to an end by the invasion of the grace of God. As Paul says in the parallel text in Ephesians, “gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts” (2:3) and “darkened in their understanding” (4:18). Now to the fourth description of their past: “your evil behavior.” The grammatical construction, which is not found elsewhere in the New Testament, needs to be understood in order to comprehend translations. The Greek says in evil deeds but the word “in” is open for alternative translations. Hence, the NIV translates it causally with “because of your evil behavior,” while the CEB has “which was shown by your evil actions.” I take “in your evil deeds” to be the sphere they inhabit. Thus:

  You were alienated;
  you were enemies in your minds;
  you practiced evil deeds.

Alienation describes their overall condition with two manifestations: a mental resistance to God’s will and revelation, as well as behaviors that are “evil.” Others understand the “evil deeds” to be the result of the previous two expressions. Evil deeds is a Jewish boilerplate accusation against Gentiles and so became a common criticism of Gentiles by the earliest Christians. What Paul has in mind can be seen in more particular terms in other passages in Paul. Concern with evil deeds owes its origin in revelation to Moses of the Torah and its history of observance over against Gentile sinful patterns; it became a rhetorical fixture in Jewish propaganda, as well as a stereotype for Jewish literature; but it also expressed the reality of Gentile behaviors seen through the lens of Torah holiness. One particular example of this accusation of Gentiles is found in 1 Cor 6 (cited below), which should be interpreted as a kind of “notorious sins of notorious sinners.” Paul saw such in every Roman city: “Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were” (1 Cor 6:9b–11a). Paul’s expression in Col 1:21 about evil deeds then flows out of his daily observations of Roman male behaviors. Does this language indicate the Colossians were Gentiles? I think so. The near parallel at Eph 2:12 makes this conclusion nearly certain: “remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.” Some see in this description a reality about all humanity, which is perhaps the case, but one must observe that, when Paul launches into descriptions of sinful deeds in his letters, he has Gentiles in mind (e.g., Gal 5:19–21; Rom 1:18–32; 1 Cor 6:9–11; Col 3:5–9). I am not convinced Paul would say what he says in Col 1:21 about the Jewish condition. 22 But everything about that Gentile past and its way of life changed in Christ. As Paul told the Corinthians (1 Cor 6:11) when he said “you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God,” so he tells the Colossians that they have redemption and forgiveness (1:14) and cosmic reconciliation (1:20), all now flowing at the Colossians in 1:22: “But now he has reconciled you.” In this line Paul articulates that the formerly alienated Gentiles are redeemed, forgiven, and reconciled; their former mental hostilities have been dropped; and by God’s grace the evil deeds have been transformed into good deeds. This is Paul’s theology of the efficacy of grace in conversion. The “now” of Paul is salvation history, ecclesiology (Israel expands to include Gentiles by faith), and soteriology—both cosmically (God has reconciled the world to himself in Christ) and personally (you Colossians were alienated and are now reconciled and you are being transformed). Reconciliation in Pauline theology is cosmic (2 Cor 5:19), ecclesial (Col 1:22; Eph 2:16), and individual-personal (Rom 5:10; 2 Cor 5:18–20). It is as easy to centralize cosmic reconciliation and read all lines in Pauline theology through that lens as it is to centralize the individual-personal and find personal salvation everywhere. But if we sharpen our hermeneutics to the precise context of the Prison Letters, the focus in reconciliation is neither the cosmic nor the individual-personal; instead, both Eph 2:16 and our passage focus on ecclesial reconciliation. That is, the reconciliation of which Paul is here speaking concerns Gentile sinners being brought into the people of God, the Israel expanded, alongside and equal to Jews. Ephesians 2:14–22 reveals the ecclesial focus of reconciliation at work in the Prison Letters:

14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. 19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

Verse 16 here in Ephesians is an expression of the new people of God being formed on the basis of the cross and resurrection; thus, reconciliation cannot be lifted out of this ecclesial context and reduced to either the cosmic or the individual. A fuller approach is wisest: God has reconciled the world to himself in Christ, and therefore he has reconciled Jews and Gentiles (among other social groupings) to himself, and on these bases, God reconciles the individual Colossians to himself. This is the order, too, for Colossians from 1:20 (cosmic) to 1:22 (ecclesial and individual). These are not mutually exclusive alternatives but the complexive nature of God’s reconciliation. While some have suggested that Christ is the subject of the verb “he has reconciled,” it is far more likely that the subject is the Father, as in 1:20 and 2 Cor 5:18, 19. This act of reconciliation is being described by Paul in its totality rather than as something that happened in the past (which it did) with ongoing results (which is also true). Paul wants his readers to see the death of Christ as the act of reconciliation. God the Father reconciled the Gentile Colossians to himself by introducing them to the people of God (Israel expanded) in the body of his flesh through his death (a literal rendering of the Greek). Paul refers to the crucifixion as the place of reconciliation, but his expressions evoke the physicality of that act. In 1:20 Paul referred to the cross in equivalent terms: “through his blood, shed on the cross.” The “in the body of his flesh” (NIV and CEB have “by”) can be either the sphere in which this action took place or the means of the reconciliation. To say the Father reconciled Gentiles into the people of God by the “body of his flesh” is a way of both countering a hyperspiritual action (perhaps a view of the opponents of Paul in Colossae) and forcing the issue of an authentic physical act as the means of God’s reconciling work. Jesus’s fleshly or physical body was crucified, and it was that embodied death that reconciled (see Rom 7:4; 8:3). Paul thus ascribes salvation-historical gravity to the real, physical death of Jesus—God does not reconcile simply by choosing to reconcile or by considering someone reconciled but by an act on the plane of history. In Jesus’s fleshly body the whole of humanity—Jews and Gentiles—is represented, dies, and can be raised into the resurrection body of eternity. The intent or purpose of the Father’s act of reconciliation is to “present” the Colossians to himself in purity. The act of presentation can be connected to a judicial act (justification at the final judgment) or to a cultic-sacrificial act of purity, or it could be more general. The first option evokes a judgment scene, while the second suggests a sacrifice or soteriology. I am inclined to see more of an emphasis on the eschatological judgment, at which God declares human beings (here the Colossians) “holy” (see 1:2; 3:12) and “without blemish” and “free from accusation,” with a near parallel at Eph 5:25–27. Paul’s theology of the final judgment and justification, however, presents itself to the Colossians in an inaugurated eschatology: that final judgment has already been accomplished in the death and resurrection and exaltation of Christ and has been brought forward for the status and experience of humans in the here and now. God’s act of reconciling-to-present is aimed at three conditions for the Gentile Colossian believers, language that would have been heard with special sensitivity by women: “holy in his sight” and “without blemish” and “free from accusation.” The second and third of the three expressions each begin with an alpha privative and connote the absence of something: hence, holy and free from blemish and free from accusations. The terms can be both cultic and judicial, and one ought not to feel constrained to choose one or the other, as if Paul was adverse to mixing metaphors, even if the emphasis may be judicial, just as the Reconciler is depicted as both judge and priest. On balance, “holy” is probably judicial (Eph 1:4; 5:27; Phil 2:15; Jude 24); “free from blemish” is judicial as well (Rom 8:33, 34), while the third term is clearly judicial (1 Cor 1:8). The theme is soteriology in the new-creation mode: the Colossians, at the final resurrection and following the full declaration of their righteousness in God’s judgment, will be fashioned anew for life in the kingdom. For this to occur, they will be holy (as God is holy), and they will be no longer trapped in sinful patterns (as in alienation in mind and behaviors of 1:21) or standing under the condemning judgment of God. But this process was accomplished on the cross, is now in process, and will be consummated in the kingdom. 23 Paul’s pastoral theology now comes into full play: this presentation by the Father to the Father will occur “if you continue.” Saving faith, as it is often said, is persevering faith, and without persevering faith there is no salvation. Paul’s opening conditional expression (NIV: “if you continue,” and CEB: “But you need to remain”) is not an expression of doubt, but neither is it one of confidence, as many tend to claim (see 2:5). A fair translation would be one expressing neutrality: “assuming that you will remain.” An expression of neutrality in a conditional clause remains conditional, and the condition here is remaining, or more theologically, perseverance. As Moo expresses it, Paul “wants to confront the Colossians with the reality that their eventual salvation depends on their remaining faithful to Christ and to the true gospel.” “Reconciliation,” Witherington reminds us, “is not some automatic process.” For some theologians the priority and superabundance of grace must mean grace is pure gift without conditions, and so the conditionality of redemption here in Colossians seems out of sync with their perception of Paul’s theology of grace. However, Barclay’s study of both the Greco-Roman concept of gift and how gift/grace is used in Jewish sources has established that grace in Paul begins and emphasizes the incongruity, priority, and superabundance of God’s gift, but the entire context for Paul knew that those concepts did not rule out the perfection of grace he calls “circularity”—namely, that the gift is both given as a gift and summons the receiver of the gift into reciprocal responses of gratitude, faith, and obedience. What Barclay has done here is to move the discussion away from the standard theological problematic, namely, the relationship of grace to obedience, into a broader topic, namely to the various manifestations of grace. The term “remain” (epimenō) connotes remaining and abiding and drawing one’s strength from the source, which is God’s gracious work in Christ through the Spirit. The condition is thus not based upon human effort but instead upon God’s gracious provision, but God’s provision must be tapped into in order to persevere. One remains “in faith” (CEB). It is likely that by “faith” Paul here means the gospel message or the faith as set of beliefs rather than personal faith. Paul is not a once-and-done theologian; he believes faith is a lifelong act of trust empowered by grace (see Rom 11:22–23; 1 Tim 4:16). Whether or not one can lose one’s salvation is not on Paul’s mind in this context, though theologians can make of this text what they already believe to be true. The Calvinist may well emphasize the confidence of Paul, while the Arminian contends that, if one does not continue, one forfeits what one has. Paul defines the character of perseverance in three spatial metaphors: “established,” “firm,” and “do not move from.” The first connotes standing on a firm foundation (Eph 3:17), the second as firmly located on that foundation (1 Cor 7:37; 15:58), and the third a refusal to be moved from that foundation (also 15:58). Each metaphor contributes to a single image: perseverance entails firm attachment to the foundation, that is, to the hope of the gospel. Paul here approaches perseverance as one who has seen others drift away from the gospel, abandon the gospel, and as a result have returned to the alienation of mental hostility toward God and evil behaviors (Col 1:21). Fidelity to the gospel from the heart leads to behaviors of goodness, as Jesus himself taught (Matt 7:24–27). In a not dissimilar idea in Ephesians, Paul says they are to be rooted and established in love (3:17). There is, however, no promise that those who are most faithful theologically will be most fruitful in love, nor that those most fruitful in love are faithful theologically. The two are dialectically related, to be sure, but love grows out of character formation, not simply intellectual commitments. Commitment to orthodoxy, however, is not a disposable factor for Paul: perseverance is perseverance in apprehension of the gospel itself, as well as authentic trust and obedience of the Lord. Authentic perseverance transforms the person into Christlikeness (2 Cor 3:17–4:6) because of the power of the authentic gospel. Paul’s focus on perseverance is neither introspective nor about how the believer hangs on but instead is on the hope of the gospel to which the Colossians responded in faith and obedience. They are to remain firmly attached to the hope of the gospel, two terms already discussed at 1:5. But a brief recapitulation: the content of Christian hope is indicated not only in this letter (1:23, 27; 3:1–4) but also in other Pauline letters (Gal 5:5; Titus 2:13), and it is clear throughout that Paul is referring to a series of events that will become objective reality. Hence, we are inclined to see this word pointing the Colossians at future, final, and eternal salvation as glimpsed in an inaugurated fashion now (Col 1:27; 3:1–4). To be sure, this hope is contained in the gospel in that Jesus now rules but will eventually assert his rule over all. The apostolic gospel was the announcement that Jesus was Israel’s Messiah, the true Lord who rules and saves, and that this Messiah lived, died, was raised and exalted, and will come again to establish the eternal kingdom (new heavens and new earth). Salvation is entailed or implied in the gospel, but the gospel was first and foremost an announcement about Jesus, and resurrection was central. Perseverance for Paul is attachment to the objective and already inaugurated reality, that God is now ruling in Christ and that this rule is to be embodied in the fellowship of the churches. This hope-filled life does not drive the Colossians away from engaging Colossae but instead leads them to embody a new society that spills over into Colossae. Paul will shortly shift from this intercession section (1:9–23), which has its own digressions, to an authorizing biographical disclosure (1:24–2:5), and the last two clauses of 1:23 turn us both back to the beginning of the intercession (1:6) and toward that disclosure of God’s calling upon his life in 1:24–2:5: the gospel “that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.” There are here two claims: that the gospel has gone universal and that Paul is a servant of that gospel. Paul made the first claim about the universal reach of the gospel already at 1:6, and he fleshed out that claim in the hymn of 1:15–20. God has in fact already reconciled the cosmos to himself through the death and resurrection of the Son, and therefore this gospel has a claim on all humans (1:6, 23). Paul is a universalist, but not the way many understand that term today, where the claim is sometimes made that all will be saved. Instead, God has a claim on the whole world because God has acted in Christ to reconcile the whole world to himself. But at the core of redemption in Pauline theology, already present in this verse, is the idea that to be saved one must believe (in a persevering way). I am unpersuaded that this turns covenant into some kind of contract; rather covenant itself entails participation. Hence, salvation’s scope is universal only because the King (Jesus) is Lord over all creation by means of the reconciliation at the cross. When Paul says here that the gospel “has been proclaimed to every creature in heaven,” he is referring, as I suggested at 1:6, to representative locations in the Roman Empire. He makes this claim because God’s claim is upon all, and in raising Jesus from the dead, that gospel has been announced (by God) to the cosmos, and it is Paul’s mission to extend that divine announcement from one city in the Roman Empire to another. Hence, to say the gospel has been announced to “every creature” is hyperbolic at the level of human experience but genuine in Paul’s understanding of reality. Paul has become a servant of this gospel—the gospel about Jesus as king that is expanding throughout the Roman Empire as a manifestation of the universal claim of Jesus as king over all creation. Paul can see all rulers and authorities as God’s servants, including the Roman emperor (who was Nero; note Rom 13:4), just as he can see King Jesus as a servant to his people (15:8). But Paul sees both a special “diaconate” in ministries of the church—a diaconate open to both men and women (Rom 16:1; 1 Tim 3:8, 12)—as well as a special designation for the apostolic and gospel calling of others, as well as his own apostolic vocation to the Gentiles. In fact, the term “servant” often was used for agents of high-ranking officials. In our verse, Paul is referring to his special apostolic vocation to preach the gospel to the Gentiles as a servant of God, and it probably has nothing to do with the notions prevalent in some circles today that leaders ought to be doing ordinary work around the church building, and it probably is not what many mean today by “servant leadership.” The word “servant” here is a claim to status before God, and the best example is the choice of the Son of God in Phil 2:5–11. Paul will work out this cruciform ministry in Col 1:24–2:5 and throughout the Corinthian correspondence (e.g., 1 Cor 9; 2 Cor 2:12–7:16), to which calling he now turns.

D. AUTHORIZING BIOGRAPHICAL DISCLOSURE (1:24–2:5)

1. Paul’s Ministry (1:24–29)

Paul’s rhetoric is seamless in this introduction (1:1–2:5), which includes a salutation and a thanksgiving and then a lengthy intercession, with a digression or two on Christology and soteriology. The same seamlessness is found now in a move toward his own sketch of his ministry in 1:24, and discussion of his ministry is not uncommon for Paul. But why here? Because presenting himself as is found in our passage was an ancient element of rhetoric in which the author legitimated his authority. Sumney notes that ancient rhetoricians “agreed that it was important to develop an image of yourself that showed what kind of person you were and that you had the best interest of the audience in mind.” But he develops this point further by claiming that the ethos (this self-description) is a rhetorically designed image of the self:

The image that a speaker develops of oneself is always a fiction, which is not to say untrue. Rather, the image that one constructs of oneself is always a partial image, an image that emphasizes some aspects of one’s total self and minimizes or excludes other aspects, because they are either irrelevant (or at least less helpful) or detrimental to the speaker’s cause. If Colossians is pseudonymous, this is an especially important task. The image the writer constructs of Paul must cohere with what the readers know of Paul and must project an ethos that will move the readers both to perceive him as someone who has their good at heart and to consider him an authority they should obey. This is the primary task of 1:24–2:5.

One need not embrace the whole of Sumney’s theory of Colossians as rhetoric in order to appreciate the rather commonsensical observation that 1:24–2:5 clearly does set before the readers an image of Paul that is both constructed and positive; and surely he’s right that this portrait is shaped to increase confidence on the part of the readers in Paul. Paul has just previously (Col 1:23) declared that he is a servant of the gospel, and now he opens up a section on gospel ministry in the Pauline apostolic mode (1:24–29), emphasizing revelation as much as pastoral care. This statement carries over into an expression of pastoral/apostolic concern (2:1–5). Only then will we enter the “letter proper” (2:6–3:4), though “proper” is more than a little unfair to Paul and Timothy. Their concerns are as much pastoral as they are theological and didactic. One observes in reading scholarship a diminishment of interest in passages that deal with pastoral theology, while there is an obsession with passages that explore theologically controversial or historically suggestive connections. Put directly, very few have explored Paul’s pastoral theology, and that lack of interest shows up in how little attention has been given to 1:24–2:5.

24Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. 25I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness—26the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord’s people. 27To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28He is the one we proclaim, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone fully mature in Christ. 29To this end I strenuously contend with all the energy Christ so powerfully works in me.

Our paragraph is one long sentence, or perhaps one long sentence with some shorter subordinate sentences in vv. 28–29. Paul makes two opening statements, the second of which is an expansion of the first, and then both are unfolded in origami-imitating fashion until they return to the opening claims (1:25–29). First, he makes a christological claim about his suffering (1:24). Second, he restates his claim of a ministry in the word “servant,” but this time he riffs off of the last word in the NIV in v. 24 (“church”). That is, he is a servant of the church through a Word ministry (1:25). To be a servant of the church means he is suffering in a Christlike manner (1:24). Third, his suffering-servant, Christlike ministry is a ministry of the Word of God, but this Word is expounded as a salvation-historical and apocalyptic mystery (1:26), which is now disclosed, fourth, to the Gentiles (1:27), who get to hear about, fifth, Christ (1:28), which suffering, servant Word ministry (1:29), sixth, takes us back to vv. 24–25. Hence:

  The christologically based suffering ministry (1:24)
  The servant-based ministry of the Word (1:25)
  The Word is a mystery (1:26)
     The mystery extends to the Gentiles (1:27)
       The Gentiles become mature in Christ (1:28)
  The christologically energized ministry (1:29).

The section 2:1–5 will explain the christologically energized ministry of 1:29. The Christocentric nature of Paul’s mission has been expressed poetically by Wright:

Paul’s sufferings are to be understood, in some strange sense, as not his own, but Christ’s. His preaching and teaching are God’s means of accomplishing that which he is doing in Christ. His (Paul’s) hard work is accomplished only because Christ is at work in him. And, if Christ is his motivating and energizing power, Christ is also his goal. Christ’s body is the beneficiary of his sufferings (1:24). Christ’s indwelling in his people is their hope of glory (1:27). Maturity in Christ is Paul’s ambition for every Christian (1:28). Good order in Christ is what he is glad to see in the young church (2:5). Christ himself is God’s secret plan (1:27; 2:2), revealed in every aspect of Paul’s work.

24 In this verse Paul, who is now speaking in first person singular, makes an explicit christological claim about his own suffering, and it is a claim that has become a storm center for interpreters. Verse 24 begins with “now,” and one has to wonder whether the “now” of Paul’s suffering is the “now” of God’s reconciliation work in Christ (1:22). That is, Paul’s suffering ministry is in the eschatological “now of reconciliation.” However, others see the “now” as referring to the now of his imprisonment or to the now of suffering or even no more than a colorless “now then” resumption. Because of the newness of the age of reconciliation in Christ, Paul can “rejoice” in his sufferings (Rom 5:3) for the Gentiles, including the Colossians. When Paul speaks of suffering as one of his apostolic credentials, it might be good to record some of those sufferings to get a clearer picture. The following set of lines from 2 Corinthians gives us most of what we need: “I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones” (11:23–25). Paul’s sufferings include routine verbal opposition and abuse (Acts 13:45; 14:2; 17:13; 18:6; 19:9), trumped-up false accusations (21:27–29), legal or not (18:12–13), physical expulsion from cities (13:50), attempts on his life (14:5–6), beatings (21:32), and betrayal by fellow Christians (2 Tim 1:15; 4:16). But perhaps most notably, in a poetic set of lines in the Pastoral Letters, Paul connects once again his suffering in ministry to Christ’s suffering, and at the same time sees his suffering as beneficial for others:

Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But God’s word is not chained. Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory. Here is a trustworthy saying:

  If we died with him,
  we will also live with him;
  if we endure,
  we will also reign with him. (2 Tim 2:8–12a)

Alongside this text we note also Phil 3:10–11: “I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead.” To reemphasize the point, Paul depicts his suffering as something he endures for others (Col 1:24a; cf. 4:18). It was part of his apostolic vocation (Acts 9:16) because ultimately it participates at some level in the sufferings of Christ himself (Phil 3:10–11). His vivid description of rejoicing in his sufferings for the Colossian church is now ramped up: “and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church” (1:24b). We know from the preceding paragraph what Paul is talking about with sufferings, but Paul takes this suffering in several new directions. The big picture is that Paul is explaining or interpreting his sufferings in order to locate those sufferings in a meaning-creating narration of the gospel story. A similar set of moves is made in 2 Cor 4:7–15. Paul’s sufferings somehow complete the lack in the sufferings of Christ: “I fill up … what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions.” One, if not the, cutting edge of this line in Colossians is the quantitative “what was lacking,” and many have ignored it. Zwingli, to take but one example of someone who did not ignore this quantitative word, saw “what was lacking” as referring to the remaining sufferings that Christians were to endure in order to become like Christ. But some proposals for understanding 1:24 are broken by ignoring this term.

Excursus: Sharing Christ’s Sufferings (1:24)

The interpretive history here is intense, and so I want to restrict the options to the genuinely possible. Some see here a moral-exemplary theory of a Christ-kind of suffering (adjectival sense), and a recent variant of this view stems from the “noble death” of martyrs as seen in 4 Maccabees. The problem with this view, including both Chrysostom’s and Sumney’s formulation of it, is that numbers are involved. That is, a generic exemplary theory does not explain the lack of sufferings in Christ. Others contend for a mystical or union theory or a corporate, even cosmic, Christ concept and think the verb refers to a “union-with-Christ kind of suffering.” Taking “Christ” here as the cosmic and corporate Christ, Ulrich Luz puts it this way: “In the suffering of Paul Christ suffers for the church.” A far more convincing variant is found in Andrew Perriman, who contends that Paul is talking exclusively about his own sufferings, which are not yet complete, and thus he proposes an imitative understanding of Paul’s sufferings. In Perriman’s favor is his appeal to the parallel in Phil 3:10–11, which comes from roughly the same time in Paul’s ministry, a parallel that suggests Paul was hoping the parousia would not occur before he had himself been put to death for his gospel ministry—thus, conformed to the death of Christ. This understanding hinges on the adjectival sense of the expression. A less convincing view is that of Pokorný, who virtually makes “Christ’s afflictions” the gospel of salvation, with what is lacking being their appropriation of salvation, so that Paul’s suffering is his expenditure of effort for their maturation in salvation. More possible is the view of Gupta, who invokes his reconstructed context: Paul is writing against some “transcendent-ascetic philosophers” and, in a fit of irony, contends that what they think is lacking is the exact opposite. Namely, it is not escape from the body and death but more participation in that death. The apocalyptic or eschatological view has become the most attractive theory: as there was an appointed number of sufferings in the “messianic woes,” or the exilic conditions of Israel (e.g., Dan 7:21–22, 25–27; 12:1–3; Hab 3:15; Zeph 1:15; Mark 13:5–8; Matt 24:4–8; Luke 21:8–11), so Christ absorbed many or most of them, but some suffering yet remains. As part of this theory, one can observe that gospel preaching occurs in the context of eschatological persecutions (Mark 13:10 par. Matt 24:14; also Rev 14:6), just as the term Paul uses here, “affliction,” is routinely connected to the arrival of the eschaton (see Matt 24:9, 21, 29; Rev 7:14). Thus, the attractiveness is an abiding connection to eschatological suffering. Yet, I wonder whether this view is not too schematic, if not too abstract. It is not so much the eschatological that is too abstract; rather, it is the formulaic nature of thinking that Paul is talking about the messianic woes explicitly in quantitative terms that weakens this proposal. What complicates it more is that Paul teaches in this letter that those days are past and they are now in the era of resurrection (2:12). In other words, the eschatology assumed in this very popular view seems to strain Paul’s. For this view to work, Paul has to think the messianic woes have not yet been completed. That is, one has to think Jesus died because the messianic woes were upon him but were not exhausted. That may be seen as reasonable to some, but against this view is that Jesus was raised to end the messianic woes. In his death he defeated suffering and death itself. Thus, to see Paul’s sufferings as part of the messianic woes is to put Jesus back on the cross and on the far side of the resurrection. Another, if also a tad eccentric, view can be found in Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke, who, after discussing apostolic suffering in Paul, connect the sufferings of Paul to the end of Jesus’s suffering in the crucifixion and the continuation of that suffering in the apostle: “we are concerned not with the suffering of an earthly or resurrected Jesus, not with suffering in place of Jesus or in substitution for Jesus but rather with a suffering in which God allows the sufferer to persevere through divine strength in order thus to reveal that God does not allow Jesus to continue in his suffering, that is, he does not allow death to be victorious.” This is one of the few interpretations that avoids contaminating the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement while genuinely respecting the quantitative theme of “fill up” and “still lacking.” Yet, I find this view a little too demonstrative on the part of God. That is, I ask, Does God sustain Paul in suffering in order to demonstrate that Jesus’s death was not the last word? It appears to me that a more eclectic approach is required, one that might clumsily be called the missional-Christoformity theory—namely, that Paul understands his gospel-mission sufferings as an intentional entrance into sufferings of, or like those of, Christ (adjectival sense again), and like Christ, he suffers for the benefit of the church the more Christoform he becomes; furthermore, he understands his suffering as experiencing the fire instead of and for the benefit of the Colossians. In this view, Paul sees his sufferings as completing the sufferings of Christ because he is engaging in the same kind of intentionally shaped mission and suffering after the death of Jesus: he evangelizes the world in order to bring the gospel’s saving benefits to those in the world, knowing that the death sentence of Jesus was reversed in the resurrection. Notice the quoted reference above from 2 Timothy 2:8–12a and how Paul identifies what he is doing (and what others can do as well) as participation in the very life and death and resurrection of Jesus. This text, then, speaks about dying with Christ and union with Christ in the specific context of gospel-mission suffering for the sake of others. Paul sees it as a filling up or completing of the sufferings endured by Jesus in his earthly days, not because Christ as suffering servant did not make sufficient and complete atonement (see Col 1:12–14, 19–22; 2:9–15), but because he, Paul, was suffering as Christ suffered. In fact, Paul draws the mantle of the servant of Isaiah, especially as depicted in Isaiah 49, over his own mission and suffering (cf. Gal 1:15–16 with Isa 49:1–6; 2 Cor 6:1–2, citing Isa 49:8; Rom 15:20–21, citing Isa 52:15; Phil 2:16, citing Isa 49:4; Acts 13:47, citing Isa 49:6; Acts 26:16–18 and Isa 42:7). That is, Paul has entered into the servant sufferings of Christ, but he knows that the last word is not suffering or the cross but Easter and resurrection and new creation. One further point confirms this interpretation. Observe that Paul distinguishes the body of Christ (the church) in 1:18 from mentions of the physical body of Christ in 1:20 (his blood, shed on the cross) and in 1:22 (his fleshly body) and that the latter two lead to the reconciliation of the first. Now observe that Paul distinguishes the body of Christ in 1:24 (“for the sake of his body … the church”) from Paul’s own body of flesh in the same verse (“in my flesh”). Paul sees himself as en-fleshing the ministry of Christ in his apostolic mission for the em-bodied body of Christ. As Dunn expresses it, “There is a degree of continuity between Christ’s body of flesh and Paul’s flesh for Christ’s body.” This view, then, refocuses the suffering away from the eschatological tribulation toward a Christoformity in ecclesial mission. Our crux interpretum is thus less eschatological and more about Christoformity. But what does this suffering look like? Are words like these only for the apostle Paul? Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s theology of discipleship illustrates this last view of how to read the sufferings of Paul in Col 1:24:

Even though Jesus Christ has already accomplished all the vicarious suffering necessary for our redemption, his sufferings in this world are not finished yet. In his grace, he has left something unfinished (ὑστερήματα) in his suffering, which his church-community is to complete in this last period before his second coming. This suffering will benefit the body of Christ, the church. Whether this suffering of Christians also has power to atone for sin (1 Peter 4:1) remains an open question. What is clear, however, is that those suffering in the power of the body of Christ suffer in a vicariously representative [stellvertretend] action “for” the church-community, “for” the body of Christ. They are permitted to bear what others are spared.

We thus see in this paragraph from Bonhoeffer a missional-ecclesial focus, along with a Christoformity for the sake of others. That, so it appears to me, is what Paul was talking about for his own ministry. Most have now rightly dismissed what Bonhoeffer left open: “Whether this suffering … has power to atone … remains an open question.” What is not left open, however, is the summons to Christoformity, known by both Bonhoeffer and the apostle Paul. Returning now to Col 1:24, we finish by noting that Paul’s sufferings are physical sufferings: “in my flesh.” We detailed those sufferings immediately above. There is a purpose—in Paul’s theological explanation of his sufferings in the context of his gospel narrative—in that his sufferings are “for” or “on behalf of” the “body, which is the church.” One has to think here that Paul knows his sufferings are not atoning or saving but that they benefit the church in its hearing of the gospel, the instruction in the faith, and in the way of life for the church, and therefore the benefit is for the salvation and sanctification of the church through Paul’s God-given vocation (cf. 2 Cor 1:6; Eph 3:13; 2 Tim 2:10). By entering into the sufferings of Christ, Paul, in this sense, reveals the gospel about Jesus. 25 Notice again the structural flow of this paragraph:

  The christologically based suffering ministry (1:24)
  The servant-based ministry of the Word (1:25)
  The Word is a mystery (1:26)
     The mystery extends to the Gentiles (1:27)
       The Gentiles become mature in Christ (1:28)
  The christologically energized ministry (1:29).

By coordinating the propositions of vv. 24 and 25, Paul informs us that he participates in a co-crucifixion-with-Christ ministry for the church as a (suffering) servant (v. 24), and now he clarifies his servant-based ministry of the Word for the sake of the church. First, Paul’s apostolic calling is prompted solely “by the commission God gave me.” The gravity of this verse rests on the meaning of “commission” (oikonomia), which in general means management, administration, arrangement, order, commission, or plan. In this text Paul comprehends his vocation as a commission in God’s plan/house or in an ordered narrative for the cosmos, and in our letter he is here speaking of his calling to gospel the Gentiles and to incorporate Gentiles alongside Jews in the one people of God (cf. Eph 3:2, 9; also 1 Tim 1:4). More narrowly, we ask, Is this God’s plan (Eph 1:10; 3:9) or Paul’s commission (1 Cor 4:1; 9:17) in that plan? Because Paul goes on to say “God gave me,” one might think the emphasis falls on Paul’s commissioning by God. But the emphasis should not be on the commissioning itself so much as on the vocation of Paul within the plan of God, and this understanding is supported by how this term is used in the Prison Letters (e.g., Eph 1:10; 3:2, 9). Paul is quick to point out that his commission was given “for you” and not “for me.” In this text Paul speaks of the opportunity to participate in what God is doing in the missio Dei. But he defines the missio Dei as God’s expansion of his rule in Christ to the Gentiles. Second, God makes Paul the church’s “servant,” a term Paul uses in Colossians three other times (1:7 [referring to Epaphras both as doulos and diakonos]; 1:23 [Paul’s apostolic vocation]; 4:7 [Tychicus, who is also a syndoulos]). While one would not want to press too fine a distinction in a letter where both doulos and diakonos are used for the same person, the term diakonos is broader and more elevated than doulos in that the former term evokes negotiated contract, while the latter, ownership. In context, Paul is a slave of God but a servant of the church (because, as God’s slave, he does what God has called him to do). It is not uncommon for Paul to posit expressions like this for the church: Phoebe is a “servant” of the church (Rom 16:1), and there are “servants” of the church in Phil 1:1. Paul is also a “servant” of the new covenant (2 Cor 3:6), of God (6:4), of righteousness (11:15), and of Christ (11:23). Third, the substance of God’s calling of Paul is “to present to you the word of God in its fullness.” The verb Paul uses meaning “to present … fully” (NIV) or “complete” (CEB) is pleroō, a term that refers to the completion or filling up of something. Paul uses this term because he sees his mission to be the expansion of the gospel; it was first declared by John the Baptist (Matt 3:2), then by Jesus (4:17), then by all the apostles (1 Cor 15:3–8), but now it is his special, eschatological calling on behalf of the Gentiles. A more suggestive translation, then, would be “to expand the [declaration of the] word of God,” which fits tightly with what immediately follows in vv. 26–27. Later in his mission we will see that Paul thinks he completed his missional task. Thus Romans 15:19: “So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ” (see also Rom 11:25; 2 Tim 4:17). What Paul expands is the preaching of the “word of God.” Theologians and preachers are each tempted to see in this expression the Bible as the Word of God. For Paul, however, it refers to God’s communicative act (e.g., Num 24:4, 16; Josh 3:9; 1 Kgs 12:22; 13:1, 5, 21, 26; Prov 30:5; Isa 1:10; 2:3; 40:8; Jer 19:3), which inherently articulates with a performative word God’s plan (esp. Isa 55:10–11), and thus also for Paul it refers as well to the preaching of the gospel. Even more, the “word” is Christ (John 1:1–18; cf. Col 1:15–20). Perhaps Col 3:16 is the clearest: “let the word of Christ” means the word about Christ, the story of Jesus that fulfills the story of Israel. The same is clear in 4:3, where Paul asks them to intercede for him “that God may open a door” of the word, or “for the preaching of the word/gospel,” which is then followed with particulars: “so that we may proclaim (or ‘speak’) the mystery of Christ (or ‘about Christ’).” Alongside these observations, notice that the term “word” (logos) also refers to common speech in Colossians (3:17; 4:6). The Bible, to circle back to the theologian’s instinct, is God’s providential deposit of divine communication and gospel preaching. 26 It is Paul’s habit to explain by way of digression—or perhaps we should say it is the habit of the Pauline circle—which Paul now does: the “word of God” he is preaching is now explained: “the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord’s people.” Again, our structural diagram helps us see the progression of Paul’s thought:

  The christologically based suffering ministry (1:24)
  The servant-based ministry of the Word (1:25)
  The Word is a mystery (1:26)
     The mystery extends to the Gentiles (1:27)
       The Gentiles become mature in Christ (1:28)
  The christologically energized ministry (1:29).

There are two elements of Paul’s mystery, a term that takes us to the very heart of Paul’s view of history and how it unfolds under God’s providential plan: it was formerly undisclosed but is now disclosed in Christ through his gospeling of the Gentiles. This pattern of thinking is found elsewhere in Paul (e.g., 1 Cor 2:6–10; Rom 16:25–27; Eph 3:4–11), but we might need to brace ourselves for the magnitude of Paul’s eschatological claim of what God is now doing through him. Paul calls the substance of his apostolic calling “the mystery,” a term found among the mystery religions, the apocalyptic writings, and in the Qumran writings. The term “mystery” is Paul’s favorite term for describing the newness of the age that creates his mission: what was once given to Abraham as intended to be a blessing to the nations (Gen 12) is finally fully underway in the Pauline mission to the Gentiles. There is, as Bockmuehl has shown, a three-dimensional perspective to what Paul says about revelation, and this mystery now revealed provides for Paul the hermeneutic by which he reads history and the world:

One implication of this view of the Pauline pattern of revelation is its logical symmetry, mutatis mutandis, with the corresponding pattern of Judaism. For a similar three-dimensional perspective applies there as well: (i) past salvation event (Exodus) and constitutive revelation (the Torah given to Moses); (ii) present revealed elaboration (through tradition and interpretation) of the past revelation; and (iii) future crowning revelation of the Messiah and/or the Kingdom of God. For Paul the future dimension has already broken into the past and the present; similarly some Jewish writers (notably those of Qumran) share the conjunction of future and present eschatology, as well as the sense of a fundamental revelation in the recent past. We cannot therefore properly speak of a “bursting” or “abandonment” of the apocalyptic pattern of revelation as disclosure in this age and implementation in the age to come. Paul retains the apocalyptic schema, although he subjects it to considerable modification in light of the actual incursion, in Christ and the Gospel, of God’s eschatological righteousness into the present. Three temporal dimensions remain in place, but are subject to a Christocentric redefinition and consolidation.

Hence, the “mystery” is not so much something mysterious, secretive, and known only to a select few and not to be divulged to others, as was its meaning in the mystery religions, but something previously unknown or “hidden for ages and generations” but now revealed by God in Christ in the power of the Spirit—and divulged to and for all! Yet, it is not simply that what was hidden is now disclosed in this Semitic use of the term: what is disclosed emerges from the inexhaustible depths of God’s wisdom so that, even though disclosed, it remains only partially grasped, and then only by those to whom God’s revelation comes. There is a deep Jewish heritage for this term as the “basic Jewish apocalyptic credo” (see Dan 2; 1 Enoch 103:2; 106:19; Rev 10:7), but as is often the case with Paul, it takes on a new christological shape; in particular, Col 1:27 defines this mystery as “Christ in you, the hope of glory.” The temporal clauses of v. 26 (“for ages and generations … now”) raise to the surface Paul’s foundational narrative. The terms “ages” and “generations” are not about powers, principalities, or people but about epochs in history that anticipated this mystery. That mystery is “now” made manifest to the “Lord’s people” (NIV; CEB: “his holy people”). The term “Lord’s people” (or saints, hagioi) refers to those who are dedicated to God and therefore separated from sin and sinfulness and systems of evil; it does not refer to a special class of Jews or Christians; the term describes those who have been saved and transformed by God’s elective graces. And the term evokes Israel as the people of God into whom the Gentiles are now being brought. There are thus good reasons to think Paul means “Jewish people” or “Israel” as the tree-trunk people of God who now, with Gentiles, embrace Jesus as Messiah and Lord. 27 Another explanation by way of explanation now follows his comments about the “saints,” or as the NIV has it, “the Lord’s people.” Again, the diagram:

  The christologically based suffering ministry (1:24)
  The servant-based ministry of the Word (1:25)
  The Word is a mystery (1:26)
     The mystery extends to the Gentiles (1:27)
       The Gentiles become mature in Christ (1:28)
  The christologically energized ministry (1:29).

To this people “God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery.” The word “make known” parallels the “now disclosed” of v. 26, and “the Lord’s people” is defined as including “the Gentiles.” The word “mystery” in v. 26 finds a parallel in “the glorious riches of this mystery,” which is itself now made more clear with “Christ in you, the hope of glory.” In effect, v. 27 repeats v. 26 by way of slight expansion. To circle back to v. 25, we are learning more and more what “commission” (oikonomia) means: God’s plan all along has been to expand Israel by extending Abraham’s blessing to the Gentiles, and Paul’s mission is precisely that—to gospel the Gentiles with the message about Christ. But “God has chosen to make known” reveals that gospeling is the work of God—the missio Dei. To repeat, the work of God is to declare God’s Son, Jesus, to be King for all people, Jews and Gentiles, males and females, slaves and free, Scythians and barbarians. The focal point of this mystery’s glorious richness is Christ himself; the Christocentrism of Paul’s theology in the Prison Letters must be acknowledged for what it is. Paul sees the ground and the goal of all history to be Christ, and we perhaps need to remind ourselves of two things: first, that “Christ” means “Messiah” and therefore evokes a history of expectation in Israel’s story that leads to God finally sending his Son to be Israel’s one true King; and second, that soteriology flows out of Christology, or that the gospel message is first about Jesus and only then about salvation. This ordering turns Jesus from simply being a means of redemption into the subject of the gospel itself. It is in this Christocentric context that the word “glorious” gains its most important evocation: Paul is not using “glorious” just as an adjective, as if he were saying “marvelous” or “magnificent.” No, this term evokes the very presence of God in Christ (the Glorious One), and one is not off base thinking here of the christological reflection of Heb 1:1–4, and one might also take a long drink over a similar usage at Jas 2:1. As will be clear a few words deeper into v. 27, Paul will define “the glorious riches of this mystery” to be “Christ in you,” and Christ is defined then as “the hope of glory.” This Christ the King can be described only with the term “riches,” an important if minor theme in Paul at this period in his ministry (cf. Rom 9:23–24; 11:33; 16:25–26). “Riches” can refer to the gospel response in generosity to others (2 Cor 8:2), to the gracious gift of election and covenant redemption in Christ (Eph 1:7; 2:7; Rom 2:4), to the incomparable goodness and abundance of that gift (Phil 4:19; Eph 3:16; Rom 9:23; 11:33; 1 Tim 6:17), and to the mystery of God’s redemption expanding to the Gentiles (Col 2:2; Eph 1:18; 3:8; Rom 11:12). And this gloriously rich mystery, Paul continues in v. 27, is flourishing among the Gentiles. They are not the object of God’s choice to make the mystery known but the ones among whom this knowledge is now circulating. In other words, God is making known to the “Lord’s people” the mystery that is at work now among the Gentiles. What is known is the story about King Jesus expanding to include Gentiles into the people of God. This kind of Christocentricity of history characterizes so many paragraphs of the Prison Letters because the gospel itself is Christocentric. It is a mistake to think the gospel can be reduced to the message of our salvation; the gospel is the message about Christ who is King, Lord, and Savior. The gospel saves because the Messiah is the Savior; the Savior is not the means of the gospel but its content. The missio Dei is to announce Jesus because, as the hymn in 1:15–20 makes clear, he is the Creator and the Sustainer and the Redeemer and the telos of all creation. What does “Christ in you” mean? It can be either individual (in you personally) or corporate (among you Colossians). There is plenty of evidence that the apostle Paul believed Christ took up residence in the heart of each believer (Gal 2:20 [referring to Jewish believers]; 2 Cor 13:5; Rom 8:10; Eph 3:17), but the term “you” here is plural, and Paul’s theme of Christ’s presence transcends individuals. That is, because he dwells in the new people of God, the church (corporate), through the Spirit, he truly also indwells the believer (individual). This sense has an immediate parallel in the preceding clause: “among the Gentiles,” which uses en, meaning “in, or among, you.” Having said this, there is some trendiness is asserting that the use of plural nouns means that Paul is not speaking to individuals or that such plurals counter modern-day individualism. These plurals can just as easily mean “each one of you—that is, all of you” and not be seen as a razor’s edge cutting into individualism. It is a false dichotomy to pose individual (as personal) vs. corporate in New Testament texts; the language operates in both directions—which is not to say that our modern context is not too individualistic and that we are not in need of a more robust ecclesiology. Paul’s ecclesiology does not colonize the individual into a collective but reorients the selfishness of individuals toward a cruciform existence for others. “Christ in you” is further clarified as v. 27 comes to its end: the indwelling of God in Christ among and in the Colossians generates “the hope of glory.” As we have already stated at 1:5, Paul’s sense of hope refers to the future, final, and eternal salvation of God in the kingdom that has been now manifested in Christ himself and in God’s people, the church, and that glorious residence is spreading throughout the world through that indwelt people. The presence of Christ among the Colossians, then, is ground for their hope of life in the age to come. 28 Yet another clarification follows: this Christ, this hope of glory, is “the one we proclaim.” Our diagram illustrates the structure:

  The christologically based suffering ministry (1:24)
  The servant-based ministry of the Word (1:25)
  The Word is a mystery (1:26)
     The mystery extends to the Gentiles (1:27)
       The Gentiles become mature in Christ (1:28)
  The christologically energized ministry (1:29).

Having explained that the term “mystery” is the plan of God to expand the people of God to include the Gentiles, Paul clarifies the manner and the direction of their Gentile gospeling ministry. He piles on terms of communication that highlight the end of the days of waiting for the revelation in Christ. In addition to the term “proclaim,” which refers to the broad, official acclamation of a message, Paul uses a number of disclosure terms in this passage: “present” (1:25), “mystery” (1:26, 27; cf. 2:2), “now disclosed” (1:26), and “make known” (1:27; cf. 2:3). They begin with the term “proclaim” (1:28), a term that will be unfolded in this verse in other disclosure terms: “admonishing” and “teaching” and “wisdom” (also 2:3). These terms will be followed up in v. 29 with “contend” (see also 2:1) and then “understanding” (2:2) and other terms already used in 1:24–29. Because of the number of terms at work in these two paragraphs, one is far wiser synthesizing rather than scrutinizing differences into separable ministries. The NIV and CEB translate the accompanying participles (admonishing, teaching) as adverbial modifications of the main verb “proclaim,” and the participles can be seen as the means or manner in which the proclamation occurs or, which is more likely, as actions that accompany proclamation. They proclaim this mystery to everyone: the word “all” is noticeable. Thus, a translation could be “admonishing all and teaching all in all wisdom, so we can present all mature in Christ.” This is a pastoral strategy articulating his focus on Gentiles. The first, second, and fourth “all”s connote “Gentiles alongside Jews.” But one would also have to think even more particularly because of 3:11; that is, by “all” he means to include Gentiles and Jews, barbarians and Scythians, as well as both slave and free. If one ties these “all”s back to the hymn in 1:15–20, where we see Paul stretching the imagination to see the reconciliation of all things, one is on the precipice of a kind of universalism not known until Paul (and Timothy). But as we have already indicated above at 1:20, this universalism can be overstretched. The emphasis in the word “all” emerges from his mission and from the mystery, which is to say that “all” here means “Jew and Gentile.” That is, “all” means “both” in both Jew and Gentile, both slave and free, both barbarian and Scythian. This proclamation by Paul and Timothy occurs in the actions of both admonishing and teaching. These terms can overlap in meaning, so that admonishing is not just rebuking or warning but entails the kind of instruction that reminds and reveals and rebukes in order to lead someone’s mind aright (see 1 Thess 5:12, 14; 2 Thess 3:15; 1 Cor 4:14; Rom 15:14). Thus, when Paul uses “admonish” later in Colossians (3:16), he prefaces it as well with “teach.” The term “admonish,” in the context of teaching and proclaiming, emphasizes the need to warn someone about a behavior or belief. If “admonish” focuses on the warning side of ecclesial catechesis, the term “teaching” focuses on the more informational, formational, and positive side of catechesis or paraenesis. This kind of “teaching” emphasizes both theological and moral instruction, the sort we find in both Col 1:1–3:4 and 3:5–4:6, though Paul’s letters are not so tidy that one can tightly distinguish preaching the gospel and teaching theology from teaching ethics. This more expansive sense of the didactic task of the church, through the gift of teaching, looks like this: “Positive teaching may not be enough: there is no telling what muddles Christian minds will get into from time to time, and part of the task of one who proclaims Christ is to straighten out confusions, to search for and tie together correctly the loose ends of half-grasped ideas, so that the positive teaching may not be instantly distorted upon reception, but may be properly understood, appreciated and lived out.” Paul teaches Christ and the gospel as foundational (2 Thess 2:15; Col 2:7; Eph 4:21); he is not afraid of urging his churches to imitate himself (1 Cor 4:17), but teaching and instruction unfold revelation (Gal 1:12) that forms Christian tradition (2 Tim 2:2). He is alert to false teaching as well (e.g., Titus 1:11). What is perhaps most notable about Paul’s ethics is their emphasis on virtues important to ecclesial fellowship; Paul’s emphasis is less how “I” can grow personally than how “we” can be formed into a church. The sphere of this expanded didactic ministry comes to expression next: they proclaim, admonish, and teach “with all wisdom.” Paul may be glancing over his shoulder at the false teachers, who may well have claimed wisdom for their teaching. It is clear that Paul’s wisdom tradition is back in play here, and he knows that genuine teaching leads to a life that lives in God’s world in God’s way, namely, in a Christoform life. This expansive didactic ministry has direction: Paul and Timothy want to “present everyone fully mature in Christ.” Paul’s aim is to offer, as ancients did, a proper sacrifice (Exod 12:5), namely, the Colossian church to God at the parousia (1 Thess 2:19–20; 5:23; 1 Cor 13:12) as “mature in Christ.” This term “mature” (teleios) translates a word often translated “perfect/perfection”; as a moral injunction, it does not point toward a rigid sense of sinlessness. Rather, teleios combines conformity to the moral purity of God as taught by Jesus and the apostles (Matt 5:48; Rom 12:2) with the more “ordinary” virtues of reflexive trust in God as good (Jas 1:2–8), self-control of the tongue (3:1–12), and Christian growth into maturity in morality and theology (1 Cor 2:6; 14:20; Col 4:12; Phil 3:15). Hence, teleios in Pauline ethics means Christoformity. Paul knows the era of perfection in its fullness comes into fullness only in the future kingdom (Eph 4:13; 1 Cor 13:10). The emphasis in Col 1:28, obviously, is eschatological moral perfection, but it ought to be noted that Paul is not leapfrogging into the final kingdom; rather, he is informing the Colossians that their pastoral labor aims at their present growth as Christians into Christoformity so they will attain maturity. The apostles will hand them over to God’s final scrutiny as the sort who can pass God’s judgment. That he adds “in Christ” means the maturity that develops comes by way of God’s reconciliation of the world in Christ. 29 Returning now to first person, Paul resumes the claims made in both v. 24 and v. 25, this time speaking of the energy of Christ at work in him in his labor for the Colossians:

  The christologically based suffering ministry (1:24)
  The servant-based ministry of the Word (1:25)
  The Word is a mystery (1:26)
     The mystery extends to the Gentiles (1:27)
       The Gentiles become mature in Christ (1:28)
  The christologically energized ministry (1:29).

The indwelling Christ, mentioned in v. 27, empowers the apostle Paul in his apostolic gospel vocation (1:29), but the indwelling presence of Christ does not mean ministry is inactive: for Paul, gospel mission means he contends strenuously as one empowered by Christ’s energy. Once again, Paul uses a variety of terms in this specific section for his gospel work: “suffering” (1:24), “servant” (1:25), “proclaim, admonishing, and teaching” (1:28), and “how hard I am contending” (2:1). One hears an echo of Paul’s not uncommon reminder that he works “night and day.” When he details “how hard I am contending,” he evokes his entire way of life: his pastoral care for the people, his physical labor as a tentmaker, his intellectual reading, prayer, pondering, and discussions, his letter writing, and his travels. The word “contend” (kopiaō) conveys struggle, effort, and weariness; this term and the related noun (kopos) mean discomfort and distress as a result of effort expended (e.g., Gal 6:17; 1 Thess 2:9; 2 Thess 3:8; 2 Cor 6:5; 11:23, 27; 2 Tim 2:6). And the participle that follows (“strenuously”; see below at 2:1) intensifies the verb “contend.” We have in this section (1:24–2:5) a beautiful, but often ignored, pastoral theology. But Paul’s strenuous exertions for them has a special resource: he performs this expansive didactic ministry “with all the energy Christ so powerfully works in me.” More broadly, Paul’s ministry has a threefold resource: God, in Christ, through the Spirit. In this instance he speaks of the indwelling Christ as he had spoken of the mystery of Christ in you (1:27). He is not alone but is empowered by God (1:11; Eph 1:19; 3:7, 16, 20; 6:10; Phil 3:21). It is noticeable that these terms emerge in Paul’s letters probably on the basis of his experience of needing God’s empowering grace in the labor of ministry.

2. Paul’s Concern for the Colossians (2:1–5)

This is not the first time Paul turns his pastoral attention to the Colossians. After all, he has already expressed concern for them in Col 1:24 (“for you”), 1:25 (“to you”), and 1:27 (“in you”), but it is accurate to say that he now turns his pastoral energies especially toward them and their neighbors, the Laodiceans, and anyone else who has not met him face-to-face. In 2:1 and 2:4–5 Paul speaks to “you” (plural), but in 2:2 he speaks about “they.” This shift from “you” (plural) to “they” in 2:2 and back to “you” (plural) in 2:4–5 probably does not mean he’s thinking exclusively of the Laodiceans (or those who have never met him) in 2:2 and only the Colossians in 2:1, 4–5. More likely the “they” of 2:2 includes the Colossians, the Laodiceans, and those (probably in that region) who have never seen Paul up close and personal. But a strict reading probably means he is switching from the Colossians to the Laodiceans and then back to the Colossians. Rhetorically, Paul establishes himself as worthy of being heard on the basis of his love for them in 2:1–5. He establishes his pastoral commitment to them with the language of exertion (2:1). In so establishing himself, however, Paul has a purpose in mind (2:2), which is fourfold: (1) encouragement, (2) being united in love, (3) having the full riches of complete understanding, and (4) having knowledge of the mystery of God. In typical fashion, he shifts to a christological digression (2:3), and then resumes his purpose in 2:4 with a pastoral warning about deception, a warning followed by resuming his pastoral affirmations of their walk of faith (2:5). Paul’s form of pastoral ministry is not distant or aloof, but vulnerable, directed, Christocentric, apologetic, and affirming. Thus,

  Paul’s pastoral disclosure (2:1)
  Paul’s purpose (2:2)
  Digression (2:3)
  Paul’s warning (2:4)
  Paul’s pastoral affirmation (2:5)

2:1I want you to know how hard I am contending for you and for those at Laodicea, and for all who have not met me personally. 2My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments. 5For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how disciplined you are and how firm your faith in Christ is.

2:1 The emphasis of v. 1 is on the effort Paul expends for the churches of Colossae and Laodicea and for those who have not seen his face. “I want you to know” is as a personal disclosure, something Paul does in other circumstances. His expression “how hard I am contending” evokes athletic competition, which formed a major element of Roman and Greek societies. He is competing on their behalf, in the power of the Spirit and with Christ at work in him (1:29), against the forces of darkness. Paul elsewhere competes for the faith (2 Tim 4:7) and the gospel against enemies (1 Thess 2:2), in suffering (Phil 1:30), and in the hope of eternal life (1 Tim 6:12). We note that the famous verse Heb 12:1 also uses agōn (here “contending”), but there it is translated “race”: “let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.” What does Paul mean with “contending” (agōn)? Is it his apostolic and pastoral gospel ministry and the suffering and toil connected with it, his battle against enemies and even the evil systemic forces, his personal and pastoral and missional identity, or is this a reference to his prayer life (see Col 4:12)? Though the word is connected to prayer in 4:12, the immediate context suggests his gospel ministry and his suffering on their behalf (1:24–29, esp. v. 29). The kind of commitment to his churches is evident in Paul’s struggle with the Corinthian house churches, a struggle experienced in part when he was in Ephesus, some 120 miles west of and down the Meander River from Colossae, and if our dating of Colossians is accurate, then that struggle may well be at work in the terms he uses in our passage. 2 This disclosure of his intense desire for the Colossians is now clarified: “My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God.” To repeat, Paul has a fourfold purpose in mind: (1) encouragement, (2) being united in love, (3) having the full riches of complete understanding, and (4) having knowledge of the mystery of God. First, the aim of Paul’s exertions is encouragement. In this letter at Col 4:8 we read that Paul sent Tychicus to them to encourage them; similarly, he sent Tychicus to encourage the Ephesians (6:22). Apart from using this term for his pleadings and exhortations (e.g., 1 Cor 1:10; 4:16; Phlm 9–10; 2 Cor 5:20; Rom 12:1), Paul often wants the churches to be encouraged (1 Thess 3:2; 4:18; 5:11, 14; 1 Cor 14:31; Rom 12:8; Titus 1:9; 2:15), just as he himself has been encouraged by God and others (1 Thess 3:7). His encouragement is but an extension of God’s (2 Cor 1:4, 6; 7:6–7). This verb “encourage” (parakaleō) suggests more than consolation or comfort, for it acquires the sense of “strengthen,” much like one finds in 1 Thess 3:2–3 or Rom 1:11–12. Paul in fact expresses a related idea in 2:5, where he affirms his confidence in them with the noun stereōma (firmness, steadfastness). His aim is encouragement “in heart. Jewish anthropology is not the same as modern Western anthropology, and we are not to think of an organ so much as the emotional and intellectual center of a person. Dunn calls the heart the “experiencing, motivating I” that is connected to the rational. Thus, to sample a few of Paul’s fifty-two uses of the term,

•      Christ is in the heart (Col 3:15–17; Eph 3:17).
•      The Spirit has been sent into the believers’ hearts (Gal 4:6; 2 Cor 1:22; Rom 5:5).
•      God tests the heart (1 Thess 2:4; 1 Cor 14:25; Rom 8:27) and judges the heart (4:5) because God has inscribed his will onto it (Rom 2:15).
•      Paul wants the hearts of Christians in his churches to be strengthened (1 Thess 3:13; 2 Thess 1:7; Col 2:2; 4:8) and opened by enlightenment (2 Cor 4:6; Eph 1:18) and deciding to be generous (2 Cor 9:7) and choosing to obey (Rom 6:17).
•      The heart is where one finds one’s emotions (2 Cor 2:4; Rom 9:2; 10:1) and one’s deepest personal realities (2 Cor 3:2–3).

As such, then, the heart can be shut down and darkened (Eph 4:18; 2 Cor 3:15; Rom 1:21, 24; 2:5) or opened in love to others (2 Cor 6:11; cf. Phil 1:7) and to God (Rom 10:6–10) in praise (Eph 5:19). Second, the goal of Paul’s ministry is that they may be “united in love.” Grammatically, this clause is subordinate to the previous encouragement clause to explicate “encouragement”: encouraged in heart by union in love. But a closer look at the text leads us to think this adverbial participle (“united in love”) deepens and extends the encouragement clause (“encouraged in heart”). The term “united” translates symbibazō and has two substantially different meanings: either “unite” or “instruct.” Complicating a decision is that each makes sense, and even further complication emerges because nearly all translations favor “united” (NIV, CEB, KJV, NRSV et al.), making departure more difficult (especially for the preacher). Here are four important facts: (1) the term means “instruct” in all ten instances in the Septuagint (e.g., Exod 4:12, 15), as well as in 1 Cor 2:16, where Paul quotes Isa 40:13; (2) it means instruction in Acts 9:22 and 19:33; (3) but closer to our letter a near parallel in Eph 4:16 connects the term in a complementary if not synonymous parallel with “joined,” suggesting the term in our text means “united”; (4) finally, there is another use of this term in Col 2:19, where it has the sense of an organic connection: “supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews.” It is most likely, then, that our term here means “knit together” or, in a more bland translation, “united.” Paul’s yearning in ministry is for the Colossians to be united “in love.” As indicated above at 1:4, 8, and 13, the term “love” describes a person’s rugged commitment to another person in three ways: in presence, in advocacy, and in the mutual direction of development toward Christlikeness. Paul, in other words, is not yearning that these folks will simply have affection for one another but that they will commit themselves to one another as they all grow in Christ into a unity (3:11). To be knit together in love does not mean they will all be committed to becoming loving people so much as committed to one another as a fellowship. Third, he exerts himself in a united-in-love kind of ministry for their “complete understanding.” Paul uses a series of abstractions: “unto all riches of full conviction [or fullness] of knowledge”! We can work backward to see what he means. His aim is knowledge, and what he wants for them is to be complete, full, or certain in their understanding of this knowledge, and this kind of completeness is the riches for which he is laboring. What he wants for them is “riches”; that is, he yearns for them to flourish. “Riches,” to repeat what was said at 1:27, can refer to the gospel response in generosity to others (2 Cor 8:2), to the gracious gift of election and covenant redemption in Christ (Rom 2:4; Eph 1:7; 2:7), to the incomparable goodness and abundance of that gift (Phil 4:19; Eph 3:16; Rom 9:23; 11:33; 1 Tim 6:17), and to the mystery of God’s redemption expanding to the Gentiles (Col 2:2; Eph 1:18; 3:8; Rom 11:12). In our context, the last is what is most in mind, and Paul knows this kind of riches requires “complete understanding.” The term behind “complete understanding” is plērophoria, a term used by Paul only one other time, but that usage is suggestive for us. In 1 Thessalonians 1:5 he says “because our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction [plērophoria].” Colossians is not 1 Thessalonians, but Paul has in mind a Spirit-shaped conviction about the truth of the gospel (the knowledge, the mystery). That sense is confirmed by similar expressions at Col 4:12, as well as at 1 Thess 1:5; 1 Cor 2:1–4; Rom 4:21; 8:15–16; 14:5; Heb 6:11; and 2 Tim 4:17. Backing up now to see the whole, Paul’s focus is that they may united in love and knowledge. In fact, knowledge promotes unity in love, just as love promotes unity in knowledge. The focus for Paul, as is the case in his mystery of uniting Jews to Gentiles and Gentiles to Jews, is a fellowship that exhibits a supernaturally based union through the Spirit. Love and knowledge for Paul are thoroughly ecclesial virtues. Fourth, Paul’s toil for the Colossians aims at their “knowledge” of the “mystery of God.” This prepositional phrase (translated as “in order that”) builds the stack of purposes one more level. We have already summarized the meaning of “mystery” as the hidden plan of God now made manifest in Christ, that is, the inclusion of Gentiles into an expanded Israel. But the focus here is not so much soteriology or ecclesiology but Christology, for Paul goes on to define the “mystery of God” with this: “namely, Christ.” In v. 3 Paul sets off on a digression (or parenthetical addition) that digests what was said about soteriology and Christology earlier (1:13–23). 3 Most notable is the Christocentrism in v. 3: “all the treasures” are known in Christ, so that one can say that in knowing Christ, one knows God. Wright observes, “Everything we might want to ask about God and his purposes can and must now be answered—and this is the force of the verse—with reference to the crucified and risen Jesus, the Messiah.” Douglas Moo takes us one step higher in saying that v. 3 “is the christological high point of the letter.” What Jews said about wisdom is said here of Christ: “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Wisdom and knowledge are often joined in the Jewish tradition (Col 1:27–28; 2:2; Rom 11:33). Along with echoes of Prov 2:1–2, 4, 6, notice Sir 1:24–25 and Wis 7:13–14, followed by two apocalyptic texts that each mention treasures and wisdom:

  They hold back their words until the right moment;
  then the lips of many tell of their good sense.
  In the treasuries of wisdom are wise sayings,
  but godliness is an abomination to a sinner. (Sir 1:24–25)

  I learned without guile and I impart without grudging;
  I do not hide her wealth, for it is an unfailing treasure for mortals;
  those who get it obtain friendship with God,
  commended for the gifts that come from instruction. (Wis 7:13–14)

And he answered me and said to me, “This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells. And he will open all the hidden storerooms; for the Lord of the Spirits has chosen him.” (1 Enoch 46:3)

These are they who prepared for themselves treasures of wisdom. And stores of insight are found with them. And they have not withdrawn from mercy and they have preserved the truth of the Law. (2 Baruch 44:14–15)

But if one is attuned to biblical echoes, it is hard not to hear another echo, this one a profound christological move in attributing to Christ what was attributed to YHWH in the Old Testament. Thus, notice Isa 33:5–6:

  The LORD is exalted, for he dwells on high;
  he will fill Zion with his justice and righteousness.
  He will be the sure foundation for your times,
  a rich store of salvation and wisdom and knowledge;
  the fear of the LORD is the key to this treasure.

The mystery of God, the one formerly hidden but now disclosed, is Christ the final treasure, and in that treasure is both wisdom (1:9, 28; 2:23; 3:16; 4:5; cf. Eph 1:8, 17; 3:10) and knowledge (Eph 3:19; Phil 3:8). If the mystery was hidden in the deep recesses of God’s plan, the wisdom and knowledge expressing the truth of that mystery are in Christ himself. However, one is pressed by the grammar to say that they are still “hidden” from those who refuse to see in Christ God’s fullness revealed. Paul contests any view that revelation of God’s truth and the gospel can be found in any other location than Christ. Not a few have seen in these terms an overt countering of the halakic mystics threatening Colossae. 4 The patient reader of Colossians perceives either a slight shift in topic (Nestle-Aland has a minor paragraph break between vv. 3 and 4), while others suggest Paul has moved to a new topic entirely. Paul is looking back when he says “I tell you this,” that is, what “I just said about Christ and wisdom and knowledge.” He moves onto a slightly new plane when he says “so that no one may deceive you,” which shapes much of what is to follow in chapters 2 and 3. But 2:4–5 also resumes, after the parenthetical observation in v. 3, the pastoral theology from vv. 1–2 about his personal investment and desire for them to remain firm in the faith. Paul has been indirectly addressing the problems the Colossians are facing, but here he faces the problems directly: “so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.” Defection and distortion were routine pastoral concerns for the apostle Paul and for his co-workers, including Timothy and Epaphras. Every page of Paul’s letters is engaged in pastoral encouragements or polemics or apologetics, which reminds us that at the heart of the apostolic vocation were spiritual agony, prayer, listening, learning, and discussions with others about the problems rising when the gospel takes root in a new community. It is no less true in our own day. We have discussed the halakic mystics of Paul in the introduction and made a case that this is a Jewish-based set of ideas that focuses on Torah observance and rigorous fasting as a path to exalted experience with the angels in heaven; that is, that they were halakic charismatics. Paul’s rhetorical strategy is to ward off the problems by a thumping knockdown when he labels the ideas of the halakic mystics as “fine-sounding arguments [pithanologia].” Plato illustrates the sort of air such philosophers breathed when he distinguished mere plausibility and probability from “cogent proof” (apodeixis):

But you do not advance any cogent proof [apodeixis] whatsoever; you base your statements on probability [eikos]. If Theodorus, or any other geometrician, should base his geometry on probability, he would be of no account at all. So you and Theodorus had better consider whether you will accept arguments founded on plausibility [pithanologia] and probabilities (Theaetetus 162e).

Paul sees the content of the halakic mystics as false, and their rhetoric can therefore be described as persuasive deception. Paul’s pastoral theology is on display: he knows either by report or by experience that gospel accomplishments are chased away by gospel diminishments—the former at the hand of God and the latter at the hand of the evil one’s minions. “It is by spurious arguments that such teachers win the day, and valid arguments, based on the centrality of Jesus Christ, are the proper weapons with which to meet them.” 5 The strong denunciation of v. 4 is followed in v. 5 with pastoral affirmation of the Colossians by announcing that Paul thinks they will not fall for the false teachers. Paul communicates with the Colossians through a physical letter because he is physically absent, but his physical absence does not mitigate his spiritual presence: “For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit.” How so? Is this a spiritual presence? the power of a charismatic personality? a presence in Christ? a presence in the Spirit? a contact through prayer? Or is this the authority of an apostle through his letter? A substantive parallel can be found in 1 Corinthians, and its wording seemingly rules out all but the spiritual presence option. Thus: “For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present” (1 Cor 5:3–4). Paul wants them to know he is present with them “in spirit” or “in the Spirit,” but he wants them to know this so they will sense his confidence in their stability in the faith. Paul congratulates their orderliness (NIV: “how disciplined you are”) and stability, terms that are at times used in military contexts. However, a military connotation is only one possible context and hardly the most convincing. The former term (taxis) is especially appropriate for long-standing social structures, perceived often enough as divinely formed natural order and social relations (hence, hypo-taxis in 3:18–4:1), and the second term (stereōma) describes preparation or strength. Thus, the first term suggests that it is socially right and honorable to sustain their Christian faith, while the second term describes their theological, moral, and spiritual fortification. These two terms express why Paul thinks they will not fall for the halakic mystics. In addition, political thinking in the classic world argued that what was divine and “natural” was to become “law” on the part of legislators and the citizenry. Order and nature, then, would have been closely connected. What, then, does Paul have in mind when he speaks of what is orderly and solid? Their “faith in Christ.” The term “faith” here could mean “faithfulness in Christ” or, more probably, “trusting Christ.” Even if this second sense is preferred, the terms “orderly” and “solid” describe this faith as persevering.

II. DOCTRINAL CORRECTION (2:6–3:4)

A. THE ESSENTIAL EXHORTATION (2:6–7)

The attentive reader might at Col 2:6 experience relief: the apostle finally begins the letter! Yes, in fact, that’s right—but Paul’s letters wind themselves into shape, so that from the opening lines he has been both addressing the problems and forming a foundation for that address.

6So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him, 7rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.

Colossians 2:6–7 summarizes the entire letter as it combines both the theo-christological and soteriological themes in the first clause (“as you received …”), drawing us into the vortex of 1:12–20, with the formational implications of that theology in the second half of v. 6 and all of v. 7, which draws us back to 1:21–23 and at the same time pushes into all of chapters 2–4. That two-pronged summary leads us to all that is about to be said from this paragraph forward. From a more schematic direction, themes about salvation and Christ (1:12–20) are summed up in 2:6a, while the pastoral reminder of their former and new life (1:21–23) are summed up in 2:6b–7. As Holly Diane Hayes emphasized in her brief sketch of the Christian life in Colossians, one can comprehend the ethics of this passage only on the basis of the victory of Christ and life in Christ. For the Greek reader it may be observed that “continue to live” (2:6b) is the first imperative in Colossians, sounding a note that a new phase in the letter is underway. Structurally, our passage may be arranged as follows:

  Assumption for the way of life (2:6a)
  The way of life (2:6b–7)
  Way of life framed (2:6b–7)
     General framing (2:6b)
     Dimensions of the general framing (2:7)
       Rooted (2:7a)
       Built up (2:7b)
       Strengthened (2:7c)
       Overflowing (2:7d)

The gravity of this paragraph rests entirely on three Greek words translated in the NIV as “continue to live your lives in him.” The opening clause (“just as you received …”) forms the foundation for the imperative about the way of life, and v. 7 employs four participles that explicate the various dimensions of this way of life. The same verb (peripatein, “walking” or “continuing to live”) is used in 1:10, with four participles also being employed in 1:10–12a (bearing fruit, growing, being strengthened, giving thanks). 6 The assumption for a life of walking in Christ (2:6b) is reception of Christ: “just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord.” The “just as” (a comparative) connects the readers to what has already been said. Paul and Timothy’s assumption is that the Colossians received King Jesus. In saying they “received” Christ, we are led to think of the Jewish transmission of traditions in an educative and formative manner as a process of reception. Much work has been done on this process by historians. This is not the place to detail that information, but it can be said that Jews passed on their beliefs and interpretations of Torah both as rulings and as stories. Reception of tradition is anchored in Jewish wisdom (e.g., Prov 1:1–7) and has Greek parallels too (Plato, Theaetetus 198b). Transmission of Jewish tradition was mostly oral. Early Christians adopted and adapted that Jewish form of transmission, reshaped the praxis around the gospel, and then adjusted it again for reception in the Roman Empire. The “social imaginary” of this process is presented in Mishnah Avot 1:1:

A.      Moses received Torah at Sinai and handed it on to Joshua, Joshua to elders, and elders to prophets,
B.      and prophets handed it on to the men of the great assembly.
C.      They said three things: (1) “Be prudent in judgment.” (2) “Raise up many disciples.” (3) “Make a fence for the Torah.”

The “fence” refers to interpreting Torah to form halakah that can protect the Israelite from infringing upon Torah observance. Yet, Sumney rightly notes, “If the writer drew on rabbinic ideas about passing on tradition, his Gentile readers probably missed that nuance.” This description of the Jewish transmission has parallels in other cultures, not least in the guru-shishya relation in South Asia. They “received Christ Jesus as Lord.” How so? We are to think first of the reception of narratives about Jesus (e.g., like those found in Mark and Q; 1 Cor 7:10–11; 9:14; 11:23–26), then of moral codes (1 Thess 4:1; 2 Thess 3:6; 1 Cor 11:2), and surrounding both the narratives and the ethics we are to think of the gospel and the faith (e.g., 1 Cor 15:3–8). One might also wonder whether learning to read Israel’s story (and Bible) as finding its way to Jesus was part of this reception of Christ as the Lord of the story. The term paralambanō (“receive a tradition”) is not used in the early church for the initial response to Jesus. This reception is thus about what we would today call catechism, and this view is confirmed in 2:7 with its “as you were taught.” In light of the confessional nature of our verse (to receive Jesus “as Lord”) and the surprisingly sudden entrance of baptism/circumcision in 2:11–12, one is entitled to wonder whether our two verses are not a window into early church praxis of catechism leading to baptism. In addition, we ought to hear in this positive reception of Jesus as tradition a rejection of the “human tradition” in Col 2:8. There is not one tradition (bad) and one nontradition (Christ, good) but two traditions, one bad (the human tradition) and one good (the Christ tradition). It is worth our while to pause to consider how cavalier some Protestant traditions can be about church tradition and church theology, arrogating to themselves the task of interpretation and theology as if God had not guided previous generations. At the heart of such cavalier dismissals of traditions is a sad failure to comprehend and indwell the biblical wisdom tradition, which is from the very inception a conserving and respectful posture toward historic theology and practice. The NIV translates “Christ Jesus as Lord” while the CEB has “Christ Jesus the Lord,” the difference inviting the careful reader to determine whether “Lord” is “an accusative with a predicate” (the former) or one more descriptor of Jesus (alongside “Christ”) or an epexegetical construction (“Christ Jesus, the Lord” or “Christ, Jesus the Lord” or “Jesus, Christ and Lord”). Grammar permits each, but early Christian confessional theology leads us to side with the NIV. In particular, one thinks of these texts as seeing “Lord” as the Christian confession:

Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 12:3)

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom 10:9)

  … and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
  to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:11)

For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. (2 Cor 4:5)

The grammar of each of these instances is not identical to Col 2:6. The first three have “Lord Jesus,” “Lord Jesus,” and “Lord Jesus Christ,” where preeminence of place is given to “Lord.” The fourth instance is more like Colossians, except it is an entirely anarthrous construction (“Christ Jesus Lord”) while Colossians uses articles (“the Christ Jesus the Lord”). I see no light here to lead us to anything more than intuition. What is not in question is that Jesus is here embraced as the one and only Lord, a term used in the LXX to translate “YHWH” and one that could be heard to counter imperial claims of Rome in a supra-imperial manner. And also not in question is that “Lord,” drawing us back to the glorious stretches of the hymn in Col 1:15–20, implies Jesus is Lord over all creation and the Lord of redemption. Paul (and Timothy, presumably) turn now to the way of life and express it generally and comprehensively as “continue to live your lives in him.” I prefer the CEB’s less redundant “So live in Christ Jesus the Lord.” The correlation is not temporal: in the past you received Christ as your Lord, so now you have to live that out. Rather, the correlation is action: you receive(d) Christ as Lord in catechism, so live in Christ in all ways. If the fundamental command here is rooted in their having received Christ Jesus the Lord, it could be that the halakic mystics were challenging Jesus’s lordship. The exhortation of v. 6 hinges on the term “live.” The NIV’s addition of “continue to” emerges from Paul’s switching from an aorist tense (“received”) to a present tense. Here the act of living is designed by the present tense to make “live” a vivid presentation of watching someone live in front of them. Paul incites the imagination of the Colossians to think of themselves as walking in Christ. By choosing “walk” instead of “live,” I offer a more literal rendering of the Greek term (peripateō). Paul would have learned the tradition of the Pharisees from Gamaliel, and the rulings of Torah he received were called halakah, the Hebrew term for “walking according to the Torah.” What needs now to be observed is that Paul has radically christologized the halakah under which he was tutored. A simple reading of nothing more than Col 2:6–7 reveals that walking now is an “in-Christ walking.” We might call Pauline ethics (e.g., Col 3:1–4:6) also the in-Christ halakah. Paul often uses this term (peripatein, “walking, living”) as an image of the way of life for those in Christ (1 Thess 2:12; 4:12; Col 1:10; Eph 4:1; 5:8; Rom 6:4). A few lines stand out: it is a life of faith (2 Cor 5:7), it is walking in the Spirit (Gal 5:16; 2 Cor 12:18; Rom 8:4), it is nonworldly (1 Cor 3:3; Col 3:7; Eph 2:2; 4:17; Phil 3:18; 2 Cor 10:2–3; Rom 13:13), and it is a life of loving others (Eph 5:2; Rom 14:15) and good works (Eph 2:10). 7 Paul spells out for the church at Colossae now four dimensions of walking in Christ, and they may be compared to a very similar set at 1:10–12a:

1:10–12a 2:6b–7 walking walking bearing fruit (tree) rooted (tree) growing built up empowering strengthening giving thanks overflowing in thanks

The sequence is identical: walking to rootedness and growth, all flowing into a life of flourishing in gratitude. The first two in Col 2:6b–7 are tied into one personal connection: “rooted and built up in him.” The first term in v. 6b appears to be a horticultural metaphor (see Jer 17:8), but its combination with an architectural one both here and at Ephesians 3:17 makes one wonder whether both are not architectural instead of a mixing of metaphors. Paul sees his own apostolic ministry as building foundations, while others (apostles, pastors, teachers, prophets) are then called to build on that foundation (1 Cor 3:10, 12, 14), and he also says the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, but Jesus himself is the “chief cornerstone” (Eph 2:20)—and what is being built is a “new temple.” In Col 2, then, Paul has perhaps described this same apostolic foundation-growth ministry in terms of how it is experienced by the Colossians themselves: as God forms the foundation on Christ and the apostles and prophets and on that others build, now the Colossians themselves are to participate in that growth in Christ. Notice Paul does not say “upon” (epi) Christ but “in” (en) Christ, since in him is life, and all graces are found in him. The third dimension of walking in Christ is “strengthened in the faith as you were taught.” “Strengthened” may be drawn from a judicial setting, but what is clear is that God’s promise is secure and can be relied upon (1 Cor 1:6; Rom 15:8), including the conviction that God keeps firm his own (1 Cor 1:8; 2 Cor 1:21). Their firmness and fixity are in the faith they affirm, and “faith” can be understood as personal, experiential faith; more likely, since it is combined with “as you were taught” (by Epaphras; see 1:7, 23), the faith refers to the gospel and its implications. The fourth dimension of walking in Christ is “overflowing with thankfulness”: the way of life Paul has in mind matures into a life of gratitude and joy. Behind “overflowing” is the Greek word perisseuō, a term that speaks of abounding and flourishing in the power of the Spirit (Rom 15:13) and grace (Eph 1:8; Rom 5:15; 2 Cor 9:8); this spiritual power generates an overflowing life (1 Thess 3:12; 4:10; 1 Cor 15:58; Phil 1:9, 26; 4:18; 2 Cor 1:5; 4:15; 8:2, 7; 9:12). The dominant word here is not “overflowing” but “thanksgiving.” Paul gives thanks for the Colossians (1:3) and to God for redemption (1:12) and urges them likewise to be thankful (2:7; 3:15, 16, 17; 4:2). Four different terms all strung together to create a powerful idea: those who are alive in Christ are to walk in that kind of life. Mixing metaphors? Perhaps Wright’s words put this best: “Even [Paul] must have had difficulty imagining Christians ‘walking’ in Christ by being well rooted like a tree, solidly built like a house, confirmed and settled like a legal document, and overflowing like a jug full of wine. Each of the images, nevertheless, has its own point to make.” The last thing on Paul’s mind as a writer was worrying about not mixing metaphors!

B. CORRECTION OF FALSE RELIGION (2:8–19)

1. Philosophical Problems (2:8–15)

Any outline of Colossians from this point on must admit to a back-and-forth from theology to praxis. Here is one attempt to illustrate Paul’s back-and-forth: Col 2:8 establishes some categories for the problem Paul has heard about from Epaphras: he generalizes it as “hollow and deceptive philosophy.” His response is grounded in God’s indwelling presence in Christ (2:9) and the Colossians’ participation in that fullness (2:10) through a spiritual circumcision (2:11) and baptism (2:12), which leads Paul to probe these acts in the context of Christ’s powers-conquering death (2:13–15). In the middle of this theological exposition are intimations of a new kind of life that can avoid that “philosophy,” one shaped by dying and rising with Christ (2:11–12, 13). Having made opening forays into some theological resolutions in 2:8–15, Paul focuses on what that “philosophy” sounds like (2:16–19). But this practical section draws Paul back to the death-and-resurrection-with-Christ theme already present in 2:11–13, and this Christoform life takes us from 2:20 to 3:4. From 3:5 on, Paul continues to speak about the death-and-resurrection life—not always in those terms—and one is not sure whether he knocks off at 3:11 or 3:14 or 3:17, and perhaps even later than that. It is easier to follow Paul line by line than paragraph by paragraph because his sections circulate previous and upcoming ideas.

8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ. 9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. 11In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

The opening to our section (2:8) sets the entire theme and tone for all of 2:8–15. Paul warns them about a deceptive philosophy (2:8) and then forges a thick christological solution by showing that they are “in” Christ (notice 2:9, 10, 11) and have entered into experience “with” Christ (2:11–13a). In Christ they find fullness (2:9–10) and baptism (2:11–13a) and victory (2:13b–15).

a. The Opening Warning (2:8)

8 Warnings in the New Testament sometimes open with “See to it” (NIV; NLT: “Do not let anyone”), but the grammar of this opening warning spins the warning into a complex expression. Complexity aside, the meaning is quite obvious: Beware of those who can capture you with deceitful “philosophical” ideas. In what follows, Paul and Timothy use terms of the halakic mystics that are (1) Paul and Timothy’s reasonably accurate descriptors or (2) words used explicitly by the halakic mystics themselves or (3) words that could be polemically shaped and have little to do with the precise terms used by the halakic mystics. It is nearly impossible to know which of these is the case for any of the terms that will be used for the opponents. Paul and Timothy warn of being taken captive, and they use an image connected to slavery. Verse 4 warned of the opponents who could “deceive you by fine-sounding arguments” and v. 8 changes the image from deception to capture and custody. That Paul says “no one” prompts some to think of one particular person at the heart of the opposition, a prompting stalled when one considers that the term is indefinite (tis). That is, “Watch out lest someone.…” Or perhaps Paul and Timothy wish not to mention the person’s name in order to give that person less status. They are warned of being captured “through hollow and deceptive philosophy.” Paul is not opposed to the proper use of reason—on abundant display in his letters. What makes this philosophy unacceptable is its deception, which at the same time means its lack of apostolic theology. One has to wonder whether the term “philosophy” is not an exaggeration for Paul in that what we know of this so-called philosophy hardly stacks up to the Greek and Roman philosophical traditions. Perhaps Paul uses this term for the general claim by many groups to have a philosophy. Both Philo and Josephus describe Judaism in its various branches as philosophy, which becomes almost technical for a Stoic-kind of Judaism and its laws in 4 Maccabees (see 1:1; 5:7, 35; 7:7, 9, 21; 8:1). Thus, Philo: “Now ‘reasoning’ [logismos] as a name is but a little word, but as a fact it is something most perfect and most divine, a piece torn off from the soul of the universe, or, as it might be put more reverently following the philosophy of Moses, a faithful impress of the divine image” (On the Changing of Names 223). And Josephus’s oft-quoted comment about the “philosophies” (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes):

Jewish philosophy, in fact, takes three forms. (Jewish War 2.119)

The Jews, from the most ancient times, had three philosophies pertaining to their traditions. (Jewish Antiquities 18.11)

Thus, as counterforce to the common claim made by many groups in the Roman Empire and probably too by those he is opposing in Colossae, Paul is using the term “philosophy” polemically for those who, unlike the apostolic gospelers, derive their knowledge and ethics from human traditions and cogitations. This philosophical package, Paul says polemically, is “hollow” and “deceptive.” Why? Because it lacks the gravity of God’s mission in this world in Christ and because it leads humans away from God’s mission to human-derived worldviews and stories. Again, Why? Because this philosophy “depends on human tradition.” So Ambrosiaster: “Paul calls this tradition or philosophy fallacious and inept, because it is not worked out according to the power of God but according to the weakness of the human mind, which restricts the power of God to the limits of its own knowledge, so that no one will ever know that it is possible to do anything other than what carnal reason accepts.” This philosophy Paul and Timothy have in mind is more Jewish than it is Greek or Roman. Thus, the concern is the human-centeredness of Jewish halakic traditions. The term “traditions” could be from a quotation of Jesus in Mark 7:8, but more forcefully Paul exposes the content of those halakic rulings in the next paragraph (Col 2:16–17). This human-based tradition staggers before the divine, gospel-based tradition the Colossians received from Epaphras (Col 2:6; cf. 1 Cor 11:2). The larger framework, connecting this hollow and deceptive philosophy and tradition to options in the Roman world, has been put together well by Wright:

Three points are basic to Paul’s argument about these “powers,” (a) Christ is the ruler of all nations, and of any powers or authorities that may stand behind them in the shadowy world of superstition and mythology, (b) The Colossians, in being set free from their national solidarities by belonging to the new world-wide people of God, have also been released from their local “deities,” (c) What Judaism might offer to ex-pagan Christians is in fact just another local and, one might say, tribal religion, composed like any other of allegiances, rules and regulations which sanction at a purely worldly level.

But Paul now pushes these traditions deeper when he announces that this philosophy depends as well on “the elemental spiritual forces of this world.” This rare expression is a source of much discussion, with the options seemingly revolving around three main ideas. Each is based on the term being adopted from the Greco-Roman world, and each view can bleed into the other interpretations:

1.      doctrinal: it refers to elemental doctrines, teachings, beliefs, or convictions—like law and flesh or basic Torah teachings (e.g., Heb 5:12; Xenophon, Memorabilia 2.1.1);
2.      cosmic, spiritual, and personal: it refers to elemental spirits or gods, manifested in cosmic bodies and in pagan worship (e.g., Col 2:18, 20); or, in a slightly less personal-being sense:
3.      cosmological: it refers to elements of the universe like earth, air, water, and fire (e.g., 2 Pet 3:10, 12; Wis 7:17; 4 Macc 12:13).

But this third view needs to be soaked in a first-century worldview: these elements can be understood as having a spiritual or cosmic-god dimension. Furthermore, some reduce this category to a more material “created things” at work in this world. Many today prefer the second option and see here elemental, fallen, demonic spirits at work in all creation, perhaps most notably in systemic injustices and rulers. A clear example, though from a period later than this letter, is found in the Testament of Solomon 8:1–3: “Again, I [Solomon] glorified God, who gave me this authority, and I commanded another demon to appear before me. There came seven spirits bound up together hand and foot, fair of form and graceful. When I, Solomon, saw them, I was amazed and asked them, ‘Who are you?’ They replied, ‘We are heavenly bodies [stoicheia], rulers of this world of darkness.’ The first said, ‘I am Deception.’ ” Dunn sums this view up in these words: “Human beings had to live their lives under the influence or sway of primal and cosmic forces.” To the degree 2:16–17 directly speaks to this expression, to the same degree the first option takes the lead, but I would urge us to move away from a theology-only framing to a more halakic or praxis framing of this “philosophy.” In attempting to discern what is at work here, I suggest we make some connections: “hollow deception” parallels “shadow” in 2:17, a term that suggestively ties us to the Letter to the Hebrews (8:5; 9:11; 10:1), where a Jewish polemic is at work. Because Paul uses the term stoicheia in 2:20, where it once again refers ostensibly to Jewish halakah (notice 2:20–23), I am inclined to see in the stoicheia a clever reference to diaspora-framed Jewish halakic practices understood now as having spiritual force contrary to the will of God (cf. Gal 3:19, 23–25; 4:1–3, 9–10). It is likely that Paul uses this rare term for the same referent in both Colossians and Galatians; in both, Torah and its interpretive tradition are at work. Indeed, the problem in the end is quite clear to Paul: all of this is not dependent “on Christ,” as he says at the end of v. 8. He operates here not with an anti-Semitic or even an anti-Judaistic theology but a Christocentric theology that reframes the entire story of Israel around and toward Jesus as its one true Lord and Messiah. For him, the halakic mystics were not Jewish enough. The problem with the Colossian Jewish opposition, to adapt the famous words of E. P. Sanders, was that it was not Christian and Christocentric.

b. The Solution of Fullness “in” Christ (2:9–10)

The reason why the Colossians ought not to be captured by the promise of fullness in the philosophy of the halakic mystics is that the fullness of God is in Christ, and they have already been brought into this fullness in Christ. Christ alone is all they need because he is the All. The language in vv. 9–10 reflects the hymn of 1:15–20, leading some to infer the use of traditional materials in these two verses (and perhaps through 2:15). 9 The opening word of our verse—“For”—translates the Greek hoti as a causal conjunction. The Colossians are not to fall captive to the deceptive, human-based philosophy and tradition (v. 8) because “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.” Christology alone renders the philosophy false. Colossians 2:9 affirms four convictions about Christ: (1) that “fullness of the Deity” expresses what in other places is called God’s glory; (2) that all the fullness of Deity is in Christ—and either nowhere else (“all the fullness with nothing left over”) or all in the sense of all of God’s glory is present in Christ. This is a breathtaking claim because it implies that in Christ we see God most clearly and that theology proper from now on must be approached through Christology. (3) All of God’s fullness is now dwelling “in Christ, and (4) this indwelling of God occurs in Christ’s embodied condition—the creator and covenant God who became present in Israel’s history (from the days of the covenant with Abram to the presence in the tabernacle and temple and Wisdom and Spirit and Torah) is now fully present in the embodied (and glorified) life of Jesus. Some think the body in this dwelling of God’s fullness in “bodily form” refers to the ecclesial body, while others see here an adverb expressing “actually” or “substantially” or “personally.” The more likely view is that this refers to the incarnation: it refers to God’s fullness indwelling the body of Jesus himself both in his earthly and in his glorified existence. Somatic existence, as Dunn has commented, creates “accessibility (come-at-ableness)” and potential for direct encounter and relationship. And he adds, “To be a Christian is to recognize Christ as the point and means of that access.” Marianne Meye Thompson puts nuance to what has been said:

Paul’s statement does not simply collapse God and Christ into one, but Paul does deny that there is some remnant of deity to be found or known in another form or through means other than Christ.… While some philosophers of religion label (and also reject) as “exclusivist” this claim of Christian faith, others have pointed out that it is properly called “particularist.” That is, the primary claim of the Christian faith is a positive one, namely, that God has become manifest in the particular person of Jesus of Nazareth and is therefore known in the particular narrative of this man’s life, death, and resurrection. Therefore a Christian understanding of the identity and character of God is inseparably linked to and with this particular human being and his story.

It seems reasonable that the indwelling of God in Christ is at threat in the deceptive philosophy the Colossians are hearing, which means that there was probably a denigration of the body in some kind of dualistic philosophy. Mirror reading, as has been said, needs to be done with cautious eyes, but it needs to be done nonetheless. 10 They are now united with Christ, and in this union alone they “have been brought to fullness.” Everything in this clause rests on who Christ is and their union with him, as expressed in the perfect passive participle “brought to fullness.” But what does it mean to be “brought to fullness”? What are they filled with—morality? soteriology? Or is this the art of polemics? The lines in Col 2:11–14 suggest that Paul and Timothy have in mind full provision in Christ—from creation to redemption but continuing as well into a baptismal life of death to self and living in the power of the resurrection—with no accusations at all laid at their door at the parousia or final judgment! Hence, even the various “fullnesses” found in Rom 15:13–14 (joy, peace, goodness, knowledge), Phil 1:11 (righteousness), and 4:19 (all needs) do not encompass the totality of this fullness (note also Eph 3:19). Others ratchet up this list a notch to include the eschatological redemptive plan of God: they are being caught up in God’s reconciliation of all things. But there is more to say: there ought to be more attention in this discussion on contact or union with or participation in God’s very being, as one finds in 2 Pet 1:4. In other words, it is not simply what they get in this fullness but to whom they are connected; not so much focus on benefits and more on Christology. Inasmuch as Paul says here they are brought to fullness “in him,” he is speaking of union with Christ, not of Christ’s indwelling of them or of the virtues or powers they now have as a result. Colossians 2:10 deserves to be connected to Eph 3:19: “that you will be filled entirely with the fullness of God” (CEB). As if in repeat mode, Paul returns to the language of the hymn in Col 1:15–20 to speak again of those “lordless lords”: “He is the head over every power and authority.” As was seen above at 1:18, in the Prison Letters Paul’s use of “head” moves between the superiority of Christ over all things (Col 1:18; 2:10; Eph 1:22) and the unity that Christ brings through his life-drawing redemption (Eph 4:15; 5:23; Col 2:19). In other words, the “head” in this context is the one who grants and sustains life while also creating a new kind of unity among the members. This verse, however, focuses—as did 1:15 and 1:18—on the superiority of Christ over “every power and authority.” He has conquered (see below at 2:14–15), so therefore the Colossians are not to return to the enemy camp. In the language of 2:9, we brush up against the powers at work to throttle Colossian faithfulness to the gospel, language we will explain at 2:15.

c. The Solution of Baptism “in” and “with” Christ (2:11–13a)

Colossians 2:10 ended with a parenthesis, “the head over every power and authority,” which is developed in the opening of 2:11: “In him [the head] you were also circumcised.” Our subtext (2:11–13a) discusses redemption by connecting two terms, a connection that has vexed the inner life of churches: circumcision is connected to baptism, suggesting for some that, if children were circumcised, so ought also children to be baptized. That ecclesiastical discussion obviously goes well beyond what Paul and Timothy say here in Colossians, but one is entitled to ask what Paul had in mind in these words and whether they address what became the issue of paedobaptism vs. credobaptism in the church. Theological problems for Protestants are resolved not simply by appealing to the tradition—which clearly and widely has embraced paedobaptism—but by the detailed examination of Scripture, not least our passage. Here is how our text works:

  The assertion of circumcision in Christ (2:11)
  The reassertion of circumcision in baptism (2:12)
  The rearticulation of circumcision in baptism (2:13)

Now to put prose on this skeleton outline. Paul says, first, that the fullness they have in Christ is instantiated in their circumcision, but this circumcision is a not-performed-by-hands circumcision; rather, it is one that removes the “self ruled by the flesh” and one done “by Christ.” The Colossians are at least mostly Gentiles, so this circumcision is for most of them entirely a spiritual circumcision. As such, then, it instantiates their death in Christ and their forgiveness of sins and their justification and their sanctification—all elements in the “fullness” they have in Christ. But Paul, second, turns this spiritual circumcision into something embodied: their baptism (2:12). He claims that their spiritual circumcision was a burial in a baptism “with” Christ and at the same time a resurrection “in” Christ—all operating “through” faith in the God who raises Christ from the dead. Third, he rearticulates this burial and resurrection (2:13) by starting all over again with a new sentence that takes us back to 2:11 when he says “the uncircumcision of your flesh” and back to 2:12 with “made you alive,” and this because they are united “with him” in baptism. This sequence leads to 2:13b, where Paul discusses soteriology in terms of forgiveness, which leads him to discuss the triumph of the cross (2:13b–15).

(1) The Assertion of Circumcision in Christ (2:11)

11 Three separate clauses deserve interpretation, beginning with the opening assertion: “In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands.” Once again, “in him” expresses a union with Christ that brings them to fullness (2:10), and it is in that very union that they were circumcised. The language of this verse is dense and has led to many debates. Circumcision—understood as a covenant rite and also (as I would contend) a countermovement in the Ancient Near East by Hebrews as they were instructed by their God not to participate in child sacrifice but only to “wound” the oldest son (cf. Gen 17:1–14 with 22)—became a noticeable and well-known boundary marker between Jews and Gentiles and therefore a mark of Jewish identity. Hence for Paul, Gentiles are the uncircumcised, and Jews the circumcised (Gal 2:7–8; Col 3:11; Eph 2:11; Rom 2:25–27). Those who “deconverted” from Judaism sometimes went through a surgery called epispasm, the attempt to cover up circumcision (1 Macc 1:15; Testament of Moses 8:1–5). Perhaps it was a feature of the opposition in Colossae and perhaps something they were pressing these converts to undergo, which explains the sudden appearance of circumcision here. Still, there remains a difference between the polemic of Gal 5:2–12 or Phil 3 and the more positive sense of circumcision here. Among the Colossians we may see something along the lines of what we see in Philo, that is, a debate about the spiritual significance of circumcision. Even if the polemic is softened, it is reasonable to think the Colossians were being pressed to be circumcised to complete their conversion and so move from a Godfearer status to full proselytes. If so, Paul relocates circumcision to their baptism. Alongside the physical rite, circumcision was also metaphoric for not a few ideas: the heart (Deut 10:16; Jer 9:24–25), the lips (Exod 6:12, 30), and the ears (Jer 6:10); also, the same term was used for forbidden fruit on a fruit tree (Lev 19:23). Most important for Col 2, the term took on an ethical significance.

Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer. For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. (Deut 10:16–17)

The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. The LORD your God will put all these curses on your enemies who hate and persecute you. (Deut 30:6–7)

But if they will confess their sins and the sins of their ancestors—their unfaithfulness and their hostility toward me, which made me hostile toward them so that I sent them into the land of their enemies—then when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled and they pay for their sin.… (Lev 26:40–41)

This metaphoric-ethical usage, however, does not suggest even for a moment for the “orthodox” that the rite of circumcision could be jettisoned (e.g., 1 Macc 1:13–15). Circumcision as a metaphor, then, continued into the New Testament era among Jews:

And the Lord said to Moses, “I know their contrariness and their thoughts and their stubbornness. And they will not obey until they acknowledge their sin and the sins of their fathers. But after this they will return to me in all uprighteousness and with all of (their) heart and soul. And I shall cut off the foreskin of their heart and the foreskin of the heart of their descendants. And I shall create for them a holy spirit, and I shall purify them so that they will not turn away from following me from that day and forever. And their souls will cleave to me and to all my commandments. And they will do my commandments. And I shall be a father to them, and they will be sons to me. (Jubilees 1:22–24; cf. 15:22–34)

At Qumran we hear of an “inclination” needing circumcision (Rule of the Community [1QS] V, 5). But Paul’s own words are even more appropriate for understanding Col 2:11:

Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker. A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God. (Rom 2:25–29)

Paul is thus perfectly Jewish and messianic in turning to circumcision as a metaphor here for Christ-based redemption, for baptism, or even for conversion and the Spirit-wrought work of regeneration. (This conclusion does not unravel the paedobaptist contention. The fundamental point for that contention is that Paul consciously connects the ancient rite of circumcision, which alone gives rise to the metaphor, to the new rite of baptism in our text.) For Paul, circumcision of the Gentile Colossians is “not performed by human hands.” The idea of “not performed by hands” was often used in the Old Testament for pagan idols, as it was also handy to describe Jesus’s own transcending work in the New Testament. Paul in our text seems to think of circumcision as an external, hand-performed act, not unlike the Torah. What humans do and what God does are thus the opposite ends of the spectrum. Furthermore, “not performed by human hands” is synonymous with “performed by the Spirit,” suggesting something along the line of John 3:5–6, where baptism is connected to Spirit. But in saying this, it must be observed that by connecting circumcision to baptism, this circumcision becomes both a spiritual circumcision and a physical baptism. The second clause of v. 11 defines further what not-with-hands circumcision means, but this crux interpretum leads to intricate debates: “Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off.” A more literal rendering looks like this: “in the removal of the body of flesh.” What is this body of flesh, the latter a term in this letter that has so far referred only to physical flesh (1:22, 24; 2:1, 5)? The options can be reduced to three:

1.      a metaphor for putting off the old nature at conversion or baptism, which is more or less equivalent to forgiveness in 2:13b, or
2.      a metaphor for the death of Christ himself, or
3.      a metaphor for family solidarity—“body” meaning family and “flesh” meaning one’s ethnic solidarity (e.g., Rom 11:14).

In support of the first is the use of the term “flesh” (sarx), which so often in Paul refers to the old nature that died with Christ. In addition are the near parallels at 2:13, 15, 18, and 3:9 (cf. Gal 3:27; Rom 6:6; 7:24). But an even closer parallel waves its hand at us in 1:22 (“Christ’s physical body”), and a suggestive expression in 2:15 (“disarmed,” the same verb as in 2:11) has led many to the second option—Christ’s own death. But this second option cannot be confident because another question must be answered first: Whose flesh is in mind? Is it the Colossians’ sinful flesh? This view is supported at 2:13 (“the uncircumcision of your flesh”). Or is this Christ’s own body? This choice would be anchored in the death of 2:14–15. The terms used do not permit a confident answer, but I do think another consideration leads us to the likelihood of the third option, namely, to seeing here an end to one’s Gentile status as excluded from the family of God, that is, from Israel. In this letter the mystery of God’s inclusion of Gentiles is the river running right through the whole. In addition to what has already been seen in the emphasis on God’s mystery of expanding the people of God to include Gentiles, notice the very Gentile-sounding “you were dead … in the uncircumcision of your flesh” in 2:13, the death to the “charge of legal indebtedness” in 2:14, the Jewish boundary markers at 2:16–19 to which the Gentiles are being summoned, and the inclusive people of God in that important new social boundary-less map at 3:11. Then compare each to similar words and themes in Ephesians (e.g., Eph 2:12), and one has to wonder why more do not choose this ecclesial reading. If the opponents were pressing for fuller conversion to Judaism into their halakic kind of charismatic worship, Paul has just made some profound cutting arguments: there is only one family, it includes Jews and Gentiles, and one need not convert to Judaism to be part of the one family of God. At any rate, good evidence can be marshaled for the third option. Perhaps a solution to this “body of flesh” expression cannot be given until we look at the third clause: “when you were circumcised by Christ.” The issue is also complicated by the translations: the NIV’s “when you were circumcised by Christ” and the CEB’s “through this circumcision by Christ” translate well enough to bury alternative readings. The Greek translated literally is not as clear as these translations, for the Greek simply reads “in the circumcision of Christ.” Interpretation rests, as it often does in New Testament exegesis, on the genitive case, or the meaning of of Christ. Is this:

1.      a subjective or possessive genitive (the circumcision performed by Christ)?
2.      an objective (the [spiritual, physical] circumcision done to Christ)?
3.      Or is it more general than either: “the circumcision associated with Christ”?
4.      Or could it be Paul’s coinage for the fulfillment of circumcision in baptism?

Despite the clarity of the NIV and the CEB (which make it a subjective genitive), many scholars disagree, seeing an objective genitive the most natural reading. That is, the “circumcision of Christ” is a metaphor for the death of Christ on the cross. This paragraph features a heavy emphasis on the death of Christ, which supports this view. That death ends the boundaries between Jews and Gentiles, to name one prominent social boundary at work in this letter. If we read “circumcision of Christ” as a reference to the death of Christ, two things result: first, this circumcision forms a continuity with Israel’s own covenant act of circumcision; second, by making circumcision a spiritual act inherent to baptism, a covenant entry rite is provided for both Jews and Gentiles. We can say Paul takes the original Abrahamic covenant act of circumcision as an eschatological figure for death and burial in the circumcision of Christ, which benefits both Jews and Gentiles in the act of baptism. This line of thinking draws us back to the center of this verse: union with Christ. Paul’s theology of union with Christ is fundamentally a union in the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (e.g., Gal 2:19–20; Rom 6:3–6; Col 2:20–3:4)—it is not reducible to experiential union or mysticism, however much those themes might be present at times, but must be connected to the gospel itself. To be “in Christ” is to enter into a cruciform existence that can be called a participatory circumcision in a new family of God, one no longer marked by one’s flesh but by one’s baptism in Christ.

(2) The Reassertion of Circumcision in Baptism (2:12)

12 Circumcision in Christ is baptism with Christ. In the history of church interpretation, circumcision has long been associated with baptism and has developed its own eschatology. Abraham’s circumcision points to baptism in Christ. Baptism is a performative act that locates a person in the one people of God; rendered theologically, baptism is an act of God that relocates a person into God’s family. Baptism then is not what we do but what God does. Thus “If we find Paul’s definite statements about the effects of baptism hard to understand, it is probably because we have lost his vision of the church as the loving and welcoming family of God, the people who, by support, example and teaching, enable one another to accept the gospel down to the depths of their being.” Baptism has two dimensions: (1) death (or burial) and (2) resurrection. We begin with death: “having been buried with him in baptism.” Here Paul evokes the simplest and earliest of gospel confessions: he lived, he died, he was buried, he was raised, and he was exalted (1 Cor 15:3–8). The burial stands for the death of Christ and evokes what Paul will write to the Romans (6:1–11). The theology at work is that the consequence of sin is death, and therefore Christ must enter into death to eradicate its cause: sin. The believer is summoned to enter into that death of Christ in order that through this co-death, sin and death may be undone by a co-resurrection, which is what Paul moves to next. Baptism is not an analogy to what happened to Christ but actual, real participation in what happened to Christ. Second, resurrection: “in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.” The “in which” (en hō) can refer to “in which baptism” or “in Christ,” with some evidence in favor of the latter (see 2:9, 10, 11). But the immediate antecedent in this verse is the act of baptism, and the dramatic parallel at Romans 6 leads me to think that Paul is here referring to baptism (hence, “in which baptism” is best). But we might simply take a step back and say “in Christ” and “in baptism” are in this logical moment one and the same! In that baptism, which dramatizes and embodies co-death and co-resurrection with/in Christ, the Colossians “were also raised.” But there is nothing magical in Paul’s sacramental theology. For baptism to “work,” there must be “faith in the work of God.” Faith in Pauline theology is a response to the act of God in Christ and entails a surrendering trust. This faith, perhaps expressed by this time in a more formal liturgical setting as a confession at baptism, is directed at the God “who raised him from the dead.” God’s power is described more completely at Ephesians 1:19–21a: “That power is the same as the mighty strength he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion.” The theological issue at work here is that Paul and Timothy connect circumcision to baptism. The parallel of these two Jewish practices is noteworthy and potentially a window into early Christian liturgical practices. As circumcision was the entry rite for Jews into the covenant, so baptism was the entry rite for those who believed in Jesus, Jew and Gentile. Circumcision gains a new interpretation by its connection to baptism, since the latter evokes the foundational events of the gospel: the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Circumcision, then, is understood in this text as having an eschatological force that is fulfilled in baptism. This does not suggest that Jewish believers, let alone Jewish nonbelievers in Jesus, were somehow called to abandon circumcision by seeing it replaced by baptism. As Jewish believers continued to go to temple and participate in the feasts of Israel with a messianic theology reshaping their perceptions, so circumcision attracted its own christotelic force. It follows that the early Christian practice of baptizing infants is consistent with the rite on which it was based: circumcision. Briefly, we observe that in Gen 15 Abram is justified by faith, and in Gen 17:11 (sealed with rite as the “sign of the covenant”) he accepts the sign of the covenant, circumcision. As a result of this new sign of the covenant, Abraham circumcises his son Isaac at eight days (Gen 21:4). Here is the structural parallel with baptism:

A.      Abraham believes and is justified and then circumcised.
B.      Abraham the believer circumcises his son to enter him into the same covenant.

A.      Christians in the New Testament believe and are justified and are baptized.
B.      Therefore it follows that, as with Abraham and his children, so with New Testament believers and their families: children are entered into the same covenant through an analogous initiatory rite, namely, infant baptism.

It is then theologically and ritually parallel to connect circumcision with baptism. Bird says it crisply:

What circumcision anticipates, baptism celebrates. The covenant sign of circumcision in the Abrahamic covenant is replaced with baptism as the symbol for the new covenant.… What is more, if the new covenant is the eschatological fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant and if the Abrahamic covenant had a place for children, how much more so should the new covenant have a place for children.

There are better places for a full discussion of baptism in church practice, but enough has been said to satisfy the language that Paul and Timothy use in this passage.

(3) The Rearticulation of Circumcision in Baptism (2:13a)

13a Paul backs up now to rearticulate his points, backing up directly to 2:11 to the Colossians’ spiritual circumcision and to their co-death in 2:12. He now redescribes the whole process of redemption, this time in terms of life from among the dead: “When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ.” He refers to the Gentile past as a time of the “uncircumcision of your flesh.” Campbell calls this description “distorted, Adamic ontology.” Sin and death in v. 13a correspond to the unspiritual circumcision of vv. 11–12. If we add Paul’s description of the Colossians’ pre-Christian past (1:21–23) to their noncircumcision (2:11–12) and to their sin and death (2:13a), we discover Paul’s pre-in-Christ anthropology. Here is the summary of Dunn:

In sum, humankind in the world is not just weak and corruptible. There is an inescapable dimension of sin, of failure and transgression, also involved. Humans were created for relationship with God, a relationship which is the essence of human life, a relationship which gives humankind fulfillment of being, as creature (in relation to God) and as human (in relation to the rest of the world). But humankind has made the mistake of thinking it could achieve a more satisfying relation with the world if it freed itself from its relation with God. It has turned from God and focused attention exclusively on the world, revolting against its role as creature and thinking to stand as creator in its own right. In consequence humankind has fallen when it thought to rise, has become foolish not wise, baser not superior. It has denied its likeness to God and preferred the likeness of beasts and things. It has lost its share in the majesty of divinity, and now falls far short of what it might have become. Instead of sharing eternal life, it has become dominated by death, a “sucker” for sin. It shares in a pervasive out-of-joint-ness, frustration, and futility with the rest of creation.

Paul’s argument in v. 13a is progressive: he identifies who they are (the dead), he specifies two elements of that death (in sins, in uncircumcision), and then he reveals the solution to that death: resurrection with Christ. While forgiveness of sins is the most popular benefit of the gospel, making sins the fundamental problem, often enough in the New Testament the fundamental problem is death, and the solution therefore life. One need not be forced to choose between the two, but neither should one overdo one at the expense of the other. Death, then, is the Adamic destiny (Rom 5:12–8:2). Two elements (sins, uncircumcision of the flesh) now appear in the death condition, but are these two elements the cause of death or the metaphoric location of the Adamic death-existence? The term “sins” (NIV) or “things you had done wrong” (CEB), which in Greek is paraptōma, refers to deeds done that violate a standard. Paul also calls wrongdoing the “uncircumcision of your flesh.” In summary, he sees the previous condition of these Gentiles as excluded from the one family of God, Israel, and as one marked by sins. But death is more than resolved by the overwhelming power of the resurrection: “God made you alive with Christ.” The verb is causative: God caused them to come back to life from a condition of death, and undoubtedly the Holy Spirit’s regenerative power is in view. Paul says nearly the same thing at Ephesians 2:5, where he adds that it was by the grace of God. “The God who gives life to the dead” is a conversion expression in Judaism, but one’s theological or ecclesial setting influences which conversion event Paul has in mind: personal faith or the sacrament of baptism. The latter, on the basis of 2:12, has substantive support here, without it eliminating the need for faith (also 2:12).

d. The Solution of Victory in Christ (2:13b–15)

13b–15 There is a subtle shift in v. 13b to the subject of Christology, but it moves from the dead-in-sins condition (v. 13a) to resurrection life in Christ, in whom one finds the solution to the dead-in-sins condition: “He forgave us all our sins.” The grammatical flow can be explained in a number of ways, but if one sticks to the principle that main ideas come through main verbs instead of participles, one is forced to focus on “God made you alive” (2:13a), followed by verbal explanatory glosses—forgiving and canceling (both participles, vv. 13b–14a), a verb (“taken it away,” v. 14b), and then another verb (“he made a public spectacle,” v. 15b), which is modified before and after by participles (“having disarmed” in v. 15a and “triumphing over” in v. 15c). Here is an outline:

  “God made you alive …” (2:13a)
  1. In forgiving (2:13b)
  2. In canceling (2:14a)
  3. In taking it away (2:14b)
     Nailing it to the cross (2:14c)
  4. In making a spectacle (2:15ab)
     Disarming them
     Triumphing over them

Thus, 2:13b–15 is an extended and extending expansion of the gift of new life. One thought triggers another, but only by digging deeper into the work of Christ. God is the subject of the actions that follow in numbers 1–4. One more observation on the shift that is occurring in 2:13b. Instead of “you” (plural) Paul writes about “we.” Has he shifted from Gentile Colossians to the all-embracing reality of both Jews (Paul and Timothy) and Gentiles? Or is the “you” at least in part all Christians, and the “we” the assumption he has been using all along? Or is this pastoral theology, Paul identifying with his audience? I am unpersuaded that a careful distinction—“you” for Gentiles and “we” for either Jewish believers or both Jews and Gentiles—can be established consistently in the evidence of Colossians or the Pauline letters at large. Paul seems here to identify with his audience and is offering yet one more expression of the indivisible unity of Jews and Gentiles in Christ.

(1) New Creation … in Forgiveness (2:13b)

13b The central image in this paragraph is that God has ushered in new creation. That is, “made alive” is the main verb of 2:13. Several dimensions of how God creates anew become the focus of the work of Christ in 2:13b–15, beginning with the forgiveness of sins. The term “sins” denotes acts contrary to a prescribed set of commands, a violation of God’s will known also by Gentiles. The word behind “forgiveness” is the word charizomai, which could be translated “gracing.” In Pauline theology grace refers to the love of God unleashed to rescue all humans from their captivity in order to bring them into the liberated family of God. In this context, the term focuses on rescuing in the sense of erasing all of one’s debt of sins owed to God. Hence, to use Barclay’s perfections, we see here especially the perfections of superabundance, priority, and incongruity, while in the wider sweep of this letter we could factor in grace’s efficacy and even circularity. In the gospel of Jesus’s death, resurrection, and exaltation, God “graces” Jesus with the name (Phil 1:29). God’s revelation in Christ “graces” us with the Abrahamic promise (Gal 3:18) and understanding (1 Cor 2:12); in giving us his Son, God has “graced” us with “all things” (Rom 8:32), not excluding suffering (Phil 1:29). All of these items and more express God’s “gracing” the church (Col 3:13; Phlm 22; Eph 4:32; 2 Cor 2:7, 10). At the very heart of this gracing by God is the grace of removing one’s sins (Col 2:13b), the sins Paul has just said put the Colossians to death (2:13a). If sins put to death, forgiveness brings back to life, a life that unleashes the cycle of forgiveness in the fellowship, and hence its circularity between humans (Col 3:13; Eph 4:32; 2 Cor 2:7–10; 12:13; Matt 18:21–35).

(2) New Creation … in Cancellation (2:14a)

14 The second dimension of new creation now appears: “having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us.” There are here four facts at work in this clause. First, there is a handwritten note, contract, or charge. The term cheirographon refers to a commonly known handwritten document that, in this context, refers to a certificate of indebtedness, a receipt or a contract confessed to and signed by a debtor. Such a document is behind the parable of the shrewd manager told by Jesus (Luke 16:1–9). Paul puts himself into such a certificate in Phlm 18–19. A concrete example is found in the Testament of Job:

There were also certain strangers who saw my eagerness, and they too desired to assist in this service [of charity to the poor]. And there were still others, at the time without resources and unable to invest a thing, who came and entreated me, saying, “We beg you, may we also engage in this service. We own nothing, however. Show mercy on us and lend us money so we may leave for distant countries on business and be able to do the poor a service. And afterward we shall repay you what is yours.… And receiving their note eagerly, I would give them as much as they wished, taking no security from them except a written note.… [Unable to pay Job back, the indebted] would come and entreat me saying, “We beg you, be patient with us.” … Without delay, I would bring before them the note and read it granting cancellation as the crowning feature. (11:1–4, 6–7, 10–11)

Some explore an apocalyptic background for the term and then connect it to the book (biblos) of life (e.g., Exod 32:32–33; Ps 69:28; Dan 12:1; Rev 3:5), in which are listed the names of the blessed. One wonders whether it is too big of a leap from cheirographon to biblos, but support for the view can be seen in the Apocalypse of Zephaniah 3:5–9:

Then I saw two other angels weeping over the three sons of Joatham, the priest. I said, “O angel, who are these?” He said, “These are the angels of the Lord Almighty. They write down all the good deeds of the righteous upon their manuscript as they watch at the gate of heaven. And I take them from their hands and bring them up before the Lord Almighty; he writes their name in the Book of the Living. “Also the angels of the accuser who is upon the earth, they also write down all of the sins of men upon their manuscript. They also sit at the gate of heaven. They tell the accuser and he writes them upon his manuscript so that he might accuse them when they come out of the world (and) down there.”

And in the Apocalypse of Paul 17: “And I heard the Lord God, the just judge, again saying, ‘Come, angel of this soul, and stand in the midst.’ And the angel of the sinful soul came, having in his hands a document, and said, ‘These, Lord, in my hands, are all the sins of this soul from its youth till to-day, from the tenth year of its birth; and if you command, Lord, I will also relate its acts from the beginning of its fifteenth year.’ ” The view is at least plausible, even if the evidence cannot be established as pre-Pauline. A variety of sometimes complementary options are raised by the theological implications of the term cheirographon. Is this a bond of accusation established by God against humans who have no capacity to repay? Is this an indebtedness created by human behaviors? Is this the Torah, to which Israel committed itself to be obedient (Exod 24:3), now acting as a condemning instrument? Is it simply an IOU, one that needs to be set in the context of the so-called halakic mystics’ demand for visions? Or as it was read in the patristic era, is this the bond Satan holds over humans that they will die (Gen 2:17)? Is it the human body’s fallen en-flesh-ment that prevents full obedience? Or is it a reference to the various teachings of the false teachers used to press the Colossians into a deeper conversion to the Mosaic Torah (Col 2:16–23)? Or a decree of condemnation? An answer comes by recognizing that the term cheirographon is modified by another term: “the handwritten note in its requirements/ordinances [dogmasin].” This second term strengthens the first term by expressing the kind of obligation: the handwritten note for which the individual human is accountable is one that specifies the requirements. Asking, Which requirements? pushes us closer to a resolution. It could be the Mosaic law and hence refers to the Torah of Moses, along with the halakah (see Col 2:16, 21–23; also Gal 3:10, 13; Rom 4:15; 5:13). Or it could be more applicable to Gentiles by referring to God’s general revelation of morality, which they have failed and under whose condemnation they now stand (e.g., Rom 1:32). The first is favored by Eph 2:15, which has “the law with its commands and regulations [dogmasin]” and finds substantive support in Deut 27:9–26; Rom 2:14–16, and Jas 2:10–11. Even more, in Col 2:20 we read, “Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules?” The term “submit” here translates the Greek verb dogmatizō, which is cognate to dogmasin in 2:14. This usage connects the term to the halakic rulings like “Do not handle!” (2:21). We conclude that the cheirographon records obligations to halakah or Torah. The next two expressions to consider in 2:14 are nearly synonymous and so are treated together: “stood against us” and “condemned us.” These expressions suggest that the cheirographon is God’s accusing bond of agreement against the sinner. The first expression deals with the basics of a requirement, while the second reveals that requirement stands in an accusing manner (e.g., Gen 22:17; Exod 1:10; 23:27). There are phenomena to bring to the surface: God has revealed his will to all; humans comprehend that will; humans knowingly consent to God’s will as obligatory; humans violate that revelation; that will stands as an accusing instrument against those humans; the accusation leads to judgment; and Christ’s death removes the condemnation against humans by absorbing that very condemnation. These phenomena point us to a gracious revelation on God’s part that entails covenantal obligation of all humans to listen, learn, and obey—and to reverse it all, judgment for those who do not enter into that cross to remedy their sin. Wright expands these phenomena in their proper ecclesial orientation: “The Mosaic Torah did not, we should note, stand over against Jews and Gentiles in the same way. In Paul’s view, it shut up the Jews under sin and shut out the Gentiles from the hope and promise of membership in God’s people.” Finally the good news: that note has been “canceled.” New creation is a leitmotif in our paragraph, and it gains new color here: forgiveness erases or scrapes off our indebtedness. The NIV has “having canceled,” while the CEB has “destroyed the record.” The word “canceled” is used for forgiveness elsewhere in the Bible (Isa 43:25; Acts 3:19; cf. also Rev 3:5), but inasmuch as the clause under discussion describes a handwritten note, implying ink on papyrus, the immediate image is that of scraping away or washing off. Yet, that conclusion demands perhaps too precise of a detail because the verb could be depicting the legal effects: canceling the debit or destruction of the whole certificate by ripping it to shreds or by burning (CEB). Or, less concretely, it could mean just “wipe away” (as in Gen 7:4). But all of these images are compounded in meaning in v. 14b: the certificate is in fact nailed to the cross, which means that the indebtedness is forgiven and the charge is canceled by the death of Christ, depicted thus as a substitutionary death.

(3) New Creation … in Taking It Away (2:14b)

Paul now expresses the same idea of forgiveness in slightly different terms: “he has taken it [the cheirographon] away, nailing it to the cross.” It is not that two acts are performed—first erasing and then taking away—but one major act (new creation) explored in various ways. The word “away” deserves some attention, translating the common Greek expression ek tou mesou. This term evokes presence or proximity, where the cheirographon looms as an accusing finger, like the ghost in Dickens’s Christmas Carol. But in God’s grace this accusing voice in our midst has been lifted and taken away. How? God has lifted the accusing cheirographon from our presence by nailing it to an instrument of punishment: the cross. One cannot avoid the temptation of thinking that Paul here speaks of the titulus on the cross, the accusation pinned to the cross on which criminals were crucified to announce to all who can read it the charges against the person. Normally, one nailed accusations to the cross in order to condemn, but here the nailing of the accusation to the cross releases the person from those accusations. How so? The innocent one, as we see in 2 Cor 5:21, assumes the charges against the guilty ones so that the guilty ones might become innocent. We thus have here vicarious, substitutionary atonement. Jesus shoulders the accusations against us so we need not experience their consequences in death.

(4) New Creation … in Making a Spectacle (2:15)

15 Suddenly one element in new creation grows to cosmic dimensions: “having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them.” The order here matters: first, God disarms the powers; second, God makes a public spectacle of them. And in a conclusive way there will come a third: God triumphs over them in the cross. Each image is a metaphor of new creation and the upside-down theory of Christus victor of Pauline theology. We look at each in order. First, God’s new creation disarms the powers and authorities. The word “disarmed” is cognate to the term used in 2:11, where it meant “putting off” or “stripping off” the “whole self ruled by the flesh.” In 3:9 the term describes removing the “old self.” While some think the actor here is Christ, others think it is God. Inasmuch as it was God who generates new creation, so also here: God disarms the powers, or as some contend, God strips off the powers and authorities who have cloaked the cosmos. Who are these powers?

Excursus: The Powers as Polluted Structures (1:16; 2:15)

When Paul refers in Col 1:16 to “thrones or powers or rulers or authorities” and in 2:15 to “powers and authorities,” what does he mean? What kind of reality do we see here? Is this a projection onto the cosmic map of evil forces, like evil and systemic injustice? Is this a description of beings beyond human gaze who inhabit the cosmos and influence even to the point of controlling the ways of this world and the state and institutions and assignments, like an order of angels? Or a description of seemingly impersonal but nothing more than natural orders of creation? Or better yet, structures that have the potential to operate benevolently or maliciously, like government and officials and laws? As Hendrik Berkhof concluded, “In short, the apocalypses think primarily of the principalities and powers as heavenly angels; Paul sees them as structures of earthly existence.” Is this an exaggeration of human powers by granting to them demigodlike influence and powers, like Pilate or Nero depicted with otherworldly powers? Is this a political interpretation of genuine human powers, like Pilate or Nero or local powers, who are genuinely influenced by demons and evil angels? And then, what are we to make of these powers today? Andrew Lincoln sketches the three hermeneutical options:

1.      they were supernatural forces and are to be so yet today;
2.      they were supernatural forces but are appropriated today as ideologies and social structures; or
3.      they were supernatural and social structures then and can be so today.

Lincoln aligns himself with the second as an appropriation of a first-century worldview in our world today, which he does by way of analogy rather than a strict correlation of historical exegesis and modern application. He thus seeks to avoid the problem of demythologizing the New Testament texts through critical reinterpretation. Lincoln’s approach is honest but effectively points its finger at trends of appropriation today: that in principalities and powers we are to see the powers of politics embedded in structures, and these structures are confronted in the gospel and church while at the same time paving a more progressive way. It seems to me that the third view, with emphasis on supernatural beings more than structures, is best supported by the evidence. We begin to answer these questions by gathering principal evidence found in the Bible.

Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him. (Dan 7:27)

But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. (Dan 10:13)

So he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? Soon I will return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I go, the prince of Greece will come.” (Dan 10:20)

None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1 Cor 2:8)

Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. (1 Cor 15:24–26)

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 8:38–39)

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. (Rom 13:1)

For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. (Col 1:16)

And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. (Col 2:15)

… he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. (Eph 1:20–21)

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. (Eph 2:1–2)

His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms. (Eph 3:10)

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Eph 6:12)

The terms “powers and authorities” (Col 1:16; 2:15) are connected with the near parallel in Eph 1:21; 3:10; 6:12, which speak of “rule and authority, power and dominion” and “rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,” and then with the cosmic conflict in which Christians engage in the power of the Spirit and in the victory achieved by Christ “against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” This language undeniably describes spiritual and cosmic forces at work in this world, which Paul in Ephesians attributes to “the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient” (2:2). Yet, some of this language is routinely used for, say, Roman structures and institutions. In other words, the powers refers to dark cosmic forces that are at work in the structures of God’s world. As Caird expressed it, “In its natural state the human race lives in bondage not only to sin, death, and the Law, but to a host of angelic beings, whose varied nomenclature indicates that all in common have been invested by God with a species of authority over the created order, though somehow the authority becomes corrupt and demonic. These powers include the guardians of the pagan state, the mediators of the Torah, and the angels who preside over the national order—the heavenly representatives of civil, religious, and natural law.” Yet, these various terms fluctuate from one text to another because they are drawn from the rich and varied vocabulary of Paul’s world and not from some specific cosmology. Even more, Colossians teaches that these structures were created by Christ, as 1:16 makes clear: “For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.” Yoder frames what is in mind with the powers in terms of ideological and social structures, but he spans the cosmic scope of these structures: “If we can analyze more abstractly this wealth of allusions, we might say that we have here an inclusive vision of religious structures (especially the religious undergirdings of stable ancient and primitive societies), intellectual structures (-ologies and -isms), moral structures (codes and customs), political structures (the tyrant, the market, the school, the courts, race, and nation). The totality is overwhelmingly broad.” However, Yoder fails to see the supernatural-being element of Paul’s language, so we think an even wider scope is needed. In the powers, then, we are drawn into a story that is at work behind the terms: created by God, these structures have become polluted, distorted, and destructive because they are aligned with Satan and empowered by his minions. The powers are created, fallen, and already defeated and struggling with mighty gasps in the interim period of inaugurated eschatology. The defeat, Paul declares (2:13–15), is accomplished, but the structures are still at work, so it is in the church that this defeat is to be embodied. As Berkhof, who also focuses too little on the supernatural beings, puts it: “The very existence of the church, in which Gentiles and Jews, who heretofore walked according to the stoicheia of the world, live together in Christ’s fellowship, is itself a proclamation, a sign, a token to the Powers that their unbroken dominion has come to an end.” The battle of bringing the enemy under the footstool (Pss 8:6; 110:1) is on, and no one has captured the framing of this epochal battle more succinctly than Longman and Reid:

The contours of the story are of one sent from heaven to subject the cosmos to its Creator and Lord. Born of a woman (Gal 4:4) and taking human form (Php 2:7), he engaged the enemy, was victorious in an epochal battle (Col 2:15; cf. 1:12–14), and was exalted to God’s right hand, where he now reigns as cosmic Lord (1 Co 15:24–26; Eph 1:20–22; Php 2; Col 3:1; 1 Ti 3:16), building his new temple (1 Co 3:16–17; 2 Co 6:16; Eph 2:19–22), and receiving praise and obeisance (Php 2:10–11). He will come again at the end of the age and conclude his defeat of the enemy, who will have waged a final revolt (2 Th 2:8). In the end, death, the final enemy, will stand defeated along with every other hostile power, and Christ will hand over the kingdom to God (1 Co 15:24–28). But in the meantime, the people of the Messiah stand between two episodes—climax and resolution—in the eschatological warfare, enjoying the benefits and advantage of Christ’s defeat of the enemy at the cross (Ro 8:37). Yet, as they await their Lord to descend from heaven on the final day (1 Th 4:16–17), they are till beset by a hostile foe (Eph 6:10–17). This story of conflict and triumph presumes enemies. And Paul selected and fashioned a rich vocabulary to describe them in their various aspects. These enemies consisted not of Romans or Greeks but of “principalities and powers,” sin, flesh, death, law, and a final enemy he called the “man of lawlessness.”

We are to see in “powers and authorities” created but sinful beings at work in created structures. At times we see a focus on kings and princes (see Dan 7:2–8; 10:13, 20–21; 1 Cor 2:8; 15:24–26; Rom 13:1) and death (1 Cor 15:26), but behind them are beings like angels and demons (Rom 8:38–39; Eph 6:12). These structures and institutions have been turned against God through their capture by dark beings that seek to use them to capture and enslave humans in evil. Inasmuch as angels and demons emerge in these listing of structures in Paul’s letters, we are to see them as more than systemic injustice at work in altogether human structures (like government), even if one might see an inner dimension of a material reality. Instead, we are to see in the powers structures polluted by more than an “inner reality” (Wink) but by real demonic beings who seek to destroy God’s will for our world. Thus, it is best here to see a via media, a both-and: both demonic and supernatural beings at work in earthly structures. The second point of new creation explores an extravagant metaphor: “he made a public spectacle of them.” God publicly shames the powers and authorities by conquering them in the most paradoxical of places: a cross on which a man brutally suffered to death. This strange but wondrous act of God turns typical Roman brutality on its head—whereas Roman military commanders exposed and paraded conquered enemies through Rome on their way (sometimes) to a public crucifixion, so here God exposes the hideousness of systemic evil by means of a crucifixion. There’s more here: behind the word “public” is the Greek term parrēsia, which transcends “public” and means “boldly.” That is, God exposes evil boldly. To gain a full flavor of what such a triumphal procession looked like and therefore the imagery at work in this paragraph, here is Plutarch’s account of the triumphal process of Aemilius Paulus over King Perseus, the king of Macedon, hence, of Rome over Greece:

32.2 The people erected scaffoldings in the theatres for equestrian contests, which they call circuses, and round the forum, occupied the other parts of the city which afforded a view of the procession, and witnessed the spectacle arrayed in white garments. 3 Every temple was open and filled with garlands and incense, while numerous servitors and lictors restrained the thronging and scurrying crowds and kept the streets open and clear. 4 Three days were assigned for the triumphal procession. The first barely sufficed for the exhibition of the captured statues, paintings, and colossal figures, which were carried on two hundred and fifty chariots. 5 On the second, the finest and richest of the Macedonian arms were borne along in many waggons. The arms themselves glittered with freshly polished bronze and steel, and were carefully and artfully arranged to look exactly as though they had been piled together in heaps and at random, 6 helmets lying upon shields and breast-plates upon greaves, while Cretan targets and Thracian wicker shields and quivers were mixed up with horses’ bridles, and through them projected naked swords and long Macedonian spears planted among them, 7 all the arms being so loosely packed that they smote against each other as they were borne along and gave out a harsh and dreadful sound, and the sight of them, even though they were spoils of a conquered enemy, was not without its terrors. 8 After the waggons laden with armour there followed three thousand men carrying coined silver in seven hundred and fifty vessels, each of which contained three talents and was borne by four men, 9 while still other men carried mixing-bowls of silver, drinking horns, bowls, and cups, all well arranged for show and excelling in size and in the depth of their carved ornaments.

33.1 On the third day, as soon as it was morning, trumpeters led the way, sounding out no marching or processional strain, but such a one as the Romans use to rouse themselves to battle. 2 After these there were led along a hundred and twenty stall-fed oxen with gilded horns, bedecked with fillets and garlands. Those who led these victims to the sacrifice were young men wearing aprons with handsome borders, and boys attended them carrying gold and silver vessels of libation. 3 Next, after these, came the carriers of the coined gold, which, like the silver, was portioned out into vessels containing three talents; and the number of these vessels was eighty lacking three. 4 After these followed the bearers of the consecrated bowl, which Aemilius had caused to be made of ten talents of gold and adorned with precious stones, and then those who displayed the bowls known as Antigonids and Seleucids and Theracleian, together with all the gold plate of Perseus’s table. 5 These were followed by the chariot of Perseus, which bore his arms, and his diadem lying upon his arms. 6 Then, at a little interval, came the children of the king, led along as slaves, and with them a throng of foster-parents, teachers, and tutors, all in tears, stretching out their own hands to the spectators and teaching the children to beg and supplicate. 7 There were two boys, and one girl, and they were not very conscious of the magnitude of their evils because of their tender age; 8 wherefore they evoked even more pity in view of the time when their unconsciousness would cease, so that Perseus walked along almost unheeded, while the Romans, moved by compassion, kept their eyes upon the children, and many of them shed tears, and for all of them the pleasure of the spectacle was mingled with pain, until the children had passed by.

34 1 Behind the children and their train of attendants walked Perseus himself, clad in a dark robe and wearing the high boots of his country, but the magnitude of his evils made him resemble one who is utterly dumbfounded and bewildered. 2 He, too, was followed by a company of friends and intimates, whose faces were heavy with grief, and whose tearful gaze continually fixed upon Perseus gave the spectators to understand that it was his misfortune which they bewailed, and that their own fate least of all concerned them. 3 And yet Perseus had sent to Aemilius begging not to be led in the procession and asking to be left out of the triumph. But Aemilius, in mockery, as it would seem, of the king’s cowardice and love of life, had said: “But this at least was in his power before, and is so now, if he should wish it,” 4 signifying death in preference to disgrace; for this, however, the coward had not the heart, but was made weak by no one knows what hopes, and became a part of his own spoils.

5 Next in order to these were carried wreaths of gold, four hundred in number, which the cities had sent with their embassies to Aemilius as prizes for his victory. 6 Next, mounted on a chariot of magnificent adornment, came Aemilius himself, a man worthy to be looked upon even without such marks of power, wearing a purple robe interwoven with gold, and holding forth in his right hand a spray of laurel. 7 The whole army also carried sprays of laurel, following the chariot of their general by companies and divisions, and singing, some of them divers songs intermingled with jesting, as the ancient custom was, and others paeans of victory and hymns in praise of the achievements of Aemilius, who was gazed upon and admired by all, and envied by no one that was good. 8 But after all there is, as it seems, a divinity whose province it is to diminish whatever prosperity is inordinately great, and to mingle the affairs of human life, that no one may be without a taste of evil and wholly free from it, but that, as Homer says, those may be thought to fare best whose fortunes incline now one way and now another.

Third, God’s new creation concludes in “triumphing over them [i.e., the powers and authorities] by the cross.” The term “triumphing,” or at least participating in the Schadenfreude of the parade, summarily describes often the public parade of the conquering military general, with a display of domination and violence of those who have been conquered. (The Arch of Titus and the Arch of Constantine in Rome today embody empire domination.) Paul paradoxically makes use of this image for apostolic ministry (2 Cor 2:14). Once again there is a phenomenology to be employed. For this set of images to work, we need to have God as ruler, God in conflict with the rebellious powers and authorities, humans and the people of God especially being subverted and suppressed unjustly by the powers, and then Christ, who enters into the fray to take the powers down in defeat through the cross and resurrection and who, as the strong-man victor over the powers, creates the space of victory for the Colossians and all the people of Jesus. Furthermore, we need to connect this verse to the theme of reconciliation in the hymn of 1:15–20: reconciliation entails victory over the powers in 2:15. Marianne Meye Thompson insightfully wonders why the powers are not said to be destroyed in 2:15, suggesting that the triumph may imply “restoration of the powers to their purposes in creation.” The ultimate paradox is now clear: the location to celebrate victory is not the Roman Forum or the public streets of Roman cities but instead the precise place where Rome thought it was dominant: the cross. Some think “by the cross” (en autō) should be translated instead “in him [Christ]” in the sense of resurrection, ascension, and exaltation (cf. Eph 1:20–21; 4:8–10; 1 Pet 3:22), but the more immediate antecedent is “cross.” The powers are reversed: at the place Rome used as the ultimate indignity, God reestablishes the dignity of all. Jesus himself was stripped, and Jesus both was conquered and conquered at the cross. As Dunn says it so well:

To treat the cross as a moment of triumph was about as huge a reversal of normal values as could be imagined, since crucifixion was itself regarded as the most shameful of deaths. But in this letter it is simply of a piece with the theological audacity of seeing in a man, Jesus the Christ, the sum and embodiment of the divine wisdom by which the world was created and is sustained (1:15–20). The key can only be to recognize that for Paul, as for the first Christians generally, the cross and resurrection of Christ itself constituted such a turning upside down of all that had previously determined or been thought to determine life that only such imagery could suffice to express its significance. The unseen powers and invisible forces that dominated and determined so much of life need no longer be feared. A greater power and force was at work, which could rule and determine their lives more effectively—in a word “Christ.” Triumph indeed!

The cross, then, is not only the politics of Jesus and Paul, but it is the paradigm for the moral life for all who would walk in the way of Jesus. This pattern of Christoformity will be worked out in detail through chapters 2 and 3 of Colossians.

2. Practical Manifestations (2:16–19)

Up to this point Paul and Timothy have only intimated the practical behaviors that are either prohibited or expected for the Colossians, but in our passage the specifics rise to the surface. Many deem the terms in our passage sufficiently clear to mark the halakic mystics as a diaspora form of observant Judaism. As we hope to show, Paul is drawing—slowly, suggestively, but surely—a circle around the halakic mystics with a variety of terms, and by the time we enter into chapter 3, the circle will be drawn complete. At that point we’ll know who they are and what they think and what they do and what they want of the Colossians. We will discover that Paul and Timothy are describing what some call badges of identity, identity markers, or boundary markers. To remind ourselves of how the author(s) got here: the first major section of Colossians extends from 2:6 to 3:4, but 1:1–2:5 had already hinted at the substance of his concerns about Colossae in each passage. More foundationally, Paul and Timothy anchor their exhortations in the first major section of Colossians in a pastoral theology shaped, first, by a Christology affirming the cosmic origination, sustenance, and rule by Jesus, as well as his victory over all the powers; and second, by the Father, in this cosmic, filled-with-God Christ, having reconciled all things to himself—not just in the person of the cosmic Christ but through the very life that Jesus lived—life, death on a cross, resurrection, and exaltation to rule. In this Christ and in no one else, and in this Christ’s cruciform life and in no other ethical vision, can there be found the life God has for humans—Jews and Gentiles. On that basis the teaching and the practices of the halakic mystics are denounced as dangerous. Right here is where our passage takes its unique posture in the theology of Colossians: the cosmically reconciled Colossians must resist the temptation of the halakic mystics and cease the practices they demand. In fact, these Colossians are part of a cosmic victory over the powers behind the teachings and demands of what I have already referred to as halakic charismatics. At this point, however, one might be tempted to think our path is clear. Eduard Lohse’s famous observation, however, continues to haunt all interpreters: “This section cannot be translated. A person can only just sample the meaning of the passage and then try to reproduce it to some extent with reference to the Greek text.” Fred Francis offered this takeaway line: “Rather, one should expect that the difficulties [in our passage] result from summary historical allusions, a kind of shorthand between writer and readers.” So we turn now to sample the options to see whether we can discern the shorthand.

16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

There are two parts to the warning: 2:16–17 and 2:18–19. The sections are largely synonymous (2:16: “judge you”; 2:18: “disqualify you”). The first section focuses on unapproved actions because of their eschatological fulfillment in Christ, while the second section focuses on the halakic mystics, their philosophical and theological themes, and Paul’s revelation that the halakic mystics are not part of the body of Christ.

a. Part 1: The Practices (2:16–17)

16 The first part of the practical manifestations of the theology of the halakic mystics begins with this exhortation: because of Christ’s cosmic victory, the Colossians are not to let the opponents “judge” them. By this word, once one factors in “disqualify” in 2:18, Paul and Timothy mean exclude from the salvation that comes from God. It might be asked how the halakic mystics judged. As was suggested in our exegesis of 2:14, we need to combine the cheirographon of 2:14 with our passage’s specific concerns (2:16–23) to see the specifics that are “written” onto the cheirographon that was used against the Colossians. These halakic demands, metaphorically speaking, were inscribed on that cheirographon, and Paul here relieves the Colossians of those demands. A commonplace among all Jews, including Paul, entailed a future scenario in which God would render final judgment on all humans. But even standing on the belief that God was the judge did not prevent Jews or the earliest Christians from playing the part of God (cf. Jas 4:10–12). However, moral judgment is needed. Hence, the common conviction that God is the judge did not prevent the tough language of Jesus (cf. Matt 7:1–5 with 23:1–39) or the apostles (e.g., Jude). Paul can render judgment routinely in matters both small and great (e.g., 1 Cor 2:2; 7:37; 10:15; 2 Cor 2:1; 5:14; Titus 3:12); believers, Paul says, will render judgment on both the world and angels (1 Cor 6:2–3). And Paul himself, as well as other Christians, seems to render a potent moral, if not ultimate, judgment on others (1 Cor 5:3, 12; 6:1–3; 11:13). Yet, there are signs of concern about judging others: God is the final judge, so those who judge the gospel-shaped churches of Paul are acting outside God’s will (1 Cor 10:29; Rom 2:1, 3; 14:3–4, 5, 10, 13). Much of this back-and-forth dynamic in the New Testament texts comes to expression in Rom 14:10: “You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.” Our bafflement about consistency may well be resolved by the variant resonances of what krinō (“judge”) means in Greek. In one context it can mean to render a decision, while in another place refer to a moral discernment, and in yet other places be about the final ultimate judgment (for God alone). The term illustrates the necessity of paying close attention to context for clues. The context in Pauline literature provides clarity for the meaning of krinō in our text. Colossians 2:16 has the term krinō, while 2:18 gets far more specific in its use of the term “disqualify” (katabrabeuō). Now we turn to a similar reflection from Paul in Rom 14:3, which has krinō, and then both Rom 14:3 and 10 use the term “treat with contempt” (exoutheneō), which is countered with this reminder: “for we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.” My suggestion, then, is that we would do well to combine these two passages to enter into the mind of Paul. The term krinō in Col 2:16 means to render final judgment on someone, that is, to play the part of God. In fact, it could be translated “exclude” someone from the final salvation of God. This understanding explains much of Paul’s passion in Colossians, especially visible in 2:16–23. The next element of our section concerns the practices the halakic mystics required: “what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.” At first glance this is simple: Paul and Timothy here are referring to representatives of Judaism who insist on Torah observance according to some halakic set of interpretations and practices (e.g., Lev 10:9; Num 6; Judg 13:5, 7; 16:17; Amos 2:11–12; Gal 4:10). However, first glances are not entirely reliable, and hence some scholars think Paul is referring to some kind of Hellenistic Judaism that may better be explained through the lens of severe asceticism (e.g., Col 2:23; 1 Tim 4:3) or to an angelic worship or some kind of intense visionary experience. A third interpretation may be added on the basis of the widely neglected Acts 15:23–29, namely, that the so-called opponents contended that Gentile converts ought to live according to the Torah as designed for Gentiles living in the land (e.g., Lev 17:10–14; 18:6–18, 26). Complicating the issues is how one construes the intent of these practices, with some thinking it pertains to the desire for transmigration of the soul, for confidence in halakic purity status, while yet others see a yearning for religious revelations (see Col 2:18). There is no need for an extensive discussion of these terms because this time the first blush remains very probable: when one combines “eat or drink” with “New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day” and notes how these terms are used in Paul’s writings (Gal 4:10; Rom 14) and those he has in mind in those texts (Jews each time), one is led firmly to the conclusion that the halakic mystics believed Gentile converts were to observe these very features of the Torah and its necessary halakic rulings. With this matter settled, we look now at the precise terms, beginning with the first two of the five observances listed: “eat or drink.” The Torah specified which foods were pure/kosher (e.g., Lev 7:26–27; 11:1–23; Deut 12:16, 23–24; 14:3–21), and food laws became a notable symbolic feature of Jewish faithful observance, at least from the days of Daniel on (e.g., Dan 1:3–16; 10:3): “But many in Israel stood firm and were resolved in their hearts not to eat unclean food. They chose to die rather than to be defiled by food or to profane the holy covenant; and they did die” (1 Macc 1:62–63). This observance became both a challenge and then a successful modus operandi for observant Jews in the diaspora, as seen in Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 14.261): “Now the senate and people have decreed to permit them to assemble together on the days formerly appointed, and to act according to their own laws; and that such a place be set apart for them by the praetors, for the building and inhabiting the same, as they shall esteem fit for that purpose: and that those that take care of the provisions for the city, shall take care that such sorts of food as they esteem fit for their eating, may be imported into the city” (also 14.226, 245). Gentiles had their own usually negative opinions of Jewish food laws, which in pressing upon the Colossian Christians, the Jewish halakic mystics were creating a second boundary marker to cross. The issue of Torah observance with respect to food and drink became a burning issue in the Pauline mission because it was common to purchase food and drink that had been offered to idols. The issue probably lurks from behind the shadows of rhetoric in Gal 2:15–21 (cf. Acts 10:14; 11:3; 1 Cor 8:1–13; 10:14–33). This Jewish evidence is made even more forceful by the language of Rom 14:5–6, 14, 17, 20, 23, where we read about not only food and drink but also feast days and judging one another (14:3–4) in that Jew-Gentile struggle. The texts deserve to be cited here to make the point clear:

One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. (Rom 14:5–6)

I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. (Rom 14:14)

For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. (Rom 14:17)

Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. (Rom 14:20)

But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. (Rom 14:23)

To finish this point off, we need to observe the focus in Col 2:21 on abstinence (“Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”). We can safely see the language pointing to Jewish food laws that focused—as is the case for all observant diaspora Jews—on what not to eat or touch. If we then skip to “Sabbath,” which is peculiarly and profoundly Jewish (Gen 2:2–3; Exod 20:8–11; 31:13–17; Deut 5:12–15; Isa 56:6; Ezek 20:12; Mark 2:23–3:5), we are left with a beginning and ending that makes Jewish Torah central to the halakic mystics. This connection enables us to say without hesitation that both “religious festival” and “New Moon celebration” refer to Jewish calendrical concerns. Festivals are common and widely attended in the Jewish calendar (Lev 23; Num 28–29), as was therefore the regulation of the New Moon (Num 10:10; Isa 1:13) so one would know when to celebrate feasts. The three combined are perhaps a typical Jewish way of referring to the Jewish calendrical life. Even more, they are often used with reference to offerings and sacrifices on those days (e.g., Num 28:9–10; 1 Chr 23:31; 2 Chr 31:3; Neh 10:33; Isa 1:13–14; Ezek 45:17; Hos 2:11; Jubilees 2:19–20; 6:34–38; War Scroll [1QM] II, 4–6). That is, perhaps the halakic mystics of Paul were referring here to the sacrificial system in Judaism (the temple) even more directly. The combination of these two concerns—food laws and calendar/sacrificial system—yields a life regulated by Torah and in accordance with the Jewish communities of the diaspora, including regular Sabbath rest. Thus Dunn: “We must conclude, therefore, that all the elements in this verse bear a characteristically and distinctively Jewish color, that those who cherished them so critically must have been the (or some) Jews of Colossae, and that their criticism arose from Jewish suspicion of Gentiles making what they would regard as unacceptable claims to the distinctive Jewish heritage without taking on all that was most distinctive of that heritage.” We are thus drawn into the orbit of Gal 4:9–10 because (1) the same laws are mentioned and (2) the stoicheia are also mentioned there and shortly in our text at Col 2:20. The supposed distance of the opponents at Galatia and the opponents at Colossae has now dwindled to a common glance across the street. We are thus looking here at proselyte customs; one way to explain our situation is to say the halakic mystics believed Gentiles who believed in Jesus were Godfearers until they converted the whole way, which entailed circumcision (only perhaps also baptism) and the assumption of the yoke of the Torah (Jdt 14:10; Jos. Asen.). The Christian readers of Paul today who do not comprehend the compellingness of the logic of halakic mystics are failing to think how the observant thought. Paul’s no-holds-barred riposte is that surrender to the halakic mystics is theological and eschatological departure, but the argument is also ecclesial (see Col 3:11). They would be abandoning what God is doing in Christ. But we need to add that Paul’s instructions do not mean Jewish believers in Christ were to surrender food laws or the calendar or the Jewish Sabbath/sacrificial system. Rather, they were not to impose them on Gentiles as a condition of full conversion. 17 Finally, Paul and Timothy anchor their exhortation in a theological hermeneutic: those practices, which at one time were entirely legitimate and constitutive of a Torah-observant life, are now relocated in a new salvation-historical and eschatological context: they have been fulfilled in Christ. We are face-to-face with an early Christian hermeneutic. Exhibit number one is Col 2:17: “These [Torah and halakic practices] are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality [Christoformity], however, is found in Christ.” This hermeneutic in v. 17 emerged from Paul’s own experience and theological reflection. Whether we look to the narratives of Paul’s conversion in Acts (9:1–19; 22:3–16; 26:9–18) or to Paul’s own accounts (Gal 1:11–16), Paul experienced a “conversion” in that he refashioned his own autobiography as a result of his encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus. The most significant sign of conversion is a revised autobiography, and Paul’s language to this effect can be seen in Phil 3:5–11. First, his life prior to the road to Damascus: “If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.” His new-creation life:

But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith. I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead.

Conversion narratives, extravagances omitted, are all formed by such a turning point in life, and to use Paul’s own terms in Col 2:17, the “body” (reality) of the new life in Christ turns the old life into a “shadow.” That Paul can speak of his former life as garbage does not entail abandoning a halakic-shaped life himself, for in Acts 23:6 he calls himself a Pharisee. The dividing line for Paul was that the way of Moses anticipated the way of Jesus, and that the way of Jesus radically reshaped how one lived the way of Moses. Paul became a Jesus-shaped Pharisee, but he did not surrender his Jewishness. He no doubt thought he had become fully Jewish, not less so. Others thought Paul had hopped the rails, but Paul would counter that the rails were better on the new-creation line. Our point, then, is that Paul’s own conversion prompted Paul’s hermeneutical question, which led to his reading the Bible anew. This hermeneutic is found at Col 2:17, one that is as personal as it is theological. The contrast in the epochs of redemption is between (1) the “shadow” (skia) and (2) the “reality” (sōma). Paul turns what was precious to the pro-Torah party (the Torah, the halakah, the food laws, and the calendar [or perhaps the sacrificial] system) into a preliminary mode of God’s revelation when he labels them a shadow. Not that they were not valuable, for they were—but once Christ came, they were seen for what they were, namely, only a shadow of the things that were [or are] to come (namely, Christoformity or the practices connected to Christ, like baptism and Eucharist and discipleship). The language of skia-sōma, or shadow-body, plucks a string on the Platonic lyre of dualism (Republic 514a–520a), but the “dualism” at work here belongs to salvation history and hermeneutics. New Testament readers are more often reminded of a text that is nearly identical in Greek, namely, Hebrews 10:1: “The law is only a shadow [skia] of the good things to come.” Hebrews does not use sōma as the reality; instead, it uses “the form of those realities [pragmata].” But what are the implications? In light of Paul’s mystery theology at work in this letter, in which God’s plan means the expansion of Israel to include the Gentiles in one sōma, skia could suggest Israel as a people, and sōma its corresponding body of Christ (see 2:19). Such a reading, however, creates a problem, even if it makes sense theologically. How so? If “body” means “body of Christ,” the sentence would require us to insert another “body” for it to render that sense. Thus, “but [the sōma is] the sōma of Christ.” We think this reading, however attractive, is not likely. Instead, we return to the hermeneutical approach to 2:17: sōma is a metaphor, namely, it means “substance” or “reality.” The Torah, as skia, sketches a preliminary glimpse of God’s will for his people, while the fullness, or sōma, is found in Jesus (Matt 5:17–48) and in life in the Spirit (Gal 5:13–26). The “shadow” also anticipates another sōma, namely, the atoning death of Jesus (cf. 1 Pet 2:24; Heb 10:5).

b. Part 2: The Opponents (2:18–19)

18 Paul and Timothy now return to the exhortation of 2:16a (“do not let anyone judge you”), but this time the term jumps up one notch to “Do not let anyone … disqualify you.” That is, the judgment by the halakic mystics pronounces the converts of Colossae unacceptable to God. The term, katabrabeuō, combines brabeuō, which refers to awarding prizes in a contest and then, more commonly, evaluating, deciding, ruling, or presiding over (cf. Col 3:15) or judging, with an intensifier (kata) to shape the rule or judgment in a negative direction: hence, rule against, disqualify, or condemn. In its athletic context (1 Cor 9:24–27; cf. Phil 3:12–14), the term was used for the ruling judge who deprived someone of victory, but it acquires a sense of deprivation in other contexts (e.g., Wis 10:12; Philo, On Dreams 1.152). In this description in v. 18 of these halakic charismatics with their “exercises in self-inflation,” Paul’s terms shift from the typical halakic terms of v. 16 to a charismatic dimension. Such a person “delights in false humility and the worship of angels” and “goes into great detail about what they have seen.” Clearly we are dealing with some kind of mystical vision. The fundamental debate today is over how Torah-observant or “pure” the halakic mystics are: Is this halakic Judaism, or is it more of a syncretistic set of ideas that combines halakic Judaism with some Greco-Roman religious and philosophical ideas or mystery religions? It is wrong to think that Col 2:18 does not sound (purely) Jewish enough so the language of v. 18 must describe some Greco-Roman philosophy or religion. Even a cursory reading of Jewish apocalypses or Philo’s account of Moses (see below) makes clear that Jews were experienced in otherworldly journeys and mystical experiences. The introduction spells out how the language of Col 2 leads us to see the opponents as Jewish, mystical, apocalyptic, and ascetic. I see no reason to speak here of syncretism but instead of halakic charismatics or mystics. Verse 18 has a fivefold description of the halakic mystics’ threefold practices (v. 18) and their twofold eventual conclusion (vv. 18–19). We are left wondering whether Paul is using ironic descriptions:

  False humility
  Worship of angels
  Great detail about what they have seen

  Puffed up with idle notions in their unspiritual mind
  Lost connection with the head

The language is unusual and requires that we work patiently through each line. First, “false humility.” The word “false” is added because the subjective stance of Paul is condemnatory: the humility is wrong and therefore pretentious. But others see in the term “humility” austere ascetic self-denial like fasting (e.g., Lev 16:29, 31; Isa 58:3), which is then tied to worship of angels and visions that result from such asceticism. A good parallel of such a reading can be found in Philo’s accounts of Moses’s experience in heaven:

And the heaven is always singing melodies, perfecting an all-musical harmony, in accordance with the motions of all the bodies which exist therein; of which, if the sound ever reached our ears, love, which could not be restrained, and frantic desires, and furious impetuosity, which could not be put an end to or pacified, would be engendered, and would compel us to give up even what is necessary, nourishing ourselves no longer like ordinary mortals on the meat and drink, which is received by means of our throat, but on the inspired songs of music in its highest perfection, as persons about to be made immortal through the medium of their ears: and it is said that Moses was an incorporeal hearer of these melodies, when he went for forty days, and an equal number of nights, without at all touching any bread or any water. (Philo, On Dreams 1.35–36)

Therefore he, with a few other men, was dear to God and devoted to God, being inspired by heavenly love, and honouring the Father of the universe above all things, and being in return honoured by him in a particular manner. And it was an honour well adapted to the wise man to be allowed to serve the true and living God. Now the priesthood has for its duty the service of God. Of this honour, then, Moses was thought worthy, than which there is no greater honour in the whole world, being instructed by the sacred oracles of God in everything that related to the sacred offices and ministrations. But, in the first place, before assuming that office, it was necessary for him to purify not only his soul but also his body, so that it should be connected with and defiled by no passion, but should be pure from everything which is of a mortal nature, from all meat and drink, and from all connection with women. And this last thing, indeed, he had despised for a long time, and almost from the first moment that he began to prophesy and to feel a divine inspiration, thinking that it was proper that he should at all times be ready to give his whole attention to the commands of God. And how he neglected all meat and drink for forty days together, evidently because he had more excellent food than that in those contemplations with which he was inspired from above from heaven, by which also he was improved in the first instance in his mind, and, secondly, in his body, through his soul, increasing in strength and health both of body and soul, so that those who saw him afterwards could not believe that he was the same person. For, having gone up into the loftiest and most sacred mountain in that district in accordance with the divine commands, a mountain which was very difficult of access and very hard to ascend, he is said to have remained there all that time without eating any of that food even which is necessary for life; and, as I said before, he descended again forty days afterwards, being much more beautiful in his face than when he went up, so that those who saw him wondered and were amazed, and could no longer endure to look upon him with their eyes, inasmuch as his countenance shone like the light of the sun. (Philo, On the Life of Moses 2.67–70)

Second, one can tie “humility” now to “the worship of angels.” The issue will probably never find a rock-solid assurance of interpretation, since the genitive (“of angels”) is capable of various interpretations: is it an objective genitive (worshiping angels) or a subjective genitive (angels worshiping) or a descriptive genitive (angel-like worship)? The first interpretation strains possibility if the opponents are observant Jews (see Deut 4:19; 17:3; Jer 8:2; 19:13; Zeph 1:5), even if at times Jewish belief in the administration of the Torah through angels led to an exalted belief about them (Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2). Thus, the Apocalypse of Zephaniah 6:15: “He said to me, ‘Take heed. Do not worship me. I am not the Lord Almighty, but I am the great angel, Eremiel, who is over the abyss and Hades, the one in which all of the souls are imprisoned from the end of the Flood, which came upon the earth, until this day.’ ” As a result of the tension with halakic Judaism, many today favor the second interpretation (angels doing the worshiping), and once again, there is significant support for such a view in the Jewish literature. Here is an example from Qumran and then one from the Testament of Levi:

For You have brought [Your] t[ruth and g]lory to all the men of Your council, in the lot together with the angels of presence. And there is no mediator for [Your] ho[ly ones …]. In the uppermost heaven of all dwells the Great Glory in the Holy of Holies superior to all holiness. There with him are the archangels, who serve and offer propitiatory sacrifices to the Lord in behalf of all the sins of ignorance of the righteous ones. They present to the Lord a pleasing odor, a rational and bloodless oblation. In the heaven below them are the messengers who carry the responses to the angels of the Lord’s presence. There with him are thrones and authorities; there praises to God are offered eternally. (Testament of Levi 3:4–8)

Sufficient evidence thus exists in the Jewish world to consider this interpretation, that is, of early Christians thinking they were participating in the heavenly worship conducted by angels (perhaps 1 Cor 11:10). It was common enough in Asia Minor to invoke angels for help and for protection that what Paul says here seems to fit into the general environment. But we need to factor in Paul’s own second attempt to say the same things five verses later, which reads “with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence” (2:23). This second text omits angels altogether and instead combines thelō (in 2:18 translated “delights in”) with thrēskeia (in 2:18 translated “worship”; hence, ethelothrēskia). The impact of this second run-through of the opponents diminishes any concern with angels or worshiping angels and suggests ascetic practices that Paul declares will not produce what the halakic mystics think—experience or revelation. We think, then, the third view—angel-like worship—is closest to Paul’s intent. The most likely explanation of the false humility with the worship of angels is austere ascetic practices as a portal into mystical experiences that generate moral superiority and perhaps even divine revelation. Such a view is confirmed by the third expression Paul uses in 2:18: “Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen.” The term behind “goes into great detail” (embateuō) is used for those investigating or recounting the details of a vision or an event (2 Macc 2:30; cf. also 2 Tim 3:7; 2 John 9), and in that region of the world, perhaps even more important, for “entering into” the climactic levels of the mystery religions or cultic groups. Apuleius, from the second century CE, writes “I approached the very gates of death and set one foot on Proserphine’s threshold, yet was permitted to return, rapt through all the elements. At midnight I saw the sun shining as if it were noon; I entered the presence of the gods of the underworld and the gods of the upper-world, stood near and worshiped them.” The term might capture a term used elsewhere for “entrance into the Land” (Josh 19:49, 51) but that is now used for “entrance into the heavenly realms.” That is, it describes mystical experience (see 1 Enoch 14:8–13; 2 Enoch 3; Testament of Levi 2:5–7; Rev 4:1–2). Notice how the first text just cited describes such an experience of “entry”:

And behold I saw the clouds: And they were calling me in a vision; and the fogs were calling me; and the course of the stars and the lightnings were rushing me and causing me to desire; and in the vision, the winds were causing me to fly and rushing me high up into heaven. And I kept coming (into heaven) until I approached a wall which was built of white marble and surrounded by tongues of fire; and it began to frighten me. And I came into the tongues of the fire and drew near to a great house which was built of white marble, and the inner wall(s) were like mosaics of white marble, the floor of crystal, the ceiling like the path of the stars and lightnings between which (stood) fiery cherubim and their heaven of water; and flaming fire surrounded the wall(s), and its gates were burning with fire. And I entered into the house. (1 Enoch 14:8–13)

Nor can we ignore Paul’s own mystical experiences that we will find in 2 Cor 12:1–10, where he debases himself (unlike the Colossian halakic mystics) and mutes what he knows about such an experience (again, unlike the halakic mystics). We now have a reasonable set of interpretations of complex, disputed expressions that lead to the following conclusion: the halakic mystics are Jewish, given to traditional observance of the food laws and calendrical matters, and they are also convinced that ascetic rigor can lead to exalted angel-like worship experiences that are quasi entrances into heaven, where they perhaps discover revelation. For this reason we can call them halakic charismatics or mystics. Now that he has described to the Colossians the realities of the halakic mystics’ theology and observances, Paul denounces them in two expressions: (1) “they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind,” and (2), in v. 19, “they have lost connection with the head.” The halakic mystics promised the Colossians a higher spirituality through exalted experiences. This kind of spirituality probably explains Paul’s concern with terms like “perfection” (1:28; 4:12) and “fullness” (1:9, 25; 2:2, 9; 4:12). Paul counters that genuine spirituality is to be found in Christ alone. Paul judges them in v. 18b on the basis of anthropology: those who are believers and filled with the Spirit have entered into new creation and are therefore spiritual—in their minds, as well as in their bodies and hearts. They have slain the flesh (Col 2:11, 13, 23), but those who are fleshly and unregenerate are “puffed up.” Paul also used this term as a warning against believers in 1 Cor 4:6, 18–19; 5:2 and connects it to unspiritual knowledge (1 Cor 8:1). Genuine love, since it serves others instead of oneself, does not lead to “puffing up” (13:4). A Christoform existence (e.g., Phil 2:6–11) shatters the patterns of pride (2:1–4). There is a buried adverb in the NIV (translated as “idle notions” in “they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind”) that the CEB brings out as “unjustifiably” (“have become unjustifiably arrogant by their selfish way of thinking”); both are legitimate readings. The term (eikē) is better rendered as “to no purpose” and should be connected to “they lack value in restraining sensual indulgence” in 2:23. Paul drives things into his anthropology, that is, into the “flesh,” and connects flesh to “unspiritual mind.” Their unregenerate state creates their false religious views. 19 Anthropology now makes way for Christology, with echoes also of ecclesiology. The halakic charismatics who denounce the Colossian Christians because they have not embraced their version of full conversion (halakah and asceticism) are judged by Paul to “have lost connection to the head.” The language is dramatic and might be connected to themes of apostasy, heresy, and false prophets. Furthermore, this kind of evaluation by Paul demonstrates that the halakic mystics saw themselves as Christians. If so, the halakic mystics have, like Peter and Barnabas in Antioch (Gal 2:11–14), failed to maintain a consistency on gospel inclusion of Gentiles on the basis of faith in Christ. Yet, the grammar may not support such a reading. The Greek says “and not grasping the head.” Both the NIV and CEB insinuate that the opponents are losing connection with the head, although the text does not go that far and may be saying only that the opponents may have “never ‘grasped’ Christ in the first place … and now find themselves like a torso without a head.” The “head” is Christ, the head of the church (Col 1:18; 2:10; also at 1 Cor 11:3–5, 7, 10; Eph 1:22; 4:15; 5:23). From what follows in our verse the sense of “head” is that Christ is the source of unity for all the church, Jews and Gentiles, with a clear sense that the halakic mystics are drawing the Colossians away from the one body in Christ. The rest of v. 19 is a digression on Christ, something that has become a pattern in Colossians (e.g., 1:13–23; 2:3), but this digression probes beyond a fullness-Christology to explore unity and growth in and through Christ. The core sentence is “from whom the whole body … grows the growth of God”—with “supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews” added for colorful metaphor. The core idea is that attachment to Christ is necessary for the body of Christ to grow as God wills. The “whole body” yet again evokes the importance of Gentiles and Jews as a new family (see 3:11). God’s plan is for this body to “grow.” The cognate noun—literally “grow the growth of God”—clarifies the growth as originating in God’s own work. The issue for some is whether this is numerical growth in the sense of the church fanning across the Mediterranean with more and more local churches or whether it is moral and spiritual maturity, with little emphasis on the numerical side. There is evidence in Colossians for the first at 1:6, 10, 26–27, while there is also evidence of the second in 1:10. Whether more in number or more in maturity, the emphasis of Paul here is unity in Christ and inclusion of Gentiles on the basis of faith instead of adherence to halakah and ascetic rigor: Christ alone is sufficient. One must notice the same emphasis on unity in Eph 4:15–16: “Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.” Colossians, however, does not explore spiritual gifts as an instrument of unity. Instead, this letter reduces it to the unity that Christ alone can and does provide.

C. EXHORTATION TO TRUE RELIGION (2:20–3:4)

At Col 2:20 we move into the third section in the doctrinal correction portion of Colossians, which extends from 2:6 to 3:4. The first section was the essential exhortation to walk in the Lord they have received (2:6–7), and the second provided a correction of the false religion tempting the Colossians converts (2:8–19). This correction unit had two parts—the philosophical problems (2:8–15) and the practical manifestations (2:16–19). The next two units extend from 2:20 to 3:4, a section I have called “exhortation to true religion,” and it has two parts: first, living a life shaped by corporate death (2:20–23); second, a life shaped by corporate resurrection (3:1–4). The final aim of the philosophical approach to the Christian life on the part of the halakic mystics was moral, as 2:23 makes clear (“they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence”), while the method for getting there was a form of asceticism (2:21–22). Paul and Timothy have the same aim (moral transformation) but a completely different method: a life immersed in the death and resurrection of Jesus. If the themes from the thematic statement of 2:6 all the way through 3:17 are constant, there is nonetheless an advance in our new section in understanding Christoformity as it counters the proposal of the halakic mystics. To remind ourselves, Col 2:16–19 exhorted the Colossians not to let the opponents sit in judgment on them, but this next section turns the reader’s attention toward the responsibility of the Colossians themselves to embrace a life reshaped by the gospel. That is, if they have died with Christ, they can deny the moral practices of the halakic mystics and can indwell the defeat of the powers Christ has achieved in his death (2:20–23), and if they are raised with Christ, they can live in Christ’s victory by hope (3:1–4).

1. In Light of Corporate Death (2:20–23)

20Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: 21“Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. 23Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

Our passage begins with a question about the rules (2:20). It digresses gently into a rhetorical framing of the essence of the rules (2:21) and then deconstructs the rules as incapable of accomplishing their aims (2:22–23).

a. The Question about the Rules (2:20)

20 At this point Paul and Timothy close the circle around the opponents: the powers and authorities are supernatural and influence the stoicheia, and those powers are at work in the opponents, who create the practices connected to food laws, calendar, false humility, worship of angels, visionary experiences, and claims to revelation. But this cosmic opposition to Christ has been conquered at the cross, and the Colossians are to indwell that death and resurrection of Christ. Verse 20 is yet another instance of Christoformity in Pauline theology and ethics. In fact, the unit from 2:20 to 3:4 is baptismal theology—in their baptism they were dipped into the death of Jesus and arose from the water in union with him in his resurrection. Such a baptismal theology is not simply picturesque or metaphoric language of an inner spirituality but an embodied, washed reality. The term used here in 2:20 (“died with”) is a near synonym to “buried with” in the baptismal language of 2:12. In fact, Paul makes the point clear: Since you died with Christ. Co-crucifixion is implicit in the circumcision of Christ (2:11) and in their baptismal identification with Christ in his death (e.g., Rom 6:1–14); this Christoformity will become more explicit in the next paragraph (3:1–4). As Jesus taught his followers they must die (Mark 8:34–37 and pars.), so too Paul made co-crucifixion a central theme in the Christian’s life (2 Cor 4:10–12; 2 Tim 2:8–13). The order is vital: Christ died, the believer dies in Christ’s death, and as a result of that death the believer is to put to death the deeds of the flesh. Hence, death takes on a number of directions for Paul: the messianic Jew dies to the law (Gal 2:19), and all must die to sin (Rom 6:2). Because death by its very nature severs existing relationships (e.g., Rom 7:1–6), so the Colossians are depicted as dead to the stoicheia of this world. Though the world is created by the Son and though it has been reconciled to the Father through the Son (Col 1:15–20), the stoicheia of this world are still in rebellion against the Son (1:13; 2:8, 20). The widespread fascination today with culture tends to ignore the New Testament’s widespread critique of the world, one dimension of which is culture. The halakic mystics belong to the world’s rebellion and are seeking to convert the Colossians into their kind of worldliness. On the assumption of their death to and liberation from the stoicheia of the world, Paul asks the question: Why do you permit yourselves to live as one living in that world? Or as the NIV has it, “Why … submit to its rules?” (with “rules” implied). Here “world” means what it meant in the previous clause: the stoicheia-ized cosmos that takes on the way of life shaped by the opponents, a way of life expressed in details in 2:16 (halakic regulations of Torah), 2:18 (search for visionary experiences), and 2:21 (ascetic denials). Paul puts responsibility on the Colossians by his wording “submit to its rules” or “live in the world according to its ways.” Theologically, he provides a map to read the world: “The death of Christ spelled the end of all such systems; his death and resurrection provided the key insight into the reality of the world.” Ultimately, worldliness is rebellion against God in the depth of mind and heart, as we read in Psalm 36:1–4:

  I have a message from God in my heart
  concerning the sinfulness of the wicked:
  There is no fear of God
  before their eyes.
  In their own eyes they flatter themselves
  too much to detect or hate their sin.
  The words of their mouths are wicked and deceitful;
  they fail to act wisely or do good.
  Even on their beds they plot evil;
  they commit themselves to a sinful course
  and do not reject what is wrong.

Paul’s language (“elemental spiritual forces of this world,” “belonged to the world”) uses strong words about the halakic mystics, words that undoubtedly are both descriptive of what they were teaching and designed rhetorically to shift the Colossians away from them and toward the sufficiency of Christ.

b. Clarifying the Rules (2:21)

21 The rules, or the way of life, that tempt the Colossians are reduced in what is probably a sarcastic list of three items, each confirming again the Jewishness of the religion of the opponents: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” The negations reveal a focus on ascetic denials designed to stimulate religious visions, mystical experiences, and special revelation. Following the use of stoicheia in v. 20, these three items clarify that term as also describing what (in Paul’s view) mattered most to the opponents. We should not cut directly from these prohibitions to legalism and miss the sacramental nature of religious practices themselves. Despite the criticism of Paul, then, his point is not religious practices per se, because he knows that spiritual practices make the person available to God’s grace. Paul’s criticisms concern the deficiency of the ideological apparatus, as well as the intention in these practices. Two terms here concern physically touching: “Do not handle!” which uses haptō, and “Do not touch!” which uses thinganō. The evidence in Paul’s letters is insufficient to give us a compelling explanation. The first term could indicate prohibiting one from touching what is sacred (Exod 19:12; 2 Cor 6:17) or prohibited (Lev 5:3) or from touching what one is prohibited to eat (as is the case with the next term), or perhaps they are prohibited from touching in the sense of sexual relations (1 Cor 7:1). Inasmuch as the concerns in 2:16 were halakic food laws as a dimension of purity laws (cf. Isa 52:11), these prohibitions probably concern touching and eating unclean foods, but inasmuch as 2:18 was more concerned with mystical experiences, these prohibitions may also be connected to abstinences designed to make one worthy and capable of mystical encounters. We cannot be sure, though I am inclined to see here a concern with food laws, and perhaps “perish with use” in 2:22 tips the evidence toward food laws.

c. Deconstructing the Theology of the Rules (2:22–23)

22 With the rules now brought into clarity, Paul deconstructs the rules as he attempts to show they are incapable of producing sanctification. The deconstruction involves four points: (1) they concern things that are perishable (v. 22a), (2) they are human-originated (v. 22b), (3) they have an appearance of wisdom (v. 23a), and (4) they are incapable of accomplishing their design (v. 23b).

1. The rules concern things that are perishable (v. 22a). The imagery speaks both of the breakdown of organic matter by the process of degradation or dissolution and of its consumption by way of use. Perhaps today we can think of a composter’s way of degrading organic material until it becomes swamp-like mud. Paul uses the first term (phthora) for creation’s perishability and bondage to decay (1 Cor 15:42, 50; Rom 8:21), as well as for the inevitable result of the flesh (Gal 6:8). Hence, he connects the teachings of the opponents with the stoicheia (Col 2:20) and now with a world of flesh destined for dissolution. Although the language is complex, the implication is astounding. Has not Paul just said that the halakic concerns of the opponents, symbolized by perishable foodstuffs, were designed to lead to Christ and are now overcome by way of fulfillment in Christ? Yet, as the apostle Paul himself was all things to all men in his missional approach of surrendering his own rights for the good of others (1 Cor 9:19–23) and as Jews walked the discerning path of accommodation in the diaspora for a variety of reasons, so I suspect here Paul does not mean those practices advocated by the opponents were always wrongheaded. Instead, he would have been saying they are not at all required for Gentile converts to be admissible to God or the church, and not always even necessary for Jewish converts if the situation arises where they may need to accommodate. But even here Jews in Christ were expected to walk the path of Torah on the basis of the new covenant, following Christ and living in the power of the Spirit. Even then, Paul uses a fatal denunciation for the practices of the halakic mystics.

2. The rules are human-originated (v. 22b). As circumcision was human-originated (2:11), so too the food laws, calendrical concerns, mystic-oriented worship exercises, and ascetic denials. Paul can relocate the opponents’ teachings only into the realm of human origination (cf. Isa 29:13) because he knows God’s wisdom is revealed in Christ, who is the reality (2:17). If the halakic mystics recognized how Jesus had used the same text against the purity concerns of the Pharisees (Mark 7:1–23; Matt 15:1–20), they would have perceived an even deeper criticism. 23 3. The rules have an appearance of wisdom (v. 23a). This third point is grammatically parallel to the first point. Their teachings contain only a “word” or “appearance” or “reputation” of wisdom. Their so-called wisdom is but a shadow (2:17) of the reality, who is Christ, and once again Paul connects Christ to sophia (1:9, 28; 2:3, 8; 3:16). The inadequacy of their so-called wisdom works in a parallel fashion with the last expression in this verse (“lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence”). Their rules are now given three separable expressions: “with their self-imposed worship, their false humility, and their harsh treatment of the body.” The first term means voluntary worship or pretentious worship. At its simplest level it means chosen worship or perhaps even choice of religion, that is, some kind of self-selected and self-determined form of religion. The expression draws us back to skia and stoicheia and human-originated traditions and teachings and theories about religion. In the second expression, “false humility,” we circle back to the “false” humility of 2:18. The third expression piles on: “harsh treatment of the body.” In spite of ambiguities, most agree Paul describes ascetic rigorous denials of the body (cf. v. 21; 1 Tim 4:3), done to obtain what the ascetic desires. What is that? Paul’s fourth point answers the question: Moral transformation, with hints of new revelation.

3. The rules are incapable of accomplishing their design, namely sanctification (v. 23b). The opponents have evidently—we are constructing their beliefs, after all, from one who not only disagrees with but denounces them—made the claim that their religious path of combining Jewish halakic regulations with ascetic spiritual quests will empower the Colossians to gain victory over the “flesh.” In light of the same term (plēsmonē) in our verse and in other texts, one suspects the opponents were seeking embodied moral victory over sexual temptations. If this view is accurate, the mystics’ desire counters prevailing sexual customs in the Roman Empire. The text can be read in one of two ways: first, these rules are incapable of permitting a person to satisfy the flesh, or second, the severe treatment of the body is incapable of restraining the flesh. The grammar only slightly favors the former, but the context overwhelmingly favors the latter. Few have taken the bait, but it is to Dunn’s credit to have latched on to the oft-missed contrast of body and flesh in v. 23: “harsh treatment of the body [sōma]” vs. “restraining sensual [sarx] indulgence.” He suggests the body is physical but the flesh is “ethnic flesh” (Gal 6:12–13; Phil 3:3–4). Thus, “severity to the body can be just another form of pandering to the [Jewishness of the] flesh” or even better, “The line of attack is the earlier Pauline one (particularly in Galatians), that such a concern for Jewish identity and Jewish privilege as Jewish is at the end of the day just another form of self-indulgence or national indulgence.” His contention is that this kind of ascetic rigor is just another form of creating a boundary line between Jews and Gentiles. In the end, their system does not work—whether one opts for this view or whether one opts for the more traditional line of finding moral victory and spiritual ecstasy through asceticism. For Paul, that moral victory has already been accomplished at the cross, and their victory can be discovered only in the life that begins with a baptism into a life of cruciformity. The exhortation to true religion now moves from their corporate death (2:20–23) to their corporate resurrection (3:1–4). Neither of these two units marks a literary or logical shift in this letter from theology to praxis. Paul the pastor is incapable of suspending the practical implications of theology until he has carefully laid out his theological arguments. He has sections of theology and praxis—often called the indicative and imperative, as is seen in Gal 1–4 and 5–6 or Rom 1–11 and 12–16, where praxis seems to be on hold until theology can be explained, but in Colossians the implications begin to bleed through the theology sooner (e.g., 2:6–7). The believer is so identified with Christ that his events have reshaped their lives. Yet it appears to me that 2:20–3:4, one unit rooted in the death and the other in the resurrection of Jesus, explores the moral implications of the baptismal theology expressed in Paul’s strong critique of the opponents. Furthermore, that baptismal theology is less apparent from 3:5 and following, for those verses sound more like standard Pauline ethical teachings. For most scholars, 3:1–4 is at least a bridge to the sections that follow.

4. In Light of Corporate Resurrection (3:1–4)

1Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. 3For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. 4When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

It does not take imagination to construct the immediate implications of the language of this short paragraph: the opponents are not set on the rule of Christ above but on the principalities and powers and the stoicheia and the skia. Thus, the halakic mystics are set on earthly things. The consequence morally is that they have not died with Christ and are not hidden with Christ, and they—tragically—will not appear with Christ in glory. Paul presses the Colossians into a firm break from the opponents and their teachings. In this passage and elsewhere in this letter, Paul and Timothy use an apocalyptic eschatology to express what has been inaugurated in Christ. Our paragraph has two units: the exhortation given in double, but largely synonymous, terms (3:1–2), and the reason, given in double but slightly extended form (3:3–4). The first reason in 3:3 is spelled out in greater detail in the form of a promise in 3:4. That is, to be “hidden with Christ in God” (3:3) means they will “appear with” Christ when he appears at the parousia (3:4). As a whole the paragraph advocates a resurrection foundation for ethics.

a. The Exhortation (3:1–2)

3:1 Before Paul and Timothy give the exhortation, they provide the theological grounding: “Since, then, you have been raised with Christ.” While “since” in the NIV is entirely appropriate in that the condition expresses an assumption, “since” rhetorically diminishes the exhortation dimension of this verse and renders it more into a theological proposition. The unit from 2:20 to 3:4 is baptismal theology—in their baptism they were dipped into the death of Jesus and arose from the water in union with him in his resurrection. Baptismal theology cannot be reduced to picturesque language (an inner spirituality) but instead expresses an embodied, washed, sacramental reality. The core gospel of the apostles was the four-line story of Jesus found in 1 Cor 15:3–5: Christ died, was buried, was raised, and appeared, and one could “double-click” on “Christ” or “died” to find a fifth line, that “he lived.” The apostolic gospel noticeably opens up the gospel, not at the second but at the third “chapter” in that story, that is, at his resurrection (e.g., Acts 2:24, 31, 32; 3:15; 4:10; 10:40; 13:30, 33, 34, 37; 17:31). The declaration of Jesus’s resurrection leads in gospel preaching to its implication: repent, believe, be baptized, and now walk in the newness of life. The gospel declares these four or five events in the life of Jesus, and the gospel also summons us to enter into the death and the resurrection of Jesus: into the death in order to die to sins, and into the resurrection in order to walk in new-creation life. We are summoned to enter into what has already happened, as in Eph 2:4–6: “But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus.” Scholars have raised more than a question or two about the presentness of resurrection in Colossians and Ephesians, suggesting in fact that the difference between the present realization in the Prison Epistles and the future resurrection of the earlier Paulines (e.g., 1 Corinthians) indicates different authorship. The emphasis in Colossians and Ephesians is noticeable. However, Romans (which we think is written after Colossians) also has co-resurrection in the making (Rom 6:4, 11). Few doubt Paul wrote Philippians—some would agree it is from the same time period as Colossians—and there is precious little difference between the theology of Phil 3:19–21 and our text in Colossians. Furthermore, even in Colossians 3:4 we have an indication of a future glorious transformation. So I agree with Wilson, who writes, “If our author has indeed gone beyond Paul’s own teaching, he has not gone very far.” The exhortation based on co-resurrection is now given: “Set your hearts on things above” (3:1b), and then “above” is defined as “where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God” (3:1c). Far from a summons to an un-or otherworldliness, this exhortation calls the Colossians to live in the world on the basis of the rule of Christ over all the powers. That is, as F. F. Bruce wrote, because they have been raised with Christ, “the believers have now no private life of their own.… Their interests must … be his interests.” As Paul sought, following a vision, to cross the Aegean Sea (Acts 16:10) and as the Athenians sought for God (17:27), so Paul believes followers of Jesus ought to seek: not for their own glory (Gal 1:10; 1 Thess 2:6; 1 Cor 10:33; Phil 2:21) or their own way (1 Cor 13:5) but instead for justification in Christ (Gal 2:17), for spiritual gifts so they can build up the church (1 Cor 14:12), for “glory and honor and immortality” (Rom 2:7), and in our paragraph, for “things that are above” (Col 3:1). The NIV adds heart in “set your hearts on things above.” If in reading the NIV one distinguishes seeking with the heart in this text from seeking with the mind in 3:2, one has inferred too much. This text summons the believer to seek or to set one’s will/mind/heart on things above, but the NIV’s “heart” is not in the text. By making it the object of the imperative, it makes the focus fall on what is not there and on us instead of what is there and what is not us—“things above.” Furthermore, adding “heart” here runs the risk of rendering the meaning as an affection or an emotion, when will (Rom 2:7) and mind (cf. 1 Cor 1:22; Rom 10:3) are just as likely at work. Rather than “set your hearts on” I prefer it be rendered “seek,” as in the Lord’s words in Matt 6:33. Vexing many interpreters is the precise meaning of “things above,” a spatial equivalent of “heaven” or “sky” (e.g., Acts 2:19). Jewish apocalyptic literature, such as 2 Baruch, uses “above” in a similar manner (4:2–7; 51:8–12; cf. 4 Ezra 7:26; 13:36). Parallel to this apocalyptic literature sits Paul, who can speak of a “Jerusalem above” (Gal 4:26) and an eschatological vocation for those who are faithful (Phil 3:14: “heavenly call”). Now to Colossians 3:1, 2: the first instance refers to where Christ rules, whereas the second is a stark contrast to the earth, where the powers of sin rule. As such, the term takes on three dimensions: cosmological (the present heaven, sometimes called paradise, is above and counters the earthly as in v. 2; cf. 1:5, 16, 20, 23; 4:1), eschatological (the heaven above will be the kingdom of God on earth; cf. 1:22, 28; 3:3–4, 6, 24; Rev 20–22), and ethical (a life shaped by the rule of Christ; cf. Col 3:5–17; Phil 4:8). There is evidence for each dimension in Colossians itself, and it is therefore highly likely that, by “things above,” Paul means a way of living constituted not by the stoicheia and skia but by the rule of Christ above, whose rule will become a reality on earth in the future. But we need to be reminded, as Andrew Lincoln has observed, that instead of beginning where his opponents began (on earth) in order to get into the heavenlies, Paul begins in the heavenlies and reconfigures the earth. In other words, Paul reconfigures the heavenlies around Christ—who created them and now rules over them (Col 1:15–20)—and this reconfiguration has at least one foot standing on apocalyptic beliefs. As such, the command urges a profoundly countercultural posture in the world because it taps into a new kind of power, thus contradicting the “self-help schemes the ascetics are offering.” In “seated at the right hand of God” we enter into the profundity of early Christian Christology. Two options need to be considered: first, Christ rules at the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:33–36; 1 Cor 15:25; Eph 1:20; Heb 1:3, 13; 10:12, 13; 1 Pet 3:22; Rev 3:21; 22:1–3), and from that location he also intercedes (Rom 8:34; Heb 7:25; 1 Pet 3:22). Which option is in mind in the “set your hearts on things above” in Col 3:1? The former is widespread in earliest Christian thinking and makes far more sense of Colossians. “Seated at the right hand of God” evokes rule and takes us to Dan 7 (Matt 19:28; 25:31), Ps 110:1 (cf. Mark 12:36 and pars.), and 1 Cor 15:25. It is clear that this text, at least implicitly, critiques the rule of Caesar; it is not so clear that the author explicitly has Caesar in mind. Christ seated as ruler evokes Col 1:16, 20 and 2:10, 15 (cf. 1 Cor 15:20–28), and it also implies that Jesus conquered the powers. It is possible that this expression also evokes deity, since no one but God sits in the heavens (cf. Dan 7:10). To back up now: on the basis of their co-resurrection with Christ, the Colossians are to seek to participate in new-creation life by directing their faith and lordship toward the Christ, who rules all of creation. That rule is not yet visible to all but someday will be (3:4). To seek the things above, then, means to live a life on earth under the resurrected King Jesus as the Lord of all creation, with the implication that Caesar is not their true lord. 2 The exhortation of v. 1 is reframed in v. 2 to “Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things.” There are two differences in this reframing of v. 1: the term “seek” (zēteō) becomes “set your minds” (phroneō), and “things above” is contrasted with “earthly things,” a cosmological parallel to “flesh” (2:11, 13, 18, 23). Paul likes the term phroneō, one often connected with “will” and “heart” in the Old Testament (e.g., Prov 6:32) and with wisdom in the classical Hebrew sense (Deut 32:29). A notable instance of this term is when Jesus reveals to Peter that Peter has in mind the things of “men” (Matt 16:23). For Paul it is a theo-moral term: how one thinks, shapes how one lives. Thus, flesh mindedness leads to flesh living, while Spirit mindedness leads to Spirit-drenched living (Rom 8:5; cf. Gal 5:10). This second group becomes Spirit-ually wise in their relations of humility and love and harmony (e.g., 2 Cor 13:11; Phil 1:7; 2:2, 5; 3:15; 4:2; Rom 12:3, 16). The opposite is the way of discord, violence, and fractured relationships: that is, “their minds are set on earthly things” (e.g., Phil 3:19). We need to connect “earthly things” to the stoicheia (2:20) and to the skia (2:17), that is, to the specific items Paul uses to illustrate the teaching and behavior of the halakic mystics (e.g., Col 2:16, 18, 21). They are “earthly” not simply because they are pagan or Jewish. Rather, they are “earthly” because they are not under the rule of Christ and instead are under the sway of flesh, sin, and the powers (1:13; 3:9, 10). The vertical dualism here does not exhibit traces of Platonism or some kind of Gnosticism but instead a kind of apocalypticism that various authors, including Paul, shared in the first century CE. That new worldview revolutionizes one’s perceptual and practical world (see 2 Cor 5:16).

b. The Reason (3:3)

3 Backing up one chapter in the life of Jesus, Paul and Timothy now say the Colossians are to live a new-creation life because they “died” (3:3a), and the dead-in-Christ’s “life is now hidden in Christ in God” (3:3b). It is not when or how they died that concerns the author but that they died. Co-crucifixion in Pauline theology is nothing less than participation in the crucifixion of Jesus and all that it accomplishes—namely, forgiveness of sins and the defeat of death, the flesh (2:11), and the powers (2:13–15). It is rather clear in all of Paul’s letters that what is said theologically—they died, they were raised with Christ—is both true and something to be realized over time. Some will have made the transition to a life of love and holiness more completely than others, but Paul’s letters nonetheless make clear that the body of Christ is not yet perfect (cf. 1:28). The far side of death in the eschatology of Paul is not eradication or annihilation but “life”; that is, by entering into Jesus’s death, the Colossians also enter into Jesus’s resurrection and new-creation life. Paul’s way of saying this is theo-cosmological: “and your life is now hidden with Christ in God.” Paul’s soteriology maps a journey from thanatologist to zoologist—which is to say, the fundamental problem is death, and its solution is the gift of life. From the beginning of Paul’s letter-writing career, we discover a soteriology that contrasts death as a result of sin with resurrection life. I begin with what may be called the specific kind of death known to the Jewish messianic convert: “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal 2:19–20). Death and life are the way of the Christian’s path: “We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may also be revealed in our mortal body” (2 Cor 4:10–11; cf. 13:4). Such a death and life are the baptismal life:

We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (Rom 6:4)

… but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life. (Rom 6:13)

Sin leads to death, and Christ means eternal life: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 6:23; 8:2, 6, 13). And perhaps the best summative statement of Paul’s: “But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness” (8:10). The life they have is the life that comes through Christ, and it both defeats death and empowers the believer for new-creation life. Why, then, does Paul say their life is “hidden with Christ in God”? It is entirely reasonable to think Paul has in mind here not so much the location in heaven of the believers but the reality of a mystery formerly hidden but now revealed, namely, the inclusion of Gentiles (Colossians) in the family of God and that this hiddenness is in Christ. With our eye open for a setting in apocalypticism, we should not forget that in 1:5 Paul revealed that their hope was “stored up” for them in heaven. This hiddenness flows from Col 1:26–27 and 2:3: as all the wisdom and knowledge of God were hidden in Christ and made manifest in his incarnation, so the Colossians are co-hidden in Christ in his exalted status at the right hand of the Father. It is also possible, but beyond proof, that Paul uses “hidden” here to counter the claims of the opponents of their own mysteries in worship, mysteries hidden to all but initiates. Two prepositions are used in v. 3b: they hidden with Christ who is in God. As all the fullness of the Godhead is in Christ, so all of Christ is in God—a set of lines that can be synthesized only by plumbing the perichoretic relationship of union in the Father and Son (see John 10:30; Col 1:19; 2:9). That interpenetrating reality is where the Colossians are now “located,” since they are “with” Christ who is “in” God. Hence, the security of the Colossians is rooted first in Christology and only then in soteriology. All that has been said since 2:11–12, especially 2:20 through 3:4, brings to the surface the Pauline theology of union with Christ, ably summarized by Constantine Campbell in the following words: “A believer is united to Christ at the moment of coming to faith; their union is established by the indwelling of the Spirit. The person united to Christ therefore enters into participation with Christ in his death, resurrection, ascension, and glorification. As a participant in Christ’s death and resurrection, the believer dies to the world and is identified with the realm of Christ. As a member of the realm of Christ, the believer is incorporated into his body, since union with Christ entails union with his members.”

c. The Promise (3:4)

4 Verse 4 extends the implications of 3:3 in a chiasm: your life, Christ (v. 3) … Christ, your life (v. 4). Their co-crucifixion meant life, and that life was secure because they are “with” Christ, who is himself “in” God. That security is then turned over to express the promise that Christ—“who is your life”—will return, and they will be “with him” because they are already “with” him “in” God (3:3). If the precise eschatological details are not entirely clear—does he mean they will die and will return with Christ at the parousia?—the essence is clear: they are good as gold because they are “with” Christ now. What is hidden in v. 3 (Christ) appears in v. 4, and as Col 2:13–15 revealed, the distinctive Christian hope is that, when Christ comes back, those with Christ will join in the victory. “When Christ … appears” (v. 4) refers to the parousia. Speculation about the parousia ought not lead to disavowal of it being a constant theme in the Christian creed: history has a goal, God is in control, and that history will come to its fitting conclusion when Christ is exalted above all and when he hands over the kingdom to the Father, who will then be “all in all” (1 Cor 15:35–57). The parousia—a term that means “appearing” but is not the same term used in our text (which is “manifestation”)—is the moment when Christ is revealed cosmically by the Father as the ruler of all and, as that king, judges all of creation (1 Cor 4:5; 1 John 2:28; 3:2). The language of this verse speaks about when his rule over all becomes public and no longer resistible (see Phil 2:6–11). But the parousia is more than vindication, for it also entails the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. Though the focus on realized eschatology is a constant factor some use to argue for non-Pauline authorship of Colossians, that factor needs also to be set alongside futuristic eschatology in Colossians, including 1:22, 28; 3:4, 6, 24. There is a perhaps ignored promise: as there are a co-crucifixion and a co-resurrection, so there is a co-parousia: “then you also will appear with him in glory” (3:4). We are reminded of the groaning of all creation for the redemption of the children of God in Rom 8:18–25. The italicized word in “you will also appear with him in glory” could be the Colossians’ glory (2 Thess 2:14; 1 Cor 15:42–43; Phil 3:20–21; 2 Tim 2:10) or Christ’s glory (2 Thess 2:14) or God’s glory (Rom 5:2). On balance, its closer proximity to “him” suggests it is Christ’s. Does this verse indicate an Adam Christology, that is, Christ as the Second Adam transforming believers into the image of God in glory?

Here, then, we can speak of Adam Christology. It is implicit in the echo of Ps. 110:1 (3:1), which elsewhere in the New Testament is merged with Ps. 8:6 to give the picture of the exalted Christ as the one who fulfills the original intention in the creation of Adam (particularly 1 Cor. 15:25–27; Eph. 1:20–22; Heb. 1:13–2:8). And it is certainly present in the thought that this becoming like Christ involves a transformation into the heavenly glory (Rom. 5:2; 8:18, 21; 9:23; 1 Cor. 2:7; 1 Thess. 2:12; cf. Mark 12:25; 1 Pet. 5:1, 4), since the glory in view is both the glory Adam lost (Rom. 3:23) and the glory which is now Christ’s (Rom. 8:17, 29–30; 2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:21; 1 Thess. 2:14; Heb. 2:10; see also on 1:11 and 27).

III. PRACTICAL EXHORTATION (3:5–4:6)

As stated more than once above, Paul’s logical movements are not clear-cut, so calling this section “practical exhortation” (or it could be “paraenesis”) is for expediency. What we find in 3:5 through 3:17 is yet another rearticulation of a gospel-shaped life. The lordship of Christ over all of life is the theme’s core. That lordship, paradoxically, is a death-resurrection life, and so the theme of dying to the flesh and sin is prominent, as also is living the life of the resurrection as part of the new creation. Those two themes—death and resurrection—reshape the entirety of the Christian life for Paul. Again, this is what Christoformity means.

Death Life 2:11–12a 2:12b–13 2:20–23 3:1–4 3:5–11 3:12–17

Paul will then pour Christoformity into the ordinary stations of life (3:18–4:1), which will prompt Paul to ask the Colossians to pray for the mission as they seek to live in the Roman Empire in a wise manner (4:2–6).

A. CHRISTIAN LIFE: OLD AND NEW EXISTENCE (3:5–17)

1. Negative (3:5–11)

5Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. 7You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. 8But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. 9Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. 11Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

This section articulates what the gospel does to the moral life of a believer: participation in the death with Christ slays the flesh and sins that destroy and divide; in fact, it brings the Gentiles—all people (3:11)—into the one family of God alongside Israel so that Christ “is all and is in all.” The focus in our passage (3:5–11), once again on death, suggests that the next passage (3:12–17) is the outworking of the resurrection. The virtues listed in vv. 5, 8–10, 12–17 are only remotely connected to the virtues of Greek or Roman convention but do emerge more naturally from a Jewish context, perhaps even Lev 17–19. Methodologically, we need to consider each line from 3:5 through 3:17 in light of the others. With the larger section ending on a note of the all-inclusive nature of God’s work “in Christ” (3:17), I conclude that Paul focuses from 3:1, first, on Gentile converts who, second, are entering into the new family of God, Israel expanded, and that therefore, third, he focuses on how the church is to live in the Roman Empire. He instructs Gentiles how to live as those brought into the covenant God has made with Israel. In our paragraph (3:5–11) Paul and Timothy explore the transformation that occurs through baptism into Christ’s death and resurrection. First, therefore, he exhorts them to put behind them their previous sinful life (3:5–9a), offering amid those exhortations two asides (3:6 and 3:7); second, he explores the conversion theology behind that exhortation (3:9b–11)—they have stripped off the “old self” and put on the “new self” (3:9b–10a), a self that is participating in the transformation into the image of God in Christ (3:10b), who encompasses grace for all because he is the all (3:11). Here we encounter Paul’s typical theological ethics: the indicative of being in Christ leads to the imperative of Christoformity, with an eye constantly on ecclesial unity. We dare not become too familiar with the radical nature of Pauline theology: our union with Christ is a transformative union of grace into a new family that subverts the Roman sense of status and honor for a new kind of status—one connected to the cruciform King Jesus.

a. The Exhortation (3:5, 8–9a)

5 Verse 5 begins a list of Roman vices that must be put to death, but the list is interrupted in 3:6–7 for two explanatory asides; we will examine the entire list before looking at the two asides. In the NIV there are eleven vices that Paul exhorts them to renounce: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires, greed, and then anger, rage, malice, slander, filthy language, and lying. The eleven can be cut into two major themes: sins of desire and sins of disunity. Before we look at each group, we need to observe similar lists elsewhere in the New Testament, including Gal 5:19–23; 1 Thess 4:3–7; 1 Cor 5:9–11; 6:9–10; Rom 1:29–32; Phil 4:8; 1 Tim 3:1–13; Tit 1:5–9; Jas 1:21; 3:1–18; 1 Pet 2:1–2; 4:1–3. The origin of Paul’s list has been disputed, with some thinking Colossians could be interaction with Stoicism, but it is more than reasonable to think these are Christian variants on Jewish lists of vices and virtues, none more substantivally similar than Rule of the Community (1QS) IV, 2–6a, 9–11. This text is remarkably similar to Paul’s letter:

These are their paths in the world: to enlighten the heart of man, straighten out in front of him all the paths of true justice, establish in his heart respect for the precepts of God; it is a spirit of meekness, of patience, generous compassion, eternal goodness, intelligence, understanding, potent wisdom which trusts in all the deeds of God and depends on his abundant mercy; a spirit of knowledge in all the plans of action, of enthusiasm for the decrees of justice, of holy plans with firm purpose, of generous compassion with all the sons of truth, of magnificent purity which detests all unclean idols, of careful behavior in wisdom concerning everything, of concealment concerning the truth of the mysteries of knowledge. However, to the spirit of deceit belong greed, sluggishness in the service of justice, wickedness, falsehood, pride, haughtiness of heart, dishonesty, trickery, cruelty, much insincerity, impatience, much foolishness, impudent enthusiasm for appalling acts performed in a lustful passion, filthy paths in the service of impurity, blasphemous tongue, blindness of eyes, hardness of hearing, stiffness of neck, hardness of heart in order to walk in all the paths of darkness and evil cunning.

Comparison of Paul’s list with the Damascus Document (CD) IV, 17–18 reveals distinctive patterns of thought for each community. Three prohibitions occur: fornication, wealth, and defilement of the temple. One might then contend that both the Qumran community and the earliest Christians, including Paul, all go back to the Holiness Code—as long as one does not make it a simplistic direct dependence—and that ethical stream eventually formed into the Two Ways tradition. Alongside the distinctiveness of the lists for each setting is the variety in the New Testament lists, which proves there was not a stable traditional list in a common catechesis of morals. The overlapping themes of these lists prove that the apostles and earliest leaders cared most about sins of desire and sins that destroyed the unity and joy of the ecclesial fellowship. It is unquestioned that they encountered communities marked by such sins. Each of the lists manifests life in the Spirit for a specific congregation. The exhortation itself is expressed in two ways: “put to death” (3:5) and “rid yourselves of” (3:8). The first taps into the baptismal language of chapter 2, while the second draws on what might be seen as early Christian language of renunciations, and may also draw on baptismal practices of disrobing and robing with a white garment. “Put to death” recalls similar language in Colossians (2:11–12, 20; 3:5), the Letter to the Romans (6:11; 8:13), and Jesus’s image of taking up the cross (Mark 8:34–38). Death in Christ entails deadening, or slaying, the flesh, sins, systemic evil, and in this context, especially the sins of desire. Just what is in mind in a moral exhortation for mortification drives us into the realm of wisdom rather than explicit detail in Pauline exegesis, but at least he is referring to the will being disciplined when becoming aware of surging desires. The process of how sin drives us toward death is explicated in Jas 1:14–15; the commands to “put to death” or “rid yourselves of” stop the process James describes. No commands are more realistic or more difficult to master than these. Desire sins. Paul opens with a general category for the sins of desire that follow: “whatever belongs to your earthly nature” or, more literally, “the members that belong to the earth” or even “earthly members.” The term “earthly” is used because of 3:2, where the Colossians were exhorted to set their minds on “things above, not on earthly things.” So once again, Paul puts into play a cosmological, eschatological, apocalyptic, and ethical expression: earth vs. heaven, the unleashing of the kingdom’s redemptive powers in the new people of God (mystery theme), and a way of life that breaks free from the skia and stoicheia so that one lives under the lordship of Lord Jesus. The term “members” will be explicated in the details of 3:5 as sins of desire, and clearly mostly sexual sins of desire, and thus must likely refers to sexual organs. Paul probably has Roman males in mind because of their well-known practices of sexual indulgence. Paul does use melē (members, bodily parts) at times metaphorically for different persons in Christian fellowships (e.g., 1 Cor 12:12, 14; Rom 12:4–5; Eph 4:25; 5:30), but he also uses this term for sexual organs (1 Cor 6:15; Rom 6:19; 7:5). Others see in “members” (NIV: “whatever belongs to your earthly nature”) only a generalized expression for sinful practices. But the more specific rendering of sexual “members” seems more likely. Jews were different than others in the Mediterranean world on sexual morals, and one such instance is evident in the Letter of Aristeas: “The symbolism [in the levitical laws] conveyed by these things compels us to make a distinction in the performance of all our acts, with righteousness as our aim. This moreover explains why we are distinct from all other men. The majority of other men defile themselves in their relationships, thereby committing a serious offense, and lands and whole cities take pride in it: they not only procure the males, they also defile mothers and daughters” (151–52). Petr Pokorný offers a terse but important insight into the theological and sociological structure of Paul’s thinking in 3:5: “The reason for the list’s focus on sexual vices is not prudishness, but the realization that the husband-wife relationship is first and foremost the most profound human interrelationship in which faith has to be proved.” In the sexual context of the Roman Empire, it is no surprise that Paul begins with “sexual immorality.” The term porneia refers to sexual immorality prohibited by the Torah, and inasmuch as the authors were Jewish, the Torah’s prohibitions became the common element of early Christian ethics. So, while porneia is a sweeping generalizing of any kind of sexual immorality, for the Jew there was an established list of those sins. We are referring to Leviticus 18, so the importance of this chapter for defining what porneia would have meant for Paul cannot be exaggerated. Leviticus 18 was God’s covenant gift to the Israelites (18:1–2) that both clarified how to live and set them apart from pagans. Thus, the chapter overtly distances Israelites from the Egyptians and Canaanites (18:3, 24–28, 29–30) in prohibiting sexual relations with close relatives (18:6), parents (18:7) and the spouses of parents (18:8), siblings (18:9, 11), spouses of one’s children or their children (18:10), aunts [and uncles] or their spouses (18:12–14), daughters-in-law [and sons-in-law] (18:15), sisters-in-law [and brothers-in-law] (18:16, 18), a woman and her daughter and her children (18:17), women during menstruation (18:19), a neighbor’s wife (18:20), same-sex relations (18:22), and bestiality (18:23). The specifics of porneia were shaped by the Torah, not by what was deemed unacceptable by the Romans and Greeks. Furthermore, Paul is here not simply prohibiting generalized unacceptable sexual intercourse but the more precise listing of sexual sins in Torah. If the Roman world’s sexuality was shaped by themes of dominance, status, and indulgence (in all directions), for Paul it was shaped by holiness, love, and fidelity. While it is common today to claim that not much is said about same-sex relations in the Bible, once one accepts this expansive understanding of porneia, one has to say that Paul brings up all kinds of sexual irregularities, including same-sex relations, quite often. Why? Because in the Roman world it was common that males had a wife for procreational sex, while the public was for recreational sex, including sex with slaves and prostitutes—that is, with those under one’s status, including at times boys. It is perhaps easier to exaggerate these social norms than to measure them in context, but it is not an exaggeration to contend the Jewish-Christian sexual ethic radically countered much on offer in the Roman Empire. To use language from a letter written at about the same time by Paul: “And this is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11). In Colossians they are exhorted to deaden what they had known as Gentiles: recreational sex outside of marriage. Next “impurity” (akatharsia). Like the previous term in the list, “impurity” almost certainly means sexual sins. The third term, again one routinely used for sexual desires gone awry, is “lust,” or perhaps more accurately “[physical, emotional] passion” (pathos). Thus, in Rom 1:26 Paul connects pathos with sexual desires expressed in same-sex relations by women and men, and in 1 Thessalonians 4:5 Paul probably is referring to sexual desire typical of Roman males. The point is found in Jewish sources often enough, as in Testament of Judah 18:6: “For two passions contrary to God’s commands enslave him, so that he is unable to obey God: They blind his soul, and he goes about in the day as though it were night” (cf. Testament of Joseph 7:8). In the fourth term Paul expands his concerns to “evil desires” (epithymian kakēn), with a term (epithymia) classically used by several Roman philosophical groups being picked up by Paul to describe the loss of emotional control. The anthropology of Paul finds expression in Gal 5:16–17 (cf. Rom 6:12), where flesh and desire are connected and contrasted with life in the Spirit, and in Rom 1:24, where indulgence in epithymia illustrates a lack of surrender to God. Desire to satiate the flesh is the way of Gentile flesh in Paul’s mind (Eph 2:3). The expression “evil desires” is not restricted to, but is most likely focused on, sexual sins. Finally, Paul either expands desire or breaks off from a focus on sexual sins to include “greed, which is idolatry” (3:5). Paul is probably intentionally evoking stories of material greed and indulgence at table and festal occasions so typical of high society in Rome. A good example is the feast of Trimalchio in Petronius’s Satyricon. Paul connects greed to “idolatry” because the desire for money consumes a person’s affections and mind (Eph 5:5; 1 Tim 6:10). This text almost surely illustrates Paul’s penchant for describing the sins of notorious sinners and idolaters, indicating that at least some at Colossae were well-to-do. Critique of greed is common in the Jewish tradition (Jer 22:17; Ezek 22:27; Hab 2:9) and becomes a major concern for Jesus (Luke 12:15). Paul continues that polemic and at times connects it to idolatry as a case of strong rhetoric; see 1 Cor 5:10–11; 6:10–11; Eph 5:3, 5; Rom 1:29. Idolatry, from its prohibition in Exod 20:4–5 (cf. Deut 5:8–9) and especially the daily recitation of the Shema (6:4–9), was a constant Jewish concern of the prophets and those who drank from their wells. Brian Rosner’s summary of his extensive study of our verse serves us well: “ ‘greed is idolatry’ may be paraphrased as teaching that to have a strong desire to acquire and keep for yourself more and more money and material things is an attack on God’s exclusive rights to human love and devotion, trust and confidence, and service and obedience.” Finally, idolatry was connected in Jewish and Christian writings to sexual sins (Num 25:1–3; Hos 4:12–18; 1 Cor 6:9–11; 10:7–8; Rom 1:18–32). 8–9a We now move to the listing of sins of disunity in 3:8–9a, postponing discussion of 3:6–7 until our exposition of the disunity sins is complete. Disunity sins. The prohibition here to “put off” (apotithēmi) is paired with “put to death” in 3:5a. The verb apotithēmi commonly appears in ethical directions for the renunciations to be found in a fellowship indwelt by the Holy Spirit (e.g., Eph 4:22, 25; Rom 13:12; Heb 12:1; Jas 1:21; 1 Pet 2:1). It is likely that “put off” is a baptismal catechesis term, and just as the baptizand (may have) removed his or her clothes to enter the water and so (may have) been reclothed with a white garment, so the Colossians are to lay aside the old and put on a new way of life—and Gal 3:27 would support such a view. The focus of this putting off is the list of sins that cause disunity in the church: “anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other.” Clearly, the apostle’s concerns are speech sins that destroy the unity of the fellowship. Outbursts of emotion mentioned in “anger” and “rage,” which James epigrammatically reminds us cannot accomplish God’s will (Jas 1:19–20), are both common to humanity and evidently present among the Pauline churches (see Gal 5:19–20; 2 Cor 12:20; Eph 4:31). The word translated “malice” (kakia), which BDAG translates “a mean-spirited or vicious attitude or disposition, malice, ill-will, malignity,” describes once again what can happen in the ecclesial fellowship (1 Cor 5:8; 14:20; Eph 4:31; Rom 1:29; Acts 8:22). This vice disrupts corporate formation. The last two vices of 3:8 (“slander and filthy language from your lips”) need to be combined with 3:9a (“Do not lie to each other”), forming a unitary theme of speech sins that give a sharper focus to the dispositions of the listing of 3:8. The “anger, rage, malice” of 3:8 are thus vented in “slander” and “filthy language” and lying (3:8b–9a). The first term (“slander”) gets its meaning from the terms around it because, on its own, the Greek term behind “slander” (blasphēmia) could be directed solely at God and not the fellowship. Not only do the surrounding terms shape the meaning toward slander, so do the near parallels at Eph 4:31 (“Put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice”) and 1 Tim 6:4 (“is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions”). The latter text suggests Paul has in mind the halakic mystics in Colossae. Next, he speaks of “filthy language from your mouth,” a general expression for uncultured, vulgar, and obscene language directed at others. As if to deepen the problem one step further, Paul now prohibits lying (as in Lev 19:11), which describes falseness and deceit in communication (also Eph 4:25). But the critical factor in this expression is “to [or against] each other,” revealing Paul’s interpersonal, ecclesial focus.

b. The Theology (3:6–7, 9b–11)

6–7, 9b–11 We are not discussing this text in its usual order; instead, we looked first at the sins of desire and disunity (3:5, 8–9a) for the sake of finding a more nuanced perception of the theology at work in 3:6–7, 9b–11. There are three premises upon which Paul has built these exhortations: (1) God’s wrath is against such sins; (2) they have been converted from such sins; and (3) the inclusive body of Christ requires an alternative kind of moral fellowship. Divine wrath (3:6). God’s wrath against sin appears here as suddenly as it does in Rom 1: “Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.” It is not surprising that vice lists are buttressed with warnings of judgment (see Gal 5:19–21; Eph 5:3–6). God’s wrath pops up in theological discussions with the desire to guard attributing to the Father something entirely inappropriate from the Greek and Roman system of gods—that is, vengeance, vindictiveness, and violent rage. Yet, the Bible’s own language needs to be respected for what it says. God’s wrath needs to be connected both to the “jealousy” of God as well as to a system of cause and effect God writes into the fabric of this world; that is, “The retribution manifests itself in the inevitable consequences incurred by those who freely choose a course of life that sets the Creator’s law at nought.” The theme of God’s wrath is found throughout the Old Testament (e.g., Mic 5:10–15) and Jewish literature (War Scroll [1QM]), and it flows rather naturally into solid conceptions of final judgment (e.g., Rev 20:7–15; 22:14–15) as the inevitable consequence of those who turn away from God and goodness. It is mistaken to suppress either the personal or the impersonal side of wrath in the Bible. What is clear in the Bible—especially from the Deuteronomist (e.g., Deut 28) onward—is that, at some level or at some date, God will undo evil at the final judgment by destroying it and will reward goodness by establishing it. Thus, Paul appeals here to God’s own character and system of judgment: what the Colossians did in their former life will someday be destroyed in judgment by God. Wrath, then, must be given a teleological context: it is not reducible to God’s personal vindictiveness but instead is God’s way of eliminating all that opposes his will for his creation. We need to keep context in mind: God’s wrath is coming upon the sins of desire and disunty so therefore the Colossians need to put them to death and lay them aside. Conversion (3:7, 9b–10). Within the space of a few lines Paul contends they must walk in the newness of Christian graces because they are new-creation converts. He says this in two ways, first in 3:7, “You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived,” and then in 3:9b–10, “since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.” 7 Colossians 3:7 depicts the preconversion days of the Colossians as a time of walking and living in the sins of (typically male) desire (cf. Eph 2:1–2; 1 Cor 6:9–11; Rom 6:19–21; 1 Pet 4:1–5), but Paul locates that life in their past (“used to” and “once” in 3:7) and advocates a new kind of walking (see 1:16). Baptism marked a clear moral break in the life of the Colossians—a point made by the grammar also in 1:21–22 and 2:13. There is a chiasm present in 3:7:

  Among whom (en hois)
  You walked
     Then
     When
  You lived
  In them (en toutois).

Skipping down to 3:9b–10, we get an affirmation of 3:7: conversion to Christ implies dying to sins of desire and putting off sins of disunity expressed in speech sins. They are not to lie to one another, “since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.” Like those discarding an old stained shirt or an exhausted pair of slacks, the Colossians have removed or stripped off (cf. 2:11, 15) the “old self” and “put on the new self.” A critical interpretive issue is how individualistic this “new/old self” is in this passage. While “self” translates anthrōpos, meaning “man” in a generic sense (“human” or “self”), the term in Greek evokes the radical transition from one identity to another and, even more, the radical transition from one corporate group (Gentile, flesh, uncircumcision) to another (church, in Christ). Paul “anthropologizes” in order to focus on identity: they have become new people under a new Lord in fellowship with a new family (cf. 3:11). As such, the anthropological term “self” is not primarily individual but especially corporate. This can be argued convincingly if we notice that the so-called new self is the body of Christ, the new community, in v. 11. Hence, the expressions “old self” and “new self” are ecclesial: their former life in the world under the principalities and powers and stoicheia are contrasted with their new life in the ekklēsia. The terms “old” and “new” evoke Paul’s eschatology. The “old” (palaios) points the Colossians back to their old identity and their sins of desire and disunity (Col 3:9; cf. 1 Cor 5:7–8), as well as the “old” Gentile way of life (Rom 6:6; Eph 4:22). But the “new” self is the new family (1 Cor 5:7; Rom 12:2), and the new creation in Christ means all things are new (2 Cor 5:17). This newness they are to “put on” (Gal 3:27; Eph 4:24; Rom 13:14). It is difficult not to read into this “put on” the later baptismal practice of shedding one set of garments for a new set of white garments, even if the term is also present in moral contexts in the Jewish world (e.g., Job 29:14; Ps 132:9; Prov 31:25). At any rate, clothing depicted one’s status in the Roman world. In view, then, is both individual and corporate sanctification, which is supported by the near parallel at Ephesians 2:15, where the “new humanity” is the church. But the rhetoric of our verses makes it more than clear that this change is accomplished by the inner transforming work of God: “which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator [= God, the Father]” (3:10b). In 2 Cor 4:16 Paul puts it this way: as our bodies decay with age, “our inner nature is being renewed day by day.” In Rom 12:2 Paul says the Christians are to be “transformed by the renewing of your minds,” and in Titus 3:5 this is all chalked up to the work of the Holy Spirit. But the Spirit’s work of renewal is christologically defined: each person, because of the regenerating work of the Spirit, is being renewed into the image of God, which is Christ himself, which means the renewal is into Christoformity. The template for our renewal is the image of God born by Christ (Col 1:15; see also 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18; 4:4; Rom 8:29), as Paul once again brings into play his First and Second Adam Christology (Gal 3:27; 1 Cor 15:45–49). What might surprise is that the Spirit-empowered renewal into Christlikeness is expressed as “renewed in [or into] knowledge in the image of its Creator [cf. Col 1:16; Eph 4:24].” If the important pastoral prayer of Paul can be for the Philippians to abound more and more in “knowledge and depth of insight” (Phil 1:9), so here he can see the moral transformation of the sanctification work of God’s Spirit to be into the depth of truth. If we add the warning about God’s wrath on sin (3:6) to the reality of their conversion, with its implication of a changed life (3:7, 9b–10), to a third premise—that they now belong in a completely new kind of fictive kinship—we can see why Paul and Timothy expect the Colossians to avoid the problems arising among the halakic mystics and why he expects the Colossians to walk in a new life, especially one no longer marked by sins of disunity. 11 Colossians 3:11 revolutionizes our understanding of 3:5–11, for it makes clear that the sins of desire and disunity entail the breakdown of fellowship between various segments in the Colossian fellowship. That is, it breaks down the baptized fellowship (1 Cor 12:13). Verse 11 is revolutionary because the “new self” (NIV) is actually a “new humanity” (as in Eph 2:15). In light of this corporate focus, we detect an echo of social justification at work in 3:11, namely, that Gentiles and Jews cordoned themselves off morally by appealing to their own distinctiveness or ethnic heritage, while barbarians and Scythians had their own ways of life, and slaves and free had relations and status and worth and honor to which they too could appeal. Paul’s rhetoric, however, leads them to see that those identities, those worths, had found a new context in the new humanity: “Christ is all, and is in all.” Identity emerges not from one’s ethnicity, heritage, or status in the Roman Empire but from Christ. Again, we do not see here anti-imperial but supra-imperial. It is too easy to read Colossians 3:11 in our world as a one-off observation about inclusiveness and fail to see where it is located in Paul’s argument: in the kind of cross-conquering and Spirit-redemption that creates a new body, the church. Our verse begins with “Here [or where] there is no …,” and we are to ask “Where is that ‘here’?” While some would say in the “image” of 3:10 or even in the “Creator,” others think the location is “the new self” (or as in Greek, the “new man”). Grammatically, “image of the Creator” (3:10b) is favored because of proximity, and we fail to see an important connection if we skip back in 3:9b–10a to “new self.” Even more, the new self is the renewed image, and that expression locates us in the singularly important phrase in Pauline theology, in Christ. The “here,” we suggest, is “in [the image who is] Christ,” which then immediately locates us as well “in the church.” At Gal 3:28 Paul provides a similar list to Col 3:11. The lists are worth comparing, italics showing distinctions:

Galatians 3:28 Colossians 3:11 Jew nor Gentile [Greek] Gentile [Greek] and Jew Circumcised and uncircumcised Slave nor free Barbarian, Scythian Slave, free Male and female All one in Christ Christ is all, and is in all.

In Colossians Paul repeats the Gentile-Jew pairing with circumcised-uncircumcised and adds two people groups (barbarians and Scythians), while in Galatians there is the use of Gen 1:26–27 in “male and female.” Both lists end on the all-consuming unity in Christ. Social tensions lurk behind the words of Col 3:11. There is evidence from Thales to later rabbis that males of status expressed gratitude they were not as the others. Hence, Thales, according to Diogenes Laertius’s Lives of Eminent Philosophers, once offered thanks to Fortune, “first, that I was born a human being and not one of the brutes; next, that I was born a man and not a woman; thirdly, a Greek and not a barbarian.” And from later rabbinic sources this thanksgiving to God: “Blessed art thou who did not make me Gentile, blessed art thou who did not make me a woman, blessed art thou who did not make me a brute.” It is of course not entirely clear that Paul’s words in either Gal 3:28 or in our verse are consciously responding to these expressions, but it is reasonable to think that Paul’s posture in this text counters prevailing cultural status that found its way to expressions like those of Thales and the rabbis. Put differently, there is no need to read a direct polemic with Judaism in these words. That context and Paul’s thesis of unity in Christ is the heart of Paul’s ecclesiology: in Christ the old is passé. That old is ethnic disunity, ritual disunity, socioeconomic hierarchies, cultural disunities, and gender domination—all shaping one’s honor and sense of worth (in society and before God). Belonging to that old regime are sins of desire and disunity as denounced in 3:5, 8–9a. Paul’s ecclesial vision is a breathtaking reach for a kind of unity not known in a Roman Empire strapped up by constant reminders of hierarchy and status. In its place Paul envisions a new fictive kinship, the family of Jesus, in which Christ brings together what had always been separate. The first two chiastically formed coordinates in Colossians 3:11 concern Jew-Greek (or Gentile) relations. There is an eschatological new creation in the demolition of the wall that divided Jews from Gentiles (e.g., Eph 2:14)—a wall that in Ephesians (2:15) and Colossians (2:14) expresses the divisions that Torah and halakic observance entailed—the “no” before Gentile or Jew in Col 3:11 does not destroy ethnicity or even the observance of Torah by messianic Jews (cf. Gal 5:6; 6:15). Rather, it destroys the establishment of the people of God on the basis of Israel’s election in a noninclusive sense. Once again we hear an echo that Gentiles need not become Jews in order to participate fully in the people of God. Most notably, the Jew-Gentile binary can no longer be permitted to categorize the peoples of the world. The next two terms intensify what the divisive world of “uncircumcision” was like. Barbarians was a common slur by Greeks (who saw themselves as cultured) for those who did not speak Greek; yet, it is just as likely that the term could be translated “foreigner.” In postmodern parlance it means “other” but does not in this text mean “hillbilly.” The term arose as an onomatopoeia because the language of non-Greek speakers sounded to Greeks like babbling (“bar-bar-bar”). So the focus is on how language reveals one’s social location, while it also demarks those who are in from those who are out. There is no longer a linguistically based “out” because there is now no “other” in Christ. Scythians, like barbarians, are mocked in Greek poetry; here, too, the term is a stereotype. Josephus says the Scythians “delight in murdering people and are little better than wild beasts” (Against Apian 2.269). The term describes those living north of the Black Sea (modern southern Russia) and is associated with savagery. We might hear the slur “hillbilly” or what Floridians sometimes call “cracker” or those in the Deep South call “swamp people.” Barth and Blanke speak here of them as “the most barbaric of all barbarians.” Others have taken “Scythian” to refer to enslavement; this proposal can resolve some of the particularities clearly at work in this (perhaps double) pairing. Campbell’s proposal is tied to chiasm: as Jew and Greek are formed into a chiasm with circumcised and uncircumcised, so perhaps also the slave and free are a tandem with barbarian and Scythian, suggesting that barbarian pairs with the free and Scythian with the slave. But Troy Martin defeats the viability of correlating “Scythian” with “slave” on the grounds of insufficient proof, contending that the couplet is best understood by assuming one is taking a Cynic and Scythian perspective on “barbarian.” Perhaps Paul pairs barbarians with Scythians to speak of geography—far to the south (barbarians) and far to the north (Scythians). In Christ neither refinement nor stereotypical unrefinement matters, nor does one’s location on a map matter—each person is made in God’s image, each is being renewed into Christlikeness, and so each stands on the same level in the fellowship of Christ. That both slaves and free stand on the same level in the ecclesial fellowship is a radical vision on Paul’s part and practice (Phlm 16) and functions—and this takes no imagination—as a sanctuary, if not an experiment, in the Roman Empire for slaves. It goes without discussion that slavery pervaded the Roman Empire, it was rarely thought of as immoral, and pursuit of justice and the establishment of equality of all people were not a matter for debate—except for glimmers in Pauline theology and the praxis of the early Christian fellowship of “differents” seen in a text like Colossians 3:11. The antithesis to freedom for the Greek was slavery, and Paul can be seen pressing into both sides: the slave is now free, and the free are to join hands with the slaves in fellowship. Nor has the time gone by when this note needed to be sounded. Our world is crossed and recrossed by barriers of one kind and another, and our life is scarred by the animosities cherished by one side against the other. But in Christ these barriers must come down—iron curtains, color bars, class distinctions, national and cultural divisions, political and sectarian partisanship. It is not difficult to rephrase, in terms of the divisions of modern life, Paul’s declaration that “in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free” (1 Cor. 12:13). In the unity of that body there is no room for old cleavages: Christ is all, and in all. The language of v. 11 has a moment of suspense that is not easily translated, so I will give a literal rendering of the last line: “but all and in all—Christ!” There are predications and attributions here: Christ is both “all” and Christ is “in” all, but by suspending “Christ” until the last word, the reader first hears the “all” as snatching each of the previous terms, and then the same for “in,” and then we see that the unity of all is Christ (cf. 2:9; Eph 1:23). We here catch a glimpse of the heights of universal reconciliation in Col 1:15–20. The tension between the Christocentrism of Col 3:11 and the theocentrism of 1 Cor 15:28 will remain, even if slightly alleviated here, since the focus is not on final eschatology but on present ecclesial fellowship.

2. Positive (3:12–17)

Off and on with the clothing, itself an extension of the trope for the “new” and “old self” (3:9–10), is the imagery chosen for the set of commands Paul and Timothy press upon the Christians of the Lycus Valley. The pairing of salvation with saving transformation shifts in the letter in terms but remains the indicative-imperative of eschatological existence, a new-creation life shaped by the gospel, and a new baptismal identity in the church. New-creation life begis at 2:6–7 with Jesus as Lord but immediately tilted toward problems with the false teachers threatening the gospel in Colossae (2:8–15). The theme of 2:6–7 acquires more concrete prohibitions in 2:16–19: do not let their judgments shape you, Paul told them. The apostle’s ethics cannot be reduced to commands and prohibitions because they flow from the gospel about Jesus’s death and resurrection, so Paul moves into the implications of the death of Jesus (2:20–23) and the resurrection of Jesus (3:1–4), which then develops even more in a twofold manner in 3:5–17. That is, if they have died (2:20–23), they should put off sins (3:5–11), and if they have been raised (3:1–4), they should put on love as the way to conduct the ecclesial life (3:12–17).

12Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. 15Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. 16Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts. 17And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

One might say that the “old self/new self” instructions of 3:9–10 were not completed, so Paul explicates in 3:12–17 what was begun in 3:10a (“new self”). Such movement in the letter illustrates the spontaneous flow of Paul’s epistles. The ordering of the various lines in our passage can be unclear to a reader and probably best chalked up to pastoral movement from love (3:12–14) to peace and thanksgiving (3:15–17). It is clear that love forms the center of 3:12–14, but it is unclear that 3:15–17 is anything other than four separable instructions (peace, thanksgiving, indwelling word, orientation toward God in all). However the order is explained, the focus is on an ecclesial life over against a strictly individualistic life. Thus, “Nothing is as unbiblical as the so-called self-realization.”

a. Love (3:12–14)

Inasmuch as Paul and Timothy overtly teach that love brings together “all these [vv. 12–13] virtues” into a “perfect unity,” I will use love as the guiding idea in this paragraph. To repeat what was said at 1:4, love is a rugged covenantal commitment to another person to be with that one and for that one as both journey into Christlikeness. Such a definition clarifies the concerns of Paul in 3:12–13, but love is a gift from God for Paul. That is, love is a fruit growing among the Colossians because they are “God’s chosen people, holy and dearly beloved” (3:12). God’s love—his covenant commitment to be with and for in his work among us—empowers God’s people to become loving. 12 The foundation or reason for all Christian ethics is the redemptive, elective work of God: “as God’s chosen people.” Election is not first about soteriological schemes in the ordo salutis but first about God’s choice of and mission for Israel, and only then soteriology. As such, “God’s chosen people” is very much like the term “saints” (see notes at 1:2, 4). Two more boundary-marking terms clarify “chosen”: they are “holy” in that they are devoted to God and separate from the world, and they are “dearly beloved” as those loved by God (again, like Israel: Exod 19:5–6; Deut 7:6–7; 14:2; Isa 5:1, 7; 44:2; Jer 12:7; 31:3). Theologically speaking, we encounter here a missional soteriology that leads into an ecclesiology through Christology; that is, in Christ the baptized are chosen, holy, and beloved and become part of the people of God, as well as God’s mission in this world, and in the end they will inherit the kingdom of God (see 1 Thess 1:4; 2 Thess 2:13). Hence, we agree that the “privilege of being ‘elect’ carried with it a responsibility, a point not always remembered by some people today, more concerned to assert their rights than to accept their obligations.” There is perhaps a keener edge to these terms than might first appear, for they are also terms used of Christ, who is the chosen one in whom they are now chosen (Luke 23:35; John 1:34; 1 Pet 2:4, 6). He too is the beloved one (Mark 1:11 and pars.), and he is also called the holy one (e.g., Acts 4:27, 30)—revealing that their election is in Christ and they gain their status from his status. Who they are is because of who Christ is and what he has done, and what God is doing in Christ is reconciling diverse segments of the Roman Empire into a new body marked by a new set of moral codes. That is, “to be more precise, the particular exhortations which follow assume and expect the Colossians to presuppose that the starting point for their praxis as Christians was the recognition that they stood before God as Israel stood before God.” This ecclesial front could be improved slightly by adding “in the Messiah” after “as Israel.” If these special terms for Israel in v. 12 (“chosen … holy, and dearly beloved”) expand the meaning of Israel, they do not mean to replace Israel—the language evokes eschatological fulfillment, not the brutal shifting of God’s love from Israel to an entirely different people (the church). Paul here reminds Gentiles that they have been incorporated into the people of Israel in Christ. God’s prior action, or the priority of grace, is also emphatic in these terms: they are chosen, they are made holy by God, and they are the beloved of God. These acts of God are delineated in Colossians especially in the cosmic reconciliation of Christ through the cross and resurrection (Col 1:15–20), into which they have entered through conversion (1:21–23 etc.). The command of Paul is “clothe yourselves,” yet another instance of morality as something that can be both taken off and put on (see notes at 3:9, 10). In Romans Paul exhorts them with a christological ethic when he says “clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 13:14). That same kind of christological ethic is at work in Colossians. Paul (and Timothy) now provide another list of five, as at 3:5, that counters the sins they are to put off in 3:5, 8. The moral vision in our chapter is clear: they are to divest themselves of the ways of the flesh and death and to clothe themselves with the ways of Christ and life. That is, “compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience.” The structure resembles that of Gal 5:19–26, and the terms overlap, though the absence of the Spirit is noteworthy. Our concern here is the positive virtues, and so a list from Gal 5:22–23 compared with Col 3:12 is instructive, though the NIV’s choice to translate with different English terms makes comparison more difficult:

Galatians 5:22–23 Colossians 3:12 Love See 3:14 Joy Peace See 3:13 Forbearance See (patience) Kindness 3:12 Goodness Faithfulness Gentleness 3:12 (humility) Self-control

The same general pattern of terminological variation in the midst of substantive concerns with the fellowship’s relationships appears also when one compares the divestitures of Col 3:5, 8 with the works of the flesh in Gal 5:19–21. We are not to reduce this list to individual spiritual formation or to individual virtues but must focus instead on community virtues and life in the fellowship. To live as a fellowship of “differents” (see Col 3:11), one must be confronted with an alternative reality, what Paul calls the “mystery” (1:27), tap into transcendent powers, and put on a whole new way of life marked by love. The list begins with “compassion,” but this term translates a powerful combination of two terms: splanchna oiktirmou, or “bowels [or entrails] of mercy,” and denotes deep-seated and affective compassion (e.g., 2 Cor 6:12; 7:15; Phil 1:8). This expression is especially characteristic of the language and description of the ministry of Jesus (see Mark 1:41; 6:34; Matt 9:32–34, 36; 20:34 et al.). “Compassion” comprises three elements: a need expressed, a response of mercy and love to that need, and an action that alleviates the need. Acting in compassion illustrates the priority and circularity/responsiveness of God’s action: God is the one with “compassion” (2 Cor 1:3; Rom 12:1), and hence the people of God are to be compassionate (2 Cor 1:4). The term translated in the NIV as “kindness” (chrēstotēs) derives from Paul’s favorite term “grace” (charis forms chrēstotēta). As God shows superabundant and prior grace to sinners with the efficacious power to transform them into his people (Rom 11:22; Eph 2:7; Titus 3:4), so the Colossians will need to pass on to others that divine attribute of grace, which is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22; 2 Cor 6:6). One manifestation of such grace flows into the fellowship’s mutual relations with those of mixed statuses (Col 3:11) and is no small chore. “Kindness,” pastor Boughton observed in a difficult moment with a difficult son, “takes more strength than I have now. I did not realize how much effort I used to put into it.” If one looks at grace through the lens of the social tensions at work in the groups of Colossians 3:11, one knows why grace must be superabundant, efficacious, and circular. There is here an echo, underhanded but sure, of Paul’s concern that they will show the kind of compassion that translates into crossing boundaries to embrace slaves (see Phlm 7, 12, 20). We think back—as we are led to in this list of five virtues—to the social experiment Paul envisions (Col 3:11). I echo Dunn’s observation: the church that fails in the virtues of 3:12 falls for the vices of 3:5, 8. The next virtue, translated in the NIV “humility” (tapeinophrosynē), fluctuates in emphasis from humility before God and others (Mic 6:8; Isa 57:15) to socioeconomic poverty and social status (e.g., Luke 1:48), to the moral virtue of choosing to renounce rights and status in order to serve others. The latter is the emphasis here, and it derives in part from Jesus (Matt 11:29; Phil 2:5–11). Paul uses in a positive sense what he found pretentious in the false teachers (see Col 2:18, 23). The term is found in the Prison Letters (Eph 4:2; Phil 2:3; Col 2:18, 23; 3:12; cf. also Acts 20:19), but cognates are found elsewhere in Paul (2 Cor 7:6; 10:1; Rom 12:16). For the Colossians this will mean crossing boundaries to include those of lower honor and status (e.g., the free to the slave, the barbarian to the Scythian, and the Jew to the Gentile—as well as the Gentile to the Jew). Boundaries are not crossed by accident but by intention, and often at cost. Those with pervasive and progressive social visions, like Paul and his converts, can become harmfully aggressive about the vision, so Paul exhorts them to put on “gentleness” (praütēs). This term can also be translated “humility” and hence complements the previous term, “kindness.” Again, this term can refer to one of low social status, but in this context it describes the choice to renounce one’s rights or status in order to serve others (e.g., of Moses in Num 12:3; Ps 37:11; Matt 5:5; Gal 6:1; Eph 4:2; Phil 2:1–11; 2 Tim 2:25; Titus 3:2)—an attribute describing the way of Jesus himself (2 Cor 10:1) that seems to have come into play more frequently for Paul the longer he ministered. We are then not surprised to hear of the need for the fellowship of differents to be in need of “patience” (makrothymia) with one another. This term is an attribute of God (Exod 34:6; Rom 2:4; 9:22) and often describes those who are put into a difficult situation and refuse to react with anger or rage but endure in light of the good of a larger vision (1 Thess 5:14; 1 Cor 13:4; Eph 4:2). Since Col 3:14 will inform us that love is what holds all these virtues together, it is worth mentioning here that these five exhibit what love itself is: a covenantal commitment to one another of presence and advocacy in the journey into Christoformity, which means that the Colossians will be compassionate, kind, humble, gentle, and patient with one another. Ephesians 4:1–2 says much the same as Col 3:12–13 but with variant angles, and I have italicized cognates and similarities: “As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.” The “in love” of Eph 4:2 is filled out in Col 3:14. 13 This verse now clarifies and supplements the list by shifting toward bearing with or, better yet, devotedly caring for and forgiving one another (or showing grace to one another). Again, the priority and circularity of the Lord’s own love and grace come to the fore: as the Lord bears with humans (Rom 3:25) and shows grace (Eph 4:32), so the Colossians are to do the same with one another. The term Paul uses is distinct to him and is not often used of forgiveness: charizomai, which describes an act of grace (charis) shown to another (Eph 4:32; 2 Cor 2:7, 10; 12:13). A remarkable feature of the earliest Christian movement was its commitment to graciousness prompted by God’s grace (see Matt 6:12, 14–15; 18:15–35; Rom 12:9–13:10). I am content to argue that the word charizomai in the Pauline letters is short-circuited when it is translated as “forgive.” Rather, the term means “show grace” or “be gracious” to someone else, even to those who have offended. The typical words for “forgive” (aphiēmi, aphesis) are not used in this verse, and so I suggest charizomai is used intentionally to evoke being gracious to another person, which naturally enough will be displayed in forgiveness but is wider than that term. Forgiveness, C. S. Lewis once said, is a lovely idea until you have something to forgive; what he said in the middle of the twentieth century is no less true of all ages in the history of humans. Paul was headed toward this graciousness in his “clothe yourselves” virtue list (3:12). There was much to forgive and much to learn about forgiveness in Paul’s churches, as there is for any close fellowship. The process of forgiveness, which aims toward reconciliation as part of Christ’s cosmic reconciliation (Col 1:20), begins with knowing the offending matter at hand: “if any of you has a grievance against someone.” As with Jesus (Matt 18:15–20), the cause for the complaint must be aired, admitted to, dealt with honestly—not dismissing or minimizing the offending act or the offended—and then confessed before the choice to forgive comes into play. But forgiveness, as I said above, short-circuits the term, and we need to apply this to more than forgiveness. The social tensions of a typical Pauline church, with its mixture of Jews and Gentiles, males and females, slaves and free, along with the social tensions of barbarians and Scythians—all this tossed into a new kind of family surely produced tension where grace would be needed. Yet again, there is a theological/christological priority: “Forgive [or be gracious] as the Lord forgave you [showed grace to you].” The correlation creates a tidier theology than it does a tidy reflection in actual praxis, but the model is established by God’s revelation in Christ’s life, death, and resurrection (see Matt 5:43–48; 6:12; Rom 15:7, 8; Eph 5:2, 25, 29): as they have been shown prior and superabundant grace, so they are to extend grace. Here we have a good example of the circularity of grace. It is possible, first, that our text is an allusion to the teachings of Jesus (Matt 6:12, 14–15; 18:23–35); second, it is almost certain that “Lord” refers to Jesus as the one who shows grace (Rom 15:7; Eph 4:32; 5:2, 25, 29) and not to the Father. 14 The list of virtues not only found a particular instance in forgiveness but shifts here to love (Col 1:4, 8, 13; 2:2), which is the chief virtue, or the “crowning grace,” which bonds into perfection everything mentioned in 3:12–13: “And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.” Paul may be describing a cloak over all the virtues or even a belt that fastens the clothing; or perhaps the clothing trope has itself been laid aside, and it means “above all.” This line should remind readers of 1 Cor 13:1–3: “If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.” But in our context the various acts in need of love are not the spiritual gifts but the spiritual fruit of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, patience, and forgiving-ness. The focus in Colossians is on love leading the virtues to perfection. That is, the “unity” of the NIV is the unity of the virtues, in an almost theoretical sense, not social unity. The centralization of love is characteristic of Paul (Gal 5:6, 14, 22; 1 Cor 13; 16:14; Col 3:14; Rom 13:8–10) and derives from Jesus (Mark 12:28–32, from Deut 6:4–9; Lev 19:18). “ ‘Love’ never has this supreme position in other systems, not even (for instance) in the admirable list of virtues found in the Qumran Community Rule.” To which the commentator adds, “The other virtues, pursued without love, become distorted and unbalanced.” Love of others is not only the command that matters most, love is not only the whole of God’s Torah written into one command, but it is the virtue that “super-glues” all the others into—or guides toward—perfection. As Christ holds the church together (Col 2:19), so love guides and glues the virtues toward perfection (cf. Eph 4:3).

b. General Instructions (3:15–17)

The transition to peace, thanksgiving, the indwelling word/message of Christ, and then doing all “in the name of Christ,” the genuine Christian constraint, is effortless, even if the logic is not entirely clear. Paul, I submit, simply moves on to the next great Christian need in the fellowship—peace. 15 The direction of this verse moves beyond “one body” to “peace”: “Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace.” The “of Christ” with the first mention of peace could possibly mean a Christ kind of peace, but more likely it describes a peace that comes from Christ (genitive of source) or the peace that Christ himself gives (subjective genitive). Peace is at the heart of ethics for Paul in Colossians. This peace is something connected to Christ, and as such, peace emphasizes divine initiative and peace as a model for life (see 2 Thess 3:16). Peace in Pauline theology is a divinely wrought (Gal 5:22; 1 Thess 5:23; Rom 14:17; 15:33) redemptive blessing in relation to God (Rom 5:1; Phil 4:7; also in Col 1:20) that also generates peace toward others (2 Cor 13:11; Rom 14:17, 19; Eph 2:14–15, 17; 4:3). Peace is at the heart of Paul’s missional theology and ecclesiology. It is hard to avoid an echo here of the imperial slogan running throughout the Roman Empire: “The pax Christiana is to prevail in the church, as the pax Romana did in the world of Paul’s day.” But it is not so much countering Rome as it is transcending Rome’s way; that is, this pax is more supra-imperial than anti-imperial. There is more to be considered with Paul’s mention of peace, which follows love (Gal 5:22; 2 Cor 13:11; Eph 4:2–3). It exhorts the Colossians to more than the peacemaking ways of Jesus (Matt 5:9) and presses them to realize cosmic reconciliation through the death and resurrection of Jesus (Col 1:20) so that it takes root in Colossae (3:11). Peace describes the unity of Greeks and Jews in the one body of Christ (Eph 2:14)—notice where this text heads in the next few words: “members of one body.” As such, it undercuts or at least provides a radical alternative to the status systems of divisions at work in the Roman Empire. The location of peace’s transformation is internal first and then external, as it is to begin “in your hearts.” The Colossians are to let this peace “rule.” Scholars nuance what this means: does it mean let the peace of Christ judge/umpire or rule? The term and its cognates describe awards given as a prize in competitions and so evokes, as BDAG phrases it, “control of someone’s activity by making a decision” about that person or activity. Hence, the idea is that of the umpire who renders judgment. This sense of the term for the NIV’s “rule” leads to nuance: the Colossians are to render decisions regarding behaviors on the basis of what furthers the peace of the “one body.” Peace as a method of discernment has been consistently ignored in the history of the church. So, we need to say it again by using Harris’s paraphrase: “in making your decisions, in choosing between alternatives, in settling conflicts of will, a concern to preserve the inward and communal peace that Christ gave and gives should be your controlling principle.” As God is a God of peace (1 Cor 14:33), so the Colossians are to pursue what leads to peace in the fellowship and with everyone (Rom 12:18; 14:19). In passing, the words “peace” and “rule” might be a subtle response to the “peace” that supposedly rules in the Roman Empire. Peace that is the umpire of the “one body” is their communal and moral calling, a calling that may well have evoked the yearning of the prophets for peace (e.g., Isa 8:19–9:7; 26:3, 12; 66:12; Mic 5:4). The expression “as members of one body” might be rendered “because you are one body,” or “by/in being one body and not two or three or more,” which is similar to “conducting yourselves as one body.” But this last explanation might suggest the entire phrase is an added thought not tightly connected to the verb. The “one body” here is the universal body of Christ, the church, expressed in a local setting but not tied to one local church, and the sacred space in which unity is to be found (3:11). Verse 15 ends with a common note Paul strikes, even if it makes a sudden appearance of the “vertical correlate”: “And be thankful.” Paul probably does not have in mind a cheery disposition or positive thinking but a steadfast orientation to God in confidence that God rules supreme through the death, resurrection, and exaltation of the Son and that history is headed for that cosmic, reconciled lordship—and to live inside this vision enables one to be thankful (see 1:3, 12; 2:7; 3:17; 4:2). One can infer in context as well that Paul wants the Colossians to be thankful for the mystery of expanding the gospel to include all (3:11). 16 Paul continues with “Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly,” which might sound either semimystical or individualistic until one reads the next line: “as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts.” That is to say, the message dwells among the fellowship as the members exercise a vigorous and comprehensive ministry of the Word. Like God and the Spirit and Christ (cf. 2 Cor 6:16; Rom 8:11), the “message” is to take up residence among the Colossians. Paul believes that logos/word becomes a dynamic reality that pervades a community. The verse opens in Greek with “The message of Christ.” What is the “message” of Christ? Since the Greek term is logos (see above at 1:5) and since logos is translated “word,” and since “word” to many means “Word of God” as in Bible, many (over-and under-) interpret this verse to be a ministry of the Bible. For a succinct and comprehensive summary of the meaning of logos in the New Testament, I quote from the new edition of New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, edited afresh by Moisés Silva:

The term’s wide semantic range is evident in the NT, where it can refer to a statement or utterance (Matt 5:37; 12:32; 15:12; Luke 20:20), a question (Matt 21:24), a command (Luke 4:36), a report or rumor (Matt 28:15; Mark 1:45; Luke 5:15; Acts 11:22), a discourse (Matt 15:12), a message or teaching (Luke 4:32; 10:39; John 4:41; 17:20; 1 Cor 15:2), oral as opp. to written communication (Acts 15:27; 2 Cor 10:10), a written book (Acts 1:1), a citation from Scripture (1 Cor 15:54), and mere words as opp. to power and action (1 Cor 4:19; 1 Thess 1:5).… Special significance attaches to the use of logos with ref. to divine revelation, to the words spoken by and about Jesus, and to Jesus himself as the Word.

Logos describes verbal communication: In the New Testament logos acquires a special gospel kind of communication, Jesus teaches in essence the logos about the kingdom of God, and inasmuch as Jesus is the essence of the gospel (1 Cor 15:3–8), Jesus himself is the Logos (John 1:1–14). Why? Back to the notion of “verbal communication,” because he is the express communication of the Father to the world about God’s plan for the world and its redemption through the Son. Hence, the logos “of Christ” in our passage will refer to the message or gospel-preaching about Jesus as the Messiah-King, Lord, and Savior (1:5, 25; 4:3). The logos was favored for early Christian gospeling about Jesus (e.g., Gal 6:6; 1 Cor 14:36; 2 Cor 2:17; cf. Acts 2:40–41; 10:36, 44; 12:24; 16:6; 17:11). In our context one has to note what Paul said of the gospel to the Corinthians, namely, that it was the “logos of reconciliation” (2 Cor 5:19), and Col 1:20 expands this thought to cosmic reconciliation in Christ. The implication of this expression in Col 3:16 is that their speaking to one another takes on a Christocentric shape in subject matter. Put in modern terms, the discussion is not so much about the Bible but what it says about Christ, whom the Bible serves and to whom the Bible points. Such a view does not diminish the significance of the Bible but reveals the subject matter of the Bible. The logos is to indwell them “richly” (NIV), which refers to the manifest ways the logos is to take root among them as specified in the words that follow: “as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts.” I prefer the term “abundantly” to “richly.” As God provides abundantly (1 Tim 6:17) and as the Spirit is poured out abundantly through King Jesus (Titus 3:6), so the logos indwells the Colossian fellowship abundantly—that is, pervading everything in all ways. The specifics of the indwelling logos are now spelled out in these terms: first, teaching and admonishing are the primary logos acts within the fellowship, and second, they occur in psalms, hymns, and Spirit-prompted songs. This is a rare glimpse into the nature of early Christian corporate gatherings. What Paul says in 1 Cor 14:26 resembles what is said here: “What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.” And so does Eph 5:18–20: “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” But in Colossians we have a logos saturation, a Christ-shaped communication among the people of God and performed by each in the congregation (“one another”). At Col 1:28 much the same was said about the logos ministry of Paul and Timothy, and that verse gives us an orientation to our verse: “He is the one we proclaim, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone fully mature in Christ.” Again, we encounter a Christocentric logos ministry of both teaching and admonishing, while 1:28 contained the teleology (“so that”) that sets the logos ministry in context. Our verse has less concern with that teleology and more of a concern with the means of the teaching and admonishing (3:17 will hint at teleology). To remind of what was said at 1:28, “teach and admonish” in 3:16 can overlap in meaning, so that admonishing is not just rebuking or warning but entails the kind of instruction that reminds and reveals and rebukes (or warns) and gets someone’s mind in proper shape (see 1 Thess 5:12, 14; 2 Thess 3:15; 1 Cor 4:14; Rom 15:14). If “admonish” focuses on the warning side of ecclesial catechesis, the term “teaching” focuses on the more informational, formational, and positive side of catechesis or paraenesis. This kind of “teaching” emphasizes both theological and moral instruction, the sort we find throughout Colossians. Most notably, Paul does not reserve teaching to one group of people (apostles, teachers, pastors, elders) but instead here reveals it to be a fellowship-wide activity. In context—unless somehow we can establish that his command of 3:16 applies only to males—this entails women teaching and admonishing men. Their logos communication is “in all wisdom,” an expression much along the line of our comments at 1:9 and 1:28, with the added observation that Jesus himself is the incarnation of that wisdom (2:3). With the term “wisdom” Paul guides the Colossians to live in God’s world in God’s way, namely, in Christoformity—shaped by the life-giving and cosmos-reconciling grace in the life, death, resurrection, and exalted rule of Jesus. The sphere of the teaching and admonishment is the wisdom of knowing how to live a Christoform life. Our instinct when it comes to instruction and admonishment is the classroom or the pulpit, if not an entire catechesis program, but Paul’s next words surprise: he envisions catechism of one another through song. This dialectical expression gets at the heart of Paul’s words: “If we regard the impartation of the word of Messiah as the goal of teaching, admonishing, and singing, then we are led to the conclusion that teaching is meant to take on a worshipful character while musical praise is to take on a didactic role in order to comprehensively impart the word. Christian teaching is not meant to be dry, but soaked in thankful praise. Similarly, singing is not purposed to be doctrinally benign but should comprise a pointer to the truth of Jesus Christ.” Colossians 1:15–20 fulfills such an expectation. The terms for songs (psalms, hymns, songs) move from the classic Jewish prayer/songbook, the Psalms, to two terms with little distinction between them. Each term connotes singing unto the Lord as “songs from the Spirit,” so it is unlikely we should press distinctions between them. There is a debate about whether we should use “Spirit” or “spiritual songs” in our translations. The first term, “psalms,” refers to set songs in an already established singing or chanting tradition (the Psalms of the Old Testament) and very possibly accompanied by stringed instrument. Paul affirms the recitation or intoned chanting of the Psalms. “Hymns” refers to the growing poetic tradition about Christ in the earliest Christian churches (hence, Luke 1:46–55, 68–79; 2:29–32; Col 1:15–20; Phil 2:6–11). The third term (“songs”) is the least formal, and thus “songs from the Spirit [or spiritual]” may mean “spontaneous” or “inspired” or “charismatic” songs. A good example of such is 1 Macc 13:51: “On the twenty-third day of the second month, in the one hundred seventy-first year, the Jews entered it [the citadel at Jerusalem] with praise and palm branches, and with harps and cymbals and stringed instruments, and with hymns and songs, because a great enemy had been crushed and removed from Israel.” But it is a mistake to think the word “spiritual” (CEB, rather than the NIV “from the Spirit”) in Col 3:16 can be divorced entirely from the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 14:15, 26; Eph 5:18–20) because what is “spiritual” for Paul is “Spirit-prompted” or “Spirit-ual.” So it is at least possible that glossolalic singing is in view (1 Cor 14:15). A solid case has been made that the songs contrast to the mystical music of the halakic mystics at Colossae (cf. 2:18–19, 23). With mystical music present in the heavenly tour in Testament of Job 48:3; 49:3; 50:1 and in the Apoc. Zeph. 8, Paul himself may have heard such music in his own ecstasies (1 Cor 13:1; 2 Cor 12:4). By anchoring songs in local worship, Paul grounds the Colossians in opposition to the heavenly mysticism of the opponents. The prepositional phrase “singing to God with gratitude” attached to “songs from the Spirit” is another bridge phrase: Does it attach itself to “songs from the Spirit” or to “singing to God” (NIV, CEB)? Once again there is no certainty, but I opt with the NIV and CEB in attaching it to “singing to God.” They are to praise God in a state of gratitude because of the cosmic reconciliation in which they are now participating. Furthermore, they are to do so “in their hearts,” which here refers to the depth of their praise. Song in Pauline theology has an important role to play in communal catechesis, something known to many in discovering how much our theology has been shaped by songs. Nevertheless, we do tend to devalue music’s value for catechesis. 17 In a manner slightly different than we saw in Col 1:28, where teaching and admonishing were shaped toward final approval before God, v. 17 shapes the same toward the good name of the Lord Jesus. That is, if the former (1:28) was a consummation in holiness and love, this consummation is doxology, a theme that grows in significance in this letter as we turn to the household regulations. One’s actions come first: “Whatever you do, whether in speech or action, do it all.” The English translations smooth out what is said in Greek, which could be rendered literally as “Everything, whatever you do—word or deed—everything, in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Nothing escapes the lordship of King Jesus because everything has been transformed in union with Christ. As a later rabbi will say, “May everything you do be for the sake of Heaven” (Mishnah Avot 2:12). Paul redirects his old zeal toward the name of Christ. Second, Paul’s concern follows their actions: he instructs them to have an all-consuming passion to act and speak in the name and under the name of Jesus as their King. In all they do they are to stay connected to Jesus (1 Cor 10:31; Rom 14:4–9), and “in the name of the Lord Jesus” occurs in worship, prayer, and praise as the next clause suggests (“giving thanks”). What this all looked like at the level of praxis can be known in general. As some of the early Christians often marked off all their day by making the sign of the cross over all their acts of the day. F. F. Bruce rightly notes the importance of discernment:

The Christian (whether of the apostolic age or any other generation), when confronted by a moral issue, may not find any explicit word of Christ relating to its particular details. But the question may be asked: “What is the Christian thing to do here? Can I do this without compromising my Christian confession? Can I do it (that is to say) ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’—whose reputation is at stake in the conduct of his known followers? And can I thank God the Father through him for the opportunity of doing this thing?” Even then, the right course of action may not be unambiguously clear, but such questions, honestly faced, will commonly provide surer ethical guidance than special regulations may do. It is often easy to get around special regulations; it is less easy to get around so comprehensive a statement of Christian duty as this verse supplies.

Those who think Bruce’s words are dangerous or slippery have failed to understand the confidence the apostle had in the guidance of the Spirit, and have also abandoned the sure guidance of God’s Spirit in his people. Backing up to what Paul had already said at the tail end of v. 15, Paul repeats the need for them to live a life of thanksgiving: “giving thanks to God the Father through him.” This last line complements and completes the line of v. 15 (“And be thankful people”) by specifying the object and the means of their thankfulness (cf. Rom 1:8; 7:25).

B. CHRISTIAN LIFE: HOUSEHOLD REGULATIONS (3:18–4:1)

Tracking the logical moves of Paul, as is the case in moving from 3:17 to 3:18, is a bit like searching for the order in the song of a mockingbird. At some point the searcher says, “This bird does not follow any rules; we are better off appreciating the notes in all their variety.” Our section, classically called “household regulations,” is itself easily marked off as a separate section and has three units (wives-husbands, children-fathers, and slaves-masters), with more emphasis on the third section than on the first two. From this point on, Paul abandons an explicit mention of the baptismal themes of co-crucifixion and co-resurrection, as well as the theme of putting off the old life to put on the new. In the place of that language is learning to live the entirety of life in the name of the Lord, a theme that appears with particular force in the slave-master unity (3:22–4:1). It is at least arguable (not to lose sight of the mockingbird’s song) that 3:18–4:1 is a development or illustration of 3:17. Thus, “in the Lord” is at least indirectly connected to co-crucifixion and co-resurrection in that “in the Lord” is Christoformity.

Excursus: Household Regulations in Search of Order (3:18–4:1)

Household regulations are found elsewhere in the New Testament, including Eph 5:21–6:9; 1 Tim 2:8–15 (males-females) and 6:1–2 (slaves-masters), Titus 2:1–10 (older men, older women, young men, slaves), and 1 Pet 2:18–3:7 (slaves, wives, husbands), and they are developed in other directions in later Christian writings, including Didache 4:9–11 (fathers, children, masters, slaves), Barnabas 19:5–7 (fathers, children, slaves, masters), 1 Clement 1:3 (leaders, youth, women) and 21:6–9 (leaders, elderly/elders, youth, wives, children), Ignatius, To Polycarp 4:1–6:2, and Polycarp To the Philippians 4:2–6:1 (wives, widows, deacons, young men, virgins, elders). Rudimentary teachings for such obvious social classes also appear in nonbiblical and non-Christian texts, perhaps most notably in Aristotle’s Politics and then in Arius Didymus, as well as in street philosophers (Ps.-Charondas, Ps.-Zeleukos). Our passage is the earliest instance of the Christian version of household regulations, and some have comments that here patriarchalism gets a decisive push in earliest Christianity, a patriarchalism that gained in strength. The line of thinking found in Gal 3:28 and Col 3:11 must be(come) the foundation for the household regulations in Paul’s letters and perhaps also for the entire tradition as expressed in earliest Christianity. Oneness in Christ revolutionizes all relationships toward mutual participation in Christoformity, with a noticeable emphasis on limiting the power of what Witherington and Wessels call the “super-ordinate” person. The household regulations explore the meaning of Christoformity for household relationships, and as at least Angela Standhartinger has pointed out, a distinctive term in the household regulation here is the word “equality” (4:1). While some might detect in these passages the establishment of patriarchalism, others, including this writer, might see that very structure being dethroned, or at least given a chance of being dethroned. Running from top to bottom in this household regulation is the issue of honor-shame and power in the Roman world—to be distinguished from the modern, Western liberal sense of “rights.” Witherington and Wessels rightly perceive a challenge by Paul and Timothy to the person of honor and power to turn that honor and power around for the good of the other. To get at the significance of honor and therefore the radical consequences for what Paul is doing here, I quote the summary of Mark Finney on the nature of honor in the Roman world:

The components of life that elicited honour in the first century CE included one’s birth (lineage/family/town/city); social position of friends and acquaintances; wealth; social location; the size of one’s retinue (soldiers/clients/slaves); and a number of miscellaneous items (clothes worn/banquets given etc.). Success was imperative and with it the necessity of public perception leading to the good opinion of others. Conversely, failure could lead only to shame. The wider context of male honour involves the family and community, for the male had an obligation to protect his kin-group and any neglect or inadequacy was equivalent to cowardice (so bringing dishonor). There were also social constraints of honour and shame involving the corporate identity of the state vis-à-vis other nations.

One must then ask whether the household code, which at least challenges the sense of honor so prevalent, does not propose a radical shift in social regulations. Others, however, have sniffed this subversive theme running wild and have asked whether the code is designed to counter revolutionary impulses. So instead of seeing a top-down oppression, some argue that the focus of the code is resisting a bottom-up revolution. Some have suggested that the household regulations arose when imminent expectation of the parousia was dying off and significant accommodation to culture therefore occurred. Others press harder and see here a sign of early Christian degeneration from an earlier (e.g., Gal 3:28) social vision of radical equality, that is, they see the degeneration associated with so-called early Catholicism. Colossians 3:11 is a witness against this degeneration theory, as it is also against the view that the regulations are countering a liberationist movement that anchored itself in the view found in Gal 3:28. We should all agree that the interpretation of the household regulations brings with it our own social agendas. The issues, then, are intense, complex, and wide-ranging. Stephen Motyer, in a compelling sketch at the methodological level, argues that we are to see in the household regulations a creation theology rooted in standing social orders (Jewish and Roman), some transformation of those orders “in the Lord”/“in Christ” and in particular how “submission” is presented, and all of it coming to expression in an eschatologically driven transformation—the barriers will eventually come down, and we are ourselves in the midst of that struggle today. Robert Nash, in contrast, has pointed to the social nexus out of which and into which the household regulations interact. Thus, “Within a particular document a Haustafel may suggest a structure for the church as a household (oikos) of God, designate the place of the individual within this oikos, and define the place of the church in God’s larger oikonomia.” One might add to his point this one: how the Christian ecclesial oikos fits into and counters the Roman oikonomia. One major issue in interpretive history concerns the origins and social-religious context for the Pauline household regulations, some suggesting they are Greek (Aristotle, Politics 1.2; Xenophon, Economics) or Roman (Columella, On Agriculture 11) or Stoic (Seneca, Epistles 94; Epictetus, Discourses 2.10) or Jewish (Philo, On the Decalogue 165–67; Hypothetica 7.1–9; Josephus, Against Apion 2.199–208)—not ignoring the biblical wisdom tradition from Proverbs on. The lack of substantive parallels between the various traditions and the uniqueness of the teaching in the Pauline letters, with their emphasis on the Lord (especially in our text) and overtly expressing preference for those with lesser status and power, suggests that Paul’s codes are a Christian innovative mixture of traditions on the basis of the normal life in an oikos. Not surprisingly for a Pauline diaspora mission, we need to observe that codes like these tend to appear in Hellenistic Jewish texts. It is now widely recognized that the household regulations are connected to the management of a household (oikonomia instructions), but the emphasis that pervades the early Christian codes is far from the norm because, whatever traditions or forms they used, they were reshaped by the gospel. Back to a common criticism of the Pauline codes: some contend they accommodate too much to everyday life in the Roman Empire. In what follows I will seek to show that there is a new Pauline framing of ordinary relations on the basis of living under the lordship of King Jesus. The evidence that household regulations were part either of routine Christian catechesis of converts or at baptism is less than demonstrable, though there is at work in Colossians and even more in Ephesians a Christian version of socialization and education. That is, though catechesis is clearly an important element of earliest Christianity (1 Thess 4:1; 2 Thess 3:6; 1 Cor 4:17; 11:2; Rom 6:17; 16:17), the evidence for it incorporating the household regulations is thin. What is probably not up for disagreement is that the household regulations were shaped to promote socially respectable behaviors as a platform for social security, apologetics, and evangelism (seen especially in 1 Pet 2:13–3:7, esp. 2:12, 14; 3:2). Yet, the external-facing dimension of the regulations need not be the entirety of interpretation, for they display here an internality that deserves even more attention: this is how wives-husbands, children-fathers, and slaves-masters are to live out the gospel in the world. As such, the codes about how Christians are to live are more than a strategy for evangelism or apologetics. Andrew Lincoln proposes that the household regulations here belong rather to the wisdom theology unfolding in this letter. He points us to (1) the framing of the codes by 3:16 and 4:5; (2) the presence of this sort of instruction in wisdom literature (e.g., Sir 7:19–28; Prov 2:9); (3) the theme of the fear of the Lord in its new christological confession (e.g., 3:22c; 4:1 plus “in the Lord” at 3:18, 20, 23, 24); (4) the heavenly-earthly contrast that is shaped in the first instance from the above to the below; and (5) in connecting wisdom and thanksgiving for everyday domestic life. As such, the Colossian Christians would become an apologetic in a way that was not perceived as subversive, over against the opponents, who may well have been seen as subversive. As can be seen from this brief exploration of a variety of options for reading the household regulations (and there are many others), there are both a fruitful set of options and frustratingly little consensus. It will be wise for us to attend to the words of the text more than the potential background, sideground, or foreground of the text as the covert envelope in which it was delivered.

18Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. 20Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. 21Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged. 22Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism. 4:1Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

If Col 3:15–17 was a glimpse into an early Christian gathering (teaching, worship, etc.), this passage is not only a similar glimpse (for those gatherings occured in house churches) but also a glimpse of how the Christians in those households were learning to reorient their entire life around Jesus as Lord. What was “linear and nonreciprocal” was being subverted. That reorientation simultaneously challenges the Roman household’s way of life. Put differently, we find here perhaps the strongest bits of information about the Sitz im Leben for the Christian fellowship at Colossae. Households encompassed more than a husband, wife, and children; they could entail a “villa” with family, relatives, slaves, renters, migrants, and the homeless; a villa became the setting for both oikos and ekklēsia. Peter Oakes, using a comprehensive socioeconomic model, opens up what such a villa/house church looked like in Pompeii, and what he says for Pompeii obtains on a smaller scale for a place like Colossae in the Lycus Valley. Our fascination with both problems and riddles in need of resolution, like discerning the nature of the opponents at Colossae, cannot be equated with what was most characteristic of the early Christian fellowship. What was undoubtedly most common was daily life, and that life occurred in the context of the oikos and its revolutionary new ordering. It began every morning with husband and wife and children and slaves and dependents.

1. Marital Relationships (3:18–19)

Wives, who were married at an age earlier than is the custom in our world (12–13 years old in the Roman world but probably slightly later for Jewish women), are summoned by Paul to submit to their husbands as the husbands are summoned to love their wives. Few words are devoted to the marital relationship in Colossians; in Ephesians there is far more. I quote them to illustrate the differing emphases.

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church—for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. (Eph 5:22–33)

In addition, Eph 5:21 opens the entire set of regulations with a note that turns the wife’s submission into an instance of ecclesial-wide submission rather than only what a wife owes her husband: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” This theme is reduced dramatically in Colossians, and once again, since it is highly likely Ephesians and Colossians also come from the same exigency, one is driven to think that each reflects the contingencies of the local church’s own setting. We would be wise to keep our eye on Ephesians even in reading what Paul says to the Colossians’ wives and husbands. If Colossians has no parallel to Eph 5:21, it more than makes up for it in two ways: first, the ethical Christoformity running right through the letter and, second, the “in the Lord” theme of the Colossian code. It is sometimes ignored that the wives and husbands, as well as the parents and the children, cannot be assumed to be (1) all Christians—after all, this is the household, not the later “church” in purity, nor can we assume that (2) slavery pertains only to the master-slave pairing. In fact, slaves were husbands and wives, as well as children and parents. While knowing this may not bring clarity to each pairing, it does bring both reality and complication to what is being said by Paul. Who, then, might have been present when this letter was read or performed to the Colossian assembly? As MacDonald has described it, “members of believing families, children of mixed marriage with one parent as a believer, neglected children who made their way into church meetings without parents, or slave children, including slave children who may have been biological children of their masters.” 18 With an eye on the prescription of Col 3:17 (“whatever you do … do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus”), Paul anchors his instruction for wives in what is “fitting in the Lord.” This expression has received a number of interpretations, including seeing it as creation order (how to live as those created by the Lord; e.g., 1 Tim 2:11–15) or the order of the Messiah (how to live in the order created by Jesus as King; e.g., 1 Cor 11:3, 7–9; Eph 5:23–24). It most likely refers to what is appropriate for Christians who were living under Christ (and to those living under their care in a household) and so counters the Roman way of life. In addition, because a wife in some cases could remain under the authority of her father (not husband), at least in the case of the elites—and Paul’s churches had such elites—Paul’s words may have had a countercultural ring to them. In other words, the “fitting” describes their new life under King Jesus. Thus, “fitting” means Christoformity; the submission of 3:18 is an instance of cruciform living, not of absorbing the Roman way of life. Wives serve husbands and husbands sacrifice themselves for their wives because that is what love means. Superiority, power, and status have all been eradicated in Christoformity. Against the view held by some that Paul is here legitimating the structures of the day, Wright offers a stunning reversal: “It is, in fact, extremely unlikely that Paul, having warned the young Christians against conforming their lives to the present world, would now require just that of them after all.” What was “fitting in the Lord,” then, is not necessarily what is “fitting in the Lord” today—what is needed in both situations is Spirit-led discernment. What is fitting, he says, is that wives “submit.” This term, which carries the Christoformic humility of 3:12 and Phil 2:3–4 into the family context, deserves careful consideration for two reasons: first, it has a social context in the Roman Empire’s obsession with status and power and order and “piety,” and second, it has been used socially to justify violence against women, married or not, and would have been heard by the slave women/wives differently than by the free women in the household. Some interpreters prefer a harsher perception of the term as an expression of cultural mores, in part to stand over the text in judgment with a hermeneutic of suspicion or perhaps to adjudicate the text in its patriarchal, historical context (hermeneutic of suspicion and retrieval), but some think the harshness remains for today (hermeneutic of retrieval against our culture), while yet others believe the term ought to be given sharper Christian virtues in its context if not also a sense of subversion (a hermeneutic of discernment). Dunn expresses the first view clearly: “Those who, on the one hand, wish to criticize Paul and the first Christians for such conformity at this point should recall that it is only in the last hundred years of European civilization that the perception of the status of wives (and women) and their expected roles has been radically changed. Those who, on the other hand, wish to draw normative patterns of conduct from Scripture cannot ignore the degree to which the instruction simply reflects current social patterns, an unavoidably conformist rather than transformist ethic.” The term hypotassō emerges from and legitimates an order (taxis): that is, it means “live in or under the ordering/order of society.” The term can be active, that is, socially ordering or arranging or imposing with force upon someone else into the proper relationship to oneself according to a social-status system (God, the emperor, a governor, a military commander, a father), or in our text as a middle-passive, choosing to order oneself into a social status system. The term appears in the New Testament in theological and ecclesial contexts (e.g., 1 Cor 16:16; Rom 8:7; Eph 5:24; Jas 4:7; Heb 12:9), as well as in social contexts (e.g., Rom 13:1, 5; 1 Pet 5:5). In our text, the emphasis is on the wife’s choice to order herself toward her husband. While the term can mean obedience, the grounding here is neither the husband’s authority nor some supposed creation order nor his role as leader—else the complementary command in v. 19 would talk about leadership. In fact, male leadership and power are assumed in the ancient world, so the absence of pointing out such a status for the male is all the more noteworthy. Instead of grounding the instruction to the wife in her husband’s authority, power, leadership, or status in a hierarchy, the grounding is radically otherwise: it is grounded in the Lord’s way of life. Hence, Paul provides an alternative to the status systems of his world, which also would have been heard in liberating and protective ways by slave women in the household. It needs to be noted again that the husband is not instructed to lead his wife but to love her sacrificially. The term “submit” is used for all Christians in the very near parallel Eph 5:21, indicating boldly that even this instruction to wives in Col 3:18 has nothing to do with ontological status or inferiority-superiority or hierarchy but with a Christoform life expressed in the relationship of Christian wives and husbands. These points must be brought to the fore in a church environment where a husband’s authority is advanced as the ground for the wife’s so-called submission; this simply is not a part of anything Paul teaches in this context and is in fact more Aristotelian than Christian (see at 3:19 below). In much teaching around this theme today, one hears too much Aristotle and not enough gospel Christoformity:

For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.

Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind.

For although there may be exceptions to the order of nature, the male is by nature fitter for command than the female, just as the elder and full-grown is superior to the younger and more immature.

One would think that the terms of a wife’s life would at least be balanced in modern Christian discussions by what is said of the woman in Prov 31:10–31, where the wife seems to be the manager. Unfortunately, far too often texts like Prov 31 are ignored or suppressed. To press the point further and because many see the term “head” to be a notion of rule and hierarchy, the use of “head” in Eph 5:23 is defined by Christ’s sacrificial love for the church (5:25–26), not by his authority over the church. In other words, terms must be interpreted in context, and contexts must be explored to provide cross-fertilizing interpretations. Furthermore, what Paul says here in Col 3 cannot be said to unravel what he said at Gal 3:28 or what he said at Col 3:11. When unleashed, the gospel of Paul sets people free to love one another in freedom; it does not wed them to hierarchical structures or to power or status. Those have been undone by the Christ of the cross and resurrection. Christoformity bids farewell to hierarchy, which is heard as more than good news by those in the church fellowship who were slaves. One must not assume, as is often the case, negative theories either about women or about the husband-wife relationship in the Jewish or Roman world. Christians do not need Jews or Romans to look bad in order to bolster their ethic. There is in fact a splendid expression of an ideal Roman marriage in a Latin inscription, the so-called Laudatio Turiae, dated 18–2 BCE. I quote here a sampling of lines from a husband’s honoring of his faithful, loving wife read about and to her at her funeral (notice the term “fitting” in italics):

Uncommon are marriages which last so long, brought to an end by death, not broken apart by divorce; for it was our happy lot that it should be prolonged to the 41st year without estrangement.… As for your domestic virtues, loyalty (to our marriage), obedience, courteousness, easy good-nature, your assiduous wool-working, reverence (for the gods) without superstition, attire not designed for attracting attention, modest refinement—what need have I to make mention of these? Why should I speak of your love for your own, your devotion to your family, since you have treated with equal honour my mother and your own parents, and provided for her the same peace (in retirement) as for your own family; and other virtues too many to count you possess in common with all other married women who cherish a good name.… When you despaired of your fertility, and lamented my childlessness lest, by retaining you in marriage, I might resign my hope of having children and as a result suffer misfortune, you spoke plainly about divorce. You would hand over our house freely to the fertility of another woman, with no other intention than that, depending on our harmonious relationship, you yourself would seek and provide for me a match that was fitting and appropriate. And you affirmed that you would treat the children-to-be as ours in common, and as though they were your own; and that you would not make division of our inheritance which was still held in common, but that it would remain under my authority and—if I wished it—under your management.

We might be on safer ground, then, to expect and even assume such marital virtues on the part of Roman elites and Jewish neighbors rather than assume their opposites. Brutal stereotypes are not the necessary context for the Pauline household codes; instead, the context is both Jewish and Roman concepts of status that have been revolutionized by the Christ of the cross. A side if interesting question arises: Assuming Nympha of Col 4:15 is the head of her household and is in the audience for this letter when it is read aloud—and I am not ignoring Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus (Phlm 1–2)—how would this instruction to wives (and husbands) be heard? Perhaps she heard in “fitting in the Lord” the way any female believer-leader would have heard it, not as demeaning their integrity, ontology, or gifting but as an affirmation of their special calling in a world where a woman leader would have stood out from the norm. Or perhaps she would have intuitively reversed the terms to make room for her role as materfamilias. 19 The complementary command for the husband defines the previous command to wives. The husband’s summons counters a Roman and Jewish culture of status and male power: “love your wives and do not be harsh with them.” The latter follows from the meaning of the former. Without the former, the latter flowed rather naturally into lines like these from Aristotle: “Also, as between the sexes, the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject.” It pains me that so much Christian discussion about our text and about its parallel in Eph 5 is consumed by discussion of the meaning of subordination of wives to their husbands, a topic relished by some and embarrassing to others. This discussion stems more from Aristotle than the Bible. A simple comparison of commentaries espousing so-called complementarianism, which means hierarchicalism and patriarchalism, reveals lines and lines about subordination at the expense of minor and superficial discussions of the meaning of love. Instead of exploring the Song of Solomon, one of Israel’s treasures in literature about love, where the proper relation of a man and a woman is outlined in delightful poetry, or even 1 Cor 13, the reader is pressed to spend most of one’s mental energies on the nature and manner—with caveat after caveat—of a wife’s subordination. My contention is that greater attention to “love” will necessarily lead to both a more precise understanding of subordination and a greater focus on what is most needed by the majority who write and read said commentaries. To repeat what has been said already in this commentary, love in the Bible is covenantal commitment to presence, advocacy, and flourishing growth into Christlikeness (see Col 1:4, 8, 13; 2:2; 3:12, 14). These four elements can now be said of the husband’s love of his wife: (1) love is a covenant commitment to one’s wife (2) to be with her, (3) to be for her, including providing for her, and (4) to pursue Christlikeness together (the focus of Christ’s love in Eph 5:25–26). That is, the direction is redemptive, and all dimensions of the relationship are shaped by Christlike behavior (Christoformity) aimed at fostering Christlikeness in one another. Two texts from the Song of Solomon illustrate this kind of playful love, one marked by presence and advocacy, and texts like these are to shape what is to be seen in the household codes, not texts one finds in Aristotle about hierarchy:

  [She:] My beloved is mine and I am his;
  he browses among the lilies.
  Until the day breaks
  and the shadows flee,
  turn, my beloved,
  and be like a gazelle
  or like a young stag
  on the rugged hills. (2:16–17)

  [He:] You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride;
  you have stolen my heart
  with one glance of your eyes,
  with one jewel of your necklace.
  How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride!
  How much more pleasing is your love than wine,
  and the fragrance of your perfume
  more than any spice! (4:9–10)

Husbands who love like this, as 1 Cor 13 makes clear, do not make demands, do not overpower, and do not violate the integrity of a wife. Instead, the husband who loves like this encourages, empowers, and frees. The more emphasis that is given to love in Col 3:19, the less emphasis will be given to discussions about power and male dominance, leadership, and authority in 3:18, discussions that dominate so-called complementarian literature. The more emphasis given to love, the more Spirit-driven will be the relationship of husband and wife. The text, then, does not advocate sharing power; it advocates sharing life and love with one another as a new kind of power. As Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke put it so well,

That means, then, that these declarations of the Haustafel of Col assign the final word in the relationship between husband and wife not to the patriarchate but also not to the matriarchate. The concern is then not only the abolition of power of the husband in favor of the wife, and thus not about concessions through which the wife “may” participate in the power of the husband, but also the abolition of structures of dominion in the relationship between the sexes. There is no striving for equality in the sense of equal plenitude of power, but rather an equality based on loving and serving one another.

The husband who so loves his wife will not be harsh with her. Paul aims at the Roman/Greek tradition of the philandering husband whose friends were males and whose sexual companions were slaves and prostitutes, and he perceives such a relationship as very possibly having broken down into despising the wife. The translation in both the NIV and CEB, “be harsh” (pikrainō), is one way of translating the term, but the term connotes bitterness (Jas 3:11; Rev 8:11; 10:9–10; cf. Eph 4:31; Heb 12:15). As a verb in the middle or passive voice, it could be translated “to be bitter or to be embittered.” Hence, the husband is instructed not to become embittered against his wife and not to despise his wife. It is the husband’s disposition toward his wife that Paul has in view. Love does not despise because it honors and empowers the other at one’s own expense.

2. Parental Relationships (3:20–21)

Also in Eph 6:1–4 an instruction to children and fathers follows the instruction to wives and husbands.

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother”—which is the first commandment with a promise—“so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.” Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.

As the wives-husbands directives were abbreviated in comparison with Eph 5, so also with the children-fathers rules. 20 Children, and this term includes slave children, were usually ignored, but in the churches of Paul they are both clearly present and instructed to “obey”—that is, hear with the implication of following the instructions of their fathers (2 Thess 1:8; 3:14; Phil 2:12; Rom 6:16–17). The obedience of a child here entails the child’s proper response to doing all in the name of Christ (3:17), to love (3:14), and to live a Christoform existence (2:6–3:11). Framed from the other angle, a child’s obedience of parents is but an expression of that child’s discipleship and will lead as well later in life to caring for aging parents (Mark 7:9–13; 1 Tim 5:4). There is nothing unusual about this instruction, for either Jews or Romans, but as part of the household regulations it gains a new basis (in Christ) and a new substance (love). Children are to obey their parents because “this pleases the Lord [Jesus],” which is another connection back to the foundational principle of 3:17, and yet again revealing a reformulation of life in the oikos. Colossians reduces what is said in Eph 6, which connects the Christian community’s posture of children toward parents to the Decalogue (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16; cf. Exod 21:15; Deut 21:18–21). The translation “the Lord” is better rendered “in the Lord” and is yet another instance of the new life “in Christ.” The language of “pleasing” transcends the Roman world of pleasing the people through benefactions and perhaps presses the Colossians to consider Torah observance in its emphasis on doing what the Lord teaches. Our command also anchors ethics in the covenant relationship with God (e.g., 2 Cor 5:9; Eph 5:10; Phil 4:18; Rom 12:1–2; 14:8); consistent with such a covenant context we might hear a blessing of God for obedience. In addition, what is said to children here emerges as much from the wisdom tradition (Proverbs) as from the legal tradition. Hence, our text has in mind listening to one’s Christian parents as wisdom to be absorbed and practiced in order to form a character shaped by love, holiness, peace, and justice. One must observe that, if the child here is a slave child, that slave child would have heard this instruction in a way that made her or him an equal with the children of free parents. A caution, of course, must be raised about Paul’s term “in everything,” a term as comprehensive as God’s reconciliation in Christ (Col 1:20) but at times to be taken distributively: in all directions, in all ways, but not necessarily always. Thus, “in everything” emerges from wisdom, assumes the goodness of the parents, and therefore requires children to do what (good) parents instruct. Even in the first century, Jews pondered adjustments to the Decalogue’s honoring of parents to accommodate the realities of parenting. Philo instructs his readers to revere one’s parents but can add this proviso: “to obey them in everything that is just and profitable.” And why, we ask? “for the true father will give no instruction to his son that is foreign to virtue.” However, as a wife is not to do anything a husband asks that counters the will of Christ, so a child learns the wisdom of not doing what is contrary to Christian ethics. This conviction of the need at times for “civil disobedience” is as Jewish as it is Roman. More speculatively, Dunn points us to two possible echoes in these instructions: “we can recognize a double apologetic slant in the parenesis: assurance to influential outsiders that the Christian message was not subversive and to Colossian Jews that the new movement was still faithful to Jewish praxis and ideals.” One must observe that slave children may have heard “in everything” in ways that free children would not have heard it and hence may well have wondered aloud about its constraints. 21 With an eye on the public reading of Scripture, the CEB’s “parents” spreads to both parents (cf. Heb 11:23) what is otherwise restricted to “fathers” in the Greek text. The father’s relations, however, are in view and not the mother’s, since the major concern here is quite similar to what is said to husbands in 3:19; furthermore, 3:20 used the term “parents” (goneis), and that term shifts in 3:21 to “fathers” (pateres). The father had authority in the Roman (patria potestas) and Jewish world (on display in Gal 4:1–7), and the father could make or break his children’s future. A father’s authoritarianism was not an uncommon experience to ancient children, a vice noticeable in these lines from Sir 30:

  He who loves his son will whip him often,
  so that he may rejoice at the way he turns out. (1)

  An unbroken horse turns out stubborn,
  and an unchecked son turns out headstrong.
  Pamper a child, and he will terrorize you;
  play with him, and he will grieve you.
  Do not laugh with him, or you will have sorrow with him,
  and in the end you will gnash your teeth.
  Give him no freedom in his youth,
  and do not ignore his errors.
  Bow down his neck in his youth,
  and beat his sides while he is young,
  or else he will become stubborn and disobey you,
  and you will have sorrow of soul from him.
  Discipline your son and make his yoke heavy,
  so that you may not be offended by his shamelessness. (8–13)

This context, if exaggerated in focus to illustrate what authority can do for itself, sets the stage for what Paul and Timothy say to fathers. What they say rubs against, namely, the father’s power and potential destructiveness, which is countered by Paul’s not mentioning the father’s authority. Moo concedes just this point: “But it is still striking that, as in Paul’s address of the husband, he omits any reference to their actual exercise of ‘authority’ with respect to their children.” That absence tells the entire story: the father’s relation is not one of imposing authority but of nurturing love. The father, to swipe a term from another author and a different context, is to moderate his passions toward children as the high priest was called to do (Heb 5:2). A father’s love for a child transforms his authority from power to nurture when the father follows what Paul instructs: “do not embitter.” The term in 3:19 was “bitter” (pikrainō), while here it is to “embitter” (erethizō) or perhaps “pick fights with and provoke” or “conspire against” in such a manner that the father “discourages” (athymeō) or “deflates” or “depassions” the children. The term “embitter” is translated “stirred … to action” in 2 Cor 9:2. We are to hear in Paul’s words Deut 21:20, which reads, “They shall say to the elders, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious (same term as in Col 3:21). He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” To which Moo adds this observation: “Paul, in effect, is exhorting fathers to raise their children in such a way that they do their utmost to avoid provoking this kind of rebellious attitude in them.” The observation is stunningly modern: the father who berates and embitters a child flattens that child’s maturation and converts the child into anger. The term and this concern about fathers can also be connected to any number of testy situations for Christian Roman fathers and their children: “To belong to such a strange sect, a religion without a cult center, without priest and sacrifice, must have exposed the younger members of the Christian families of Colossae to some abuse from their fellows in the marketplace. Without strong parental encouragement they could easily become ‘discouraged’ (RSV). The psychological sensitivity displayed here is remarkably modern.” A number of factors come into play in Paul’s instruction to fathers: the baptismal participation in the death and resurrection of Christ, which leads to putting to death the ways of power and giving life to Christoformity; the signal importance of love as the binding virtue; and doing everything in the name of the Lord Jesus. In addition, if the Torah exhorted children to honor parents, it also told parents to teach their children (Deut 6:4–9). As such, this passage counters any kind of perception of fatherhood that obsesses with authority, power, and hierarchy or that fails to see that the father’s responsibility to the children is holistic healthy guidance for maturation into integrity as followers of Jesus. Fathering/parenting was radically reshaped by the gospel and love—for love here would mean a father’s rugged commitment to be with his children, to be for his children, and all of this as the family grows in Christlikeness. Hence, we are looking at fathering and parenting as it ought to look “in the Lord.” Here are wise words to fathers and mothers:

The parents’ duty is, in effect, to live out the gospel to the child: that is, to assure their children that they are loved and accepted and valued for who they are, not for who they ought to be, should have been, or might (if only they would try a little harder) become. Obedience must never be made the condition of parental ‘love’; a ‘love’ so conditioned would not deserve the name. When the parent is obedient to the vocation of genuine love, the child’s obedience may become, like that of the Christian to God, a glad and loving response.

Nurturing children into the ways of the Christian faith was vital to earliest Christianity’s self-perception. The parallel text in Eph 6:4 focuses on rearing children into the faith, which is also uppermost in mind in Col 3:20–21. We enter here into the important interplay between catechesis in home and church, the foundational importance of which is neglected only at the expense of Christian nurture.

3. Socioeconomic Relationships (3:22–4:1)

The first pair of instructions concerned marital, the second parental, and now the third, socioeconomic relationships. The tragedy of slavery in the world today fills the sensitive reader with alertness to detail as well as implication. Slavery in the ancient world may not be New World slavery of colonial America, but slavery with any adjective remains slavery, which means ownership of another human and the lack of freedom and rights for that owned person (not to ignore the diminishment of the humanity of those who own slaves)—all for the goal of economic profit and social status. This understanding settles the issue for implication, even if the tie to race in New World slavery exacerbated the systemic injustice and has far more implications for readers of this commentary. Furthermore, to use this text for Christian teaching about employment requires extreme caution, and more often than not the analogy ought to be dropped entirely. While masters are called to be just in their dealings with slaves, and while such an instruction ought also to characterize employer-employee relations, the difference between our sense of employment (with rights all tied into it) and slavery staggers any attempt to bridge the two by assuming they are the same. Yet, we also dare not ignore the pragmatism of what Paul and Timothy teach here:

This [text] should not be criticized today as merely social conformism; those who live in modern social democracies, in which interest groups can hope to exert political pressure by intensive lobbying, should remember that in the cities of Paul’s day the great bulk of Christians would have had no possibility whatsoever of exerting any political pressure for any particular policy or reform. In such circumstances a pragmatic quietism was the most effective means of gaining room enough to develop the quality of personal relationships which would establish and build up the microcosms (churches) of transformed communities.

True, to be sure, but slavery remains slavery. Boundary marking between ecclesia and empire, then, functioned to seal the Christian household so that the church could be secure enough to establish a new way of life, including Christian nurture in a fellowship in which slaves and masters became brothers and sisters. That kind of pragmatism may provide no help for us today. Yet, through this unit we discover a hermeneutic of Christoformity that provides a template for Christoformity in our world. The emphasis of the household regulations of Colossians is the slaves-masters unit (3:22–4:1). There are good reasons to think this concentration flows from Paul’s concern to get Philemon (a master) to embrace as a brother his slave (Onesimus), who is perhaps—along with Tychicus—the letter carrier of both letters Colossians and Philemon (4:8–9). Again, we need to compare the companion Letter to Philemon to comprehend what is said in 3:22–4:1. Comparison of Col 3:25 and 4:10–17 with Phlm 18, 23–24 has convinced most that the letters are from nearly the same date, with identical conditions and setting. That observation alone leads us to a reasonably firm conclusion that the slaves-master relationship, in particular Onesimus to Philemon, is the contingency and exigency that calls them forth. What Paul instructs here—both to slaves and masters—radicalizes the gospel’s implications for Pauline churches. Relationships were reset on a new foundation: the fictive kinship of the church, or siblingship, under a new lord. The theology at work in this subsection was anticipated in the “no … slave or free” of 3:11, but it has massive implications. If the slave-master relationship is passé, then Philemon will have to treat his slave Onesimus as a brother. In another context Paul frames it this way: “For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave” (1 Cor 7:22). Being brothers and sisters means slaves—male and female—have become “freed persons” in Christ. This occurs because Christ himself became a slave to undo all slaveries (Phil 2:7–8). Having said that, there is no evidence that Paul thought Philemon’s responsibility was to emancipate Onesimus, and the same pertains to whether or not Onesimus remained a slave and Philemon an owner: they did. They may now be siblings in Christ but their social status seems untouched. Our couplet here has two sections: slaves (3:22–25) and masters (4:1). The instructions for slaves moves from the particular (3:22a) to reasons for the particular instruction (3:22b–25), and the reasons for the instruction are several: (1) a general motivation (3:22b), (2) a reminder from 3:17 of the lordship and judgment of Christ (3:23–24), and (3) a final reminder of the general principle of reward and punishment (3:25). The master’s lines (4:1) reshape the Christian master’s relationship to slaves in the direction of justice and goodness, no doubt because of the importance of love (3:14) and the name of Christ (3:17). Again, the Ephesians parallel deserves comparison; it contains substantial similarities:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free. And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. (6:5–9)

Compare, too, 1 Pet 2:18–25: (1) submission out of reverent fear (before God? to one’s master?) is required, (2) even to those masters who are rascals; (3) life before God empowers Peter’s instruction to submit to masters; (4) Christ’s own suffering is the paradigm for the unjust suffering of slaves. Peter and Paul have similarities, but Peter has taken the instruction for slaves much deeper into a Christoform Christology, while Paul’s focus is Christ as Lord of the oikonomia. 22a The “slaves” are to “obey” their masters “in everything.” One might see here an elevation of slaves to the level of children in a household or the diminution of children to the level of slaves, but the more likely conclusion is that this is an ordered list, and simple compliance with instructions was expected of both. Included in “slaves” is Onesimus (see Philemon), which means the instruction is for him and for Philemon to know that his slave will return to obedience in the household. Slaves no doubt included wet nurse slaves as well as children of slaves (and children of the master with slave women). Perhaps most important but hidden behind the word “slave” is the reality that male slaves who were fathers were not legally considered fathers, nor did male slave fathers have any rights to inheritance. “Male slaves,” Margaret MacDonald observes, “were essentially excluded from the very category of manhood despite physical maturity. In an important sense, they remained perpetual children.” Does Paul here recognize their paternity in the Christian household? It appears so. Attendant to this observation is that slaves were owned, were abused, and had little recourse to justice. In the public reading of this letter, not to mention the far more emotive Philemon, the slaves in Philemon’s household likely hung on every word and knew the implications of these words for how Philemon was to treat them in a Christian household. The “masters” are specified as “earthly” and therefore must yield to the lordship of Christ, who is their “heavenly” or “spiritual” master/Lord. The very term “earthly” or “human,” while not exactly subversive, at least sets the stage for the Pauline radicalization of how household relations between slaves and masters work in Christ—namely, they are not grounded in the ontology of the Roman Empire’s system of status and power or in any other kind of human ontology, but in one’s relationship to the Lord. Hence, one may speak of a “heavenly” master on high, King Jesus. The world’s system and ontology are thereby relativized because the bases of obedience are not the glory of Rome or the superiority of a master but the new way of Christoform existence. Back now to “in everything.” This is an instruction to simple compliance instead of an absolute, categorical requirement. Take, for example, the reality that slaves—especially female but also male—did not own their own bodies when it came to their master. Hence, masters exploited their slaves for sexual indulgence, and the slaves had no recourse to the law. Surely we are to think Paul would not have seen compliance here as part of what he meant with “in everything”—even if masters may have intentionally and violently misread Paul that way. I consider Col 4:1’s “right and fair” to be sufficient foundation for a new morality for the relationship of a believing master to a slave, one that the believing slave could put into play in difficult situations, and one that would permit the female slave of a believer to have some recourse to covenant obligation before the Lord. 22b From this point on in the section for slaves, Paul ponders the rationale for the obedience of slaves. He begins with a general observation about motivation (3:22b): “and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.” They are to obey, which is substantially the same in Eph 6:5–6, from two motivations: negatively (not to please humans) and positively (reverence for the Lord Jesus). The unacceptable motivation is master-pleasing, for that diminishes the lordship of Christ over all (3:17). Paul’s language includes probably his own creative spin, and I provide a literal translation: “not with the eye-on-the-servant master-pleasing.” The language suggests superficial labor done only when the master is watching; Paul probes below the surface for the Christian slave—surely Onesimus is in mind—in that all things are to be done before the Lord Jesus (3:17) to please him (3:20; cf. Phlm 16). Positively, they are to obey their masters “with sincerity of heart and reverence,” or as in the CEB, “with the single motivation of fearing the Lord.” Grammatically, they are to obey in or with a sincere heart, which is expanded with reverencing or fearing the Lord Jesus. The two, then, are not equal positive motivations but one redefined by the other. The CEB narrows the motivation to fearing the Lord, while the NIV creates two motivations; I prefer “obey with a sincere heart fearing the Lord.” The first term (“sincerity”) could suggest generosity or liberality and describe enthusiastic labor for the good of the household, but the emphasis of the former expression on eye-slavery throws probability toward the notion of sincerity, raising again the common New Testament warning about hypocrisy (e.g., Matt 6:1–18; 23:1–39), and for many the term evokes some Jewish parallels. Take as an example from Judaism the following set of lines from the Testament of Reuben 4:1, with the italics revealing a noteworthy parallel to our text: “Do not devote your attention to the beauty of women, my children, nor occupy your minds with their activities. But live in integrity of heart in the fear of the Lord, and weary yourself in good deeds, in learning, and in tending your flocks, until the Lord gives you the mate whom he wills, so that you do not suffer, as I did.” The attachment of “sincerity” to “heart” would then drive the motivation to the deepest level for a slave like Onesimus. The shift from the name of Jesus in 3:17 and pleasing in 3:19 to “reverence for the Lord (Jesus)” would also add one more element to all “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (3:17; see too 1 Cor 7:17–24). Namely, the deeply Jewish conviction that one was to revere God and to live a life absorbed in reverence, godly fear, and Torah observance (Prov 1:7; Isa 8:13). I am unconvinced the “Lord” in “reverence for the Lord” is Jesus and propose that “Lord” here refers to the slaves’ “masters.” The Greek term kyrios used here was used just previously (“earthly masters” in 3:22) for their own masters, and the same term then is picked up in 4:1 for their masters. Further afield, 1 Pet 2:18, in Peter’s household regulations, instructs slaves to submit to their masters out of “reverence” (or “in all fear”), making for a very neat parallel to read 3:22 as an earthly master. Furthermore, “fear” plays a role in other household regulations and is often aimed at humans (e.g., 1 Pet 3:1–6). Finally, the near parallel to our verse is Ephesians 6:5, where we read “obey your earthly masters with [fear and trembling], and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” A case, then, can be made that “fearing your masters” is the preferred translation rather than “reverence for the Lord.” 23 Verse 23 largely repeats what was said in Col 3:17; in fact, the opening clause is nearly identical to 3:17 but focused now on slaves: “Whatever you do.” The “whatever” is whatever the slaves do. Verse 23 turns quickly and tersely from doing everything “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (3:17) to a reworking of 3:22, with one major shift: instead of working for their masters, their efforts are transcended by learning to work for Master Jesus. Three brief expressions are used here: (1) work at it with all your heart, or enthusiastically, or more literally, from your God-vivified body; (2) their efforts are refocused into working for the Lord Jesus; and (3) they are not to see the focus of their labors as done only for human masters. Three clauses, the first reworking what is just said in 3:22, the second repeating what is found about living before the Lord Jesus in 3:17, and the third reworking again what is found in 3:22. But the verb is new. “Work” (ergazomai) is often used negatively in Paul for those working “works of the law” (Rom 4:4–5) but sometimes also positively (Gal 6:10; 1 Cor 16:10; 2 Cor 7:10; Rom 2:10; 13:10). Here the second sense is in mind. 24 The lordship of Christ in all endeavors in v. 24 is shaped toward final redemption: “since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward.” Paul often grounds practical wisdom in what his churches know to be true (see Col 4:1; 2 Cor 4:13–14; 5:6, 8; Eph 6:8, 9). The reason or ground for their non-eye-slavery but heart-prompted and reverent obedience before Lord Jesus is that they know judgment day approaches. The focus is on their promise, the “inheritance” (see 1:12), which is quintessentially Abrahamic (Gen 15:7–8; Gal 3:18; 4:30; Rom 4), found also in Jesus (Matt 5:5), and at the same time very Jewish. The language of reward rubs Protestants the wrong way at times but nonetheless remains a fixture in New Testament teaching. The “inheritance,” probably a delightful term to hear for a slave who had no right to inheritance, is eternal life or life in the new heavens and the new earth (see Gal 3:18; 4:30; 5:21; 1 Cor 6:9–10; 15:50; Eph 1:14, 18; 5:5), and that eternal inheritance is here depicted as an exchange for the properly motivated obedience of slaves. The Greek term “reward” here is antapodosis, a term connoting “that which is given to someone in exchange for what has been done, repaying, reward.” In Pauline theological ethics one’s life of faith-shaped obedience correlates with one’s final reward, even if we are careful to attribute all to God’s grace. To use the perfections of grace outlined in Barclay’s recent study, grace here is circular because grace is efficacious (transformative) and superabundant. When grace is expanded as it is so helpfully in Barclay, the language of reward and inheritance is no more works righteousness than it is uncorrelated with how the believer lives. Yet one more time Paul reminds the Colossian slaves, especially Onesimus in the presence of Philemon, that they are not to serve their masters but “Lord King” Jesus. The Greek sentence can be translated either as “Serve the Lord Messiah!” or “You serve the Lord Messiah.” Or it could be a subtle if parenthetic reminder to the slaves: “You are enslaved to the Lord”—and no one else. However it is translated, the point remains provocative for slaves: their first order of the day was to follow Christ. This put their masters in an inferior position to Christ. 25 A final (yet one more) reminder finishes off Paul’s instructions to slaves, with perhaps a side glance at the masters: “Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.” As there is a correlation between obedience and the inheritance, so also with “wrongs” and punishment. In our saying here, we are to see the widespread legal principle of the lex talionis, even if that principle was challenged by Christian tradition in its teachings about grace and forgiveness (see Exod 21:23–25; Matt 5:38–42; 1 Cor 3:10–15). The language is gnomic, general, proverbial, Jewish, and perhaps even “Christian law.” One could translate “The wicked are punished for injustices.” Whether we read “injustices” or the NIV’s “wrongs” or the CEB’s “evil actions,” the expression fills out the negative of the “whatever you do” clauses in 3:17 and 3:23. As a general statement, v. 25 could refer to prototypical injustices—like mistreatment of the poor, theft, and so forth. In this context it could be directed at the masters with words the slaves are in need of hearing about their masters’ injustices done to the slaves (cf. 1 Pet 2:18–25), or far more likely it is directed at the slaves to warn them about living against the instructions of the master. The near parallel at Ephesians 6:8 focuses on the behavior of slaves (not masters), but even more notably Phlm 18 uses this very term (adikeō, “do wrong”) for Onesimus’s behavior—hence, it most likely refers to the unjust behavior of slaves. Even more, this is a word to Onesimus to assure Philemon that his new brother will behave well. The irony of the last clause—“no favoritism”—will not be lost on any slave of any era. The slave experiences a world shaped by favoritism, so if Paul’s words are a side glance at masters, the slaves would have enjoyed hearing it. But perhaps he is thinking of slaves who now know in Christ they will finally get their due (1 Cor 4:4–5; 2 Cor 5:10; Rom 14:10–12; Acts 17:31) and are tempted toward anarchy or rebellion. In such a circumstance, Paul and Timothy remind the slaves that they live before Lord Jesus and that a judgment of justice is around the corner. Like electricity, God does not play favorites: stick your finger into the electrical flow of injustice, and judgment is the inevitable outcome. If humans are prone to favoritism (e.g., Jas 2:1), God is not (Rom 2:11; Eph 6:9; Acts 10:34). The best commentary on this passage is found in Paul himself (Eph 6:8): “because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.” 4:1 If Paul had his eye on Onesimus, his words were shaped to give Philemon confidence that his now-brother Onesimus will be a good slave. In sharp contrast with Aristotle, for whom slaves as property did not deserve justice, Paul now instructs the masters with the burden that they be just in their treatment of slaves (see Sir 4:30; 33:31). Within the developing Jewish tradition about slavery, there is a routine “improvement” (e.g., Lev 25:39–43; Deut 15:12–18) of conditions and treatment for slaves—not disrespecting a more trenchant moral critique of slavery itself—and Paul’s words emerge from that progressivism at work in the Jewish tradition (e.g., 1 Cor 7:21). For instance, from the Jewish tradition we read Sir 7:20–21:

  Do not abuse slaves who work faithfully,
  or hired laborers who devote themselves to their task.
  Let your soul love intelligent slaves;
  do not withhold from them their freedom.

And there were voices on behalf of slaves in the Roman world as well (e.g., Seneca, Letters to Lucilius 47). Thus, Varro, On Agriculture (1.17.7), offers a simple but pragmatically effective observation about the treatment of slaves: “Slaves become more eager to work when treated generously with respect to food or more clothing or time off or permission to graze some animal of their own on the farm, and other things of this kind. The result is that, when some rather difficult task is asked of them or some rather harsh punishment is meted out, their loyalty and good will toward their master is restored by the consolation of these former generosities.” Stoics approximated Jewish and Pauline theology on thinking all humans were equal, including slaves, even if—and sadly so—they did not move in the direction of social equality. But Paul goes beyond even the humane treatment of slaves because the social cache of authority is surrendered to the Lord Jesus (Col 3:17, 23). Paul and Timothy’s focus is on the establishment of just conditions: “provide your slaves with what is right and fair.” What Paul means behind the translation “provide” (parechesthe) cannot be captured by that term, for he has in mind the intentional establishment of conditions, as well as the provision of something for someone (Gal 6:17; 1 Tim 1:4; 6:17; Titus 2:7; also Acts 16:16; 17:31; 19:24; 22:2; 28:2). In the New Testament, this term is reshaped by eschatological fulfillment in Christ, so that what is “just” is now what conforms to God’s will as revealed in Christ—hence, a shorthand for what is dikaion is Christoformity. Proper financial compensation and evenhandedness for labor done are thus the minimal expectation of Paul; exploitation of slaves—financially, verbally, sexually—is also prohibited by this wording. What Paul has in mind is compensation commensurate with relations for the fictive family in Christ. The masters are responsible to take the initiative in the establishment of a fictive family of dikaion. How and even if this was accomplished is not clear in the New Testament. But one feature surely must lie behind this text: preserving the family structure of slaves rather than selling children or husband or wife off to others. Paul’s second term ratchets up the conditions to a radical level: “fair.” The term (isotēs) describes what is equal or the mutual provision that believers are to embody, and inasmuch as this term was used only for citizens in ideal societies and for oligarchies (of aristocrats) like Athens, Paul’s choice of term opens up a radical vision for the fellowship called ekklēsia. Important in this regard is 2 Cor 8:13–14, which deserves to be quoted in its entirety: “Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality.” The language is distributivist in the sense of mutual benevolence of social and economic relations: there is a correlation of possession and provision among the followers of Jesus that creates sufficiency, unity, and adequacy for each and all. It does not appear, then, that Paul thinks slaves ought to receive (in just conditions) what slaves ought to receive or even what is good according to contemporary moralists, but instead Paul urges them to provide what brothers and sisters ought to receive (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11). Again, the language of equality or just adequacy transcends food, shelter, and clothing and moves into the deeper realm of ontological equality before God in Christ and the new-creation identity that is to be formed for each person. The Greco-Roman and Jewish worlds of status and honor are dealt death blows by Paul’s words. Manumission could be one implication drawn from this term. To see those of different social classes (back to Col 3:11 again) as equals, as brothers and sisters in Christ, is to establish an entirely new order, and such an order will witness against the Roman Empire’s exploitative systemic injustices and more “benign” world of status and honor. The power differential of slave and master is diminished dramatically in these two words: “right and fair.” In these words we begin to sense that the experiment of fellowship in the missional churches of Paul had implications at the local level that not even Paul could comprehend. As with Philemon, so here: Paul opens the door for a new way of life in the household. Once again, the grounding for this sort of treatment by the master is the final judgment where God, no respecter of persons, will judge justly. That is, the masters also have a Master—in heaven. Again, Eph 6:9 fills in details: “Do not threaten [the slaves], since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.”

C. CHRISTIAN LIFE: ECCLESIAL INSTRUCTIONS (4:2–6)

Teachings about the Christian life in Colossians join our journey from Col 2:6–7 to the end of the letter, but they become even more especially focused from 3:5 to the end. A baptismal life—that is, one marked by the death and resurrection of Jesus (Christoformity)—exercises the major drive behind the Christian life in 2:20–3:17, while the theme of doing all in the name of Christ (3:17) shapes the household regulations in 3:18–4:1. But 4:2–6, even if punctuated by prayer and civility toward non-Christians, lacks explicit connection to those two themes. One may find subtle threads of connection (thanksgiving in 3:17 and 4:2) or explain all ethics as manifestations of love or Christoformity or as doing all in the name of Christ—e.g., those who love, who are cruciform, who do all in the name of Christ pray and are concerned with outsiders—but this is pressing a theme not obvious to readers. Explaining a text in light of a theme is not the same as proving that is the theme at work in or behind the text. We take this unit, then, to be the turning home in the writing of Colossians, and we find rough parallels in other portions of Paul’s letters (1 Thess 4:9–12; 5:1–11, 25; 2 Thess 2:13–17; 3:1–5; 1 Cor 6:1–8; 14:13–33; 16:13–14; Rom 12:9–21; 13:11–14; Eph 6:10–20). As Dunn has pointed out, Paul’s letters often turn home with reminders to pray that evoke the prayers that begin Paul’s letters (1:3, 9–10/4:2–4; Rom 1:9–10/15:30–32; Phil 1:9–11/4:6; 1 Thess 1:2–3/5:17, 25; 2 Thess 1:3/3:1–2; Phlm 4–6/22; also Eph 1:15–23/6:18–20).

2Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful. 3And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains. 4Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should. 5Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. 6Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.

There are in effect two subunits here: 4:2 (prayer) and 4:3–6 (concern for others). But vv. 3–4 (again, concern for outsiders) is just as much transition from internal concerns of prayer (4:2) to relationships to outsiders (4:5–6). Hence, we will organize the passage as follows: prayer as a devotion (4:2), prayer for Paul’s mission to outsiders (4:3–4), and concern for relations with outsiders (4:5–6). Once again, there is a near parallel in Ephesians that sharpens meanings in Colossians: “And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people. Pray also for me, that whenever I speak, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should” (6:18–20). Call it sectarian or even othering, the point remains that, for Paul and his mission, there is a focus on forming Christian fellowships (churches) of the redeemed and perceiving those outside (the other) as having not yet made the transition across the threshold into the body of Christ.

1. Prayer as a Devotion (4:2)

2 Paul urges them to devote themselves to prayer. Marianne Meye Thompson proposes a translation that brings to the fore the emphases of the Greek text: “Prayer—devote yourselves to it.” Devotion to, attachment to, and perseverance in prayer—which are the connotations of this verb—are all found in Paul also at Rom 12:12 and Eph 6:18 (see Luke 11:5–8, 9–13; 18:1–8; Jas 5:17; 1 Pet 4:7). Devotion in prayer is a formative process through time apportioned to prayer, disciplined practice over time, and a commitment to prayer as central for the Christian life. Furthermore, as Ephesians 6:18 states, this kind of devotion comes from the Spirit. We need also to guard against driving this summons to prayer into the private life; the context of our unit is surrounded by ecclesial concerns enough to think Paul intends this to be just as much corporate prayer (see Acts 1:14; 4:24–30). While vv. 3–4 reveal that intercession is uppermost in Paul’s mind (cf. Eph 6:18), intercession does not exhaust early Christian prayer devotion. The Jewish practice of prayer entailed set prayers at set times, along with plenty of spontaneous expressions of praise and intercession. The final clause in v. 2 generates various translations:

  NIV: “being watchful and thankful.”
  CEB: “and guard your prayers with thanksgiving.”

I need to lay this out in transliteration: grēgorountes en autē [prayer] en eucharistia. The opening adverbial participle (grēgorountes) expounds “devote” and means to “guard.” Thus, Paul urges them to be devoted to prayer by/in guarding that prayer life, and then that guarding of the prayer life is to be done “in thanksgiving.” Is the thanksgiving, then, a modifier of guarding (CEB) or a virtual substantival coordinating parallel to the guarding/being watchful (NIV)? The grammar is in favor of the CEB (“guard your prayers with thanksgiving”) on this one, while the NIV lifts a prepositional adverbial phrase from its verbal modification to a substantival status. The grammar then informs us of this: Paul wants them to devote themselves to prayer and to do so by guarding that prayer life in thanksgiving:

  Devotion to prayer
  in guarding that prayer
     in thanksgiving.

Jesus also urged the disciples to guard the prayer life (cf. Mark 13:32–37 and 14:38). Thanksgiving, of course, is a common theme to Paul (1 Thess 3:9; 1 Cor 14:16; Eph 5:4; Phil 4:6; 2 Cor 4:15; 9:11, 12) and is found in our letter too (1:3, 12; 2:7; 3:17; 4:2); one cannot help but think the theme of the lordship of Christ in Colossians 3:17, with its emphasis on thanksgiving, prompts the term here. Broadly speaking, “thanksgiving” describes the response of the one who knows the grace (charis) of God, a grace that transforms them into grace-giving, thankful (eucharistia) people.

2. Prayer for Paul’s Mission to Outsiders (4:3–4)

3 Because the Colossians devote themselves to a life of prayer, Paul asks them to pray for his mission (cf. Eph 6:19–20). It all begins innocently enough: “And [at the same time] pray for us, too.” That is, for Paul and Timothy (Col 1:1) and Epaphras (4:12–13) and all Paul’s co-workers in mission. Paul says that Epaphras devotes himself to prayer for the Colossians (4:12–13), which suggests reciprocation on their part (see 1 Thess 5:25; 2 Thess 3:1; 2 Cor 1:11; Rom 15:30–32; Eph 6:19). The most forceful of these requests is Rom 15:30–32 (followed closely by 2 Thess 3:1–2): “I urge you, brothers and sisters, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me. Pray that I may be kept safe from the unbelievers in Judea and that the contribution I take to Jerusalem may be favorably received by the Lord’s people there, so that I may come to you with joy, by God’s will, and in your company be refreshed.” Paul gives concrete clarity to what he wants them to pray: “that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains. Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should” (4:3–4). At heart Paul was an apostolic evangelist who established new churches by evangelizing Gentiles into the new family of God. So Paul wants opportunities, which he here calls “a door for our message,” but he wants God’s work to move forward, so he asks the Colossians to pray for God to open doors. We read much the same idea in 1 Cor 16:9 and 2 Cor 2:12 (Acts 14:27) and also at Eph 6:19–20. Notice, too, that he asks for a door not for himself but for the gospel because this gospel is alive and active (cf. Col 1:6). The hinge here is that the door is open for the “message” of the gospel (so NIV) or “word” (CEB: logos), a specialized term Paul uses for the public proclamation or declaration of the gospel, namely, that the Jesus who was unjustly crucified was raised from the dead and in his name there are both forgiveness and hope of everlasting life (Col 1:5, 25; 3:16). Most dramatically, Paul preached a thoroughly Jewish Messiah in the Roman world and watched God’s Spirit prompt one Gentile after another to participate in that Jew’s death and resurrection. In this prayer request about the open door, we now ask, what specifically did Paul have in mind? Two answers are possible: release from prison to carry on the mission (Phlm 22), or expansion of the gospel while imprisoned (2 Thess 3:1; Phil 1:12–14; Acts 28:17–31). The second seems more likely. The open door for the message finds its purpose in “so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ.” The focal energy of Paul’s mission is not simply to preach the gospel but to preach the gospel to Gentiles in order to bring them into the new fictive fellowship, a church of both Jews and Gentiles (3:11). Paul calls this mission God’s “mystery.” As observed at 1:26 (see commentary there), there are two elements of Paul’s mystery: (1) something formerly undisclosed is now disclosed in Christ and (2) through his gospeling the people expands to include the Gentiles. This term “mystery” is Paul’s favorite term for describing the newness of the age in mission: what was once given to Abraham as intended to be a blessing to the nations (Gen 12) is finally fully underway in the Pauline mission to the Gentiles. Hence, the “mystery” is not so much something mysterious, secretive, and known only to a select few (as in the mystery religions) but something previously unknown or “hidden for ages and generations” but now revealed to all in the power of the Spirit. In Col 4:3 he says the mystery “of Christ,” or better yet the mystery that is Christ, while the near parallel in Eph 6 speaks of the mystery “of the gospel” (6:19). Paul’s gospel mission has its own risks: “for which I am in chains.” Courageous preaching of the gospel, sometimes in the face of opposition from Jews and at other times from Roman authorities, landed Paul in prison more than once (see 2 Cor 11:23, 26; Phlm 1, 9; Eph 6:18–19; Phil 1:7, 13–14, 17; Acts 16:23–40; 21:27–28:31). The experiences were unforgettable and matchless as experiences of God’s grace and power, and so he inserts a reminder of where he now sits. We have argued in the introduction that Paul is in prison in Ephesus, though the traditional theory locates Paul’s imprisonment in Rome. Imprisonment was not, as is the case most often in the United States, the result of a sentence and thus the punishment itself but instead a place of waiting—for trial, for protection, and for execution. The discomfort, disadvantages, and outright dangers have been adequately summarized by Brian Rapske, and while they may differ somewhat from prison to prison, the general experience remains the same: “The wearing of chains and/or stocks, while securing prisoners from escaping, was an additional physical rigour. Weighty iron chains restricted prisoner mobility and were also frequently the cause of untold sufferings: rusty, they chafed and corroded the skin; too tight, they were an innovation in torture; too heavy, they would pain or even cripple their wearers; in addition they contributed, when the prisoner moved, to the general din and sleeplessness of the whole prison environment.” It was expected that prisoners would attend to their own nourishment. Those who could rely upon provisions from family, friends, or contracted providers might have better prospects of staying healthy. Poverty and the need to rely upon officially provided prison rations, however, were often a recipe for disaster. The daily prison ration was more often than not severely restricted in its variety, quality, and quantity. On this expression “for which I am in chains,” Markus Bockmuehl has suggested on the basis of typical Pauline grammar a different reading that separates 4:3c from 4:3b, with 4:3c opening a new thought—one more concerned with the divine intent of his imprisonment (e.g., Phil 1:7, 12–13). His translation looks like this: “And pray that God may open for us an opportunity for proclamation, so that we may speak for the mystery of Christ. [4:3c] For it is to this end that I have been imprisoned, in order that I might manifest it, as indeed I am obliged to do.” I find his proposal convincing, one that should lead to new translations or at least new marginal readings. The best commentary on Paul’s imprisonments was penned by Paul himself:

Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. (2 Cor 11:23–27)

4 Paul’s request from prison: “[NIV: Pray] that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should.” This request takes us back to the prayer of 4:3 (and again, Eph 6:20). If Bockmuehl is correct, “Pray” is not necessary: instead, the imprisonment is tied to the proclamation. What he wants most is for the Colossians to see that a God-opened door for gospel preaching is at work in the imprisonment. The term Paul uses here, however, is a bit masked by translations:

  NIV: “that I may proclaim it clearly”
  CEB: “that I might be able to make it clear.”

The term behind “proclaim” or “make it clear” is phaneroō, which means “to make manifest.” The term is probably attached to the mystery theme in 1:26 and is intensely christological (3:4), so the emphasis in this term transcends proclaiming and refers to the divine disclosure, or revelation, of good news for Gentiles in Christ through the proclamation of the gospel. Thus, “It describes the revelation of God in Jesus Christ (1:26), the eschatological unveiling of the new life together with him (3:4), and the proclamation of the gospel in between the two (4:4).” This conclusion leads us to another and more momentous conclusion about Paul’s ministry, namely that there is a redemptive implication in Paul’s own mission. This salvation-historical mission is Paul’s special calling, and hence he says “as I should,” with “should” meaning divine vocation and necessity. As especially with Jesus (Luke 2:49; 4:43; 9:22; 13:14, 16, 33; 17:25), so with Paul (1 Cor 9:16; Rom 15:17–22; Col 1:24)—God’s call makes their service a necessity for the unfolding of God’s plan and thus becomes noticeably cruciform in the experience of suffering in order to participate in God’s mission of redemption (Col 1:24).

3. Concern for Relations with Outsiders (4:5–6)

The concerns of 4:2–4 were to be expressed in prayer—both for those at Colossae and for Paul in his expanding missionary endeavors, concerns that in vv. 5–6 shift from prayer for missionary work to his missional life in Colossae, or as Paul says it, among “outsiders.” Paul and Timothy offer three general instructions for how to live among these outsiders: to be wise toward outsiders (4:5a), to make the most of every opportunity (4:5b), and to frame all conversations with grace (4:6). These instructions are some of the very few pieces of advice given to early Christians about life among those who do not believe, and that world was exacerbated for the Jewish apostles as churches dug deeper roots among Gentile unbelievers. Noteworthy instructions include Jesus’s teachings in Matt 5:13–16, especially 5:14–16, since it concerns the disciples’ relations with Gentiles; Peter’s teachings in 1 Pet 2:11–12, expounded in 2:13–3:7; and Paul’s words in Rom 13. It was one thing for the earliest Jewish Christians to dwell among fellows Jews as followers of Jesus but quite another to dwell among Gentiles and to experience a rush of Gentile conversions. Paul himself grew up in Tarsus among Romans, which enabled him to offer the kind of wisdom that was not only proven by the very common Jewish experiences of accommodation and resistance but that was reshaped by the gospel. The interplay of gospel, context, and wisdom is the heart of pioneer missional work. Hence, this text takes us directly into what today is called missional theology. There is not enough space to explore this topic, so I offer this explanation by missional theologian John Franke as a potent orientation to what missional theology and praxis are doing in continuity with Paul’s own missional work:

A missional approach to theology arises from the conviction that the triune God is, by God’s very nature, a missionary God and that therefore the church of this God is missionary by its very nature. From this perspective mission defines the church as God’s sent people and is therefore at the very core of the church’s reason and purpose for being and should shape all that the church is and does.… Like the challenge facing the church in moving from church with mission to missional church, so the discipline of theology, if it is to serve the church and be faithful to its subject, must move from theology with a mission component to a truly missional conception of theology—that is, one in which mission is at the very core in both concept and method.

My contention, then, is that a mystery-shaped theology, or a missional-shaped theology, takes us closest to the heart of Pauline theology. As Christ invaded Paul’s own life, so God through Paul is expanding that Christ-invasion throughout the Roman Empire, and this missional Christ-invasion determines how Paul’s theology comes to expression. 5a A missional life is contextually sensitive, so one is not surprised with Paul’s opening words: “Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders.” I begin with the verb “act.” This verb, peripateō, appeared in 1:10; 2:6, and 3:7, each time describing the way of life, with a heavy emphasis on morality reshaped by Christoformity. The term, as observed at 1:10, typically translates the Hebrew halakah, or “walk,” which became a favorite term among the rabbis for their interpretations of Torah observance and the corresponding acts of obedience. But here Paul speaks more generally to Gentiles about how to live as Christians, which takes us back to 2:6–7, where we encounter one of Paul’s generalizing ethical instructions: “just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him.” In Col 4:5a Paul defines this new way of life as “wise.” This term, too, has been featured in Colossians (1:9–10, 28; 2:3, 23; 3:16): it describes living in God’s world in God’s way. But the dramatic implication of the incarnation is that God’s wisdom is found in its fullness in Christ (2:3), the mystery of God’s plan unfolded in Christ (1:28; 2:3), so that to walk in wisdom is to live a Christoform life, and this kind of wisdom counters the so-called wisdom of the opponents (2:23). This kind of journey in wisdom will also be tactical: “Early Christians were a minority group in a largely hostile world, and ill-judged attempts to assert their faith or impose it on others were not likely to be productive.” Similarly, an early Christian theologian advised an accommodating way of life for the Christians as a strategy:

Paul therefore tells us that we should discuss religion at the right time and place and in great humility, and keep quiet if one of these people is shouting at us in public. We should behave one way toward the powerful, another way toward the middle class, another way toward those lower down the social scale, and yet another way to those who are gentle and another way to those who are irritable. Letting them be is redeeming the time, because if you give way to someone who attacks the Lord’s words or who rages because he is free to do so, you turn the insults of this unhappy experience into gain.

Paul’s concern is walking wisely with respect to outsiders. There is a line between the church and the world, and Paul calls the world outsiders, as at 1 Thess 4:12 and 1 Cor 5:12–13, and throughout Colossians (e.g., 1:2, 12, 18, 21–23; 2:11–15; 3:7). This kind of language was also used by Jesus (Mark 4:11) and among the rabbis especially for those who shifted from the halakah, as found in m. Meg. 4:8:

C. He who makes his phylactery round—it is a source of danger and [still] does not fulfill a religious requirement. I. D. [If] he put it on his forehead or on the palm of his hand, this is the way of heresy. II. E. [If] one covered them with gold or put it on his sleeve, this is the way of outsiders.

From the beginning to the end of Paul’s ministries, he was concerned that his churches witness to Christ in all that they did. For example, 1 Thess 4:11–12: “Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.” The same way of life is to be found among bishops/overseers (1 Tim 3:7). In other words, the groupishness at work here is not sectarian but a holy fellowship with missional gospel presence and the courage to declare the gospel to all in the most appropriate way. 5b A second piece of advice in their relations with outsiders is to “make the most of every opportunity.” The verb means to purchase up, a term used of the ransoming/redeeming work of Christ in Galatians (3:13; 4:5) but used in the Prison Letters for using one’s time maximally as the parousia approaches (Eph 5:16). They are to purchase up each valuable moment, or more generally in this eschatological moment, but in this context seems to refer simply to maximizing one’s opportunities to speak and do good to outsiders (Gal 6:10). One of Australia’s well-known professor-pastors has made the case that the apostles did not expect or instruct all Christians to be evangelists but did expect all to support the evangelistic ministries. In this case, Paul exhorts them to be “vigorous in their ethical apologetic.” Perhaps so, but surely the next verse suggests verbal interactions that at least probe the practice of evangelism. 6 Walking wisely and maximizing one’s life for the gospel is now clarified further and counters all-too-easy-to-develop zeal, arrogance, polemics, arguments, and hot-headed diatribes with outsiders: “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” A structural diagram of the logic looks like this:

  Let your conversation be always full of grace
  (i.e., “seasoned with salt”)
  So that you may know how to answer.

In this reading “seasoned with salt” either modifies the verb or, more likely, the expression “always full of grace.” That is, gracious communication is seasoned with salt. Paul’s intent here is not simply civility but knowing how to respond to outsiders with good news. In using the singular noun “your conversation [logos, or word],” he evokes a double edge: normal words that prompt speaking of the gospel. Such spoken words are always to be done “full of grace.” The NIV adds “full of” by way of interpretation, while the CEB has “gracious” to translate what is more literally translated “in grace.” The amount of grace is not in view; the manner of speaking is. Paul wants their speech to be gracious—kind, considerate, forgiving, patient (cf. Col 3:12). The clarification “seasoned with salt” is a trope capable of various connotations and, as an analogy, creates the ambiguity and enlightenment that comes with an image. A similar usage is found in Matt 5:13; Mark 9:49–50; Luke 14:34. What follows in Colossians makes clear that saltiness is gracious, wise, informed, and redemptive speech. Salt was used to preserve and to flavor. Various attempts can be found to give this imagery in concrete life: BDAG suggests “to make it interesting and fruitful,” while Harris suggests “pungency and wittiness of speech”; Dunn provides evidence that some academics were “unsalted, insipid” and that Plutarch used the image for wittiness. One is inclined to see in this trope the idea of being charming and clever when the heat is on or when the opportunity arises. The result or purpose of such speech is that the Colossians will “know how to answer everyone [or each person encountered].” Surely we have here, as at 1 Pet 3:15, an open window into early Christian apologetics and evangelism, one that involved not only knowledge of the gospel but practiced, disciplined sensitivity in responses to all the kinds of people they encountered. The how-ness is Paul’s emphasis: words laced with grace, like peace (3:15), shape how the unbeliever perceives the gospel. Yet, there is a what-ness as well. The word “answer” may well mean provide answers or response to questions being asked of the faith.

IV. CONCLUSION (4:7–18)

The letter now closes with observations, greetings, instructions, and a personal autograph. Paul’s letters often end with similar themes, though here there is no mention of travel plans. The issues of authorship and pseudonymity also arise in conjunction with such themes in the letters because concrete realities—names, locations, and so forth—appear, and in our case are made all the more intense by the personal autograph at 4:18. Dunn’s proposal that Timothy wrote the letter on behalf of Paul (who was in prison) makes sense of the evidence, but I would contend as well that the issue comes back to what “authorship” and what “Paul” means in the context of his letters. MacDonald is among many others who see the letter as pseudonymous, with personal details included to legitimate credibility. We need to slow down long enough to perceive the relations that animated the ministries of Paul and Timothy, and we might need the reminder that ministry needs co-workers in friendship, fellowship, and support. Paul mentions a number of individuals who are somehow a part of gospel ministries (Tychicus, Onesimus, Aristarchus, Mark, Jesus Justus, Epaphras, Luke, Demas, and Archippus as well as Nympha). If we are tempted to ignore Timothy, whose name was stuck to Paul’s as the letter opened, we are even more tempted to ignore the circle of ministers around them. Apostolic gospeling was not a solo calling but occurred in the company of fellow ministers. Paul’s ministry was a connected set of ministers in regular communication with one another. Paul’s highest value was faithful fellowship in Christ and mutual commitment to gospel ministry. Hence, “dear brother,” “faithful minister,” and “fellow servant” with Tychicus (4:7); “faithful and dear brother” with Onesimus (4:9); “fellow prisoner” with Aristarchus (4:10); “co-worker” and “comfort” with Jesus who is called Justus (4:11); “servant” with Epaphras (4:12; cf. 1:7); and “dear friend” with Luke (4:14). Paul’s vision of fellowship emerges from those who risk themselves to be with him as he awaits trial. If we knew where Paul was in prison, we would know more about the ecclesial life of that local city. My presumption is that Paul is in Ephesus and that these leaders are ministering there and as part of their pastoral life are “calling” on the apostle Paul in prison. One suspects Paul’s multi-ethnic vision for the church is taking root already in Colossae, for in this last chapter we have a Jew writing to a Gentile-dominant church where there is a slave (4:9) and a doctor (4:14), all meeting in the home of a woman householder (4:15). Reading the end of Paul’s letter, one might be reminded of all the prisoner correspondence we have read over the years, whether it is from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, or someone we may know more personally. Paul tells us next to nothing about his conditions and leaves the description of his personal realities to what Tychicus or Onesimus may tell them, something commonly done in that world (but rarely avoided in the era of Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter). He’d rather get on with the implications of the gospel for the church at Colossae than talk about himself.

7Tychicus will tell you all the news about me. He is a dear brother, a faithful minister and fellow servant in the Lord. 8I am sending him to you for the express purpose that you may know about our circumstances and that he may encourage your hearts. 9He is coming with Onesimus, our faithful and dear brother, who is one of you. They will tell you everything that is happening here. 10My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.) 11Jesus, who is called Justus, also sends greetings. These are the only Jews among my co-workers for the kingdom of God, and they have proved a comfort to me. 12Epaphras, who is one of you and a servant of Christ Jesus, sends greetings. He is always wrestling in prayer for you, that you may stand firm in all the will of God, mature and fully assured. 13I vouch for him that he is working hard for you and for those at Laodicea and Hierapolis. 14Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings. 15Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. 16After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea. 17Tell Archippus: “See to it that you complete the ministry you have received in the Lord.” 18I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand. Remember my chains. Grace be with you.

A. MESSENGERS (4:7–9)

7 Awaiting trial in prison, Paul sends Tychicus, who “will tell you all the news about me” and supplement the hints found in 1:24–2:5. He will say this again in 4:8 and 4:9 (cf. also Phil 1:12). This alone makes it more than likely that the couriers for communications between Paul and Colossae are not only Epaphras (Col 1:7–8) but also Tychicus (cf. Eph 6:21–22) and Onesimus. We can infer that Tychicus was the courier for Ephesians (6:21–22), and we know that Colossae and Laodicea were close to one another and that travel between Ephesus and the Lycus Valley was slow, so we can well imagine that Tychicus and Onesimus delivered two or more letters at the same time. Such couriers delivered and elaborated their letters and even were seen along with the letter as the personal presence of the author; furthermore, they often collected information to relay back to the apostle. We know very little about Tychicus’s life: he appears in our text and also in Eph 6:21–22, where also he is the bearer of news about Paul and an encourager. He is mentioned in 2 Tim 4:12, where we learn that Paul “sent Tychicus to Ephesus,” and in Titus 3:12, where we hear again that Paul will be sending Tychicus or Artemas. Also Acts 20:4 suggests he—if it is the same Tychicus—is from Asia (perhaps a convert from Ephesus), accompanied Paul in his ministry in Macedonia, and traveled on to Troas, where Paul later joined him and others (20:1–6). Perhaps he traveled on with Paul to Jerusalem on that last, fateful journey, buoyed by Paul’s confidence in the collection for the saints. What we do know about Tychicus is his character or, more accurately, what Paul says about his character. Much the same is said of Tychicus in Eph 6:21–22, though Col 4:7 has also “fellow servant”: “Tychicus, the dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord, will tell you everything, so that you also may know how I am and what I am doing. I am sending him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are, and that he may encourage you.” Paul’s description in Col 4:7 is threefold and probably should be seen as a summary of the ideal Christian life/minister for Paul: He is (1) a dear brother, (2) a faithful minister/deacon, and (3) a fellow servant in the Lord. With such friends, Paul can endure his incarceration. The three expressions overlap, the first emphasizing fictive kinship and fellowship in Christ (1:1–2; 4:9, 15), the second drawing attention to his steady service to Christ—the term “minister/deacon” expresses his theology of Christoformity (1:7, 23, 25)—and thus also to his service to and alongside Paul (cf. 1:23, 25), while the third focuses on that special circle around the apostle called co-workers (1:7). What is said here is mostly also said of Epaphras (1:7; 4:12–13). That he is a “dear” brother evokes what we said at 1:7. The word “dear” may not contain enough weight to suggest to English readers a more theological word evoking election in Israel’s history (Isa 41:8; 44:1; Jer 31:20). Paul uses agapētos twenty-seven times, most often for the new kind of love in Christian fellowship (e.g., 1 Thess 2:8; 1 Tim 6:2; 1 Cor 4:14, 17; 10:14; 15:58; Col 4:7, 9, 14; Eph 5:1; 6:21; Phil 2:12; 4:1; Rom 1:7; 11:28; 12:19). The term “faithful” translates pistos, cognate of pistis, the important Greek term translated “faith” (and the verb, pisteuō, is translated “to believe”). To be “faithful” means to have faith over time or to trust over time. This text illustrates this point, for surely it does not mean a “believing” or “trusting” servant but one who serves enduringly. Hence, Tychicus believed not only in the gospel but also in Paul’s apostolic calling to preach the gospel to Gentiles, and so served alongside Paul faithfully. To be a “fellow servant” put Tychicus in special company for Paul. To grab what we said at 1:7, it is not entirely clear whether this term syndoulos means one who is in prison alongside Paul (as is the case with Epaphras at this time; see Phlm 23) or whether the syn-compound, of which Paul is so fond, refers to a status as a fellow slave of Christ. Because both Col 1:7 and 4:12 connect slavery or servanthood to Christ, one is inclined to see here a metaphoric relationship of serving Christ. We need to remind ourselves of the abhorrence of the status of slavery in the Roman world, the paradoxical embrace of this term for one’s relationship to King Jesus by the apostle Paul in its denotations of submission, obedience, and devotion to Christ, and therefore the revolutionary subordination at work when the early Christians began to see themselves now as slaves of Christ (e.g., Gal 1:10; 1 Cor 7:21–23; Eph 6:6; Phil 1:1; Rom 1:1; 6:16–20). In Colossians one serves Christ (1:7), the gospel (1:23), and the church (1:25). The last of the three character descriptors is done “in the Lord,” a close associate of “in Christ,” and an expression of the fullness of Paul’s theology of the church. The three character traits can be given now: Tychicus was in the family, served faithfully, and gave his life for the gospel ministry of Paul. 8 Paul sends Tychicus not only to deliver this letter but so they “may know about our circumstances.” Paul wants them to know about his situation, including no doubt the facts and proceedings of the trial that awaits him, perhaps most especially so they can pray for him and his release. These verses illustrate the interlocking nature of the church as it spread into the diaspora, the liveliness of early Christian communication between leaders and churches, and their need to make use of the travels of one another. But he sent Tychicus also for another reason: “that he may encourage your hearts.” This purpose, too, locates Tychicus in Paul’s own ministry of encouragement, including no doubt an encouragement that involved instruction (2:2; cf. Acts 15:32)—something expected of letter couriers. He might encourage them by relating the seemingly good news about Paul’s imprisonment that is leading to the expansion of the gospel, or perhaps he knows about Paul’s situation more than Paul dares to write out. 9 He sent the otherwise barely known Tychicus “with Onesimus,” the famous slave about whom Paul will write to Philemon, traditionally the master of Onesimus (Phlm 1, 8–18). Onesimus appears to be Philemon’s runaway who was converted under Paul (Phlm 10), grew in his faith and repentance, experienced fellowship and friendship with Paul (12, 16), and is now being asked by Paul to return. Like Tychicus’s transformed character, Onesimus’s is now described: “our faithful and dear brother” (all terms from 1:7 and 4:7). Notice, though, that Paul does not string out Onesimus’s various character traits but instead loads them into the evocative “brother” (for the slave, note 3:11!). The grammar works like this: “with the faithful-and-dear brother.” Onesimus is a “brother,” not a slave; an equal, not a subordinate—ideas that carry rhetorical gravity in Philemon. That he is a “brother” now overwhelms the virtual anonymity and commonness of his name: Onesimus means “the useful one,” that is, he was a slave who got (or one hoped he would get) things done. Mr. Useful now can be addressed as Brother. Onesimus, Paul tells us, is from Colossae (or perhaps Laodicea or some place else in the Lycus Valley), “who is one of you.” Once again (4:7), their mission to report is brought to the fore: “they will tell you everything that is happening here.”

B. GREETINGS (4:10–15)

Greetings figure in Paul’s letters, as seen also in 1 Thess 5:26; 1 Cor 16:19–20; Phlm 23–24; Phil 4:21–22; 2 Cor 13:11–13; Rom 16:3–16, 21–23, and the Pastorals (2 Tim 4:19–21; Titus 3:15). The comparison with Philemon is noteworthy in its resemblance to the greetings of Colossians: “Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends you greetings. And so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, my fellow workers” (Phlm 23–24). Paul sends six greetings to the Colossian church and greets one household, that of Nympha. The first three greetings are sent to Jewish co-workers, the second three presumably Gentiles; this order may reflect his “Jew first” principle.

1. Aristarchus, Jewish Co-worker #1 (4:10a)

10a Paul begins with greetings from Aristarchus, found in Paul’s letters only here and in the companion letter to Philemon (24), his companion in prison: “my fellow prisoner.” Yet another reminder of the empire’s power to protect, coerce, contain, and dominate, the term Paul chooses was often connected to prisoners of war. It seems to mean a co-prisoner, perhaps even one who took his place in custody for a period, but the term may be a colorful metaphor, with Aristarchus choosing to be part of Paul’s imprisonment as a friend. Furthermore, there could be a hint of the spiritual battle against the powers (cf. 2:13–15), perhaps the Colossian version of the soldier in Ephesians 6:10–17. Aristarchus appears in Acts, where we learn he was both a long-term travel companion of Paul’s, from Thessalonica in Macedonia, was seized by the mob in the Ephesian riot (Acts 19:29; this could be what Paul means in our verse) and traveled with Paul to Jerusalem and perhaps all the way then to Rome (20:4; 27:2; this too could be what Paul means in our verse).

2. Mark, Jewish Co-worker #2 (4:10b)

10b Mark, too, sends his greetings, and the reader of Acts knows he is the “cousin of Barnabas.” We meet Barnabas in Acts 4:36, but the backdrop of interest for our verse is the fracture in the relationship between Paul and Barnabas over (John) Mark (as told in Acts 12:12, 25 and 15:36–41). Paul’s contention with Barnabas was over the stability of Mark, who had “deserted them in Pamphylia” (15:38; cf. 13:13) and who therefore was not trustworthy for Paul for their return journey to the new churches. Barnabas disagreed, and so Paul and Barnabas, along with Mark, parted ways. Remarkably, Mark has evidently reconciled with Paul, for he sends greetings to the Colossians. This echo of reconciliation extends to an expression of affection in 2 Tim 4:11. Mark is the traditional author for the second gospel. Paul mentions Barnabas, which probably means the Colossians know of his reputation, as did the Corinthians (1 Cor 9:6). What follows is placed in parentheses in both the NIV and the CEB, as well as the standard Greek text (Nestle-Aland). It is most likely that the words are about Mark, not Barnabas. Somehow someone else (Peter? Barnabas?) or Paul had instructed the Colossians to provide hospitality and embrace Mark. This parenthetical comment divulges, however obliquely, earliest Christianity’s commitment to hospitality, and any reading of Acts or Paul’s letters reveals how often hospitality needed to be provided for the apostolic missionaries. Finally, this parenthesis opens up to the readers Paul’s commitment to pursue reconciliation.

3. Jesus Who Is Called Justus, Jewish Co-worker #3 (4:11)

11 Greetings are also sent from Jesus, called Justus, about whom otherwise we know nothing. The clarifying comments to follow in 4:11b open up a window on how both Gal 3:28 and Col 3:11, not to ignore Paul’s theology of “mystery,” worked themselves in the realities of the Pauline mission: “These are the only Jews among my co-workers for the kingdom of God, and they have proved a comfort to me.” Paul includes in this group Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus called Justus. While the NIV and CEB have “Jews” or “Jewish,” the Greek text has the more evocative and ritual-reminding “those who were of the circumcision” (e.g., Col 2:11; 3:11). This clause is followed by “these alone are co-workers in the kingdom of God,” which itself is followed with “they have proved a comfort to me” (NIV). The language may intone a melancholic note that few co-workers in his mission are Jewish (cf. Matt 9:37–38; John 4:35–38; Rom 9:1–5). It is probable that “those who were of the circumcision” refers to those who worked alongside Paul with a mission to Jews, at times (or earlier) in competition with Paul in their greater observance of halakah, as he preached to the Gentiles. In other words, Paul may well be declaring that some are now cooperating with him as a result of an ecumenical agreement. I intuit from “co-workers for the kingdom of God” a closer than competitive kind of mission with “those who were of the circumcision.” The Jewishness of his co-workers is probably the reason why he connects the mission with “the kingdom of God.” As sketched above at 1:13, the term “kingdom” cannot be reduced either to the unleashing of redemptive power or to ethics (social or personal), though each is at work in the term. Instead, this term—flowing directly out of the Old Testament (and confirmed in usage throughout Josephus)—is a complex of five ideas: (1) a king, (2) a redeeming, governing rule by that king, (3) a people/nation over whom that king rules redemptively, and (4) the law and (5) land in which this king-ruled people dwell. At its simplest, a kingdom is a nation or people governed by a king. In the New Testament there is an inaugurated eschatology: the future kingdom where God will reign over God’s people—Israel expanded to include Gentiles in the church—has already been inaugurated but its consummation is in the future. Thus, working for the kingdom will mean participation in its inauguration in anticipation of the future glorious kingdom. That inauguration is embodied in a people, the church, so to work for the kingdom is to spread the redemptive reign of God in Christ by forming churches throughout the Roman Empire. As co-workers in this kingdom ministry and as fellow Jews, these three have been a profound comfort to Paul. Paul defines the first three names in three ways: (1) they are of the circumcision, (2) they are co-workers in the kingdom, and (3) they bring me solace. Their support of his mission may be the only kind of solace he has in mind here.

4. Epaphras: Gentile #1 (4:12–13)

12 Paul turns second to greetings from Gentiles, beginning with the founder of the churches at Colossae, Laodicea, and Hierapolis. Colossae sits on the Lycus River, a tributary south of the Menander; Laodicea some eleven miles northwest and up the Lycus, while Hierapolis is about six miles further north of Laodicea, and sits atop the Lycus as well. Each of these cities was hit hard by an earthquake in approximately 61 CE. Epaphras sends his greetings, for it was he who founded the church as an extension of Paul’s apostolic gospel mission (cf. 1:7–8), probably when Paul was on mission in Ephesus, and so Paul describes him with “who is one of you and a servant of Christ Jesus.” A Colossian who is honored with the term used of luminaries in the Bible, “slave/servant of Christ.” But Paul extends what he says about Epaphras beyond what he said about Tychicus, and here Epaphras gains the commendations of Paul as an example of the pastoral life. First, he is a man of constant, intense prayer as a dimension of his pastoral care for the churches he founded. In fact, his prayer for the Colossians, Laodiceans, and those in Hierapolis sounds much like Paul’s prayer for them (cf. 1:9–14). Paul describes Epaphras’s prayer life as “wrestling,” a term Paul has already used in this letter for his own gospel efforts (1:29; 2:1), which he uses for his endurance through suffering as well (see 1 Thess 2:2; Phil 1:30; 1 Tim 6:12; 2 Tim 4:7; cf. Luke 22:44). Undoubtedly this term spills over into pastoral care too (see also the next verse). His prayer requests for the churches in the Lycus Valley involve these elements: “that you may stand firm in all the will of God, mature and fully assured.” Perseverance in the journey of faith often comes to the surface for Paul, so it is not surprising to find it on the lips of Epaphras (see 1 Cor 15:1; Eph 6:11, 13–14; 2 Cor 1:24; Rom 5:2; 11:20). The line in 2 Timothy 2:19, that “God’s solid foundation stands firm,” refers to the faithfulness of God to his people and can be seen as the theological foundation for all perseverance. Epaphras’s prayer is for perseverance, or standing firm, which is defined as “mature and fully assured.” Where? “In the will of God.” The NIV’s translation transposes the word order: they are to stand firm in the will of God, which is then described as “mature and fully assured.” The Greek verb (“stand firm”) is intransitive, the state of standing firm is defined as “mature and fully assured,” and only then do we discover that those attributes of the persevering believer are found “in the will of God.” I prefer the CEB with a slight modification: “so that you will stand firm, fully mature and complete [fully assured; cf. 2:2] in the entire will of God.” They are to be fully mature and assured in the will of God. The will of God is God’s holistic redemptive plan to include Gentiles in the people of God (1:24–2:5). The nature of standing firm in this text cannot escape at least a solid glance at the opponents, for it is here that Paul returns to language of fullness in Christ (1:28; 2:2, 10), who is himself the wisdom of God (2:3). Epaphras is as concerned with their theological integrity and faithful gospel life. 13 Second, he is an indefatigable worker on their behalf, and by “their” Paul points at “you and for those at Laodicea and Hierapolis.” These three communities in the Lycus Valley, we discover here for the first time in our letter, are tied together in the gospel ministry of Paul through Epaphras, and so the latter’s concern is each of the churches. Paul wants them to know “that [Epaphras] is working hard” on their behalf. Either he is describing his prayer or the long-term pastoral ache he has for these churches.

5. Luke and Demas: Gentiles #2 and #3 (4:14)

14 Luke is identified as a doctor, and his special relation to Paul is decorated (hence, many think the “we” sections are Luke’s personal sign of accompaniment). His name appears in the New Testament only here, Phlm 24 (a co-worker), and 2 Tim 4:11 (who is with Paul), where Paul also wants Mark to join him. If we add to this the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, not to ignore that some think he’s made an anonymous appearance in 2 Cor 8:18, Luke becomes one of the most significant voices in the apostolic era. We know much less about Demas, other than that he ministered to Paul in this imprisonment and with Paul as a co-worker (Col 4:14; Phlm 24) and that, if the same Demas, he walked away from the faith out of love for the world (2 Tim 4:10; cf. 1 John 2:15; Jas 4:4). Paul’s response here reminds us of his response to Mark in Acts 13:13 and 15:38. We might see in examples like Mark and Demas why Paul valued “faithfulness” so much.

6. Greet Laodicea and Nympha (4:15)

15 From passing on greetings, Paul and Timothy (and perhaps the six who sent their greetings) turn now to greet the church in Laodicea (also 4:16) in one household: “Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.” Again, Paul and Timothy use sibling or fictive family language for believers, calling them “brothers [and sisters implied].” One is thus led to think the church in Colossae was in Philemon’s home, the one in Laodicea in Nympha’s—but certainty is well beyond our reach (which, as Dunn observes, makes us wonder why Paul does not greet the house of Philemon). We know little about Nympha other than that she hosted a house church or that the church in Laodicea met in her home. She must have been the household manager and a woman of means, and because she alone is mentioned, we can infer that she probably led that house church as an expression of the church of that city (like Lydia in Acts 16:11–40). If evidence were needed, it is worth noting that the “church” is not the building or the house but, as a gathering and fellowship of followers of Jesus, meets in a house. This text witnesses, at least indirectly, to the leadership of women, and in some ways creates tension with the household regulation’s male-female ordering (3:18–4:1). Nympha’s status in a letter with some patriarchal-sounding notes in the household regulations led to a “suitable sanctuary for an ethos that relativized the rubrics of household and citizenship within the confines of an invisible spiritual body.”

C. DIRECTIONS (4:16–17)

16 There is a conditional clause opening the entire verse—“when this letter is read before you”—that leads to two implications: first, read the same letter to the Laodiceans, and second, read the one written to the Laodiceans before the Colossian church. The exchange of letters among early Christians was common, but our verse indicates probably that the problems addressed in this letter were also present in Colossae and Laodicea (and perhaps not yet in Hierapolis). Yet another glimpse into the earliest churches of Paul is to be found here: their gatherings included reading aloud, mostly because most could not read, the letter of Paul and Timothy to the church (cf. Luke 4:16; 1 Thess 5:27; 2 Cor 1:13; 3:14, 15; Acts 13:15, 27; 15:21). Furthermore, that this letter will be read to other churches indicates apostolic instructions applying to more than one church and perhaps being disseminated broadly. Canon consciousness for the New Testament letters originated in this setting, but we need not consider this verse as strictly canon consciousness. The identity of the letter of Paul (and Timothy) to the Laodiceans is unknown/lost because no longer extant. But that letter has become fertile ground for the imaginative, including the slight possibility that “To the Ephesians” was originally “To the Laodiceans.” The Letter to the Ephesians has a notoriously interesting salutation in that “to God’s holy people in Ephesus” has a text-critical issue, namely, that “in Ephesus” is omitted in some major early uncials and witnesses. Hence, some postulate that “Ephesians” was sent as a circular letter, including to the Laodiceans and Ephesians, and perhaps to others, but later it was given a single location (“in Ephesus”). 17 Archippus emerges last in the names here in Colossians but is prominent in the Letter to Philemon, where we read that Paul sent the letter not only to Philemon (Phlm 1) but also “to Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier—and to the church that meets in your [singular, i.e., Philemon’s] home” (2). This we can know about Archippus from our verse: he has a “ministry,” Paul urges him to complete it, and that he is a “fellow soldier” in ministry (Phlm 2). The terms are general in each instance: the term “ministry” is diakonia, referring to some kind of service—most likely (I think) financial or the collection for the poor (2 Cor 8:4; 9:1, 12–13; 11:8; Rom 15:31), but perhaps interrelational with Onesimus and Philemon, perhaps pastoral, perhaps teaching or evangelism (2 Cor 4:1; 5:18; 6:3; Rom 11:13; 1 Tim 1:12). Or perhaps it is only a term for general service in the local church (1 Cor 12:5; 16:15; 2 Tim 4:5?). Whatever the specifics, the ministry was “received in the Lord,” which refers to his divine calling in Christ in and for the sake of the church. The term “complete,” so redolent of other themes in Colossians (1:9, 25; 2:10), takes on the ordinary sense of accomplishing what that ministry is designed to accomplish. And “fellow soldier” in Phlm 2 probably evokes the spiritual battle (2 Cor 7:5; 10:3; Eph 6:10–17). What we do not know is why Paul singles out Archippus. His connection to Philemon (Phlm 2) may indicate a close relationship, perhaps Philemon’s son with Apphia his mother or wife or sister, but we are on speculative ground. What is also noteworthy is that, if we presume Archippus was present upon the reading of this letter, the man would be called out—and we can only guess that perhaps he needed this kind of exhortation.

D. SUPERSCRIPTION (4:18)

18 Our verse establishes how Paul “wrote” letters. Someone more accomplished in writing wrote the letters, and some have suggested Timothy. This verse is flanked by others:

See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand! (Gal 6:11)

I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand. (1 Cor 16:21)

I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write. (2 Thess 3:17)

I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self. (Phlm 19)

The line in Col 4:18 reveals that Paul had someone else write the letter but that his signature at the end indicated his own autograph for authenticity. Evidently his signature was notable enough to be a sign itself. Having someone else write the letter does not mean Paul dictated the letter to this point; writing letters, as Richards has pointed out from evidence especially drawn from Cicero, most likely involved notes and conversations and drafts. Once again (Col 1:24; 4:3) Paul reminds them where he is—in prison awaiting trial—and that he wants them to pray for him, which is what “remember” here means (cf. 1 Thess 1:3). To remember in prayer is not simple cognition, as if he means putting him on their prayer list; rather, it evokes the Old Testament’s sense of remembering. Paul’s Bible gave him this wonderful word. A splendid use of this term in the Old Testament is the name of one of our prophets, Zechariah, which means “YHWH remembers.” Also, God “remembered” Hannah because she pleaded with God to “remember” her, and so God gave her one of Israel’s brilliant leaders, Samuel (1 Sam 1:11, 19). Nehemiah wants God to remember Israel’s good deeds—to bless them; and he wants God to remember the enemy’s wicked deeds—to conquer them (Neh 5:19; 6:14; 13:14, 22). But the prophets famously ask God to remember the covenant’s promises to save and sanctify Israel. And Israel is to live faithfully by remembering God’s covenant love and faithfulness. This context for Paul suggests that remembering is a way of bringing others into the presence of God. It is a way of making those the Colossians love visible to God. Hence, prayer and remembering are tied together for Paul and his own experience of prayer-as-remembering surely gives rise to his request:

God … is my witness how constantly I remember you in my prayers at all times. (Rom 1:9–10)

I always thank my God as I remember you in my prayers. (Phlm 4)

I thank God … as night and day I constantly remember you in my prayers. (2 Tim 1:3)

Again, this is more than mental recollection, as if these good folks flashed by his mental screen while he was praying. Paul’s prayer habit is to lift his friends and his churches before God—and in that circle God remembers the covenant and Paul remembers others. The letter, as with others (Gal 6:18; 1 Thess 5:28; 2 Thess 3:18; 1 Cor 16:23–24; Eph 6:23–24; Phil 4:23; 2 Cor 13:13; 1 Tim 6:21; 2 Tim 4:22), ends on Paul’s characteristic note of grace, this time converted into a very short prayer blessing: “Grace be with you.” Colossians began on the same note (1:2), a dab of ink that expressed Paul’s apostolic, pastoral presence among the Colossians.

Subject Index

Abraham, 102n124, 147n299, 195, 198, 372; covenant, 234–36, 239, 241, 242 Accusation, 250–51 Adam, 146–47, 170; Christology, 149, 297, 311 Adamic ontology, 44–45, 243–44 Admonish, 201–2 Alienation, 170–73 Ambrosiaster, 25–26, 226, 337 Amos, 102n124 Angels, 26, 28, 121–22, 147n299, 161; fallen / demons, 33, 152, 227–28, 252–53, 255–57; worship of, 24, 28, 32, 265, 272–73, 274–76 Anthropology, 48, 277–78; Augustinian, 42n145, 52; christological, 146–47, 149 Apamea, 36 Apocalyptic, 43n149, 275, 291; ethics and, 50–51; suffering, 188–90; theological approach, 42n145, 43–46, 49, 55–56. See also Eschatology Apocalypticism, 28, 288n290, 293, 295 Apostles, 78–79; ministry of Paul, 3–4, 53–54, 56–57, 65, 78–80, 181–82, 193–95, 260 Apuleius, 276 Archippus, 397–98 Aristarchus, 37, 38, 382, 388 Aristotle, 15, 60, 61, 62–63, 336, 365; on men and women, 347, 349 Arius Didymus, 336 Arminianism, 178 Asceticism, 26, 265; dualism, 32–33; morality and, 280, 282, 286–87, 292; mystical experience and, 28–29, 273, 276–77, 283–84 Associates / co-workers of Paul, 13, 18, 371; Colossians, writing, 8–9, 77, 381–82; Jewish believers, 390–91 Atonement, 57n175, 125, 130, 163, 165, 251 Attribution theory, 186–87n489 Augustine, / Augustinian: anthropology, 42n145, 52; Pauline perspective, 47, 48, 50 Authority, 155; of fathers, 354–56; of husbands, 346–47; of Paul, 12–13, 79, 182, 213–14 Authorship, of Colossians: associates of Paul and, 8–9, 77, 381–82; date, 34–35, 36, 39, 157; debates, 6–11; Paul as, 5–7, 10–11, 34–35, 77; secretaries / scribes, 8–9, 77; Timothy as, 11, 17–18, 38, 77, 80–81, 381

Bacon, Francis, 75–76 Baptism, 3, 15, 24, 45, 240–41; catechesis, 218, 306, 340; circumcision and, 232–34, 236, 239–40, 242; cosmic redemption and, 57–58; death of Christ, 239–40, 281–82, 355–56; faith and, 240–41; life, 231, 294–95, 317, 367–68; paedobaptism, 232–33, 236, 241; powers and, 33–34; practices, 302, 310–11; Protestants, 232–33; redemption, 123, 309; theology, 281–82, 287, 289, 335 Barbarians, 314–15 Barnabas, 278, 336, 388–89 Bearing fruit, 99–100, 114, 116–17 Blood of the cross, 162–63, 166 Body of Christ: church as, 14, 56, 156–58, 166–67, 190–91, 271, 279, 327–28; physical, 175, 229–30, 237, 271; unity, 155–56, 279, 312–16, 327–28 Book of life, 247–48 Building foundations, 221–22

Caesarea, 35–36 Calvin, John, 16, 47, 48, 176n437 Calvinism, 16, 45n151, 178 Catechism, 218–19, 301, 331–33, 340; baptismal, 218, 306, 340; ecclesial, 201–2, 331–33, 356 Certificate of indebtedness (cheirographon), 246–50, 263; accusation, 250–51 Chalcedon, 162 Children, 351–53, 355–56, 359 in Christ, 85–86, 150–51; Christ in you, 199–200; death in Christ, 294–95, 299–300, 302 Christocentricism, 90, 132, 145, 196, 211; mission of Paul, 184, 198–99, 205; theology, 228; wisdom, 113 Christoformity, 49–50, 113, 191, 298, 311, 331, 357; morality, 202–3, 280–81 Christology, 13–14, 33–34, 50, 54–57, 124; of Adam, 149, 297, 311; consubstantiality, 144–45; early church, 124; eschatology and, 62, 85–86; ethics and, 58–59; soteriology and, 52–53, 57–58, 97, 198–99, 295 Chrysostom, John, 187 Church, 4, 58, 117n188, 218; body of Christ, 14, 56, 156–58, 166–67, 190–91, 271, 279, 327–28; catechism, 218–19, 301, 306, 331–33, 340, 356, 331–33, 340; disunity, 306–7, 309–10; ekklēsia, 63, 157, 310, 342, 366–67; as family, 84, 157, 238, 279, 357–58, 366–67, 394–95; love, 92–94, 104–5, 205; self, old/new, 310–11, 317–18; song / singing, 330, 331–33; unity in Christ, 312–16, 327–28. See also Early church / Christianity Cicero, 20, 63, 78n10, 399 Circumcision, 235; Abrahamic covenant, 234–36, 239, 241, 242; baptism and, 232–34, 236, 239–40, 242; of Christ, 238–39, 381; heart, 35–36, 235–36; spiritual, 232–36, 239, 243 Colossae, 7, 17–18, 18–20, 29, 37; churches at, 82–83, 84–85, 102–3, 384, 391–92, 396; earthquake, 17–18, 19, 35; Gentiles, 169–73; Jews, 20, 30–31, 39; public reading, 2–3; religious practices, 20–21 Columella, 339 Community ethics, 59–60, 62–64 Complementarianism, 155, 346, 349–50 Consubstantiality, 144–45 Contending, 203, 206–7 Context, 21–24, 40; household codes, 338–40, 345–46, 357 Conversion, 53–55, 269–70, 309–11; creation and, 158–59, 161; efficacy in, 173–74 Cosmic redemption / reconciliation, 55, 56–61, 62, 101, 125–26; blood of the cross and, 162–67; ecclesiology, 173–75 Cosmos / cosmic, 3–4, 137, 154; powers, scope of, 254–56 Covenant, 161, 180, 249; Abrahamic, 234–36, 239, 241, 242; faithfulness, 190n503; Israel with God, 84, 130, 399; love, 93, 102, 318–19, 349–50; new, 93, 120, 193, 242 Creation: Christ, 13, 144–45, 149–52; gospel and, 99–100; theology, 145, 338; wisdom and, 139–41 Creation, new, 158–59, 161, 245–46, 249–51, 257, 259–60; converts, 309–11; death and, 294–95; life, 269–71, 292–93, 294–95, 317 Creator, 13, 144–45, 150–52 Crucifixion / cross; blood of, 162–67; of Christ, 165–66, 175, 189–90, 250–51, 257; with Christ, 294–95; powers, victory over, 257, 260–61 Cruciform / cruciformity, 48–50, 58, 287; in Christ, 239, 262, 300, 368; identity, 59–60; life / walk, 116–18, 199–200, 287, 344; ministry / mission, 106, 181, 375

Damascus, 51, 53–54, 269–70 Daniel, 102n124 Darkness, dominion of, 126, 128–29 Date of Colossians, 34–35, 36, 39, 157 David, 51–52, 86, 97, 102n124 Deacons / diaconate, 103, 181, 397–98 Death: in Christ, 294–95, 299–300, 302; resurrection and, 343–44; sin and, 44–45, 240, 343–45, 295 Deception, 212–13; philosophy, 33, 109, 212–14, 224–25 Demas, 37, 393–94 Demons / fallen angels, 33, 227–28, 252–53, 255–57; supernatural beings, 152, 252–56 Desire, sins of, 300, 301–6, 309, 312 Dickens, Charles, 250 Diodorus, 266n200 Diogenes Laertius, 313 Disunity, sins of, 300, 301, 306–7, 312 Dualism, 147, 154n333, 156, 271, 293; asceticism and, 32–33

Early church / Christianity, 124, 386; apologetics / evangelism, 379–80; culture and, 337–38, 377–78; worship, 134–37, 330 Earthy structures as powers, 152, 252–53, 255–56, 256–57 Eating and drinking, 265–67, 283–84 Ecclesiology, 14–15, 58, 119, 123–24; catechism, 201–2, 331–33, 356; cosmic, 173–75; redemption, 154–55. See also Church; Early church / Christianity. ekklēsia, 63, 157, 310, 342, 366–67 Elemental powers, 226–28 Employment, 357 Encouragement, 207–8, 386 Enemies, 171–72. See also Opponents Epaphras, 12, 21, 25, 38, 98, 107, 371, 382; as servant of Christ, 101–4, 193, 385, 391–93 Ephaphroditus, 12 Ephesians, Letter to the, 17, 383–84, 397 Ephesus, 19, 29, 81; imprisonment of Paul, 36, 37–39, 157, 373, 382 Epictetus, 156 Equality, 337–38, 350–51, 365–67; in Christ, 34, 48, 60–61, 81–83, 85, 100, 312, 344–46; slavery and, 357–58, 365–67, 387 Eschatology, 15–16, 42, 59; book of life, 247–48; Christology and, 62, 85–86; heaven, 95–96, 290–92; hope, 94–96; identity, 310–11; judgement, final, 176–77, 263–64, 362–63, 367; kingdom, 126–27; moral perfection, 202–3, 325–26; parousia, 62, 77, 188, 288, 296–97; Revelation, book of, 95–96; suffering, 188–90; things above, 290–92 Ethics, 58–61, 62–63, 235; apocalyptic, and 50–51; Christology and, 58–59; community, 59–60, 62–64; virtue, 42n145, 52, 59–61 Eucharist, 131, 135–36, 270 Eusebius, 19, 37 Evangelism, 340, 371–74; missional life, 376–80 Evil, 172–73, 305 Exegesis, historical, 22–23 Exodus / redemption, 90, 119, 124–25, 130 Eye-slavery, 361, 362–63

Faithfulness, 83, 84, 92, 103; hope and 94–95, 96 Faith in Christ, 92, 132, 167, 214, 221; baptism and, 240–41; persevering, 177–78 Fallen angels / demons, 33, 152, 227–28, 252–53, 255–57 Family: church as, 84, 157, 238, 279, 357–58, 366–67, 394–95; love, 352–53, 355–56. See also Household codes Father, God the, 86–87, 90, 128, 161; creating in Christ, 150–51; fullness in Son, 160–62, 229–32; qualifying, 119–20, 121, 122–23, 124–25; reconciliation of Gentiles, 174–77; redemption through Son, 165–66; rescuing, 124–26, 127–28; wrath, 308–9 Fathers, 354–56, 359 Favoritism, 364–65 Fear of the Lord, 111–12, 212, 340, 361–62 Firstborn, 144, 158–59 Flesh, 237–38, 278, 286–87, 293; put to death, 302 Forgiveness, 244–46, 249–50; grace and, 100–101, 246, 323–24; of sin, 130–32, 344–46 Fullness, 25, 33, 108, 160–61, 165; in Christ, 160–62, 229–32

Galatians, book of, 9, 30, 31 Gentiles, 169–73, 320; alienation from God, 170–73; enmity, mental, 171–72; evil behavior, 172–73; Jews and, 80, 81, 93, 119–21, 131–32, 172, 314–15; mystery of Paul, 4, 54, 58, 109, 137, 194–99, 271, 372; reconciliation of, 174–77 Gift, 47–48, 50, 79, 101; grace as, 121, 177–78 Glorious riches, 198–99, 209–10 Gnosticism, 26, 109, 293 Gospel, 97–100, 159, 179–81, 289–90; creation and, 99–100; grace and, 101–2; hope and, 179–80; Israel, 99–100; living out, 339–40, 356; ministers of, 103–5, 206–7, 384–85, 397–98; preaching, 194–95, 329–30, 372–73; resurrection, 289–90; truth, 97–99 Grace, 47–48, 50, 61, 119, 363–64, 371, 400; efficacy in conversion, 173–74; forgiveness and, 100–101, 246, 323–24; as gift, 121, 177–78; in gospel, 101–2; in greeting, 86–87; kindness and, 321–22 Greed, 205–6 Greetings, 23–24, 78, 86–87, 78, 387 Growth / transformation, 61, 99–100, 105, 117, 286, 299–300; individual, 61, 105; walk, 99–100, 117

Halakah, 43n146, 115, 217, 220, 226, 228, 248–49, 377–78 Halakic mystics, 219, 224, 228, 248, 307, 333; angels, worship of, 24, 28, 32, 265, 272–73, 274–76; asceticism, 26, 28–29, 32–33, 265, 273, 276, 283–84, 286–87; condemnation of Christians, 271–72, 278; deceptive philosophy, 33, 109, 212–14, 224–25; false humility, 277–78, 272–73, 274, 276, 277–78, 286, 322; mystical experiences, 161, 272–74, 276–78, 283–84; as opponents, 32–34, 118, 261–62; practices / rules, 264–69, 277, 283–87; self-imposed worship, 275–76, 285–86; wisdom, appearance of, 285–86; world and, 281–82, 288, 293 Headship, 155–56, 231–32, 278–79, 347 Hearing, 96–97, 98 Heart, 172, 208, 235–36, 361; circumcision, 35–36, 235–36; seeking, 290–91; things above, 290–92 Heaven, 95–96, 273–74; things above, 290–92 Hellenism, 26, 31, 265; wisdom, 137, 163 Hierapolis, 19, 20, 36, 391–92, 393 Hierarchies, 151–52, 153 Holiness, 83–84, 176–77, 301, 369 Holy Spirit, 16, 45, 330; baptism, 236; church and, 105; empowering, 117–18, 335; filling, 277–78; fruit of, 322, 325; holiness and, 83, 369; regeneration / sanctification, 244, 311–12; songs from, 330, 332–33; wisdom / knowledge, 113, 143, 161, 210 Honor / shame, 337–38 Hope, 94–97, 200; of gospel, 179–80 Household codes, 15, 34, 61, 336–37, 395; children, 351–53, 355–56; context, 338–40, 345–46, 357; equality, 337–38, 350–51, 357–58, 365–67; fathers, 354–56; honor / shame, 337–38; husbands, 346–51; marital relationships, 342–43; parental relationships, 351–56; patriarchalism, 337–38, 345–46, 349; social order, 338–39, 345–46; wives, 342–47, 349–51, 353 Human tradition, 218, 226, 285–86 Humility, 322, 345; false, 277–78, 272–73, 274, 276, 277–78, 286, 322; servants of Christ, 322–23, 385 Husbands, 346–51; authority, 346–47; love for wife, 343–44, 346, 349–51 Hymns, 13–14, 133–37, 143–44, 332–33; early Christian worship, 134–37, 330; poetry and, 134, 137; songs, 330, 332–33

Identity, 59–60, 310–11, 312 Idolatry, 90–91, 266; greed, 205–6 Image / eikōn of God, 141–42, 312; Christ as, 145–49; humans as, 139, 146–47; renewal into, 311–13; Word and, 141–43 Imprisonment of Paul, 35–37, 373, 382, 388; Apamea, 36; Caesarea, 35–36; Ephesus, 36, 37–39, 157, 373, 382; Philippi, 35–36; preaching ministry, 373–75; Rome, 36–39, 373 Incarnation, 13, 56–57, 123, 161–62, 229–31, 377 Indebtedness, certificate of (cheirographon), 246–50, 263; accusation, 250–51 Individual / personal, 170, 310; growth / transformation, 61, 105; presence of Christ, 199–200; salvation, 33–34, 50–51, 57–58, 173–74 Individualism, 50, 199, 318 Indwelling, 161–62, 203–4, 230–31 Inheritance, 120–21, 122, 363–64 Irony, 33, 188 Israel, 30, 130; Abrahamic covenant, 234–36, 239, 241, 242; covenant with God, 84, 130, 399; exodus / redemption, 90, 119, 124–25, 130; Gentiles and, 80, 81, 93, 119–21, 131–32, 172, 314–15; gospel and, 99–100; heart, 172, 208, 235–36; narrative, 42, 52n164, 80, 228; temple / sacrificial system, 130, 161, 166, 267–68. See also Judaism

Jeremiah, 51–52, 102n124 Jesus Christ, 56; body, physical, 175, 229–30, 237, 271; blood of the cross, 162–63, 166; creation and, 149–50; Creator, 13, 144–45, 150–52; crucifixion / cross, 165–66, 175, 189–90, 250–51, 257, 260–61; firstborn, 144, 158–59; as head, 155–56, 231–32, 278–79, 347; hidden with, 288, 294–96; image / eikōn of invisible God, 145–49; incarnation, 13, 56–57, 123, 161–62, 229–31, 377; indwelling, 161–62, 203–4, 230–31; King, 2–3, 79–80, 98, 198–99; kingdom, 127–28; life sustaining, 153–54; Lord, 90–91, 218–19, 256; Messiah, 1, 42, 52–53, 79–80, 97, 133–34; in the name, 334–35, 335, 361–62; parousia, 62, 77, 188, 288, 296–97; peacemaking, 162–63, 164–67; receiving, 216–18; reconciling work, 168–70, 185, 320, 324, 327, 330; redemptive work, 122–23, 158–60, 162–64; rescue, 129–30; resurrection, 1, 157–59, 167, 190; rule, 290–93; suffering, 184–86, 187–88, 191–92, 359; superiority / supremacy, 153–54, 158–59; union with, 239, 295–96; victory over powers, 34, 130, 158, 166, 254, 259–61, 290; wisdom and knowledge, 211–12, 285, 331; Word, 133, 194–95, 329 Jesus Justus, 382, 389–90 Jewish believers, 120–21, 126n228, 159, 390n52, 314, 375–76; co-workers of Paul, 390–91; Torah practices, 241, 268, 285 John the Baptist, 120, 194 Joseph and Aseneth, 95, 268 Josephus, 20, 29n103, 65, 107, 127, 225, 391; Jewish diaspora, 265–66 Joy / joyful, 118–19 Judaism, 1–2, 16, 24, 95n89, 159, 161, 266, 365; Amidah, 107; Apocalypticism, 28–29, 196–97; Christianity and, 43n146, 65; eating and drinking, 265–67, 283–84; festivals / Sabbath, 267–68; forgiveness of sin, 130–31; grace, 47–48; household codes, 339, 365; kingdom of God, 127–28, 390–91; legalism, 31–33, 283; Logos, 148, 150n313, 154; marital relations, 347–48; mysticism, 27–31; Paul and, 46–47; philosophy, 225; prayer, 90, 107–8, 370; sexual morals, 303–4; shadow and reality, 270–71; Shema, 14, 91, 96, 107, 306; status, 313–14; syncretism, 29–31, 272; tradition, transmission of, 216–17; vice lists, 300–301; wisdom and knowledge, 211–12; wisdom tradition, 110–13, 137–43, 147–48, 152, 154; worship, 135, 332. See also Israel; Torah Judge / judging: disqualify / condemn, 271–72, 278, final, 176–77, 263–64, 308–9, justice, 362–63, 365, 366–67, moral, 263–64 Judgment, final, 176–77, 263–64, 362–63, 367 Junia, 79, 395n82 Justification, 16, 41–42, 85; theory, 44–45, 46 Justin Martyr, 135n268

Kindness, 321, 322 Kingdom, 126–29; of Christ, 127–28; church and, 127–29; eschatology and, 126–27; of God, 127–28, 390–91 King Jesus, 2–3, 79–80, 98, 198–99 Knowledge, 25, 26–27, 117, 140, 210; of Christ, 211–12, 285, 331; filled with, 108–9, 113–15; understanding of, 209–10; will of God, 109–10

Laodicea, 19, 36, 206, 384, 391–92, 393, 394–95; letter to, 396–97 Letters, of Paul, 76–78; greetings, 23–24, 78, 86–87; signature, 398–99; thanksgiving, 87–90. See also Authorship, of Colossians; Prison Letters Light, 122, 126 Living / walk. See Walk / living Living out gospel, 339–40, 356 Livy, 156 Logos, 148, 150n313, 154, 329–31 Lord, 90–91, 218–19, 256 Love, 179, 344; agape / philia, 93; covenant, 93, 102, 318–19, 349–50; family, 352–53, 355–56; for God’s people, 92–94, 104–5, 205; hope and, 94–95, 96; united in, 208–9; virtues and, 320–23, 325–26; for wife, 343–44, 346, 349–51 Luke, associate of Paul, 36n123, 37, 382, 393–94 Luther, Martin, 47, 170 Lycus Valley, 18–19, 310n68, 342; believers / churches in, 37, 39, 206n567, 317, 384, 392–93; earthquake, 179n458; pagan worship, 27, 275n233 Lydia, 342n224, 395

Mark, John, 37–38, 388–89 Maturity, 202–3, 392–93 Messiah, 1, 42, 52–53, 79–80, 97, 133–34 Middle Platonism, 26, 31, 33 Mind, 290–92, 293, 302 Ministers of the gospel, 103–5, 206–7, 384–85, 397–98 Mission / missional: life, 376–80; of Paul, 184, 198–99, 205; prayer for, 371–72, 374–75; theology of, 163–64, 376–77 Monotheism, 56, 90–91, 145; christological, 132–33, 147 Moral / morality, 286; asceticism and, 280, 282, 286–87m292; Christoformity, 202–3, 280–81; perfection, 202–3, 325–26; sexual, 303–5, 306; victory, 286–87 Moses, 102n124, 225; in heaven, 273–74; Torah of, 248–49, 270 Mystery, 25; of God, 210–11, 237–39; of Paul, 4, 54, 58, 109, 137, 194–99, 271, 372; religions, 27n91, 195–96, 272, 372 Mystical experiences, 161, 272–74, 276–78, 283–84 Mysticism, 24, 28–29. See also Halakic mystics.

Nag Hammadi documents, 137, 160–61n361 Name of Jesus, in the, 334–35, 335, 361–62 New covenant, 93, 120, 193, 242 New perspective on Paul, 41–43, 46, 50–51; post-new perspective, 43n146, 46–48, 51n163 New self, 310–11, 317–18 Nicaea, 162 Nicene Christians, 145 Nympha, 342n224, 348–49, 394–95

Obedience, 96–97; children, 352–53, 356; slaves, 358–61, 363–64; Torah, 33, 43n146, 115, 172, 264–65 Old perspective on Paul, 42, 45–46, 47–48, 50, 52 Onesimus, 21, 38; as co-worker, 382, 383–84, 386–87; as slave, 357–58, 359, 361, 363, 365 Opponents, 21–25, 27–31, 32–34, 61, 118, 261–62; Gnosticism, 26, 109, 293; Hellenism, 26, 31, 265; Judaism, 26–27, 28–32, 124, 238; Middle Platonism, 26, 31, 33; syncretism, 27, 29n102. See also Halakic mystics Outsiders, 375–80

Paedobaptism, 232–33, 236, 241 Parental relationships, 351–56 Parousia, 62, 77, 188, 288, 296–97 Pastoral ministry, 205–8, 212–14; intercession, 105–6, 108–9, 119n202, 392–93 Pastoral theology, 106, 119n202, 177, 182–83, 204–5, 245 Patriarchalism, 337–38, 345–46, 349 Paul, apostle, 102n120, 181, 270; apostolic ministry, 3–4, 53–54, 56–57, 65, 78–80, 181–82, 193–95, 260; associates, 8–9, 13, 18, 371; authority, 12–13, 79, 182, 213–14; commission, 192–94, 198; conversion / call, 53–55, 269–70; evangelism, 371–74; mystery, Gentiles and, 4, 54, 58, 109, 137, 194–99, 271, 372; pastoral ministry, 205–8, 212–14; suffering, 183–87, 188–90, 191–92, 207. See also Theology of Paul Pauline canon / genuine letters, 11–12, 13, 15, 18 Peace, 86–87, 326–28, 380; peacemaking, 162–63, 164–67 People of God / saints, 83–84, 121–22, 197–98, 319–20 perichoresis, 161–62 Perseverance, 177–80, 392–93 Peter, apostle, 78, 117, 278, 293, 359 Pharisees, 285; Paul as, 220, 269–70 Philemon, associate of Paul, 38, 397–98; master of Onesimus, 357–58, 359, 363, 365, 386–87 Philemon, Letter to, 17–18, 38, 357 Philippi, 35–36, 81 Philippians, book of, 12, 36n128, 38, 290 Philo, 29n103, 108n152, 147; body, 154n333, 156; Jewish wisdom tradition, 137, 138n279, 141–43, 148, 152; Judaism, 225, 234, 353; Moses in heaven, 273–74 Philosophy, 225; deceptive, 33, 109, 212–14, 222–27, 224–25, 231 Phoebe, 115, 193, 342n224 Phrygia, 18–19 Plato, 213, 216; dualism, 147, 154n333, 156, 271, 293; ethics, 62–63; Middle Platonism, 26, 31, 33, 137 Pliny, 19n65, 134 Plutarch, 257–60, 380 Post-new perspective on Paul, 43n146, 46–48, 51n163 Powers, 3, 4, 152; angels, fallen / demons, 152, 227–28, 252–53, 255–57; baptism and, 33–34; church and, 255–56; cosmic scope, 254–56; crucifixion / cross, victory over, 251, 257, 260–61; darkness, dominion of, 126, 128–29; earthy structures, 152, 252–53, 255–56, 256–57; elemental, 226–28; hierarchy, 151–52; mysticism and, 31–33; supernatural beings, 152, 252–56; world / worldliness (stoicheia), 15, 281–83 Prayer, 91, 368–69; devotion to, 369–71; Jewish, 90, 107–8, 370; for mission, 371–72, 374–75; pastoral intercession, 105–6, 108–9, 119n202, 392–93; remember, 399–400; thanksgiving, 88–89, 370–71 Preaching, 194–95, 329–30, 372–73 Presence, 77; of Christ, 120, 153, 199–200; of God, 83, 93, 118n193, 145n290, 161; of God in Christ, 147, 198; spiritual, 213–14 Presentation, act of, 176–77 Prison Letters, 6–7, 10n33, 14, 35–36, 92, 171; atonement / reconciliation, 163, 174, 290; Christocentrism, 198–99, 231, 378; church, 157, 165; head, 155–56; will / plan of God, 109, 193 Proclamation, 200–202 Protestants, 52, 159n353; baptism, 232–33; church tradition, 218; soteriology, 92n68 Pseudepigraphy, 7n23, 10, 12, 381 Puritans, 170

Qualifying, 119–20, 121, 122–23, 124–25 Qumran, 122, 236; community, 58, 83, 301, 325; mystery, 195–96; worship, 275, 332n181

Reality, 33, 269–71, 285 Reconciliation, 174, 389; Christ, work of, 168–70, 185, 320, 324, 327, 330; of Gentiles, 174–77. See also Cosmic redemption / reconciliation Redemption, 122–23, 129–30, 154, 156; baptism and, 123, 309; epochs of, 270–71; exodus of Israel, 90, 119, 124–25, 130; process of, 343–44; through Son, 122–23, 158–60, 162–64, 165–66. See also Cosmic redemption / reconciliation Reformation, 42, 50, 145 Religion, 1–2, 31 Remain, 178–79 Renunciation, 302, 306 Rescuing, 124–26, 127–28 Resurrection, 1, 15, 167, 240; beginning, 1, 157–59; of Christ, 1, 157–59, 167, 190; corporate / co-, 287, 288–91, 292–93; death and, 343–44; gospel and, 289–90; life in Christ, 244–45 Retribution, 308–9, 364 Revelation: of God, 147–49, 375; history, 148–49; of mystery, 196–98, 199–200 Revelation, book of, 95–96 Rhetoric / rhetorical criticism, 22, 66, 77; ethos, 182, 205 Roman Empire, 80, 286–87; anti-empire, 62–65, 90–92, 292–93; church and, 59n179, 61, 63–64; honor / shame, 337–38; households, 338–39, 341–42; idolatry, 90–91, 305–6; marital relations, 347–48, 351; peace, 326–27; prison, 373; redesign, 1–3, 4; religions, 1–2; sexual practices, 286, 303–5, 351; slavery, 315–16, 365–66, 367, 385; status, 48, 61, 100, 116n185, 300, 304, 310–11, 313–14; supra-imperial critique, 64, 80, 219, 312, 326; triumphal procession, 257–60; as world, 99n107, 180–81; vice lists, 300–301 Romans, book of, 7–8, 16, 38–39 Rome, 36–39, 373 Rooted, 220–21

Saints / people of God, 83–84, 121–22, 197–98, 319–20 Salvation, 127–28, 167, 188; individual / personal, 33–34, 50–51, 57–58; loss of, 177–78; universalism, 166–67, 188, 201 Salvation history / plan of God, 42, 51–53, 55n172, 91–92, 195–200, 269, 296, 375 Same-sex relations, 304–5 Sanctification, 284, 286, 310–12; Holy Spirit, 244, 311–12. See also Growth / transformation Scythians, 315–16 Seasoned with salt, 379–80 Secretaries / scribes, 8–9, 77 Seek / seeking, 290–91, 293 Self, old/new, 310–11, 317–18 Seneca, 339, 365 Septuagint (LXX), 125, 158n351, 209, 219 Sermon on the Mount, 59 Servants, 102–4, 181; of Christ, 101–4, 193, 385, 391–93; of church, 184, 193–94, 384–85; deacons / diaconate, 103, 181, 397–98 Sexual, 283, 360; immorality, 303–5, 306; same-sex relations, 304–5; sins, 286, 302–3 Shadow, 141, 228, 265n197, 266; reality and, 33, 269–71, 285 Shema, 14, 91, 96, 107, 306 Silas, 81 Sin, 244, 245–46, 307; and death, 44–45, 240, 343–45, 295; of desire, 300, 301–6, 309, 312; of disunity, 300, 301, 306–7, 312; fall / original, 164, 170; forgiveness of, 130–32, 344–46; of speech, 306–7, 309–10 Slaves / slavery, 103, 129–30, 234, 315–16, 322; children, 351–52, 353, 359; of Christ, 103, 358, 385, 392; equality, 357–58, 365–67, 387; eye-slavery, 361, 362–63; favoritism, 364–65; fear of the Lord, 361–62; household codes, 344, 357–62; inheritance, 363–64; injustices, 364–65; justice / judgment, 362–63, 365, 366–67; male / fathers, 359; masters, 357–60, 361–62; New World, 356–57; obedience, 358–61, 363–64; Onesimus, 357–58, 359, 361, 363, 365; Philemon, 357–58, 359, 363, 365; reward / redemption, 362–64; women, 345, 346, 359, 360 Social order, 338–39, 345–46 Song of Solomon, 349–50 Songs / singing, 330, 331–33. See also Hymns; Worship / liturgy Sosthenes, 81n23 Soteriology, 40–42, 50–51, 57–58, 92n68; Christology and, 52–53, 57–58, 97, 198–99, 295; election, 120–21, 219–20; of Paul, 40–42, 50–51, 163–64; qualifying, 120 Speech, 379–80; seasoned with salt, 379–80; sins of, 306–7, 309–10 Spiritual / spirituality, 109n154, 277–78, 293, 333; circumcision, 232–36, 239, 243; presence, 213–14 Status in Roman Empire, 116n185, 300, 304, 327, 360; clothing and, 251n158, 310–11, 320; equality in Christ, 34, 48, 60–61, 81–83, 85, 100, 312, 344–46; firstborn, 149–50; males, 313–14, 346, 349, 354; serving Christ and, 322–23, 385; slaves / lower, 103, 155, 339, 345, 358, 367, 385; of Son, 158, 181, 295, 320; of women / wives, 345–46, 395 Stoicism, 145, 154, 225, 300, 339, 344n229; slavery, 365–66 Strabo, 19n65, 20 Submission, 155, 338, 343–44, 385; of wives, 343–44, 345–47 Suffering, 183–87, 188–90, 191–92; of Christ, filling up, 184–86, 187–88, 191–92, 207; for church, 184, 185–87, 190–92; eschatological / apocalyptic, 188–90; missional-Christoformity theory, 189–91 Superiority / supremacy of Christ, 153–54, 158–59 Supernatural beings, 152, 252–56 Syncretism, 29–31, 272

Tacitus, 19 Teaching, 201–2, 356; admonishing and, 330–32; false teachers, 202, 213. See also Catechism Tertullian, 160n360 Testament of Judah, 305 Testament of Levi, 275 Testament of Reuben, 361 Thales, 313–14 Thanksgiving, 23–24, 87–90, 221, 328, 333, 371; joyful, 118–19; prayer and, 88–89, 370–71 Theology, 145, 161; baptism, 281–82, 287, 289, 335; creation / new creation, 145, 158–59, 161; temple / sacrificial system, 130, 161, 166, 267–68 Theology of Paul, 39–40; apocalyptic approach, 42n145, 43–46, 49, 55–56; justification theory, 44–45, 46; missional, 163–64, 376–77; new perspective, 41–43, 46, 50–51; old perspective, 42, 45–46, 47–48, 50, 52; participationist, 48–50; pastoral, 106, 119n202, 177, 182–83, 204–5, 245; post-new perspective, 43n146, 46–48, 51n163; Romans, book of and, 41–42, 43–44, 46, 52; soteriology and, 40–42, 50–51, 163–64 Thomas Aquinas, 60, 61 Timothy, 37, 80–82, 89; Colossians author, 11, 17–18, 38, 77, 80–81, 398 Torah, 30, 32, 57, 148; Decalogue, 352–53; halakah, 43n146, 115, 217, 220, 226, 228, 248–49, 377–78; Holiness Code, 301; Jewish believers and, 241, 268, 285; obedience, 33, 43n146, 115, 172, 264–65; Shema, 14, 91, 96, 107, 306. See also Israel; Judaism Tradition, 9–10, 12–13, 218; church, 218; human, 218, 226, 285–86; Jewish, transmission of, 216–17; wisdom, 110–13, 137–43, 147–48, 152, 154 Triumph: of cross, 259–60; Roman military procession, 257–60 Truth, 75–76, 97–99 Two Ways tradition, 301 Tychicus, 21, 37, 193, 207, 357; as minister, 381–82, 383–86

Union with Christ, 239, 295–96 Unity, of body, 155–56, 279, 312–16, 327–28; in Christ, 312–16, 327–28; disunity, 306–7, 309–10

Varro, 365 Vice lists, 300–302, 308 Victory, 286–87; over powers, 34, 130, 158, 166, 254, 259–61, 290 Virtues, 320–23

Walk / living, 116; bearing fruit, 99–100, 114, 116–17; in Christ, 215–16, 219–22; cruciform, 116–18, 199–200, 287, 344; growing, 99–100, 117; missional, 376–80; new, 309–11; patient endurance, 118–19, 323; worthily, 106, 115–19 Warnings, 224–25 Will, human, 293, 302 Will of God, 109–10, 142, 249, 392–93 Wisdom, 25, 26–27, 110–13, 202, 293, 302; appearance of, 285–86; creation and, 139–41; of Christ, 211–12, 285, 331; discernment, 334–35; fear of the Lord, 111–12, 212, 340; of God, 147–48; household codes, 340, 353; and knowledge, 211–12; outsiders and, 377–78; personification of, 139, 140–41, 152; reverent receptivity, 112; wise person, 111–12 Wisdom traditions, 218; Hellenistic, 137, 163; Jewish, 110–13, 137–43, 147–48, 152, 154 Wives, 342–47, 349–51, 353; fitting in the Lord, 344–45, 348; status, 345–46, 395; submission to husband, 343–44, 345–47, 349 Women, 155, 394–95; complementarianism, 155, 346, 349–50; holiness, 176–77; status, 345–46, 395 Word, Christ as, 133, 194–95, 329; image of God, 141–43; Logos, 148, 150n313, 154, 329–31 Word, ministry of, 328–31 World, 282; earthy structures as powers, 152, 252–53, 255–56, 256–57; Halakic mystics, 281–82, 288, 293; Roman Empire, 99n107, 180–81; world / worldliness (stoicheia), 15, 281–83. See also Powers Worldview, 2–3 Worship / liturgy, 90; of angels, 24, 28, 32, 265, 272–73, 274–76; early church, 134–37, 330; Judaism, 135, 332; pagan, 27, 275n233; self-imposed, 275–76, 285–86; songs / singing, 330, 331–33 Worthily walking, 106, 115–19 Wrath of God, 308

Xenophon, 339

Zwingli, Ulrich, 187

Author Index

Aasgaard, Reidar, 82 Achtemeier, Paul J., 2 Adams, Edward, 82 Adams, Samuel V., 46 Adewuja, J. Ayodeji, 187 Aland, Kurt, 233 Aletti, Jean-Noël, 66, 119, 346 Alexander, Loveday, 2 Alfeyev, Hilarion, 159 Allen, Ward, 206 Allison, Dale C., Jr., 127–28, 188 Anderson, Charles P., 396 Anderson, Gary A., 48, 170, 363 Andria, Solomon, Argall, Randal A., 27, 276 Armstrong, John H., 233 Arnold, Clinton E., 20, 27, 29, 132, 225, 274, 275, 276 Arterbury, Andrew, 389 Ascough, Richard S., 11 Attridge, Harold W., 28, 276 Aune, David E., 196

Bacon, Francis, 75–76 Bader, Christopher, 117 Bain, Katherine, 395 Baker, Mark D., 165, 309 Baker, William R., 306 Balch, David L., 336–37, 339 Balchin, John F., 9, 134, 137, 143 Balla, Peter, 353 Balthasar, Hans Urs von, 204, 207 Bandstra, Andrew, 27, 29 Banks, Robert, 82, 84, 157 Barclay, John M. G., xii, 11, 18, 19, 21, 22, 27, 29, 39, 46–48, 50, 51, 54, 55, 61, 63, 65, 86, 100, 101, 115, 116, 121, 173, 177–78, 224, 227, 246, 285, 318, 321, 322, 326, 336, 339–40, 363, 371, 376 Barker, Mark D., 125–26 Barnette, Paul W., 78 Barrett, C. K., 78 Bartels, K. H., 149 Barth, Karl, 46, 172, 229, 232 Barth, Markus, 10, 12, 17, 19, 20, 28, 36, 67, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 87, 89, 90, 92, 95, 99, 100, 105, 108, 109, 113, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 126, 133–34, 148, 149, 153, 156, 158, 160, 161, 168, 170, 173, 177, 185, 187, 189, 193, 197, 199, 201, 203, 206, 207, 209, 214, 220, 221, 225, 227, 229, 230, 231, 232–33, 240, 245, 246, 266, 272, 275, 278, 279, 282, 287, 289, 290, 293, 301, 303, 307, 308, 310, 311, 315, 319, 320, 323, 324, 325, 332, 336, 340, 346, 349, 350–51, 352, 353, 354, 362, 363, 364, 372, 375, 378, 380, 386, 392, 393, 394, 396, 398 Barton, S. C., 339 Bates, Matthew, 4 Bauckham, Richard, 7, 55, 90, 94, 145, 188–89, 265, 292 Baugh, Steven M., 134 Baum, Armin D., 10 Baur, F. C., 6 Beasley-Murry, Paul, 132, 146, 150, 156, 161, 232, 233, 234 Beetham, Christopher A., 30, 52, 161 Begbie, Jeremy S., 333 Behr, John, 134 Beker, J. Christiaan, 21, 43 Belousek, Darrin W. Snyder, 165 Bengel, 315 Benoit, Pierre, 121, 134, 138, 151, 210, 252 Berkhof, Hendrik, 252, 255–56 Bernat, David A., 234, 314 Best, Ernest, 17, 204 Beuttler, Ulrich, 145 Bevere, Allan R., 11, 25, 27, 30, 59, 60, 146, 227, 228, 238, 248, 261, 265, 288, 291, 299, 301, 313, 336 Bird, Michael F., 10, 28, 37–38, 63, 80, 92, 121, 138, 156, 176, 185, 188, 226, 227, 231, 238, 242, 260, 265, 275, 287, 297, 311, 325, 326, 327, 328, 332, 346, 349, 370, 372, 375, 391, 397 Blanke, Helmut, 10, 12, 17, 19, 20, 28, 36, 67, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 87, 89, 90, 92, 95, 99, 100, 105, 108, 109, 113, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 126, 133–34, 148, 149, 153, 156, 158, 160, 161, 168, 170, 173, 177, 185, 187, 189, 193, 197, 199, 201, 203, 206, 207, 209, 214, 220, 221, 225, 227, 229, 230, 231, 240, 245, 246, 266, 272, 275, 278, 279, 282, 287, 289, 290, 293, 301, 303, 307, 308, 310, 311, 315, 319, 320, 323, 324, 325, 332, 336, 340, 346, 349, 350–51, 352, 353, 354, 362, 363, 364, 372, 375, 378, 380, 386, 392, 393, 394, 396, 398 Blenkinsopp, Joseph, 112 Blomberg, Craig L., 349 Bock, Darrell L., 210 Bockmuehl, Markus, 95, 195, 368, 373–74 Boer, M. C. de, 43 Boersma, Hans, 125 Bohlen, Maren, 83 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, 172, 191, 302 Borchert, Gerald L., 308 Bormann, Lukas, 5, 10, 18, 20, 21, 105, 108, 116, 119, 121, 134, 150, 171, 174, 176, 177, 185, 190, 199, 201, 206, 218, 220, 227, 230, 232, 238, 241, 244, 245, 265, 275, 287, 289, 292, 303, 315, 316, 319, 328, 336, 339, 349, 357, 360, 379, 388, 389, 395, 396 Bornkamm, Günther, 26, 27, 297 Bosch, David J., 375 Bouma-Prediger, Steven, 145 Bouttier, Michel, 313 Bowers, W. Paul, 197 Boyarin, Daniel, 43 Boyd, Greg A., 125 Brannon, M. Jeff, 96 Brodd, Jeffrey, 62 Bromiley, Geoffrey W., 232 Brown, Peter, 304 Brown, Raymond E., 26, 195 Bruce, F. F., 10, 19, 20, 27, 34, 36, 81, 82, 84, 89, 99, 102, 105, 113, 115, 122, 127, 132, 134, 138, 149, 150, 152, 163, 165, 167, 174, 175, 177, 181, 188, 189, 191, 208, 209, 216, 217, 218, 230, 234, 240, 241, 248, 251, 265, 271, 276, 277, 285, 286, 289, 290, 303, 308, 315, 316, 325, 327, 329, 332, 334–35, 344, 353, 354, 378, 380, 381, 384, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 393, 394, 397, 398, 399 Brueggemann, Walter, 91, 112 Bultmann, Rudolf, 12 Burke, Trevor J., 3 Burney, C. F., 138 Burns, Joshua Ezra, 268 Byron, John, 103, 357

Cadwallader, Alan H., 19, 20 Cahill, Michael, 187, 189 Caird, G. B., 39, 96, 159, 177, 227, 230, 234, 248, 250, 252, 255, 257, 274, 282, 307, 319, 397 Campbell, Constantine, 40, 85, 89–90, 151, 170, 231, 234, 289, 295–96, 250, 288, 380 Campbell, Douglas A., xi, 6, 8, 10, 34, 36, 40, 43–46, 47, 50, 85, 92, 101, 129, 177, 234, 243, 315, 382, 385, 397 Campbell, Ted A., 162 Canavan, Rosemary, 251 Cannon, George, 9–10, 119, 123, 229, 300 Carr, A. Wesley, 260 Carson, D. A., 7, 308 Casson, Lionel, 386 Cather, Willa, 5 Chapell, Bryan, 232 Childs, Brevard S., 6 Ciampa, Roy F., 97 Clarke, K. D., 5, 163 Clines, David J. A., 311 Cohen, Shaye J. D., 2, 314, 376 Cohick, Lynn H., 337, 343, 344, 348, 395 Cole, H. Ross, 267 Colijn, Brenda B., 120, 129, 163 Collins, Adela Yarbro, 129 Collins, John J., 125, 129, 196 Collins, John N., 181 Colson, F. H., 141, 148, 225 Comfort, Philip, 306 Constantelos, Demetrios J., 268 Conzelmann, Hans, 11 Copan, Victor A., 204 Cope, O. Lamar, 386 Cox, Ronald, 26, 136, 137 Crenshaw, James L., 102, 110–11, 216, 353 Cross, Anthony R., 232 Crouch, J. E., 336, 338

Dalman, Gustav, 127–28 Das, A. Andrew, 190 Davies, W. D., 40, 41, 336 Davis, C. J., 90 Davis, Ellen, 111 Davis, James A., 113 Decker-Lucke, Shirley A., 84, 100, 176 DeMaris, Richard E., 26–27 deSilva, David A., 83, 115 Dibelius, Martin, 59, 181, 197, 209, 272, 276, 297, 339 Dickens, Charles, 250 Dickson, John P., 372, 379 Diewert, David, 110 Dixon, Susan, 353 Dodd, C. H., 36, 97, 178, 217 Doering, Lutz, 78 Donaldson, Terence L., 54 Doty, William G., 87 Drake, Alfred Edwin, 2, 215 Dunn, James D. G., xi, 7–8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17–18, 30–31, 39, 40, 41–42, 43, 50–51, 52–53, 54–55, 67–68, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 87, 90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 99, 102, 103, 105, 108, 109, 110, 113, 115, 116, 118, 120, 121, 126, 127, 129, 131, 134–35, 138, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 166, 167, 170, 172, 173, 175, 176, 182, 185, 187, 188, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 200, 201, 208, 214, 217, 218, 224, 225, 228, 229, 230, 234, 237, 238, 240, 241, 243, 244, 247, 248, 260–61, 263, 268, 271, 272, 273, 275, 276, 277, 282, 283, 285, 286–87, 288, 292, 294, 295, 297, 301, 306, 309, 310, 311, 313, 314, 319, 320, 321, 322, 325, 327, 328, 329, 330, 333, 336, 339, 344–45, 345–46, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 357, 361, 362, 363, 364, 366, 368, 370, 375, 378, 379, 380, 381, 388, 389, 390, 391, 394, 395, 396, 398, 399

Easton, B. S., 336 Ebel, Eva, 34 Edsall, Benjamin, 137 Ehrensperger, Kathy, 77, 102, 104 Ehrman, Bart D., 31 Elliott, Neil, 2, 63, 248, 301, 397 Ellis, E. Earle, 9, 36, 82, 390 Ellis, J. Edward, 300 Engle, Paul E., 233 Enns, Peter, 110 Epp, Eldon Jay, 395 Erdemir, Hatice, 310 Esler, Philip Francis, 40, 58 Estes, Daniel J., 112 Evans, Craig A., 27, 160–61, 196, 292

Falk, Daniel K., 267 Fee, Gordon, 16, 55, 105, 109, 113, 118, 138, 146, 147, 155, 214, 221, 269, 311, 331, 332, 349 Ferguson, Everett, 232, 233, 235, 302 Ferguson, Sinclair B., 233 Fesko, J. V., 232, 233 Fewster, Gregory, 10 Finney, Mark T., 337–38 Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler, 337 Fitzgerald, John T., 381 Flemington, W. F., 187, 190, 191 Fossum, Jarl, 137 Foster, Paul, xii Foster, Robert L., 3 Francis, Fred O., 27, 29, 32, 60, 88, 262, 273, 276 Franke, John, 376 Fredrickson, David E., 182 Fredriksen, Paula, 51 Froese, Paul, 117 Funk, Robert W., 77

Galinsky, Karl, 62, 64, 312 Gamble, Harry Y., 396 Gardner, Paul D., 240 Gathercole, Simon, 47, 55 Gaventa, Beverly, 43, 122, 173, 204, 353 Gebauer, Roland, 27 Geddert, Timothy J., 196 Gibson, Richard J., 4 Gielen, Marlis, 395 Giem, Paul, 267 Giles, Kevin, 155 Glancy, Jennifer A., 303, 360 Gnilka, Joachim, 10, 174, 230, 275, 364 Goldenberg, David, 315 Goldingay, John, 53 Goodman, Martin, 116, 327, 352 Gordley, Matthew E., 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 143 Gorman, Michael, 48–51, 58, 60, 116, 147, 167, 229, 269, 281 Gräbe, Petrus J., 57, 120 Green, Joel B., 125–26, 165, 194, 309 Grindheim, Sigurd, 14 Groothuis, Rebecca Merrill, 155, 349 Grudem, Wayne, 155 Gruen, Erich S., 20, 29, 376 Guder, Darrell L., 375, 376 Gundry Volf, Judith M., 178, 392 Gunton, Colin, 130, 145, 154, 158, 166 Gupta, Nijay K., 10, 32–33, 54, 83, 99, 126, 137, 146, 188, 231, 236, 259, 265, 271, 275, 293, 300, 307, 311, 320, 325, 333, 340, 349, 351, 359, 363, 368, 370, 380, 384 Guthrie, Steven R., 333

Hafemann, Scott J., 40 Hanson, A. T., 308 Harmon, Matthew S., 383 Harper, Kyle, 303 Harrill, J. Albert, 367, 387 Harrington, D. J., 30, 268 Harris, H. A., 206 Harris, Murray J., xi, 10, 36, 76, 79, 82, 84, 89, 92, 93, 94, 97, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 116, 119, 120, 122, 125, 126, 129, 132, 134, 146, 149, 150, 151, 153, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 171, 172, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 181, 183, 185, 186, 187, 188, 192, 193, 195, 197, 198, 200, 201, 202, 204, 207, 208, 209, 212, 214, 216, 218, 219, 220, 221, 224, 225, 229, 230, 237, 238, 240, 245, 248, 249, 250, 251, 257, 263, 272, 275, 277, 278, 279, 282, 285, 286, 289, 290, 291, 294, 296, 297, 299, 300, 302, 303, 305, 308, 309, 310, 311, 319, 323, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 331, 332, 333, 334, 346, 351, 352, 353, 355, 359, 360, 361, 363, 366, 370, 371, 372, 374, 378, 379, 380, 384, 385, 386, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 396, 398 Harris, William V., 396 Harrison, James R., 63 Hart, Trevor, 94 Hartman, Lars, 166, 299, 336, 339 Harvey, A. E., 195, 196 Hatch, Edwin, 157, 397 Hatina, T. R., 90, 153, 170, 178, 231, 250, 295, 319, 373, 380, 392 Hauerwas, Stanley, 282 Hawthorne, Gerald F., 39 Hay, David M., 56, 86, 132, 292 Hayes, Holly Diane, 215 Hays, Richard B., 52, 55, 92, 133, 190, 217, 269, 312, 340 Heaney, Maeve Louise, 333 Heil, John Paul, 70 Hellerman, Joseph H., 82, 84–85, 116, 314, 353, 358 Helyer, Larry R., 134, 149 Hengel, Martin, 29, 34–35, 97, 102, 132, 135, 220, 353 Herion, Gary A., 308 Highfield, Ron, 117 Hill, Graham, 375 Hill, Wesley, 162 Hock, Andreas, 259–60 Hock, Ronald F., 2, 102 Holcomb, Justin S., 194 Holmén, Tom, 261 Holtzmann, H. J., 17 Hood, Jason B., 116 Hooker, Morna D., 28, 121, 132–33 Horsley, G. H. R., 339 Hubbard, Thomas K., 304, 310 Hübner, Hans, 18, 138, 172, 181, 193, 197, 206, 207, 224, 225, 227, 230, 231, 238, 240, 245, 248, 260, 265, 276, 287, 290, 297, 311, 317, 318, 323, 329, 330, 332, 354, 360, 361, 363, 368, 375, 380, 381, 383, 393, 395 Hultgren, Arland J., 80 Hunter, Archibald M., 91 Hunter, James Davidson, 117 Hunter, W. Bingham, 91 Hurtado, Larry W., 14, 55, 90, 135, 136, 330 Huttner, Ulrich, 10, 18, 20, 37, 62, 252, 336, 381, 395 Hyde, Daniel R., 232, 233

Ilan, Tal, 342–43 Iralu, Sanyu, 190, 217

Jacobs, Alan, 133, 164, 170 Jeremias, Joachim, 107, 233 Jewett, Paul K., 232 Jewett, Robert, 34 John, Narendra, 317 Johnson, Adam J., 57 Judge, Edwin A., 2, 82, 314

Karris, Robert J., 135 Käsemann, Ernst, 6, 43, 136–37, 364 Keener, Craig S., 113, 316, 342, 345, 352, 389, 393, 394 Keesmaat, Sylvia C., 64, 148 Keith, Chris, 396, 398 Kiley, Mark C., 12 Kim, Jung Hoon, 311 Kim, Seyoon, 39, 54, 137, 195 Kirkland, Alastair, 391 Klauck, Hans-Josef, 78 Klawans, Jonathan, 284 Knowles, Michael P., 58–59, 60–61 Knox, John, 34, 386 Kraemer, Ross S., 395 Kreitzer, Larry J., 19, 35, 179 Kremer, Jacob, 187, 188 Kuhn, Karl Allen, 381, 393 Kunger, Chris, 43

Laes, Christian, 353 Ladd, George Eldon, 126–27, 271, 391 Lane, Anthony N. S., 233 Lamp, Jeffrey S., 137 Lampe, Peter, 19, 386–87 Laughin, Peter, 165 Lemke, W. E., 235 Levenson, Jon D., 234 Levine, Amy-Jill, 347 Levison, John R., 113, 288, 292, 293, 302 Lewis, C. S., 93, 324 Lewis, Lloyd A., 147, 170, 272, 342 Lieu, Judith M., 78 Lightfoot, J. B., 19, 26, 89, 101, 115, 119, 120, 122, 129, 149, 151, 159, 160, 170, 176, 177, 207, 218, 224, 227, 230, 234, 244, 245, 251, 257, 272, 273, 285, 290, 299, 327, 328, 329, 363, 364, 379, 380, 388, 391, 393, 397 Lillie, W., 336 Lincoln, Andrew T., 10, 151–52, 252–53, 291, 297, 336, 340 Lindsay, Dennis R., 92 Litwak, Kenneth D., 52, 269 Loader, William, 303, 304 Lohse, Eduard, xi, 10, 11, 82, 87, 89, 95, 99, 101, 105, 115, 116, 119, 121, 122, 134, 150, 153, 171, 172, 173, 174, 176, 178, 180, 188, 201, 207, 208, 211, 214, 227, 230, 240, 244, 262, 265, 271, 272, 273, 274, 276, 279, 282, 284, 285, 286, 297, 299, 303, 307, 310, 326, 336, 357, 363, 364, 370, 378, 379, 384, 388, 393 Long, Frederick J., 63 Longman, Tremper III, 110, 112, 251, 252, 256, 257 Longnecker, Bruce W., 53, 54 Lorenzen, Stefanie, 31, 146 Lührmann, Dieter, 336 Luttenberger, Joram, 246, 250 Luz, Ulrich, 10, 18, 22, 137, 138, 158, 161, 167, 174, 177, 188, 207, 215, 226, 240, 248, 260, 287, 290, 293, 317, 318, 330, 336, 349, 354, 364, 368, 370, 378, 393, 395, 397

MacDonald, Gregory, 167 MacDonald, Margaret Y., 3, 5, 10, 12, 14, 15, 68, 82, 85, 100, 103, 104, 113, 121, 129, 150, 151, 160, 171, 176, 193, 199, 206, 220, 224, 227, 237, 240, 249, 251, 260, 263, 276, 278, 287, 288, 290, 303, 311, 313, 319, 324, 325, 336, 337, 340, 342, 343, 344, 345, 349, 351–52, 354, 359, 360, 363, 364, 366, 370, 375, 378, 381, 384, 388, 390, 394, 395, 397 Maier, Harry O., 63–64, 90–91, 162, 312, 315, 339 Malherbe, Abraham J., 61, 82, 204, 300 Malina, Bruce J., 81, 104, 381 Maloney, Elliot C., 60 Marshall, I. Howard, 129, 163, 164, 166, 178, 392 Marshall, Peter, 259 Martin, Dale B., 103 Martin, Ralph P., 19, 36, 39, 40, 121, 132, 134, 135, 136, 149, 150, 152, 153, 163, 164, 173, 174, 175, 177, 188, 237, 245, 271, 274–75, 276, 307, 330, 364, 380, 385, 389 Martin, Troy, 26, 261, 267, 270, 315 Martínez, Florentino García, 121, 301 Martyn, J. Louis, 43, 46, 55 Mason, Steve, 378 McDonald, Lee Martin, 397 McGuckin, John Anthony, 162 McKnight, Scot, 14, 41, 46–47, 50, 52, 53, 57, 59, 63, 80, 83, 85, 86, 90, 96, 108, 110, 117, 125–26, 127, 128, 130, 146, 173, 176, 178, 185, 186, 187, 202, 232, 234, 244, 268, 269, 282, 298, 308, 316, 321, 323, 324, 357, 366, 379, 391, 392 Meade, David G., 7 Meeks, Wayne A., 2, 27, 29, 58, 60, 82, 217, 386 Mengestu, Abera M., 86 Merklein, H., 156 Metzger, Bruce M., 223, 395 Middleton, J. Richard, 1, 127, 146, 296 Miller, James C., 312 Miller, Patrick D., 91 Minear, Paul S., 84 Modica, Joseph B., 50, 63, 90, 146, 298 Moir, Ian A., 270 Moltmann, Jürgen, 94, 229 Moo, Douglas, xi, 10, 12, 13, 36, 54, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 89, 90, 92, 95, 97, 99, 100, 101, 105, 107, 108, 110, 118, 119, 121, 125, 134, 136, 143, 149, 150, 151, 156, 159, 160, 165, 166, 167, 168, 171, 172, 174, 175, 176, 177, 180, 183, 185, 186, 190, 193, 197, 198, 201, 206, 207, 209, 211, 214, 218, 219, 221, 228, 231, 234, 237, 240, 251, 260, 263, 265, 271, 272, 273, 275, 281, 282, 286, 287, 289, 290, 295, 300, 306, 307, 308, 311, 316, 318, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 331, 332, 333, 336, 342, 345, 351, 352, 354, 355, 357, 359, 362, 363, 364, 366, 370, 371, 372, 377, 378, 379, 380, 383, 384, 388, 390, 391, 392, 393, 395, 397, 399 Morgan, Christopher, 167 Morgan, Robert, 39–40 Morrice, William G., 119 Morris, Leon, 93, 98, 129, 163, 166 Mott, Stephen C., 59 Motyer, J. Alec, 232 Motyer, Stephen, 336, 338 Moule, C. F. D., xi, 1, 10, 20, 36, 53, 54, 83, 88, 92, 94, 101, 109, 122, 134–35, 149, 150, 153, 156, 160, 173, 180, 185, 187, 188, 221, 224, 227, 230, 237, 248, 251, 257, 271, 272, 302, 303, 325, 328, 329, 360, 363, 390, 393, 394 Moulton, James Hope, 90, 146, 150, 171, 325, 352 Müller, Peter, 11 Mullins, T. Y., 87, 206 Murphy, Roland E., 111

Najman, Hindy, 115 Nanos, Mark D., 43, 51 Nash, Robert Scott, 5, 59, 60, 336, 338–39, 340 Nauck, W., 380 Neufeld, Vernon H., 135 Newberg, Andrew, 117 Newbigin, Lesslie, 375 Newman, Elizabeth, 389 Neyrey, Jerome H., 104 Nida, Eugene A., 86 Niebuhr, H. Richard, 117 Nkansah-Obrempong, James, 252 Noll, Stephen F., 252 Nordling, Cherith Fee, 146–47 Novenson, Matthew V., 55 Nutton, Vivian, 393

Oakes, Peter, 2, 82, 342 O’Donovan, Oliver, 288 Olbricht, Thomas H., 22, 77, 88, 106, 132, 168, 182, 261 Omanson, Roger L., 76, 163, 173, 210, 355, 386, 395, 397 Osiek, Carolyn, 82, 395

Painter, John, 282 Pao, David W., xi, 10, 70–71, 79, 81, 82, 88, 89, 92, 96, 97, 99, 107, 108, 129, 130, 150, 151, 156, 160, 174, 175, 177, 180, 188, 193, 198, 199, 200, 207, 214, 221, 227, 230, 232, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 245, 249, 250, 257, 260, 263, 272, 275, 287, 293, 297, 303, 307, 311, 315, 323, 325, 326, 327, 332, 335, 345, 346, 352, 363, 364, 366, 369, 370, 375, 377, 378, 379, 385, 387, 388, 392, 393, 397 Pennington, Jonathan T., 127 Peppard, Michael, 129 Peppiatt, Lucy, 155 Perdue, Leo G., 110–12, 112 Perriman, Andrew, 188, 191 Peterson, Robert A., 167 Pierce, Ronald W., 155, 349 Piper, John, 155 Pitts, Andrew W., 22, 102 Pohl, Christine D., 389 Pokorný, Petr, 3, 10, 18, 80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 92, 95, 98, 100, 110, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 127, 134, 137, 152, 156, 168, 169, 176, 177, 188, 193, 199, 214, 225, 229, 230, 237, 240, 245, 246, 248, 251, 260, 271, 275, 286, 287, 293, 300, 303, 310, 311, 313, 324, 325, 332, 336, 339, 344, 351, 370, 375, 379, 383, 390, 394, 398 Poliakoff, Michael B., 206 Polkinghorne, John, 94 Pollard, T. E., 133 Porter, Stanley, 5, 10, 40, 89, 163–64, 164, 232, 397 Przybylski, Benno, 366 Purves, Andrew, 204

Rambo, Lewis R., 186 Ramsay, W. M., 276 Rapske, Brian, 373, 382, 388, 391 Reasoner, Mark, 2, 63, 301 Reed, Jonathan L., 62 Rees, Valery, 252 Reeves, Rodney, 50, 59 Reid, Daniel G., 39, 251, 252, 256, 257, 373 Rendtorff, Rolf, 93, 161 Reumann, John, 187 Reyes, Luis Carlos, 143, 144 Riesenfeld, Harald, 94 Riesner, Rainer, 18, 34, 216 Richards, E. Randolph, 9, 78, 81, 386, 399 Ridderbos, Herman, 39, 40, 41, 50, 146, 150, 271, 391 Roberts, J. H., 27 Robinson, Marilynne, 16, 322 Roose, Hanna, 156–57 Rosner, Brian S., 3, 59, 305, 306 Rowe, C. Kavin, 80 Rowland, Christopher, 27, 195, 196, 276 Royalty, Robert M., 28 Ruden, Sarah, 155 Rusam, Dietrich, 227 Russell, Jeffrey Burton, 96

Sampley, J. Paul, 88 Sanders, E. P., 34, 39, 41, 43, 47, 50, 91, 228, 263, 265, 266, 283, 319 Sappington, Thomas J., 22, 28, 29, 33, 34, 54, 276 Schäfer, Peter, 27 Schenk, Wolfgang, 137 Schmemann, Alexander, 283 Schnackenberg, Rudolf, 78 Schnelle, Udo, 6, 34, 43–44, 54, 115, 250 Schoberg, Gerry, 59 Schottroff, Luise, 167 Schrage, W., 336 Schürer, E., 125 Schweizer, Eduard, 7, 10, 18, 33, 34, 36, 57, 59, 99, 134, 145, 186, 188, 227, 276, 279, 282, 293, 303, 339, 352, 355 Scott, James M., 125 Scruton, Roger, 302 Seesengood, Robert, 206 Segal, Alan F., 54, 95, 96 Seifrid, Mark, 85 Seitz, Christopher R., 5–6 Shelton, Jo-Ann, 304, 316, 353, 354, 357, 365 Shelton, R. Larry, 165 Shiell, William D., 2 Shogren, Gary S., 125 Silva, Moisés, 329 Skinner, Marilyn B., 304 Smallwood, E. M., 20 Smith, Christopher, 218 Smith, Gary Scott, 96 Smith, Ian K., 10, 26, 29, 31–32, 33, 36, 227 Snodgrass, Klyne, 96, 352, 363 Son, Sang-won Aaron, 270 Sprinkle, Preston M., 42–43, 92 Stackhouse, John G., Jr., 117 Standhartinger, Angela, 11, 184, 337 Stanton, G. N., 159 Starling, David I., 204 Stendahl, Krister, 41 Stettler, Christian, 20, 25, 27, 149 Stettler, Hanna, 188, 189, 190 Stewart, Alistair C., 157, 397 Still, Todd D., 15, 56, 62, 95, 290, 297 Stott, John R. W., 232 Stowers, Stanley K., 78 Strawbridge, Jennifer R., 137 Strecker, Georg, 336 Strousma, Guy G., 95 Sumner, Sarah, 155 Sumney, Jerry, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 22–25, 57, 66, 69, 82, 89, 91, 92, 99, 104, 105, 107, 120, 127, 134, 149, 165, 170, 171, 172, 173, 176, 177, 178, 180, 182, 185, 187, 197, 205, 206, 207, 214, 215, 217, 224, 227, 230, 237, 238, 240, 245, 248, 251, 260, 263, 265, 271, 272, 275, 287, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 295, 297, 301, 303, 309, 310, 311, 315, 319, 323, 324, 327, 328, 330, 336, 340, 344, 345, 351, 352, 357, 360, 363, 364, 366, 368, 370, 372, 375, 378, 379, 380, 384, 388, 390, 391, 392, 393, 395, 396 Swartley, Willard M., 87, 165, 252, 326

Taber, Charles R., 86 Tachau, Peter, 170 Taylor, Charles, 217 Theissen, Gerd, 2 Thielicke, Helmut, 302 Thiselton, Anthony C., 319, 345 Thompson, James W., 41, 59, 204, 336 Thompson, Marianne Meye, xi–xii, 1, 39, 54, 55, 57, 81, 82, 86, 92, 113, 152, 171, 188, 190, 199, 227, 230, 260, 271, 276, 277, 287, 289, 291, 310, 325, 327, 328, 340, 346, 354, 363, 369, 370, 379, 382, 385, 388 Thompson, Michael B., 202, 331, 386 Thornton, T. C. G., 267 Thurston, Bonnie, 10, 81, 93, 110, 124, 168, 204, 285, 305, 306, 326, 365, 378, 379, 380, 381, 395 Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C., 121, 301 Tilling, Chris, 44 Tobin, Thomas H., 98 Torrance, James B., 45–46, 229 Towner, Philip H., 336 Trainor, Michael, 20, 101, 145, 381 Travis, Stephen H., 308, 363 Trebilco, Paul, 14, 19, 29, 157, 328, 382, 395, 396 Tromp, Johannes, 306 Trueman, Carl R., 331 Turner, Nigel, 90, 146, 150, 151, 166, 171, 207, 236, 240, 278, 303, 307, 321, 322, 325, 332, 352, 364

van der Toorn, Karel, 396 van der Watt, Jan G., 87 Vanhoozer, Kevin J., 194 van Unnik, Willem Cornelis van, 377 Verner, D. C., 336 Viviano, Benedict, 102 Volf, Miroslav, 209 Vouga, François, 40

Wagner, J. Ross, 52 Waldman, Mark Robert, 117 Walsh, Brian J., 64, 148 Waltke, Bruce K., 110 Walton, Steve, 2 Ware, Bruce, 233 Ware, James P., 88, 98 Watson, Francis, 38, 39, 41 Watts, Rikki E., 125 Webb, William J., 335, 337, 365 Weima, J. A. D., 381, 388 Wells, Kyle B., 47, 238 Wenham, David, 59 Wessels, G. François, 59, 60, 61, 337, 338 Westerholm, Stephen, 39, 42 White, Benjamin L., 6, 16 White, John L., 78 White, L. Michael, 342, 349 Wilkins, Michael J., 102 Willard, Dallas, 115, 283, 311 Willimon, William, H., 282 Willis, Lawrence M., 286 Wilson, Robert McL., 10, 20, 26, 83, 93, 94, 119, 148, 152, 160, 161, 188, 193, 196, 197, 199, 221, 224, 237, 238, 240, 248, 275, 276, 290, 299, 310, 319, 334, 351, 363, 370, 377, 378, 380, 386, 392, 394 Wilson, Robin M., 128 Wilson, S. G., 121 Wilson, Walter T., 5, 9 Wink, Walter, 137, 144, 252, 257 Winter, Bruce W., 117, 379 Witherington, Ben, III, 27, 59, 60, 61, 66, 77, 79, 87, 89, 94, 110, 118, 128, 146, 157, 168, 177, 182, 187, 188, 192, 205, 215, 224, 227, 232, 241, 252, 292, 298, 303, 306, 314, 325, 327, 334, 336, 337, 338, 365, 366, 368, 395, 398 Wolter, Michael, 275, 287, 318 Wright, Christopher J. H., 319 Wright, J. Edward, 96 Wright, N. T., 1, 14, 16, 28, 30, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 62, 65, 66–67, 78, 79–80, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 95, 97, 99, 115, 119, 125, 127, 130, 132, 134, 138, 143, 146, 152, 159, 161, 163, 170, 176, 177, 179, 184, 188, 190, 194, 195, 200, 202, 211, 213, 218, 222, 224, 226, 227, 229, 237, 239, 245, 248, 249, 250, 260, 263, 269, 271, 272, 275, 278, 282, 286, 287, 291, 295, 296, 306, 308, 311, 316, 319, 325, 326, 332, 345, 356, 363, 366, 370, 375, 379, 389, 390, 394, 396, 397

Yates, Roy, 10, 27, 57, 58, 187, 188, 246, 251 Yinger, Kent L., 263, 272 Yoder, John Howard, 8, 58, 96, 117, 252, 255 Yonge, Charles David, 273, 274

Zetterholm, Magnus, 40, 51 Zimmermann, Alfred E., 216

Scripture and Other Ancient Texts Index

OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis 1 52, 137 1:1 138, 147 1:3 142 1:26–27 147, 311n75, 313 1:26–28 139, 140 1:28 99n106, 100 2:2–3 267 2:8 141 2:17 248 3 147, 164 7:4 250 8:17 100 9:1 100 9:7 100 11 164 11:5 291n304 12 93, 120, 195, 372 13:14–17 120 15 93, 147n299, 242 15:7–8 363 16:7–12 147n299 16:13 149 17 93 17:1–14 234 17:11 242, 314n88 17:20 100 17:22 234 18 147n299 21:4 242 22 93 22:17 249 28:3 100 32:30 149 35:11 100 37:23 251n158 38:18 142 42:11 143 49:3 158n351

Exodus 1:7 100 1:10 249 3:6 148n306 4:12 209 4:15 209 4:22 149 6:2–8 93n77 6:6 124, 125, 129–30 6:12 235 6:30 235 12 129 12:5 202 13:21–22 147n299 14:30 124, 125 15:21 135 16:4–5 268n206 16:22–23 268n206 19–24 93 19:5–6 319 19:6 83 19:12 283 19:20 291n304 19:21 148n306 19:24 148n306 20:4–5 306 20:8–11 267, 268n206 20:12 352 21:15 352 21:23–25 364 23:27 249 24:3 248 24:9–10 291n304 24:9–11 148n306 31:3 108n153, 113 31:13–17 267 32:32–33 247 33:12–23 118n195 33:18–23 148n306 34:6 323 34:21 268n206 34:29–35 118n195 35:3 268n206 36:1 171n415

Leviticus 4:27–31 268n206 5:3 283 7:12–13 88n54 7:15 88n54 7:26–27 265 10:9 264 11:1–23 265 11:44–45 83n34 16:2 148n306 16:7 176n438 16:29 273 16:31 273 17–19 299 17:10–14 265 18 304, 304n29 18:1–2 304 18:3 304 18:6 304 18:6–18 265 18:7 304 18:8 304 18:9 304 18:10 304 18:11 304 18:12–14 304 18:15 304 18:16 304 18:17 304 18:18 304 18:19 304 18:20 304 18:22 304 18:23 304 18:24–28 304 18:26 265 18:29–30 304 19:2 83n34 19:11 307 19:18 325 19:23 235 20:7 83n34 20:26 83n34 22:29 88n54 23 267 25:39–43 365 26–27 301n11 26:1 236n86 26:11–12 93n77 26:12 161 26:30 236n86 26:40–41 235

Numbers 4:20 148n306 6 264 10:10 267 10:31–32 268n206 12:3 322 16:14 120 24:4 194 24:16 194 25:1–3 306 28–29 267 28:9 268n206 28:9–10 267

Deuteronomy 4:19 275 5:8–9 306 5:12–15 267 5:16 352 6:4–9 107, 306, 325, 352n256, 356 7:6–7 319 10:9 120 10:14 95n89 10:16 235 10:16–17 235 12:12 120 12:16 265 12:23–24 265 14:3–21 265 14:27 120 14:29 120 15:12–18 365 17:3 275 18:1 120 21:17 158n351 21:18–21 352 21:20 355 27:9–26 249 28 301n11, 309 30:6–7 235 32:6 86n48 32:29 293

Joshua 3:9 194 19:49 276 19:51 276

Judges 6:22–23 148n306 13:5 264 13:7 264 13:22 148n306 16:17 264

1 Samuel 1:11 399 1:19 399 8 52, 147

2 Samuel 7 93 7:5 102n124, 385n20 7:14 86

1 Kings 3:9 96 3:12 96 8:27 95n89 10:9 272n221 12:22 194 13:1 194 13:5 194 13:21 194 13:26 194

1 Chronicles 22:12 108n153 23:31 267 25:3 88n54 28:4 272n221 29:17 361n295

2 Chronicles 2:6 95n89 5:13 88n54 6:18 95n89 31:3 267 33:16 88n54

Ezra 3:11 135 7:26 291 13:36 291

Nehemiah 5:19 399 6:14 399 9:6 95n89 10:31–32 268n206 10:33 267 12:8 88n54 12:46 88n54 13:14 399 13:15–22 268n206 13:22 399

Job 28 139 29:14 311

Psalms 1:1 115n179 2:7 86, 129 8:6 256, 297 10:6 197n531 16:3 83 19 147n299 27 (26):1 141 27:5 295n326 34:9 83 36:1–4 282–83 37:11 322 42:4 88n54 49:11 197n531 50:14 88n54 50:23 88n54 52:8 221n25 56:13 115n179 67:1–7 99 67:17 LXX 161 68:16 161 68:17 161 69:28 247 69:30 88n54 72:19 161 77:8 197n531 89:15 115n179 89:27 147, 149 92:12–14 221n25 95:2 88n54 95:6 138n280 100:4 88n54 104:24 139–40, 152 105:6 319n110 105:26 102n124, 385n20 105:42 102n124, 385n20 107:22 88n54 110 135, 292n311 110:1 256, 292n311, 297 116:17 88n54 119:1 115n179 119:45 115n179 132:9 311 134 135 143:10 109–10 146:5–6 138n280 147:7 88n54

Proverbs 1:1–7 112, 216 1:3a 112 1:3b 112 1:4 112 1:5b 112 1:7 108n153, 112, 361 1:8 112n166 2:1–2 211 2:4 211 2:6 211 2:7 115 2:9 340 2:13 115 2:20 115 3:19 139, 152 4:1–4 112 4:13 112n166 4:25–27 115 6:6–8 112 6:32 293 8 137–38, 138n280 8:10 112n166 8:12 112 8:22 138, 147–48, 149, 158n350 8:22–31 139, 152 10:17 112 22:17–21 112 23:23 112n166 24:32 112n166 30:5 194 31 347 31:25 311

Song of Solomon 2:16–17 350 4:9–10 350

Isaiah 15 327 27:6 99n106 29:13 285, 285n272 33:5–6 212 40:8 194 40:9 97 40:12–31 138n280 40:13 209 40:18–20 306n42 41:8 102, 385 42:1 129, 160 42:7 190 43:3–4 129 43:7 147 43:20 319n110 43:25 24 44:1 102, 385 44:2 319 44:6–23 306n42 44:24 129 46:1–2 306n42 46:4 323n128 49 190 49:1–6 190 49:4 190 49:6 190 49:8 190 51:3 88n54 52–53 129 52:7 97 52:11 283–84 52:15 190 55:10–11 194 56:6 267 57:6 120 57:15 322 58:3 273 60:6 97 61:1 97 63:16 86n48, 124 65:9 319n110 65:15 319n110 65:17 166 65:23 319n110 66:12 327

Jeremiah 1:14–15 315n94 3:4 86n48 3:16 100 3:19 86n48 4:5–31 315n94 6:10 235 7:25 102n124, 385n20 8:2 275 9:24–25 235 12:7 319 17:8 220, 221n25 17:12 221n25 17:19–27 268n206 19:3 194 19:13 275 22:17 306 23:3 100 23:24 161 30:19 88n54 31:3 319 31:9 86n48 31:20 102, 385 33:4–11 130–31

Ezekiel 20:12 267 22:27 306 36:33 131 39:19 286n281 43:5 161 44:4 161 45:17 267 47:7 221n25

Daniel 1:3–16 265 2 196 6:10 108 6:13 108 7 292 7:2–8 256 7:9 152 7:10 292 7:18 83 7:21–22 188 7:25–27 188 7:27 253 9:10 102n124, 385n20 10:3 265 10:13 253, 256 10:20 253 10:20–21 256 11:40–12:3 256n170 12:1 247 12:1–3 188

Hosea 2:11 267 4:12–18 306 11:1 86, 86n48 13:6 286n281

Amos 2:11–12 264 3:7 102n124, 385n20

Jonah 2:9 88n54

Micah 5:4 327 5:10–15 308 6:8 322

Habakkuk 2:9 306 3:15 188

Zephaniah 1:2–6 315n94 1:5 275 1:15 188 2:4–6 315n94 3:5–9 247 6:15 275

Malachi 1:6 86n48

NEW TESTAMENT

Matthew 1:23 93n77 3:2 194 3:11 120 3:17 129 4:17 194 5:5 322, 363 5:9 164n377, 326 5:12 119n204 5:13 380 5:13–16 375–76 5:14–16 375–76 5:16 117 5:17–48 59, 271 5:29–30 303n23 5:37 329 5:38–42 364 5:43–48 324 5:48 203 6:1–18 361 6:9 86 6:10 110 6:12 323, 324 6:13 124 6:14–15 323, 324 6:33 291 7:1–5 264 7:9–11 353n266 7:24 96 7:24–27 179 7:28–29 59 8:8 120 9:32–34 321 9:36 321 9:37–38 390 10:2–4 78 10:11 380n384 10:14 389n48 10:24–25 79n14 10:40–42 389n48 11:29 322 12:29 260n180 12:32 197n531, 329 13:49 250n153 15:1–20 285 15:12 329 16:23 293 18:8–9 303n23 18:15–20 324 18:15–35 323 18:21–35 246 18:23–35 324 19:4 158 19:8 158 19:28 292 20:34 321 21:24 329 22:44 292n311 23:1–39 264, 361 24:4–8 188 24:9 189 24:14 189 24:21 189 24:29 189 25:31 292 26:30 135 26:64 292n311 27:51–53 159 28:15 329

Mark 1:11 129, 160, 319 1:41 321 1:45 329 2:23–3:5 267 3:13–19 78, 79 4:11 378 6:34 321 7:1–23 285 7:3 278n249 7:7 285n272 7:8 226 7:9–13 352 8:34–37 281 8:34–38 302 9:49–50 380 12:25 297 12:28–32 93, 325 12:30 362n302 12:36 292 13:5–8 188 13:9 224n33 13:10 189 13:32–37 370 14:24 93 14:38 370 14:58 236n87 15:20 251n158

Luke 1–2 135 1:46–55 332 1:48 322 1:68–79 332 2:7 149, 158n351 2:22–23 176n438 2:29–32 332 2:49 375 4:16 396 4:32 329 4:36 329 4:43 375 5:15 329 6:9 117 6:13–16 78 6:33 117 6:35 117 9:22 375 9:31 194 10:39 329 11:5–8 369 11:9–13 369 11:11–13 353n266 12:15 306 12:47 115n174 13:14 375 13:16 375 13:33 375 14:34 380 16:1–9 246–47 17:14 176n438 17:25 375 18:1–8 369 19:20 95 20:20 329 21:8–11 188 22:44 392 22:53 125n223 23:35 319

John 1:1–14 136, 329 1:1–18 161, 194 1:3 150, 151 1:14 93n77 1:18 147, 148–49 1:34 319 3:5–6 236 3:19 172n421 4:24 147 4:34 110 4:35–38 390 4:41 329 7:7 172n421 7:17 110 10:30 295 10:38 161 12:31 260n180 12:32 167n393 13:16 79n14 13:34–35 93 14:10 161 15:27 158 16:1–15 93n77 17:20 329

Acts 1:1 329 1:13 78 1:14 370 1:21–22 79 1:23 389n50 2:14–39 97 2:19 291 2:24 289 2:31 289 2:32 289 2:33–36 292 2:34–35 292n311 2:40–41 329 2:46 119n204 3:12–26 97 3:15 289 3:19 249 3:21 167n393 4:8–12 97 4:10 289 4:24–30 370 4:27 319–20 4:30 319–20 4:36 388 6:10 380n384 7:1–53 97 7:48 236n87 7:53 228n54 7:55 292n314 8:20 284n267 8:22 307, 307n48 9:1–19 269 9:1–31 53n166 9:15–16 54, 181n468 9:16 185n483, 186 9:22 209 10:14 266 10:34 365 10:34–43 97 10:36 329 10:40 289 10:44 329 10:45 390n55 10:47–48 242n112 11:2 390n55 11:3 266 11:4–18 97 11:22 329 12:12 388, 395n83 12:24 329 12:25 194n522, 388 13:9 78 13:13 388, 394 13:15 396 13:16–41 97 13:25 194n522 13:27 396 13:30 289 13:33 289 13:34 289 13:37 289 13:45 185 13:47 190 13:50 185 14:2 185 14:5–6 185 14:14 79, 79n15 14:15–17 97 14:26 194n522 14:27 372 15:20 303n28 15:21 396 15:23 78 15:23–29 265 15:27 329 15:29 303n28 15:32 386 15:36–41 388 15:37–41 37 15:38 388, 394 16:1–3 81n25, 241n111 16:6 329 16:8–17 394n76 16:10 290 16:11 37 16:11–40 395 16:14–15 342n224 16:15 242n112 16:16 366 16:19–34 35 16:23–40 373 16:30–31 242n112 17:1–9 388n41 17:11 329 17:13 185 17:14–16 81n25 17:16–34 306n42 17:22–31 97 17:24 236n87 17:27 290 17:31 263n193, 289, 364, 366 18–19 36n123 18:5 81n25 18:6 185 18:7 389n50 18:8 242n112 18:12–13 185 18:19 39 18:19–20:38 21 18:23 12n43 19:1 12n43 19:8–9 39 19:9 185 19:13–20 39 19:22 37, 81n25 19:23–41 39 19:24 366 19:29 37, 38, 388 19:33 209 20:1–6 384 20:4 81n25, 384 20:5–15 394n76 20:17–24 185n483 20:19 322 20:21 214n609 20:24 181n468 20:29–30 39 20:31 203n562 21:1–18 394n76 21:25 303n28 21:27–29 185 21:27–28:31 373 21:32 185 22:2 366 22:3–16 53n166, 269 23:6 270 23:10 250 23:26 78n11 24:1–26:32 35 24:24 214n609 26:9–18 53n166, 269 26:16–18 190 26:16–18 181n468 26:18 120, 214n609 26:23 159 27:1–28:16 394n76 27:2 37 28 37 28:2 366 28:14 37 28:16 37 28:16–31 36, 384 28:17–31 372 28:23 390n56 28:31 390n56

Romans 1 308 1–4 43, 45n151 1–11 287 1:1 385, 392n62 1:7 385 1:8 201n548, 328n160, 335 1:9–10 107, 368, 399 1:18–32 306, 306n42, 308n56 1:24 305, 305n33 1:26 305 1:29 306, 307 1:29–32 300 1:32 248 2:1 264 2:3 264 2:4 323 2:5 308n56 2:7 291 2:8 308n56 2:10 362 2:11 365 2:12 263n193 2:14–16 249 2:16 263n193 3:5 308n56 3:24 85 3:25 323 4 363 4:4–5 362 4:12 390 4:15 248 4:21 393n71 4:24 241n108 3:4 263n193 3:6–7 263n193 3:23 297 5–8 43, 45n151 5:1 326 5:2 297, 392 5:9 308n56 5:12–8:2 244 5:13 248 5:15–18 244n122 5:20 244n122 6 240 6:1–4 241n110 6:1–11 240 6:1–14 281 6:2 281, 281n259 6:4 15, 290, 294 6:6 309n63, 310 6:11 290, 302 6:12 305 6:13 15, 295 6:16–17 352 6:16–20 385 6:17 340 6:19 303 6:19–21 309 6:23 85, 295 7:1–6 281 7:5 303 7:21–25 277n245 7:24 125 7:25 335 7:25b 285n274 8 14 8:1 85 8:2 85, 295 8:5 293 8:6 295 8:7 346 8:10 285n274 8:11 241n108, 328, 328n161 8:13 295, 302 8:17 297 8:18 297 8:18–25 297 8:21 284, 297 8:29 311 8:29–30 297 8:30 319n110 8:32 246, 323n132 8:33 319n109 8:34 292, 292n311 8:37 256 8:38–39 254, 256 8:39 85 9–11 45n151 9:1–5 390 9:22 308n56, 323 9:23 297 9:24–25 319n110 10:3 291 10:9 241n108 11:13 397 11:20 392 11:22 321 11:28 385 12–16 287 12:1 289n292, 321 12:1–2 352 12:2 277n245, 310, 311, 377n365 12:3 293 12:4–5 303 12:5 85 12:9–21 368 12:9–13:10 323 12:12 369 12:16 293, 322 12:18 327 12:19 308n56, 385 13 376 13:1 254, 256, 346 13:4 181 13:4–5 308n56 13:5 346 13:8–10 325 13:10 362 13:11–14 368 13:12 302n17, 306 13:14 302n17, 310, 320 14 265 14:3 264 14:3–4 264, 266 14:4–9 334 14:5 264 14:5–6 266 14:6 328n160 14:8 352 14:10 263n193, 264 14:10–12 364 14:13 264 14:14 266 14:17 266, 267, 284n269, 326, 390n56 14:19 326, 327 14:20 266, 267 14:23 266, 267 15:7 324 15:8 181, 324 15:14 331 15:14–33 39 15:15–16 4 15:17–22 375 15:19 194 15:30–32 368, 371 15:31 397 15:33 326 16:1–2 342n224 16:3 390n53, 395n83 16:3–4 36n124 16:3–16 387, 395n83 16:4 328n160 16:5 395n83 16:7 388n37 16:9 390n53 16:13 319n109 16:17 340 16:18 363n310 16:21 390n53 16:21–23 387 16:22 7 16:23 395n83

1 Corinthians 1:1 77n7, 81n23 1:1–16:20 77n7 1:2 83, 83n30, 85, 85n43 1:3 76, 165n381 1:4 85, 90n59, 328n160 1:4–9 77n3, 87n53 1:6 221 1:8 177, 221 1:10 207 1:11 342 1:14 328n160 1:16 242n112 1:18 79n16, 118n193 1:18–25 118 1:21 160 1:22 291 1:24 79n16, 314n90 2:1 201n548 2:1–4 210 2:2 264 2:4–5 79n16, 118n193 2:6 197n531, 203 2:6–8 228n54 2:6–10 195 2:6–16 113 2:7 297 2:8 197n531, 253, 256 2:10–16 181n468 2:12 246, 323n132 2:16 209 3:3 220 3:5 104, 181n465 3:5–6 82n27 3:9 390n53 3:10 101n115, 221 3:10–15 364 3:12 221 3:14 221 3:16–17 256 4:1 192–93 4:1–5 181n468 4:1–21 207n575 4:4–5 364 4:5 126, 263n193, 296 4:6 278 4:9–13 36n124, 185n483, 186n485 4:14 102n123, 201, 331, 385 14:15 333 4:16 207 4:17 81n25, 82, 102n123, 202, 340, 385 4:18 225n37 4:18–19 278 4:19 329 4:20 79n16, 126n232, 390n56 5:1 303n28 5:2 250n153, 278 5:3 264 5:3–4 214 5:4 118n193 5:7 310 5:7–8 310 5:8 98, 307 5:9–11 300, 306n42 5:10–11 306 5:12 264 5:12–13 378 6 172 6:1–3 264 6:1–8 368 6:2–3 264 6:9–10 126n231, 300, 363, 390n56 6:9–11 170n405, 306, 309 6:9b–11a 173 6:10–11 306 6:11 83, 173, 305 6:13 284n269, 303n28 6:14 241n108 6:15 303 6:16–18 175n432 6:18 303n28 7 286n279 7:1 283 7:2 303n28 7:4 175n432 7:10–11 217 7:14 84, 84n36, 242n112 7:15 165 7:17–24 361 7:21 365, 385 7:21–23 103 7:22 358 7:32–34 116n184 7:37 179, 264 8:1 278 8:1–13 266 8:3 100, 100n112 8:4–6 91, 306n42 8:5 85n43 8:6 14, 55n170, 150, 151 8:8 176n438 9 181 9:1 79 9:1–2 181n468 9:1–18 79 9:1–27 207n575 9:5–6 79n15 9:6 389 9:12 329n165 9:14 201n548, 217 9:16 375 9:16–18 181n468 9:17 192–93 9:19–23 284 9:24–27 272 10:1 206n570 10:5 160 10:7–8 306 10:14 102n123, 385 10:14–33 266 10:15 264 10:21 266n201 10:26 160 10:29 264 10:30 328n160 10:31 266n201, 334 10:32 314n90 10:33 116n184, 290 11 155, 155n336 11:1–16 155, 155n338 11:2 217, 226, 340 11:3 155, 206n570, 344 11:3–5 278 11:4 155 11:7 147, 155, 278 11:7–9 344 11:8 155 11:10 275, 278 11:13 264 11:23–26 217 11:25 93 11:26 201n548 11:31–32 263n193 11:32 176n438 12 14, 156 12–14 156 12:1 206n570 12:3 219 12:5 398 12:12 303 12:13 312, 313n82, 314n90, 316 12:14 303 12:20 185n480 12:27–28 157 12:28 79 13 93, 136, 325, 349, 350 13:1 333 13:1–3 325 13:4 278, 323 13:5 290 13:10 203 13:12 100n112, 202 13:13 91n67, 94 14:2 96 14:12 291 14:13–33 368 14:15 333 14:16 371 14:17–18 328n160 14:20 203, 307 14:25 208 14:26 135, 330, 333 14:31 207 14:33 327 14:36 329 15 15, 52 15:1 392 15:1–8 12, 97 15:1–28 97 15:2 177n447, 329 15:3–5 289 15:3–8 53, 194, 217, 240, 329 15:3–11 181n468 15:5–9 79 15:5–11 79 15:7 79n15 15:10 101n115 15:12 225n37 15:15 241n108 15:20–28 292 15:22 85 15:22–28 167n393 15:23 159 15:23–28 127n234 15:24 15, 126n231, 152, 158, 390n56 15:24–26 253, 256 15:24–28 256 15:25 171, 292, 292n311 15:25–27 297 15:25–28 159n355 15:26 256, 260n180 15:28 316 15:32 36n124, 384n13 15:34 225n37 15:35–57 296 15:42 284 15:42–43 297 15:44 230n65 15:45–49 311 15:49 147, 311 15:50 126n231, 284, 363, 390n56 15:51 62 15:52–55 94n83 15:54 329 15:58 102n123, 178n458, 179, 221, 385 16:1 84 16:1–4 207n575 16:1–11 181n468 16:8–10 207n575 16:9 372 16:10 37, 362 16:10–11 81n25 16:13–14 368 16:14 93, 325 16:15 398 16:16 346 16:19 395 16:19–20 387 16:21 5, 77n7, 398 16:23–24 400

2 Corinthians 1:1 5, 81n23, 81n25 1:1–2 77n2 1:2 76, 165n381 1:3 90n60, 90n61, 321 1:3–11 186n485 1:4 186n488, 207, 321 1:5 190n502, 221 1:5–7 185n481, 185n483 1:6 192, 207 1:8 36n124, 186n488, 206n570, 384n13 1:10 124n221, 125 1:11 328n160, 371 1:12 101n115 1:13 396 1:19 5, 81n25 1:21 221 1:22 208 1:23–2:4 207n575 1:24 390n53, 392 2:1 264 2:4 208 2:7 246, 323, 323n132 2:7–10 246 2:10 246, 323, 323n132 2:12 329n165, 372 2:12–13 81n23 2:12–7:16 106, 181, 181n468 2:14 260 2:14–17 207n575 2:16 120 2:17 329 2:17–3:1 79 3:1 225n37 3:1–3 207n575 3:2–3 208 3:5 120 3:6 93, 104, 120n207, 181n465, 193, 193n517 3:14 85, 93, 310n66, 396 3:15 208, 396 3:17–4:6 179 3:18 147, 297, 311 4:1 397 4:1–12 207n575 4:2 98 4:4 147, 197n531, 311 4:5 219 4:6 122, 208 4:7 79n16 4:7–15 186 4:8–12 36n124 4:10–11 190n502, 294 4:10–12 281 4:13–14 362 4:14 176, 241n108 4:15 221, 371 4:16 311 5:1–10 15 5:3 177n447 5:6 362 5:7 220 5:8 362 5:9 352 5:10 364 5:14 264 5:14–15 93 5:16 293 5:16–21 207n575 5:17 85, 310 5:18 174, 397 5:18–20 163, 174 5:19 85, 164, 165, 167n393, 173, 174, 244n122, 329 5:20 207 5:21 130, 190n503, 251 6:1–2 190 6:3 397 6:4 181n465, 193, 193n517 6:4–6 118n200 6:5 36, 204 6:6 322 6:7 79n16 6:11 208 6:12 321 6:14 122, 126 6:16 256, 328, 328n161 6:17 283 7:2–8 207n575 7:4 185n481 7:5 398 7:6 322 7:6–7 207 7:8–12 81n23 7:10 362 7:15 321 8:2 199, 209–10, 221 8:4 397 8:7 221 8:13–14 366 8:14 187n490 8:18 394 8:23 79, 82n27, 390n53 9:1 397 9:2 355 9:7 208 9:8 221 9:11 371 9:11–12 328n160 9:12 187n490, 221, 371 9:12–13 397 9:14 101n115 10:1 5, 206n567, 322 10:2 225n37 10:2–3 220 10:3 398 10:7 206n567 10:10 329 11–12 79 11:8 397 11:9 187n490 11:13 79 11:14 122 11:15 193 11:21–29 181n468 11:22–23 185n483 11:23 36, 36n129, 181n465, 193, 193n517, 204, 373 11:23–25 185 11:23–27 374 11:23–33 186n485 11:26 373 11:27 204 11:31 90n60, 90n61 12:4 333 12:1–10 277 12:9 79n16, 117n191 12:9–10 186n485 12:12 79n16 12:13 246, 323, 323n132 12:14 207n575 12:18 220 12:20 307 12:21 303n28, 305n33 13:4 79n16, 186n485, 294 13:5 199 13:11 165n379, 293, 326 13:11–13 387 13:13 400

Galatians 1–4 287 1:1 241n108 1:1–5 77n2 1:3 76, 165n381 1:7 225n37, 329n165 1:10 103, 290, 385 1:10–2:21 181n468 1:11–16 269 1:11–24 53n166 1:12 202 1:13 170n404 1:15 160 1:15–16 54, 190 1:19 79n15 1:22 85, 206n567 1:23 170n404 2:1–10 390n55 2:4 85 2:5 98 2:7–8 234 2:7–9 79n15 2:9 101n115 2:11 206n567 2:11–14 278 2:12 225n37, 390n55 2:14 98 2:15–21 92, 266 2:16 46 2:17 290–91 2:19 281 2:19–20 86, 239, 294 2:20 199 2:21 309n63 3–4 227 3:4 177n447 3:5 118n193 3:7–4:7 120 3:10 248 3:13 248, 378 3:14 85 3:18 246, 323n132, 363 3:19 228, 228n54, 275 3:19–29 92 3:23–25 228 3:26–28 313n82 3:27 237, 302n17, 306, 310, 311 3:28 85, 164, 313–14, 337, 338, 347, 367, 389 4:1–3 228 4:1–7 354 4:3 282n262 4:4 256 4:5 378 4:6 208 4:7 86 4:9 100n112 4:9–10 228, 268 4:10 264, 265 4:24 93, 285n274 4:26 291 4:30 363 5–6 287 5:1 289n292 5:2–12 234 5:5 94, 94n83, 176n439, 179 5:5–6 91n67, 94 5:6 85, 93, 314, 325 5:7 98 5:10 293 5:13 93, 327n157 5:13–26 271 5:14 325 5:16 220 5:16–17 305 5:19 172n421, 285n274, 303n28 5:19–20 307 5:19–21 172n421, 173, 308, 321 5:19–23 300 5:19–26 320 5:21 126n231, 363, 390n56 5:22 93, 105, 118n200, 165n379, 322, 325, 326 5:22–23 320–21 6:1 206n571, 244n122, 322 6:6 329 6:8 284 6:10 93, 117, 362, 379, 378–79n373 6:11 5, 8, 398 6:12–13 287 6:15 314 6:16 84 6:17 185n483, 186n485, 204, 366 6:18 400

Ephesians 1:1 81n23, 83n30, 109 1:1–2 77n2 1:3 90n60, 90n61 1:3–14 136 1:4 17, 83n30, 115, 177, 319n110 1:6 100 1:6–7 17 1:7 199, 210 1:8 212, 221 1:10 108n151, 192, 193 1:13 98 1:14 363 1:15 83n30, 92, 105n135 1:15–16 107 1:15–23 368 1:16 89n58, 163, 328n160 1:17 90n60, 90n61, 113, 212, 244n122 1:18 83n30, 122, 199, 208, 210, 363 1:18–19 117n191 1:19 118, 204 1:19–21a 241 1:20 241n108, 292, 292n311 1:20–21 152, 254, 260 1:20–22 256, 297 1:20–23 158 1:21 152, 158, 254 1:22 155, 231, 278 1:22–23 157 1:23 108n151, 160, 161, 316 2:1–2 254, 309 2:2 197n531, 220, 255 2:2–3 170n404 2:3 172, 305, 308n56 2:4–6 289 2:5 100, 244 2:7 199, 210, 321 2:7–9 100 2:8–9 86n49 2:10 115n177, 117, 220 2:11 170n404, 198n537, 234, 236n87 2:11–13 171n412, 183n475 2:11–22 164 2:12 93, 170, 171, 173, 238, 244 2:13 170n404 2:14 314, 327 2:14–15 326 2:14–17 165n380 2:14–18 165, 165n383 2:14–22 174 2:15 248–49, 311, 312, 314 2:16 174 2:17 326 2:19 83n30 2:19–22 35n121, 136, 256 2:20 79, 220n24, 221 2:21 83n30, 98 3:1 35, 198n537 3:1–13 181n468 3:2 101n115, 177n447, 192, 193, 193n513, 193n516 3:3 17 3:4–11 195 3:5 17 3:6 198n537 3:7 79n16, 104, 118, 181n465, 204 3:7–8 101n115 3:7–18 17 3:8 83n30, 198n537, 199, 210 3:9 17, 122, 192, 193, 197n531 3:10 212, 254 3:13 192 3:16 118, 199, 204, 210 3:17 105n135, 161, 178–79, 199, 208, 221 3:19 105n135, 108n151, 160, 212, 231 3:20 118, 204 4:1 35, 115, 115n177, 220, 289n292 4:1–2 323 4:1–16 156 4:2 105n135, 322, 323 4:2–3 326 4:2–5 91n67 4:3 165n380, 326 4:4 327n157 4:7 101n115 4:8–10 159, 260 4:10 108n151 4:11 79 4:12 83n30 4:13 108n151, 160, 203 4:15 156, 231, 278 4:15–16 105n135, 279 4:16 17, 209 4:17 115n177, 220 4:18 172, 208 4:18–19 171 4:21 98, 177n447, 202 4:22 225n38, 302n17, 306, 310 4:22–24 17 4:23 377n365 4:23–24 310n67 4:24 302n17, 310, 311 4:25 302n17, 303, 306, 307 4:31 307, 351 4:32 246, 323, 323n132, 324 5 349, 351 5:1 102n123, 385 5:2 93, 105n135, 115n177, 220, 324 5:3 303n28, 305n33, 306 5:3–6 308 5:4 371 5:5 126n231, 305, 306, 363, 390n56 5:6 225n38, 299, 308n56 5:8 115n177, 122, 170n404, 220 5:10 352 5:11 172n421 5:13 122 5:14 136 5:15 115n177 5:16 378, 378n373 5:17 109 5:18–20 330, 333 5:19 17, 208, 332n175 5:19–20 17, 135 5:20 328n160 5:21 343, 346 5:21–6:9 336 5:22–33 343 5:23 156, 231, 278, 347 5:23–24 344 5:24 346 5:25 324 5:25–26 347, 350 5:25–27 127n235, 176 5:26 83 5:27 177 5:29 324 5:30 303 6 352 6:1–4 351 6:4 355n274, 356 6:5 359n287, 362 6:5–6 360 6:5–7 358 6:5–9 17, 358 6:6 103, 109, 360n291, 385 6:8 362, 364, 365 6:9 362, 365, 367 6:10 118, 204 6:10–17 256, 388, 398 6:10–20 368 6:11 392 6:12 158, 228n54, 254, 256 6:13–14 392 6:15 165n380 6:18 369, 370, 370n337 6:18–19 373 6:18–20 17, 368, 369 6:19 371, 372, 372n347 6:19–20 371, 372 6:20 35, 374 6:21 102n123, 104, 181n465, 385 6:21–22 17, 383–84 6:22 38, 207 6:23 83n30, 105n135, 165n380 6:23–24 400

Philippians 1:1 5, 37, 38, 81n23, 81n25, 103, 181n465, 193, 231, 384n16, 385, 392n62 1:1–2 77n2 1:2 76 1:3 89n58, 90n59, 328n160 1:3–11 77n3, 87n53, 118n200 1:3–18 181n468 1:4 119n201, 119n204 1:7 35, 208, 293, 373 1:8 321 1:9 221, 312 1:9–11 368 1:11 108n151 1:12 83n30, 383 1:12–13 373 1:12–14 372 1:12–30 35 1:13 36, 36n128 1:13–14 38, 373 1:14 83n30 1:15 225n37 1:17 373 1:17–18 201n548 1:19–26 38 1:25 119n201, 119n204 1:26 221 1:27 116 1:29 246, 323n132 1:30 206n571, 207, 207n574, 392 2:1–11 322 2:2 119n204, 293 2:3 322 2:3–4 345 2:5 85, 293 2:5–11 13, 116, 181, 322 2:6–11 118, 123, 134, 136, 158, 159, 166, 278, 296, 332 2:7 256 2:7–8 358 2:9 323n132 2:9–11 152, 167n393 2:10–11 256 2:11 219 2:12 102n123, 352, 385 2:15 177 2:16 98, 190 2:17 35 2:19 81n25 2:19–23 82 2:21 290 2:23 81n25 2:24 38 2:25 79, 82n27, 101n119, 390n53 2:25–29 12 2:29 119n204 2:30 187n490 3 234 3:1 83n30, 119n204 3:2 224n33 3:3–4 287 3:4b–14 53n166 3:5–11 269 3:7 285n274 3:8 212 3:10 185n483 3:10–11 186, 188, 190n502 3:12–14 272 3:14 291 3:15 203, 293 3:17–18 115n177 3:18 171, 220 3:19 293 3:19–21 290 3:20–21 297 3:21 204, 230n65, 297 4:1 102n123, 385 4:2 293 4:2–3 82n27 4:3 390n53 4:4–7 119n204 4:6 328n160, 368, 371 4:7 165n380, 326 4:8 291, 300 4:9 165n380 4:10 119n204 4:18 101n119, 108n151, 221, 352 4:19 85, 199, 210, 231 4:21–22 387 4:22 35, 36, 36n128 4:23 400

Colossians 1:1 5, 38, 78–82, 81n25, 81–82, 109, 132, 371 1:1–2 17, 76–87, 105, 132, 384 1:1–9 81n23 1:1–2:5 181, 261 1:1–3:4 202 1:2 82–87, 92, 93, 103n127, 121, 121n214, 129n243, 150, 176, 319, 378, 400 1:3 17, 81n23, 87, 87n53, 89–91, 105n138, 107, 221, 328 1:3–8 28, 77n3, 87, 87n53, 89, 104, 105, 105n138, 132 1:3–12 87n52 1:4 17, 87n53, 91–94, 92n68, 94, 105n135, 121n214, 129n243, 209, 319, 325, 349 1:5 15n53, 17, 62n194, 87n53, 94–98, 99, 109, 179, 291, 295, 329, 372 1:5b–6 62n193 1:6 52n164, 98–101, 101n119, 105n138, 109, 117, 179n460, 180, 279, 372 1:6b 98 1:6–8 87n53 1:7 31, 84n40, 101–4, 102n124, 103, 181n464, 193, 382, 384, 385, 387 1:7–8 12, 38, 383, 392 1:8 16, 21, 104–5, 109n154, 209, 325, 349 1:9 16, 17, 25, 105n138, 106, 107–113, 114, 115n174, 116n186, 119n201, 121, 123, 168, 212, 277, 285, 331 1:9b 107, 168 1:9–10 52n164, 105n138, 377 1:9–11 62n194, 105n137, 168 1:9–12 106, 107, 105, 105n137, 106–7, 113, 121, 132 1:9–13 126n228 1:9–14 168 1:9–21 123, 168 1:9–23 87, 105, 180 1:10 25, 99, 105n138, 106, 107n144, 110, 114, 115n177, 115–17, 119n201, 121, 123, 154, 168, 261, 220, 279, 376, 4:5a 1:10–11 106 1:10–12 101, 106, 113–15, 220 1:10–12a 316 1:11 79, 109, 117–18, 119n201, 121, 123, 204 1:12 20, 64, 106, 114, 116, 118–22, 123, 221, 328, 378 1:12a 106 1:12b 124 1:12–14 30, 52n164, 123, 190, 256 1:12–15 10 1:12–20 215 1:12b–20 168, 171 1:13 15n53, 32, 52n164, 62n194, 105, 105n137, 106, 106n139, 114, 121, 122–23, 124–29, 125, 128n236, 129–30, 155, 209, 282, 293, 325, 349, 390n56 1:13a 129 1:13b 130 1:13–14 57, 58, 62n193, 106, 122–32, 132, 168, 169n400 1:13–23 105, 279 1:13–20 124 1:14 114, 123, 129, 130, 106, 121, 124, 129–32, 150, 173 1:14–20 129 1:15 106n139, 136, 137, 144, 145–50, 153, 155, 158, 232, 311 1:15–16 153, 157 1:15–17 145–53, 157 1:15–20 10, 11, 13–14, 28n96, 30, 52n164, 55, 56, 57, 81, 87, 106, 114, 116, 123, 124, 132–35, 136–37, 145, 159n356, 168, 169n400, 180, 180n463, 194, 201, 219, 229, 231, 260, 282, 292, 316, 320, 332, 332n181 1:15–23 106 1:16 85, 96, 123, 137, 144, 147, 150–52, 166, 251–61, 291, 292, 311 1:16–17 150 1:17 35n121, 137, 144, 150, 151, 153n330, 155 1:17a 159n357 1:18 137, 144, 153, 152, 155, 160, 175n435, 231, 232, 278, 378 1:18a 144, 154, 155, 156, 157–60 1:18b 144, 154, 158, 159 1:18–20 154–60 1:18b–20 154 1:19 25, 52n164, 62n193, 108n151, 113, 137, 150, 160–62, 194n521, 295 1:19–20 160–67, 190 1:20 109, 123, 130, 137, 144, 152, 156, 162–67, 173, 174, 175, 184, 190, 201, 291, 292, 324, 326, 327, 329–30, 353 1:20a 154 1:20b 143n287, 154 1:21 20, 163, 164, 168, 169–73, 171n412, 177, 179 1:21–22 57, 309 1:21–23 106, 123, 132, 168–69, 215, 243, 320, 378 1:22 62n193, 62n194, 163, 168, 173–77, 175n432, 176n436, 185, 237, 291, 297 1:22a 173n424 1:22b 168 1:22–23 15n53 1:23 5, 12, 62n194, 94, 99n107, 11, 167, 168, 176n436, 177–81, 181n464, 182, 193, 291, 384, 385 1:23a 169 1:23b 169 1:23–24 12 1:24 13, 22n78, 181, 184–92, 186n486, 187n492, 190, 190n503, 191, 204, 237, 375, 399 1:24a 186 1:24b 186 1:24–27 80 1:24–29 181–87, 192, 195, 197, 200–201, 203, 207 1:24–2:5 5, 22n78, 87, 105, 106, 132, 169, 180, 181, 182, 204, 383, 393 1:25 17, 30, 98, 108n151, 181n464, 187n492, 192–94, 198, 200, 203, 204–5, 277, 329, 372, 385 1:25–29 183 1:25–26 62n193 1:25–27 79 1:26 121n214, 184, 195–97, 200, 372, 375 1:26–27 25, 54, 194, 279, 295 1:27 11, 15n53, 20, 30, 54, 62n194, 94, 94n83, 113, 179, 184, 197–200, 203, 204, 205, 209, 321 1:27–28 211 1:28 25, 81n23, 99n107, 150, 184, 200–203, 201n548, 203, 212, 277, 285, 291, 294, 297, 330, 331, 334, 377, 393 1:28–29 81n23, 89n58, 183 1:29 17, 22n78, 79, 118, 203–4, 207, 392 1:29–2:2 62n194 2 39, 221, 235, 272 2:1 12, 22n78, 200, 203, 205, 206–7, 237, 392 2:1–2 212 2:1–4 278 2:1–5 182, 184, 204–14 2:2 11, 25, 30, 54, 93, 105n135, 184, 199, 200, 205, 207–11, 255, 277, 325, 349, 386, 393, 393n71 2:2–3 13, 62n193, 113 2:3 25, 33, 172, 200, 205, 210–12, 279, 285, 295, 331, 377, 393 2:4 17, 25, 30, 89n58, 205, 212–13, 224 2:4–5 205, 212 2:5 28, 35n121, 62n194, 64, 87, 92, 106, 132, 177, 184, 205, 208, 213–14, 213n604, 237 2:5–6 15n53 2:6 62n193, 62n194, 115n177, 16, 215, 216–20, 219, 226, 280, 287n284, 298n2, 376 2:6a 62n193, 215 2:6b 215, 216 2:6–7 30, 102, 215–22, 279, 287, 317, 367 2:6b–7 215, 220 2:6–8 17 2:6–9 170 2:6–3:4 61, 182, 261, 279 2:6–3:11 352 2:7 12, 35n121, 218, 202, 202n554, 221, 328 2:8 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 113, 151, 218, 222, 223, 224–28, 229, 224n33, 282, 285 2:8a 224n33 2:8–9 161 2:8–15 30, 222–23, 280, 317 2:8–19 280 2:9 15n53, 25, 57, 62n193, 62n194, 108n151, 160, 161, 222, 223, 229–31, 232, 240, 277, 295, 316 2:9–10 13, 91, 229–32 2:9–12 58, 123 2:9–13 167 2:9–15 10, 190 2:10 108n151, 155, 222, 223, 231, 234, 240, 278, 292, 231–32, 393 2:11 52n164, 62n193, 222, 223, 233, 234–39, 240, 246, 251, 278, 281, 285, 293, 294, 310, 390 2:11–12 218, 240n103, 242n114, 246, 268n209, 295, 302 2:11–13a 223 2:11–13 57, 222, 241n112, 289n292 2:11–14 231 2:11–15 378 2:11–22 164 2:12 15, 33, 118, 189, 222, 233, 239–42, 246, 281, 289n295 2:12b 124, 240n103 2:12–13 123 2:13 20, 52n164, 233, 237, 245, 278, 293, 309 2:13a 243–44 2:13b 237, 246, 244, 245–46 2:13–14 62n193 2:13b–14a 245 2:13–15 13, 34, 57, 222, 245, 255, 294, 296, 388 2:13b–15 233, 244–45 2:14 30, 35n121, 246–51, 250n152, 263, 314 2:14a 246–50 2:14b 245, 250–51 2:14–15 237 2:15 15, 32, 57, 126, 152, 166, 167, 229, 237, 251–61, 252, 254, 256, 310 2:15a 245 2:15b 245 2:15c 245 2:16 24, 25, 26, 248, 263–68, 282, 283–84, 293, 298n2 2:16a 271 2:16–17 24, 30, 39, 226, 228, 263–71 2:16–19 222, 237–38, 261–63, 280, 317 2:16–23 16, 161, 248, 263, 264, 268n209 2:17 228, 269–71, 285 2:18 22n78, 24, 26, 109n154, 227, 237, 263, 265, 271–78, 272n219, 284, 286, 293, 322 2:18b 277 2:18–19 15n53, 62n194, 263, 271–79 2:19 156, 209, 231, 271, 178–79, 326 2:20 15n53, 26, 62n194, 151, 227, 228, 249, 268, 279, 281–83, 284, 287n284, 293, 295, 302 2:20–21 186n486 2:20–23 228, 280–81, 287, 287n284 2:20–3:4 222, 239, 280, 281, 287, 289 2:20–3:5 57 2:20–3:17 33, 367 2:21 249, 267, 282, 283–84, 286, 293 2:21–22 30, 39, 280 2:21–23 24, 248 2:22 52n164, 220, 284–86, 285n272 2:22a 284 2:22b 284 2:22–23 284–87 2:23 25, 26, 29, 212, 265, 276, 278, 280, 285–87, 293, 322, 377 2:23a 284, 285 2:23b 284, 285, 286 3 347 3:1 15, 52n164, 94–95n85, 256, 287n284, 289–93, 298n2, 299 3:1b 290, 295 3:1c 290 3:1–2 62n193, 288, 289–93 3:1–3 58 3:1–4 94, 179, 280, 281, 287, 287n284, 288–97, 317 3:1–17 15n53, 62n194 3:1–4:6 220 3:2 291, 293, 302 3:3 287n284, 288, 294–96 3:3a 294 3:3b 294 3:3–4 62n194, 288, 291 3:4 94–95n85, 287n284, 288, 293, 295, 296–97, 375 3:5 222, 287, 299, 300–306, 307, 314, 320, 321, 322, 367 3:5–7 20, 291, 300n6 3:5–9 172n421, 173 3:5–9a 300 3:5–11 57, 170, 298–307 3:5–12 10 3:5–17 64, 389 3:5–4:6 202 3:6 62n194, 291, 297, 300, 308 3:6–7 300, 307–9 3:7 115n177, 170n404, 220, 300, 309, 376, 378 3:8 300n6, 302, 307, 320, 321, 322 3:8–9a 306–7, 314 3:8b–9a 307 3:8–10 299 3:8–15 167 3:9 251, 293, 310, 320 3:9a 307 3:9–10 317, 318 3:9b–10a 300, 310n63, 312 3:9b–10 309–12 3:9–11 320n116 3:9b–11 307–9 3:10 52n164, 62n194, 147, 293, 320 3:10a 318 3:10b 300, 311, 312 3:11 54, 58, 64, 84, 86, 93, 105, 109, 164, 165, 166, 201, 209, 234, 238, 268, 279, 299, 300, 310, 312–16, 321, 322, 327, 328, 337, 347, 358, 367, 389, 390 3:11b 64 3:12 84, 121n214, 176, 318–23, 320, 324, 345, 349, 379 3:12–13 323 3:12–14 318–26 3:12–17 299, 317–18 3:13 62n193, 246, 323–24, 378 3:13–4:1 64 3:14 62n194, 93, 105n135, 222, 323, 323n127, 325–26, 349, 352, 358 3:14–15 64 3:15 64, 87, 165n380, 221, 272, 326–28, 380 3:15–17 208, 318, 341 3:16 16, 25, 135, 194, 201, 202n554, 212, 221, 285, 328–33, 331, 340, 372, 377 3:16–17 17, 98 3:17 194, 221, 222, 280, 299, 328, 331, 334–35, 344, 352, 358, 360, 361, 362, 364, 366, 367 3:17–18 335 3:18 340, 344–49 3:18–19 342–51 3:18–4:1 34, 298, 340–41, 368, 395 3:19 346, 347, 349–51, 354, 361 3:20 340, 351–53, 354, 361 3:20–21 356, 351–56 3:21 354–56 3:22 241n110, 359–60, 362 3:22b 358, 360–62 3:22–25 358 3:22b–25 358 3:22–4:1 17, 335, 356–67 3:23 340, 366, 362, 364 3:23–24 358 3:24 291, 297, 340, 362–63 3:23–25 15n53, 62n194 3:25 357, 364–65 3:25–4:1 15n53, 62n194 4:1 291, 337, 358, 360, 362, 365–67 4:2 221, 328, 369–71 4:2–3 17 4:2–4 375 4:2–6 167, 298, 368 4:3 25, 35, 54, 81n23, 89n58, 98, 194, 329, 371–74, 372n347, 399 4:3–4 5, 369, 371–75 4:3–6 369 4:4 374–75 4:5 15n53, 17, 25, 62n194, 115n177, 212, 340, 378 4:5a 377, 376–78 4:5b 375, 378–79 4:5–6 375, 369, 375–80 4:6 17, 101n115, 194, 375, 379–80 4:7 84n40, 102n123, 102n124, 181n464, 193, 381, 383–86, 387 4:7–8 17, 38 4:7–9 21, 383–87 4:7–15 5 4:7–17 17 4:7–18 382–83 4:8 207, 208, 383, 386 4:9 84n40, 102n123, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386–87 4:9–12 38 4:10 37, 38, 86, 382 4:10a 388 4:10b 388–89 4:10–17 357 4:11 126n232, 382, 383, 390n56, 393n75, 389–91 4:12 15n53, 21, 35n121, 62n194, 86, 102, 102n121, 103, 103n127, 104, 109, 203, 207, 210, 277, 382, 385, 391–93 4:12–13 12, 371, 385, 391–93 4:13 31, 36 4:14 36n123, 86, 102n123, 382, 383, 385, 393–94 4:15 36, 86, 348, 382, 383, 384, 394–95 4:16 36, 396–97 4:16–17 396–98 4:17 194n522, 386n30, 397–98 4:18 5, 35, 80, 172, 186, 398–400, 381, 398–400

1 Thessalonians 1:1 77n2, 81n23, 81n25, 165n381, 295n327 1:2 89n58, 328n160 1:2–3 107, 368 1:2–10 77n3, 87n53, 118n200 1:3 91n67, 399 1:4 319 1:5 79n16, 118n193, 210, 329, 393n71 1:6 119n201, 185n481 1:9–10 98 1:10 124n221, 125, 241n108, 308n56 2:1–8 181n468 2:2 206n571, 207, 392 2:4 116, 208 2:5 170n404 2:6 290 2:8 102n123, 385 2:9 203n562, 204 2:12 116, 126n231, 220, 297, 390n56 2:13 328n160 2:14 297, 324n137 2:16 308n56 2:17 206n567 2:17–3:11 181n468 2:19–20 202 3:1–6 81n25 3:2 82n27, 207, 390n53 3:2–3 207 3:7 207 3:9 370 3:10 187n490, 203n562, 206n567 3:12 221 3:13 208 4:1 116, 217, 340 4:3 303n28 4:3–4 206n570 4:3–7 300 4:5 305 4:7 305n33, 327 4:9–12 368 4:10 221 4:11–12 378 4:12 220, 377–78 4:15 62 4:16–17 256 4:18 207 5:1–11 368 5:4 126 5:5 122 5:8 94n83, 302 5:9 308n56 5:11 207 5:12 201, 331 5:14 201, 207, 323, 331 5:17 268 5:18 328n160 5:23 83, 165n379, 202, 326 5:25 368, 371 5:26 387 5:27 396 5:28 400

2 Thessalonians 1:1 81n23, 81n25, 295n327 1:1–2 77n2 1:2 76, 165n381 1:3 328n160, 368 1:3–12 77n3, 87n53 1:5 126n231, 390n56 1:5–10 167 1:7 208 1:8 352 1:11 118n193 2:1–12 181n468 2:7 250n153 2:8 256 2:10 225n38 2:12 263n193 2:13 98, 319, 328n160 2:13–17 368 2:14 297 2:15 202, 278n249 3:1 371, 372 3:1–2 368, 371 3:1–5 368 3:2 124n221, 125 3:6 217, 340 3:8 203n562, 204 3:14 352 3:15 201, 331 3:16 165n379, 326 3:17 398 3:18 400

1 Timothy 1:3 37, 81n25 1:4 192, 366 1:5 93 1:11 181n468 1:12 117n191, 397 1:17 147 1:18 81n25 2:1 328n160 2:4 98, 167n393 2:7 79 2:8–15 336 2:11–15 344 2:14 225n38 3:1–13 300 3:7 378 3:8 181 3:12 181 3:16 134, 136 4:3 265, 286, 286n281 4:3–4 328n160 4:6 181n465 4:12 81n25 4:14 81n25 4:16 178 5:4 352 6:1–2 336 6:2 102n123, 385 6:4 307 6:10 305 6:11–16 136 6:12 206n571, 207, 392 6:17 199, 210, 330, 366 6:21 400

2 Timothy 1:3 203n562, 399 1:5 328n161 1:5–6 81n25 1:7–8 79n16 1:9 327n157 1:14 328n161 1:15 185 2:2 120, 202 2:6 204 2:8 97 2:8–12a 185–86, 190 2:8–13 281 2:10 192, 297, 319n109 2:11–13 136 2:15 98, 176n438 2:18 98 2:19 392 2:21 83 2:25 322 3:5 79n16 3:7 98, 276 3:10–11 81n25 3:11 124n221, 125 3:15 81n25 4:1 126n231, 263n193, 390n56 4:5 398 4:7 206n571, 207, 392 4:8 95 4:9–12 394n78 4:10 37, 394 4:11 37, 38, 389, 394 4:12 37, 384 4:13 81n25 4:16 185 4:17 194, 210 4:17–18 124n221, 125 4:18 126n231, 172n421, 390n56 4:19–21 387 4:21 81n25 4:22 400

Titus 1:1 98, 319n109 1:2–3 181n468 1:9 207 1:10 390n55 1:11 202 1:14 98, 285n272 2:1–10 336 2:7 366 2:8 378n370 2:11 167n393 2:13 94, 179 2:15 207 3:3 170n404 3:2 322 3:4 321 3:4–7 136 3:5 311 3:6 330 3:7 94n83 3:12 264, 384 3:15 387

Philemon 1 17, 35, 38, 81n23, 81n25, 82n27, 241n110, 373, 386, 390n53, 397 1–2 348, 395 1–3 77n2 2 386n30, 397, 398 3 76, 90n60 4 90n59, 328n160, 399 4–5 92 4–6 368 4–7 77n3, 87n53, 87–88 6 94n85 7 322 8–12 38 8–18 386, 386n30 9 35, 373 9–10 207 10 35, 387 12 38, 322, 387 13 35 15 38 16 241n110, 316, 361, 387 18 357, 364 18–19 247 19 5, 398 20 322 21–22 181n468 22 38, 39, 246, 323n132, 368, 372 23 21, 35, 102, 102n121, 103, 104, 385, 385n18, 388n38, 389n50 23–24 17, 357, 387 24 37, 82n27, 388, 390n53, 394

Hebrews 1:1–4 198 1:3 134, 136, 147, 153, 153n330, 292 1:6 149, 158n351 1:10 158 1:13 292, 292n311 1:13–2:8 297 2:2 228n54, 275 2:9 167n393 2:10 297 5:2 355 5:12 227 6:1 172n421 6:10–12 91n67 6:11 210, 393n71 6:12 118n199 7:22 93n76 7:25 292 8:1 292n311 8:5 228 8:6 93n76 9:11 228, 236n87 9:14 172n421 9:15 93n76 9:16–17 93n76 9:20 93n76 9:24 236n87 9:27 95 10:1 228, 271 10:5 271 10:12 292 10:12–13 292n311 10:13 292 10:22 393n71 10:22–24 91n67 10:29 93n76 11:23 354 11:27 147 11:28 149, 158n351 11:31 389n48 12:1 206n571, 207, 302n17, 306 12:2 292n311 12:9 346 12:15 351 12:23 149, 158n351 12:24 93n76 12:26 170n405 13:20 93n76 13:23 81n25

James 1:2 119n204 1:2–8 203 1:3–4 118n200 1:14–15 302 1:19–20 307 1:21 300, 302n17, 306 1:22 213n601 1:26 225n38 2:1 198, 365 2:10–11 249 3:1–12 203 3:1–18 300 3:1–4:12 306n47 3:11 351 3:18 87 4:4 394 4:7 346 4:10–12 263 5:10–11 118n199 5:12 153 5:17 369

1 Peter 1:3 90n60 1:3–8 91n67 1:6 119n204 1:18–21 136 1:21–22 91n67 2:1 306 2:1–2 300, 302n17 2:4 319 2:6 319 2:9–10 319n113 2:10 170n405 2:11–12 376, 378n370 2:12 340 2:13–3:7 340, 376 2:14 340 2:15 117, 378n370 2:18 362 2:18–25 359, 364 2:18–3:7 336 2:20 117 2:21–25 136 2:24 271 2:25 170n405 3:1 378n370 3:1–6 362 3:2 340 3:6 117 3:15 380 3:16 378n370 3:17 110, 117 3:18–21 136 3:19–20 159 3:20 118n200 3:22 260, 292, 292n311 4:1 191, 302n17 4:1–3 300 4:1–5 309 4:6 159 4:7 369 4:8 153 5:1 297 5:4 297 5:5 346 5:13 38, 389n45

2 Peter 1:4 231 2:12 284n267 3:4 158 3:9 167n393 3:10 227 3:12 227

1 John 2:2 167n393 2:15 394 2:24 158 2:28 296 3:2 296 3:12 172n421

2 John 8 224n33 9 276 11 172n421

3 John 11 117

Jude 24 177

Revelation 1:5 28n96, 149, 158n351, 159 1:6 128 2:2 79 2:13–15 278n248 3:5 247, 249 3:10 118n200 3:14 28n96 3:21 292 4:1–2 276 4:11 135 5:9–10 135 7:14 189 8:11 351 10:7 195–96 10:9–10 351 14:6 189 15:3–4 135 19 135 20–22 52, 95, 291 20:7–15 308 21:3 93n77 21:9–27 127n235 22:1–3 292 22:13 152n324 22:14–15 308

OTHER ANCIENT TEXTS

APOCRYPHA

Judith 14:10 268

1 Maccabees 1:13–15 235 1:15 234 1:62–63 265 2:29–41 268n206 13:51 333

2 Maccabees 1:3 110 1:10–17 88 2:30 276

4 Maccabees 1:1 225 5:7 225 5:35 225 7:7 225 7:9 225 7:21 225 8:1 225 12:13 227

Sirach 1:4 140, 154 1:24–25 211 4:30 365 7:19–28 340 7:20–21 365 30:1 354 30:8–13 354 33:31 365 43:26 140, 154

Wisdom of Solomon 1:1 361n295 1:6–7 161 1:7 154 7:13–14 211 7:17 227 7:17–22a 140 7:22b–25 140 7:26 148 8:5 140, 152 9:1 152 9:1–2 141 9:9 141 9:17–18 113n171 10:12 272 11–15 306n42 14:25–26 301n11 17:20 126 18:4 126

CLASSICAL SOURCES

Aristotle Politics 1.2 339 1.2.4–5 365n318 1.2.12 349n249 1.5 347n243 1.12 346n242, 347n243 2.2.6 366n326

Cicero For Flaccus 28 20

Columella On Agriculture 11 339

Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca Historica 19 266n200

Diogenes Laertius Lives of Eminent Philosophers 1.33 313n84

Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 2.26.4 354n271

Epictetus Discourses 2.10 339

Horace Satires 1.9.68–74 314n88

Livy History 2.32.9–12 156n343

Lucius in Apuleius Metamorphoses 11:23 27n91

Pliny Epistles 10.96–97 134

Natural History 11.51 19n65

Plato Republic 514a–520a 271

Theaetetus 162e 213 198b 216 Timaeus 156 47c–48b 154n333

Seneca Epistles 94 339

Letters to Lucilius 47 365

Strabo Geography 12.8.16 19n65 13.4.14 20

Tacitus Annals 14.27 19

Plutarch Aemilius Paullus 32.2–34.5 257–59

Varro On Agriculture 1.17.7 365

Xenophon Memorabilia 2.1.1 227

DEAD SEA SCROLLS

Damascus Document (CD) II 7 319n110

IV 3 319n110 17–18 301

X 4 319n110

Rule of the Community (1QS) I 8 115n178

III 18 115n178 20–21 115n178

IV 2–6a 301 3–6 325n143 8 301 9–11 301

V 5 236

VIII 5–6 83n35 21 115n178

X 9 135

XI 6–9 121

         War Scroll (1QM)      256n170, 308

II 4–6 267

XII 1 319n110

XV 5 88n54

EARLY CHRISTIAN TEXTS

Ambrosiaster Commentaries on Galatians-Philemon 81 25 88 226 98–99 337

Barnabas 19:5–7 336

1 Clement 1:3 336 21:6–9 336

Clement of Alexandria Miscellanies 1.1 6n18

Didache 4:9–11 336

Eusebius Chronicle 1.21–22 19

Ecclesiastical History 2.22.1 37

Hippolytus Apostolic Tradition 21.1–20 311n69

Ignatius To Polycarp 4:1–6:2 336

Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.14.1 6n18

Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 85.2 6n18 138.2 6n18

First Apology 67 135n268

Polycarp To the Philippians 4:2–6:1 336

Tertullian Against Marcion 5.19 160n360

Prescription against Heretics 7 6n18

JEWISH SOURCES

Josephus Against Apion 2.199–208 339 2.201 346n242 2.269 315

Jewish Antiquities 4.212–13 107 4.213–16 267n203 4.241–42 267n203 4.257–61 267n203 12.3–4 20 14.226 266 14.228 65 14.245 266 14.261 265–66 18.11 225

Jewish War 2.119 225 6.422–26 267n203

Mishnah Avot 1:1 217 2:12 334

Philo Allegorical Interpretation 1.43 138n279, 141, 148, 158n350 3.96 141

On the Changing of Names 223 225

Confusion 97 142–43 147 143

On the Decalogue 165–67 339

On Dreams 1.35–36 273 1.75 142 1.128 154n333 1.152 272 1.239 142 2.45 142

Flight 101 141

Heir 112 142

Hypothetica 7.1–9 339

On the Life of Moses 2.67–70 274

Migration 40 142

On the Special Laws 1.1–11 234n83 1.81 138n279 2.236 353n267 3.83 142

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

Apocalypse of Paul 17 247–48

Apocalypse of Zephaniah 3:5–9 247 8 333

2 Baruch 4:2–7 291 21:6 292n314 44:14–15 211 49:3 302n21 51:8–10 293n320 51:8–12 291

1 Enoch 14:8–13 276–77 14:22 292n314 39:12 292n314 43:1–2 228n54 46:3 211 60:11 228n54 60:12 228n54 75:1 228n54 80:6 228n54 89:61–64 247n137 89:70–71 247n137 92:4–5 126 102:5 175n429 103:2 196 106:19 196 108:7 247n137

2 Enoch 3 276 4:1–2 228n54

4 Ezra 7:26 291 13:36 291

Joseph and Aseneth 15:10–11 95

Jubilees 1:22–24 235–36 2:2 228n54 2:8 228n54 2:19–20 267 6:34–38 267 15:22–34 236

Letter of Aristeas 160 107n145

Testament of Benjamin 9:1 304

Testament of Judah 13:6 304n29 18:6 305 19:1 305n39

Testament of Job 11:1–4 247 11:6–7 247 11:10–11 247 48:1–50:3 293n316 48:3 333 49:3 333 50:1 333

Testament of Joseph 7:8 305

Testament of Levi 2:5–7 276 3:4–8 275 13:1 361n295

Testament of Moses 8:1–5 234

Testament of Reuben 1:6 304n29 4:1 361

Testament of Solomon 8:1–3 228

Testament of Zebulon 9:1–4 156