Download an mp3 teaching series from James HERE!
Both Herodotus and Xenophon spoke of Colossae as an enormous city that was incredibly wealthy. However, because the roads and trade routes were changed, the city was no more than an “insignificant market town” by the time Paul wrote his letter. Colossae is so small that Luke never mentions this church in the book of Acts, and it doesn’t seem that Paul had ever been to this city (Col. 2:1). Paul covers the basics of Christology and true spirituality in this short letter. Paul didn’t start this church in Colossae, and it’s likely that Epaphras started this church (Col. 1:7; 4:12). Paul is writing this letter based on what Epaphras “informed” him about the church (Col. 1:8). The “Colossian Heresy” had infiltrated this church. This was most likely a syncretistic blend of Jewish mysticism and proto-Gnosticism. Paul writes to correct this pernicious teaching and to build up their faith in Christ.
Table of Contents
Who started the church in Colossae?. 6
What was the Colossian Heresy?. 6
How to use this commentary well 7
Authorship
Critical scholars do not overwhelmingly accept Colossians as an authentic letter of Paul (though many do). Some critical scholars argue that one of Paul’s disciples wrote the letter as though Paul was the actual author. That being said, we agree with O’Brien,[1] Carson and Moo,[2] Melick,[3] and Wright[4] that this is an authentic Pauline letter. A number of arguments can be made in favor of Pauline authorship, and the arguments against his authorship are not weighty in our estimation.
First, the book itself claims to be written by Paul. This should not be cavalierly dismissed, as is often the case in critical circles. Paul names himself at the beginning of the letter (Col. 1:1, 23) and at the end (Col. 4:18). We should accept the self-designation of the author unless we have good reasons to reject this.
Second, early church fathers attributed the letter to Paul. These would include Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 3.14.1), Tertullian (The Prescription Against Heretics, 7), and Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, 1:1).[5] Likewise, Justin Martyr alludes to the letter by AD 150 (Dialogue with Trypho, 138), and the book appears in both the Marcionite Canon (AD 140) and the Muratorian Canon (AD 180).[6]
Third, statistical arguments regarding vocabulary are unconvincing. Critics note that this letter contains 50 words that are not used anywhere else in Paul’s writings,[7] and the letter has 34 words that occur nowhere else in the NT (i.e. hapax legomena).[8] Thus critics contend that this casts doubt on Paul’s authorship.
However, Galatians (which is affirmed as authentic by even the most strident NT critics) contains 31 words that occur nowhere else in the NT.[9] In fact, Carson and Moo point out that “the same is true of all of Paul’s letters” to some degree or another.[10] Furthermore, since the “Colossian Heresy” was such a unique teaching, it shouldn’t surprise us that Paul would draw on a more robust vocabulary to critique this view.[11] Indeed, some critics agree that some later Christian forger was arguing against Gnosticism in this letter, and the author was using the language of the Gnostics to combat this heresy. Yet, then these same authors turn around and use this as evidence against Paul’s authorship. These are mutually competing claims: “Naturally their terminology would not be his, and both arguments should not be used together in the authorship question.”[12]
Furthermore, many themes in Colossians also appear in the undisputed letters of Paul. Paul refers to the church as Jesus’ “body” (Col. 1:18, 24; 2:19) which matches his other letters (1 Cor. 12; Rom. 12). Paul’s writing about suffering (Col. 1:24) also aligns with Paul’s other writing (2 Cor. 1:3-11; 4:7-18; Rom. 8:17-25).
Fourth, the presence of Gnosticism shouldn’t late date the letter. Some critics (e.g. F.C. Baur) denied Pauline authorship because Gnosticism was thought to be a second century heresy. However, heresies do not appear overnight; they take time to develop. While Gnosticism reached its peak in the second and third centuries; it most likely had its beginnings in the first century. Paul was most likely arguing against some form of proto-Gnosticism (or “incipient Gnosticism”[13]).
Fifth, the brilliance of the letter’s composition favors Paul. If a disciple of Paul wrote the letter, how could he write with such brilliance? It’s difficult to believe that “creative genius can be ‘caught’ even by long familiarity with the master and his work.” Indeed, “we may well wonder whether anyone other than Paul himself would have been so bold with his irony, so characteristically terse and pregnant in his theological statements and Old Testament allusions. Deliberate imitations… are usually wooden, self-conscious things, not flowing and vibrant as this letter is.”[14]
Conclusion. Because of the lack of evidence against Paul’s authorship, Vaughn writes, “Today, however, there is broad agreement that it is… from the hand of Paul—or that it is at least substantially Pauline.”[15] In fact, he writes that in recent years many of these old-line arguments have been “largely abandoned.”[16]
Date
The letter affirms that Paul wrote from prison (Col 4:10) and that Aristarchus (Col 4:10) accompanied Paul to Rome (Acts 27:2).
Wright[17] contends that Paul wrote from prison in Ephesus—not Rome. If this is the case, then we would date the letter sometime between 52 and 55 AD, during the time that Paul served in Ephesus (Acts 19:8-10). However, we reject the Ephesian imprisonment theory for several reasons (see “Introduction to Philippians”). Several lines of evidence support that Paul wrote from Roman imprisonment:
- Paul mentions Aristarchus (Col. 4:10), who was with him during his Roman house-arrest (Acts 27:2).
- Eusebius places Paul under Roman imprisonment (Church History, 2.22.1).[18]
- Paul was not under “lock and key” while under Roman house-arrest (Acts 28:30), which fits with Paul having so many coworkers with him when he wrote Colossians (Col. 4:7-17).
- Paul would be writing to the Ephesians while in Ephesus. Melick asks, “Why would Paul write a letter to the Ephesians when he was in prison in Ephesus?”[19]
Thus we agree with scholars like O’Brien[20] and Melick[21] who affirm the Roman imprisonment of Paul when he wrote this letter. Under this view, we can date this letter to AD 60 or 61.[22] This would most likely be during the time that Paul also wrote Ephesians (see Introduction to Ephesians).
Audience
We know very little about the city of Colossae. The city was on the banks of the Lycus River in Asia Minor, and it was close to Laodicea (10 miles) and Hierapolis. The city hasn’t been excavated. So, to reconstruct the setting, we need to rely on the letter itself and our knowledge of the surrounding region in Asia Minor. From the letter, we know that these were Gentile Christians who came from paganism (Col. 1:12-13, 21, 27; 2:13; 3:5-7). Though, as we’ll see, this is difficult to reconstruct because “the lines between different cults and religious ideas could get blurred, and the phenomenon known as ‘syncretism’ …became quite common.”[23]
History of Colossae
At one point, Colossae was a booming city. Herodotus (5th century BC) described Colossae as “a great city of Phrygia” (History 7.30.1). Xenophon (4th century BC) wrote that Colossae was “a populous city, wealthy and large” (Anabasis 1.2.6).[24]
However, at this period in history, Colossae was tiny. Just 20 years before the time of Paul, Strabo referred to Colossae as a “small town” (Geography 12.8.13).[25] Neighboring cities like Laodicea and Hierapolis (~10 miles away) overshadowed Colossae. This might be why Paul mentions both of these cities in his letter (Col. 2:1; 4:13, 15), and why he urged the Colossians to send a copy of the letter to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16). Because of its lack of commercial prosperity and significance, this may have been one of the least significant churches Paul wrote to.[26] Colossae is so small that Luke never mentions this church in the book of Acts, and it doesn’t seem that Paul had ever even travelled to this city (Col. 2:1).
Colossae may have been affected by the great earthquake that devastated Laodicea in AD 60-61 (Tacitus, Annals 14.27.1; Strabo, Geography 12.8.16; Orosius, Historiae ad paganos 7.7.12), though this isn’t certain.[27]
A substantial Jewish population may have lived in Colossae. Josephus records that two thousand Jewish families settled in the general area of Lydia and Phrygia (Antiquities 12.147-53),[28] and archaeologists have discovered Jewish graves in Hierapolis (just 12 miles from Colossae). The Roman governor Flaccus seized twenty pounds of gold from the Jewish settlers in Laodicea (Cicero, pro Flacco 28), which could amount to a population of around 11,000 Jewish people living there (if each Jewish person gave a half-shekel).[29] While there may have been some Jewish believers in Colossae, the majority were most likely Gentiles (Col. 1:27; 2:13).
Who started the church in Colossae?
Paul had never been to Colossae, as the letter indicates (Col. 1:4, 9; 2:1). So, who started this church? The most likely candidate is Epaphras (Col. 1:7; 4:12). This may have coincided with Paul’s ministry in Ephesus where “all who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks” (Acts 19:10). Epaphras is said to be with Paul in prison (“fellow prisoner”) when Paul wrote his letter to Philemon (Phile. 23), along with Onesimus (Col. 4:9).
Epaphras’ imprisonment may be why Paul sends the letter to the Colossians with Tychicus—not Epaphras (Col. 4:7-8). Epaphras apparently left Archippus behind to watch over the church while he was gone (Col. 4:17), and Archippus was one of the home church leaders in Colossae (Phile. 2).
What was the Colossian Heresy?
Scholars refer to the “Colossian Heresy” to describe the false teaching present in Colossae. While we don’t know the exact nature of this false teaching, we can piece together aspects of this heresy by surveying the letter itself:
- It was a man-made philosophy. It was a “philosophy” (Col. 2:8) based on the tradition of men. Paul calls it a “self-made religion” (Col. 2:23), and it was based on the “elemental principles of the world” (Col. 2:8, 20; see comments on 4:3).
- It involved the worship of angels and visions. Paul refers to the “the worship of the angels” and the “visions” that the false teachers used to damage the faith of this church (Col. 2:18).
- It commanded asceticism. Asceticism refers to depriving your body of good things, or even harming your body. In Colossians, Paul refers to “self-abasement” (Col. 2:18) and the “severe treatment of the body” (Col. 2:23). Moreover, Paul mentions the false teachers’ commands to not handle, taste, or touch material things (Col. 2:21), which may refer to “food” (Col. 2:16).
- It had aspects of Jewish mysticism. Some Jewish teachers held that angels were the agents of creation based on God creating humans in “our image” (Gen. 1:26; 3:22). Philo espoused this errant view,[30] and Justin Martyr argued against this view in his dialogue with the Jewish man Trypho (Dialogue with Trypho, 62). Thus, Melick[31] thinks it is “some form of Judaism.”
- It had many aspects of proto-Gnosticism. Paul rejects that these Christians needed additional knowledge of central teachings of Christianity (Col. 2:2-3). Instead, the “mystery” has already been revealed (Col. 1:27), contrary to the mystery religion of Gnosticism. Paul also uses the frequently used Gnostic term “fullness” (plērōma) to describe Jesus’ full deity in human form (Col. 1:19; 2:9). While the Gnostics believed the there were various spirit-beings or “aeons” that separated us from God, Paul states that the “fullness” of God is found solely in Christ.
In conclusion, we agree with the thesis of J.B. Lightfoot[32] whose “conclusions remain viable one hundred years after his commentary, and many arguments simply repeat or expand his views.”[33] Lightfoot understood the Colossian Heresy to be some form of Jewish Gnosticism. This could be why Paul emphasizes Jesus’ creation and authority over the angels (Col. 1:15-18), and it could explain why Paul emphasizes Jesus’ absolute victory over the demonic realm through the Cross (Col. 2:13-15). After these Jewish settlers left Jerusalem, it’s quite possible that they assimilated many types of foreign ideas into their worldview. Perhaps this explains the eclectic ideas in this church.
To be clear, everyone agrees that whatever the Colossian Heresy was it was syncretistic. Worldviews are not nice and neat structures. Indeed, they frequently incorporate all sorts of various, and even contradictory, beliefs. In our view, this was the case in Colossae. These Christians were facing some sort of medley of various view, including Jewish mysticism and proto-Gnosticism.
How to use this commentary well
For personal use. We wrote this material to build up people in their knowledge of the Bible. As the reader, we hope you enjoy reading through the commentary to grow in your interpretation of the text, understand the historical backdrop, gain insight into the original languages, and reflect on our comments to challenge your thinking. As a result, we hope this will give you a deeper love for the word of God.
Teaching preparation. We read through several commentaries in order to study this book, and condensed their scholarship into an easy-to-read format. We hope that this will help those giving public Bible teachings to have a deep grasp of the book as they prepare to teach. As one person has said, “All good public speaking is based on good private thinking.”[34] We couldn’t agree more. Nothing can replace sound study before you get up to teach, and we hope this will help you in that goal. And before you complain about our work, don’t forget that the price is right: FREE!
Questions for Reflection. Each section or chapter is outfitted with numerous questions for reflection. We think these questions would work best in a small men’s or women’s group—or for personal reading. In general, these questions are designed to prompt participants to explore the text or to stimulate application.
Discussing Bible difficulties. We highlight Bible difficulties with hyperlinks to articles on those subjects. All of these questions could make for dynamic discussion in a small group setting. As a Bible teacher, you could raise the difficulty, allow the small group to wrestle with it, and then give your own perspective.
As a teacher, you might give some key cross references, insights from the Greek, or other relevant tools to help aid the study. This gives students the tools that they need to answer the difficulty. Then, you could ask, “How do these points help answer the difficulty?”
Reading Bible difficulties. Some Bible difficulties are highly complex. For the sake of time, it might simply be better to read the article and ask, “What do you think of this explanation? What are the most persuasive points? Do you have a better explanation than the one being offered?”
Think critically. We would encourage Bible teachers to not allow people to simply read this commentary without exercising discernment and testing the commentary with sound hermeneutics (i.e. interpretation). God gave the church “teachers… to equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:11-12). We would do well to learn from them. Yet, we also need to read their books with critical thinking, and judge what we’re reading (1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:21). This, of course, applies to our written commentary as well as any others!
In my small men’s Bible study, I am frequently challenged, corrected, and sharpened in my ability to interpret the word of God. I frequently benefit from even the youngest Christians in the room. I write this with complete honesty—not pseudo-humility. We all have a role in challenging each other as we learn God’s word together. We would do well to learn from Bible teachers, and Bible teachers would do well to learn from their students!
At the same time, we shouldn’t disagree simply for the sake of being disagreeable. This leads to rabbit trails that can actually frustrate discussion. For this reason, we should follow the motto, “The best idea wins.” If people come to different conclusions on unimportant issues, it’s often best to simply acknowledge each other’s different perspectives and simply move on.
Consulted Commentaries
We consulted many commentaries for individual passages, but we read these commentaries thoroughly.
Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981).
N.T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986).
N.T. Wright did a great service in writing his massive book, The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003). We are very grateful for his laborious and careful work on that book. Moreover, Wright is a clever thinker and an excellent writer. That being said, while Wright’s commentary is widely lauded, we don’t recommend his book in particular or his theology in general. Specifically, in this commentary, we disagreed with Wright that Paul was arguing solely against Judaism (rather than some blend of proto-Gnosticism and Jewish mysticism). Moreover, we disagree that Paul was constantly using an Exodus motif. This, of course, fits with Wright’s “supersessionism” or “replacement theology,” where the Church is the New Israel. Furthermore, we disagree with Wright on his views regarding the so-called New Perspective on Paul, Replacement Theology, Partial Inerrancy, Preterism, and his marginalizing of Penal Substitionary Atonement in favor of centralizing Christus Victor. In our estimation, Wright gets these various subjects wrong.
Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991).
Melick’s commentary was our favorite commentary on Colossians.
F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984).
Bruce is a fine commentator. We like him for having a very rare quality in a scholar: being succinct. At the same time, Bruce also has a habit of skipping portions of text that require some measure of commentary. Overall, this is a sound technical commentary.
Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 44, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1982).
We didn’t read this entire commentary—only the introduction (e.g. authorship, audience, etc.).
Commentary on Colossians
Unless otherwise stated, all citations are taken from the New American Standard Bible (NASB).
Colossians 1
Colossians 1:1-12 (Body Life)
(1:1) “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother.”
“Paul… and Timothy our brother.” Paul wrote this letter with his friend Timothy. It’s possible that “Paul included Timothy because he was from the general area of the church.”[35] Paul wrote other letters with Timothy as well (e.g. 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians and Philemon). They maybe have coauthored this letter. On the other hand, “plural verbs are used through 1:9, then singular verbs replace them.”[36]
Why does Paul feel the need to establish himself with the title apostle? Elsewhere, he uses the term “servant” or “bond-slave.” Since Paul didn’t personally know this church (Col. 1:7-18), he may have felt the need to inform them of who he was. He even distinguishes himself from Epaphras whom he doesn’t name as an apostle (Col. 1:7; 4:12-13).
(1:2) “To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father.”
The letter wasn’t written to some specific group of leaders. It was written to all the people (“saints and faithful brethren”). Normal people like us can read and understand the Bible (cf. Phil. 1:1).
Are all “saints” also all “faithful brothers”? According to this text, yes. Grammatically, these two groups are linked by the same article (ho + kai). Melick writes, “The Granville Sharp rule joins these two adjectives so that both refer to the same persons. The adjectives are used to modify the term ‘brethren.’”[37]
Thanking God for them
(1:3) “We give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you.”
“We give thanks to God.” Those who serve Christ often face considerable discouragement. Yet, even while Paul was imprisoned, he still chose to give thanks—especially for people.
“Praying always for you.” Are we really to believe that Paul was “always” praying? Later, we read that Paul had “not ceased to pray.” Is this literal or hyperbolic? We know that this cannot be hyper-literal. After all, this would render the statement nonsensical because it would mean that Paul never slept, ate, or did any other ministry besides praying. In our view, this is a figure of speech to explain that Paul prayed for these people a lot—that he prayed for them with “regularity.”[38] That being said, Paul writes about his prayers in this way so much and so often that this indicates a very dedicated prayer life. Indeed, a “sizable impression emerges regarding the extent of Paul’s prayer life,” because he “prayed for all the churches.”[39] The question isn’t how much we need to pray, but whether or not we are dedicated to prayer.
(1:4-5) “Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and the love which you have for all the saints; 5 because of the hope laid up for you in heaven, of which you previously heard in the word of truth, the gospel.”
Paul often assesses churches based on faith, hope, and love (1 Cor. 13:13; 1 Thess. 1:3; 5:8).
“Your faith in Christ Jesus.” Faith is what brings us into a relationship with God, and this could be why Paul begins by writing about their “faith in Christ.”
“The love which you have for all the saints.” Their love wasn’t merely for one another, but also for non-believers (vv.5-6).
“Because of the hope laid up for you in heaven.” Our hope is centered on an actual place: Heaven. This is the reason that the Colossians were so loving: It was “because of the hope” laid up for them in Heaven. Melick writes, “The basis of believing Christ (faith) and serving others (love) is that this world is not the end. There is an afterlife where the deeds done here will be evaluated and rewarded. Christians have an understanding of the rewards and blessings of heaven.”[40]
“You previously heard in the word of truth, the gospel.” According to the context, the “gospel” directly relates to getting to Heaven.
(1:6) “Which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing, even as it has been doing in you also since the day you heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth.”
Paul uses language that “personifies the gospel.”[41] The message itself is “the power of God” that is let loose on the world (Rom. 1:16). It has come to the Colossians and it is “bearing fruit” and “increasing.” It is a force to be reckoned with (see v.10). Melick writes, “The terms teach that the gospel is productive; it accomplishes the work God intends.”[42]
“Just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing.” Did Paul really think the gospel had reached the entire globe? No. Even in this text, Paul writes that the gospel is “constantly bearing fruit and increasing.” Both of these terms imply that the gospel is continuing to grow. Moreover, it’s also possible that Paul is simply thinking of the Roman world. Since Paul was most likely writing from Rome, he must’ve been astonished at the speed with which the gospel spread—not to mention the scope. Moreover, Paul had no idea the Western hemisphere existed; so, his view of “all the world” would be linguistically limited to the Roman Empire.
“In all the world… as it has been doing in you.” This gospel message was not only changing the world, but it was also continuing to change the Colossians. The grace of God is for the world, but it’s also for the believer.
(1:7) “Just as you learned it from Epaphras, our beloved fellow bond-servant, who is a faithful servant of Christ on our behalf.”
“Epaphras.” While Paul personified the gospel in verse 6, he balances this with human agency in verse 7. God led Epaphras to bring the gospel message to the people of Colossae. What can we learn about Epaphras from the three times he’s mentioned in the NT? (Col. 1:7; 4:12; Phile. 23)
- Epaphras could be a teacher or maybe just an evangelist (Col. 1:7).
- Epaphras brought the gospel to this church and started the church (Col. 1:7).
- There is a textual issue regarding “our behalf” (NASB, NIV, NET) or “your behalf” (ESV, NLT). Whatever the case, Epaphras worked closely with Paul (Col. 1:7). If he is a “beloved fellow bond-servant,” then he’s probably working on behalf of Paul. Perhaps Paul sent him (?).
- Epaphras was native to the city of Colossae being “one of [their] number” (Col. 4:12).
- When Paul writes this letter, Epaphras was with him “sending his greetings” to the church (Col. 4:12).
- Epaphras was very strong and powerful in prayer (Col. 4:12). He would do this “always” and even with “agony.” Specifically, he would “always” pray that this church would experience a number of things: (1) maturity, (2) confidence, and (3) wisdom of God’s will.
- Epaphras was so radical that he was locked up with Paul under house-arrest (Phile. 23).
The name Epaphras is a shortened version of the name Epaphroditus—a man who is mentioned in Philippians (Phil. 2:25; 4:18). However, “there is no reason to identify the two.”[43] Epaphras was a “nobody” in the early church. And yet, God used a “nobody” like him to start churches.
(1:8) “[Epaphras] also informed us of your love in the Spirit.”
What does it mean to love others “in the Spirit”? Paul seems to be saying that these are not just nice people, but they are spiritual people that love others from the infinite reservoir of God’s power.
“[Epaphras] also informed us.” Epaphras told Paul what was happening in this church. This shows us that it isn’t unspiritual, carnal, or strange to share information with one another about the state of churches (cf. 1 Cor. 1:11). When done well, this helps us to lead and pray with better effectiveness. That being said, while the Colossians faced serious problems (i.e. “The Colossian Heresy”), Paul chose to begin by focusing on their “love in the Spirit.”[44] He would return to the negative problems in the church later in the letter.
Praying to God for them
(1:9) “For this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding.”
“For this reason.” Wright states, “The link with the opening thanksgiving (for this reason) should not be overlooked. It is because of what God has already done that Paul can pray with confidence for what God will do.”[45] As Paul writes elsewhere, “I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 1:6).
“Have not ceased to pray for you.” Paul prayed for these believers—even though he had never met them. Just imagine what that would feel like to read this for the first time. We all have Christian leaders we look up to. Imagine if one of them said that he or she had “not ceased to pray” for your local church.
“Knowledge of His will.” The false teachers were giving the Colossians false “knowledge” (gnōsis), Paul prays for them to have true “knowledge [epignōsis] of God’s will.” This refers to the open knowledge of God revealed in the Scriptures and apostolic teaching. This shows that “the awakening of intellectual powers, the ability to think coherently and practically about God and his purposes for his people.”[46] However, as we will see in verse 10, this isn’t an end in itself. This “knowledge” results in walking with God and bearing fruit.
How do we get filled with the knowledge of God’s will? We get this through “prayer” (v.9) and the “knowledge” of the Scriptures (v.10).
“That you may be filled.” Paul wants this knowledge to “fill” them (plērōthēte). Gnostic teachers used the term “fullness” (plērōma) to refer to the “fullness” of knowledge found in Gnosticism. Vaughn writes, “Plērōma (‘fullness’) was a technical term used by second-century Gnostics of the hierarchy of the supernatural beings lying between God and the world. Many present-day scholars think it likely that the word was employed in this sense during Paul’s lifetime.”[47] By using this same term, Paul is countering the Gnostic teachers, stating that true knowledge is found in Jesus Christ (Col. 1:19; 2:2, 9; 4:12).
“Knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding.” This is similar to our concept of discernment. It explains how to “act and think spiritually.”[48] We don’t gain wisdom to become wise people; we gain wisdom so we can walk with Christ (v.10). Knowledge precedes “[walking] in a manner worthy of the Lord” (v.10).
(1:10) “So that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God.”
This is the culmination of Paul’s prayer—that these Christians would walk with Christ in an authentic and effective way.
“Please Him in all respects.” Because of our position in Christ, God doesn’t love us any more or less. But if this is true, how is it possible to “please Him”? (cf. 1 Thess. 4:1) The fact that God has a personal and even emotional response to our decisions shows that our decisions really do matter. Indeed, if we couldn’t please God, this would be quite bizarre (i.e. divine impassibility).
“Bearing fruit in every good work.” This refers to the “reproductive aspect of the Christian’s calling.”[49] This would refer to evangelism, discipleship, and growth in love.
“Every good work… increasing in the knowledge of God.” Spiritual growth consists of both good works and growth in knowledge. Asking which is more important is like asking which wing of an airplane is needed more. Vaughn writes, “What rain and sunshine are to the nurture of plants, the knowledge of God is to the growth and maturing of the spiritual life.”[50]
(1:11) “Strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for the attaining of all steadfastness and patience.”
This verse is quite counterintuitive. Paul starts by describing the “power” and “glorious might” of God, and it sounds like he’s ready to yell, “Ready… set… CHARGE!” But instead of moving forward, Paul states that the “power” and “glorious might” of God result in “steadfastness and patience.” It takes real strength and power to be able to patiently wait on God to work. We need to wait on God’s power, rather than our own. He will grow the church in his timing (v.6).
(1:12) “Joyously giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light.”
“Qualified” (hikanōsanti) means “to cause to be adequate” or to “make sufficient” (BDAG, p.473). This could refer to salvation in general, or to spiritual rewards in particular (i.e. our “inheritance”).
Questions for Reflection
Read verses 3-8. How did the church in Colossae come to exist?
Read verses 4-5. What is the relationship between the “hope in heaven” (v.5) and having “love” and “faith” on Earth (v.4)?
Read verses 9-12. What did Paul want for this church?
Colossians 1:13-23 (The Cosmic Christ)
The false teachers in Colossae were denigrating Jesus to just “one of many spirit beings who bridged the space between God and men.”[51] Paul responds with one of the most descriptive explanations of Jesus’ nature and work that we have in the entire Bible. As you read through this section, pay attention to the titles and qualities attributed to Jesus.
Rescuer
(1:13) “For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son.”
The “domain of darkness” refers to sin (Rom. 13:12; Jn. 3:19), as well as the “world forces of this darkness” (Eph. 6:12). So sin and Satan could both be implied (cf. Acts 26:18). Like a hostage negotiator who trades his life for a hostage, Jesus “rescued” us by trading his life for ours, rescuing us from this world of sin, Satan, and death.
The term “transferred” (metestēsen) was “used in secular literature in reference to removing persons from one country and settling them as colonists and citizens in another country.”[52] We are now “citizens of heaven” (Phil. 3:20).
Forgiver
(1:14) “In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”
“Redemption” (apolytrōsis) means to “release from a painful interrogation” or to “release from a captive condition” (BDAG, p.117). It speaks of “emancipation from slavery.”[53] Elsewhere, Paul tells us that we have redemption “through His blood” (Eph. 1:7), and later, Paul will write that reconciliation was “through the blood of His Cross” (Col. 1:20).
“Forgiveness” (aphesin) means “the act of freeing from an obligation, guilt, or punishment.” It is a “pardon” or a “cancellation” (BDAG, p.155).
(Col. 1:14) Do modern translations want to take the blood of Christ from the Bible? The KJV reads: “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” Other translations—like the NASB or NIV—omit these words because they do not exist in the earliest manuscripts. The Byzantine text (which is the foundation for the Textus Receptus and the KJV translation) probably lifted this expression from Ephesians 1:7.
Are verses 15-20 a poem or hymn? Melick states that virtually all scholars affirm that this section is a hymn that predated Paul, and he most likely “incorporated a preexisting piece of literature into the epistle.”[54] Melick clarifies that the concept of a hymn “does not demand that this was sung in the congregational worship. It could mean that it was a poetic, lyrical presentation of theology. The form it takes was didactical, intended to teach in an easily rememberable fashion.”[55] Thus, some scholars refer to this as a poem, rather than a hymn. Melick states that we can recognize this as a hymn based on “lyrical style and linguistic abnormalities.”[56] Yet, he states that scholars disagree “on the exact nature of the hymn,” and many have noticed that the “hymn consists of two stanzas of unequal length.”[57] (15-18a versus 18b-20) Moreover, Paul “inserted his own theology into the hymn at certain points.”[58]
Wright[59] maintains that this section is a poem because it is “skillfully worded and rhythmically balanced.” He gives an elaborate explanation of its chiastic structure, splitting the passage into four sections. Yet, his explanation is so complicated that it seems artificial in our estimation. We can, of course, affirm Wright’s insights into the fact that Yahweh and Jesus share identical attributes throughout this section. This aspect of his thesis is both concrete, accessible, and significant.
Bruce[60] splits this hymn into three sections: 15-16, 18b-20, and 17-18a. He states that it contains a “rhythmical prose which is found in much early Christian hymnody.” It also contains the repetition of key phrases such as “He is” and “He indeed is.” He cites a vast amount of literature from the early 20th century to the present to support his view.
Assessment. For apologetic purposes, we would actually prefer the view that this section predated Paul! It would show that Christians held a high Christology before Paul wrote in AD 62. And perhaps this section is pre-Pauline. However, we find this evidence to be lacking.
For one, if there is evidence of this section predating Paul, it isn’t explicit. It isn’t as though Paul states that this material was “delivered” to him as he does in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. So, perhaps Paul received this material from earlier Christians, but we should note that he doesn’t tell us this.
Second, the primary evidence for this theory is implicit—based style, structure, language, and rhythm. Fair enough. However, in our estimation, many of these arguments seem forced or artificial. NT scholars note that the stanzas consist of different lengths, and they cannot agree on the chiastic structure. Moreover, NT scholars cannot even agree over whether or not Paul added his own theology at certain points. In our estimation, all of these qualifications make us question whether or not this is a pre-Pauline hymn at all.
Again, given the choice, we would want this section to precede Paul. However, we simply don’t see sufficient evidence for this claim. Regardless, this theologically rich section of Colossians is dense with timeless truths about Jesus. Paul moves from describing Jesus as the Creator (Col. 1:15-18a) to describing Jesus as the Redeemer of his Creation (Col. 1:18b-20). Melick writes, “Jesus’ lordship is seen by virtue of both his position in creation and his position in redemption.”[61]
Image of God
(1:15) “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.”
“He is the image of the invisible God.” In what sense is Jesus the “image” of God? The term “image” (eikōn) can refer to representation or manifestation.[62] Of course, the second concept is in view: Jesus is certainly not a physical image of God the Father. Instead, Jesus perfectly manifested God’s character on Earth. This is such a stark reality that Jesus could say, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (Jn. 14:9; cf. 1:18; Heb. 1:3). As Bruce writes, “To say that Christ is the image of God is to say that in him the nature and being of God have been perfectly revealed—that in him the invisible has become visible.”[63]
(1:15, 18) Was Christ a “firstborn” in the sense of being a created being? The title “firstborn” is a biblical expression. It does not mean “first created.” It means “first place” or “first in rank.” For instance, David was the last to be born among his brothers; however, he was called the “first born” in Psalm 89:27, because he was the most important. Exodus 4:22 speaks of Israel as the “firstborn.” Of course, this does not in any way imply that God gave birth to Israel or that Israel was the first nation on Earth. Instead, it implies that Israel was the most important to God. In fact, this is the sense in which Paul uses this expression. In context, Paul writes, “He Himself will come to have first place” (Col. 1:18). All of this supports the preexistence of Christ (2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:6-7).
Creator
(1:16) “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.”
“All things.” Jesus possesses ultimate authority because he is the ultimate Creator. Paul states that Jesus was the Creator of “all things” (Col. 1:16). Indeed, Paul twice states that Jesus created “all things.” It’s as if he was thinking, “Did I stutter? When I wrote all things… I meant all things!”
Of course, in the OT, Yahweh was the Creator over everything. Genesis states, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth” (Gen. 1:1). Isaiah writes, “I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself and spreading out the earth all alone” (Isa. 44:24). Since God created the “all things” and did this “all alone,” this implies that Jesus is equal with Yahweh himself. While some people in Colossae were worshipping angels (Col. 2:18), Paul writes that these are mere creations of Jesus—never to be worshipped.
“Both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities.” Gnostic teachers held that various spirit-beings, emanations, or “aeons” served as mediators between humans and the true God (see “Gnosticism and the New Testament”). Paul seems to be refuting the importance of spiritual beings by claiming that Jesus is the Creator of them all. Melick writes, “Paul seems to have felt a need to note that these spirit beings are created by the power of Christ and conquered by the power of the cross (2:15).”[64]
(1:16) “All things” or “all other things”? The Jehovah’s Witness New World Translation (NWT) renders this passage as, “By means of him all other things were created” (Col. 1:16 NWT). Bowman writes, “The term for ‘all’ in Colossians 1:16-20 is not merely the general word for ‘all,’ pas, but ta panta, a neuter plural form used to mean ‘the entirety’ or ‘the whole,’ and which, when used of creation, means ‘the universe,’ all created things without exception (see, for example, Eph. 1:10-11 NWT).”[65]
Sustainer of the Universe
(1:17) “He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”
“He is before all things.” Melick states, “Clearly this comment has a time orientation, and it teaches that before creation Jesus existed.”[66]
“In Him all things hold together.” Jesus isn’t just the Creator of the universe. He is also the Sustainer of it. He “upholds all things by the word of his power” (Heb. 1:3), holding the universe together. Ben Sira stated that “by [God’s] word all things hold together” (Sirach 43:26). Here, Paul ascribes this indescribable power to Christ, rather than God the Father.
Ruler of the Church
(1:18) “He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.”
“Head of the body, the church.” Jesus doesn’t simply rule and reign the universe. He also leads the Church as the “head” of the church.
“Beginning” (archē) is the root from which we get our term “architect.” It refers to “one with whom a process begins” (BDAG, p.138). It can refer to a “first principle” or “source” or “creative initiative.”[67] In other words, this term doesn’t mean that Jesus had a beginning, but that Jesus was the Beginner. The term refers to having “authority,”[68] as we see in various NT passages (“principalities,” Rom. 8:38; “rule,” 1 Cor. 15:24).
“Firstborn from the dead.” Jesus was the first person to rise from the dead, but he won’t be the last. His resurrection guarantees our future resurrection (1 Cor. 15:12ff).
“First place in everything.” Jesus’ resurrection gives him a superior status over everything that exists. As the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, Jesus already had this status. But Jesus’ resurrection demonstrated this forever.
God Incarnate
(1:19) “For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him.”
“All the fullness to dwell in Him.” This refers to the fullness of deity. Later, Paul writes, “In Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Col. 2:9). The proto-Gnostic false teachers would’ve held that only part of God’s fullness was in Jesus because he was merely one of many spirit-beings or “aeons” who brought us knowledge of God. But Paul writes that “all the fullness” is found in Christ.[69]
(1:20) “And through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.”
(1:20) Does this passage teach universalism? Reconciliation is contingent on our response. This is the repeated teaching of the NT. When Paul speaks of Christ’s reconciliation of mankind (Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18-19), he explains that this is contingent on our receiving this gift (Rom. 5:11; 2 Cor. 5:20). This is even true in the letter itself. The Colossians were “formerly alienated” and “hostile in mind,” but now they have been “reconciled… in His fleshly body through death” (Col. 1:21-22). However, Paul continues that this is contingent on having faith in the gospel: “If indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel” (Col. 1:23; cf. 2:9-12; 3:6).
In our view, Paul is using the term “reconcile” (apokatallassō) to describe how Jesus will bring peace to the world. However, this could be through “voluntary submission” or through “involuntary submission.”[70] That is, the universe will be “reconciled” because “everyone and everything will be subordinated to Christ.”[71] This seems to be what Paul means when he writes, “At the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:10-11). This means that all people will bow to Christ. Yet, some will bow to him as their Savior, and others will bow to him as their Judge.
The Bible clearly teaches that some people will not be in heaven (Rev. 20:11-15; Mt. 25:31-46; 2 Thess. 1:9; Mt. 26:24). Thus, in our view, reconciliation refers to Jesus ruling and reigning over a world reconciled to God’s will and way (Mt. 6:10; 1 Cor. 15:25). As Vaughn writes, “Here perhaps the main idea is that all things eventually are to be decisively subdued to God’s will and made to serve his purposes.”[72] Bruce writes that the peace can be “freely accepted, or … compulsorily imposed.”[73]
(1:21-23) Does this verse threaten eternal security? Paul’s use of the first-class condition (“If—and I’m assuming for the sake of argument that this is true—you continue in the faith…”) is not a threat to their salvation, but an assumption that verse 22 is in fact true of them.[74] It’s also possible to take this to refer to sanctification—not justification.
(1:21) “And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds.”
Our alienation from God began in our “mind” (e.g. worldview, thoughts, attitude, etc.). After this poison took effect in our minds, it seeped into our actions (“evil deeds”).
(1:22) “Yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach.”
Paul goes to great lengths to state that reconciliation needed to occur in Jesus’ “fleshly body.” Aren’t all bodies “fleshly”? Why does he emphasize this? The proto-Gnostic false teachers denied the physical nature of Jesus. Under their view, Jesus was merely a spirit being—not a human being. So, Paul greatly emphasizes the physicality of Jesus. Bruce observes, “It is highly probable that some such insistence on the real incarnation of Christ was a necessary corrective to a tendency in the Colossian heresy; more particularly, these words emphasize that there is a necessary bond between his incarnation and his atoning death.”[75]
“Holy and blameless” and “beyond reproach” is similar to Paul’s language of our position in Christ in Ephesians 1:3-5.
(1:23) “If indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.”
(1:23) Did Paul really believe that the entire world had heard the gospel at this point? Earlier in his letter, Paul writes that the message of the gospel was “constantly bearing fruit and increasing.” If the gospel was increasing, then Paul must have known that the gospel message was still spreading across the world. In other words, he knew that it wasn’t already universally spread. When Paul writes that the gospel was “proclaimed in all creation under heaven,” he must be referring to Christ’s death being a “public display” before demonic powers—not all human beings (Col. 1:16; 2:15).
Questions for Reflection
Read verses 15-19. What do we learn about Jesus from this section?
Read verses 19-23. What did Jesus do in order to reconcile us?
Colossians 1:24-2:3 (Learning to Serve Christ)
(1:24) “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.”
Often when we suffer, we cannot rip our eyes off of our own situation and circumstances. Paul, however, could rejoice in his sufferings (cf. Mt. 5:12; Acts 5:41; Heb. 10:34), because they were for the benefit of others. He writes that his suffering will build up the Colossians, as well as “His body” (i.e. the whole Christian church).
Paul’s suffering was not asceticism, torturing himself for God.[76] He willingly suffered for the welfare of others. Paul views his suffering in line with the continuing work of Jesus through his Church. That is, as we suffer “in Christ,” we are carrying out the work of Christ on Earth. This does not refer to Jesus’ suffering with reference to paying for sin (i.e. the atonement) which is completed (Col. 2:10-15). This refers to Jesus’ suffering through the continuing work and service of his Body on Earth (Acts 9:4).
(1:24) Was the Cross insufficient? Paul is thinking of our mystical union with Christ. Under this view, Jesus suffered once and for all for us in purchasing our salvation, but he continues to suffer through us to spread the message of his salvation. When Jesus confronted Saul on the Damascus road, he asked, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? …I am Jesus whom you are persecuting” (Acts 9:4, 5). Since believers are part of Christ’s body (1 Cor. 12:13), he identifies our suffering with his own. Elsewhere, Paul writes, “The sufferings of Christ are ours in abundance” (2 Cor. 1:5), and we have “the fellowship of His sufferings” (Phil. 3:10). Jesus’ work was complete on the Cross, but since he continues to identify with his Church, he continues to suffer with us until he returns.
(1:25) “Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God.”
“I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God.” Paul viewed his ministry as a stewardship entrusted to him from God. The purpose of leading others for Christ is not prestige or glory. Otherwise, Paul wouldn’t have self-identified as “servants” and “stewards.” Paul writes that he existed “for their benefit,” not his own. Regarding the term “stewardship,” Vaughn writes, “Paul conceived of the work to which God appointed him as both a high privilege and a sacred trust. He was a servant of the church, but in the deepest sense he was a steward of God.”[77]
Imagine if a billionaire gave you millions of dollars to invest for him. You’d want to be able to show a return on his money when he came back to check in. In a similar way, though surely not in the same way, God is looking to see if we’ve been “faithful” with his ministry (1 Cor. 4:2; cf. 2 Tim. 1:14).
“The preaching of the word of God.” At the core of Paul’s “stewardship” was teaching and preaching God’s word to others. When we are building up the saints and reaching people for Christ, we are at the center of the mission of the church.
(1:26-27) “That is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints, 27 to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”
“The mystery which has been hidden from the past ages.” God can keep certain truths hidden from us. That’s his prerogative. The central facet of the “mystery” in this context is “Christ [being] in you.” The magnificent identification and indwelling of Jesus with his people was a mystery in the OT.
“Christ in you.” Wright is correct when he states, “God’s secret plan is not, for Paul, a timetable of events, but a person.”[78] Before Jesus arrived, no one understood that the Messiah was coming to die for the sins of the world, that he would enter into his people through the Holy Spirit, and that he would form a mystical union with fellow believers. None of this was foreseen until the Cross. For a more robust explanation of this topic of the “mystery,” see “Why Did Satan Crucify Jesus?”
Christian discipleship
After this long explanation of the person and work of Christ and our secure position before him, Paul now moves to one of the central and practical aspects of these truths. If all of this material is true, then what should we do as a consequence? We can summarize Paul’s imperatives in one word: discipleship. Discipleship simply means to teach, instruct, coach, and counsel other believers to help them in serving Christ.
(1:28) “We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ.”
“Every man.” Paul refers to “every man” three times. This must show an emphasis on trying to develop every person who is a follower of Jesus. This relates to our stewardship before God (v.25). The proto-Gnostic teachers were exclusive in who could initiate into their religion. By contrast, Christian discipleship is open to all those who are willing to follow Jesus. Bruce comments, “The repetition of ‘everyone’ is emphatic. There is no part of Christian teaching that is to be reserved for a spiritual elite. All the truth of God is for all the people of God.”[79]
“We proclaim him… I labor.” Discipleship is a responsibility that is both corporate (“We proclaim him,” v.28) and individual (“I labor,” v.29).
“We proclaim Him.” This shows that discipleship is always directing others toward Jesus. When we disciple others, we should be clear that they are ultimately disciples of Christ—not us. While we all have human leaders to imitate (1 Cor. 11:1), we should focus our attention on imitating their faith (Heb. 13:7) and their example of following Christ (Phil. 3:17).
“Admonishing” (noutheteō) refers “to counsel about avoidance or cessation of an improper course of conduct” (BDAG, p.679). Sometimes, this is done “with tears” in our eyes (Acts 20:31). Admonishment is not for the purpose of “shaming” people (1 Cor. 4:14), but for their spiritual growth. The translation of “counseling”[80] is one facet of this term. Later Paul states that both “teaching and admonishing” need to be done with “wisdom” (Col. 3:16). Truly it takes wisdom to truly know how to apply God’s truth to people’s lives.
“Teaching” (didaskō) implies that new believers need help in reading and understanding the great truths of Scripture. Much of discipleship is studying and reading together to understand God’s truth. Discipleship without study is really pseudo-discipleship. We could capture these dual concepts of “admonishing” and “teaching” as “confronting and instructing.”[81]
(1:29) “For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me.”
Discipleship is hard work. Paul uses two terms to describe what it is like:
“Labor” (kopiaō) means to “become weary or tired” or to “exert oneself physically, mentally, or spiritually” (BDAG, p.558). Jesus encouraged the church of Ephesus that they had “not grown weary” (Rev. 2:3). This is because Jesus gives rest to the “weary and heavy-laden” (Mt. 11:28). Epaphras “labored” in prayer for his fellow believers, which is another aspect of discipleship (Col. 4:12).
“Strive” (agōnizomai) is where we get our English word “agonize.” It was often used of athletes competing or “engaging in a contest.” More generally, it means to “fight” or “struggle” (BDAG, p.17).
“According to His power, which mightily works within me.” At this point, the reader might think that discipleship does not look very appealing. After all, it implies hard work, struggle, and agony! But keep reading. To Paul, our “labor” and “striving” are all “according to His power, which mightily works within me.” As we step out in faith to disciple others, we experience the power of God surging through us to affect others’ lives. Wright captures the balance of God’s sovereignty and human agency well: “Paul does not go about his work half-heartedly, hoping vaguely that grace will fill in the gaps which he is too lazy to work at himself. Nor, however, does he imagine that it is ‘all up to him’, so that unless he burns himself out with restless, anxious toil nothing will be achieved. He knows that God’s desire is to bring Christians to maturity, and that God has called him to have a share in that work. He can therefore work hard without the stressful motivation of either pride or fear.”[82]
Colossians 2
(2:1) “For I want you to know how great a struggle I have on your behalf and for those who are at Laodicea, and for all those who have not personally seen my face.”
Paul endured a great “struggle” (agōna) for this church (cf. 2 Cor. 11:28). Earlier, Paul wrote, “I am glad when I suffer for you in my body, for I am participating in the sufferings of Christ that continue for his body, the church” (Col. 1:24 NLT). Paul was in prison at this time, and it brought him agony to be separated from these believers. He wanted to love and lead these people (v.2), but he wasn’t able.
(2:2) “That their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself.”
“Encouraged” (parakaleō) means to “call to one’s side” (BDAG, p.764). This was used in a military context to describe encouraging soldiers in battle (2 Macc. 15:8). Paul gives a string of participles to explain how this encouragement of the heart can occur:
“Having been knit together in love.” According to this text, we don’t gain courage through self-help. We gain encouragement from close love relationships with one another. The term “knit” (sumbibazō) comes from the two root words “together” (sun) and “walk” (bainō). It’s as we go through life together in love relationships that we experience deep encouragement. Bruce writes, “Paul emphasizes that the revelation of God cannot be properly known apart from the cultivation of brotherly love within the community.”[83]
“Attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding.” We gain encouragement through meditation on God’s truth. This is surely what Paul means by attaining the wealth of our assurance in Christ. It takes time to meditate on the great truths that we have in Scripture. Is it worth it? Definitely! It leads to great “wealth” and “full assurance.”
“Resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery.” The result of all of this is a better knowledge of Jesus, who himself is the source of all “wisdom and knowledge” (v.3). He is the revelation of God’s mystery.
(2:3) “In [Jesus] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”
Once again, Paul is taking “a side-glance at the shibboleths of Gnosticism.”[84] The proto-Gnostics claimed to have “hidden” wisdom and knowledge of God (sophia kai gnōseōs apokryphoi). Not true. Paul claims that all the treasures of “wisdom and knowledge” are found in Jesus. Gnosticism gave a false encouragement because it had false knowledge.
Questions for Reflection
Read 1:24-29. What do we learn about Paul’s calling from this section?
Read 1:26-27. What “mystery” is Paul referring to?
Read 1:28. What would it look like to admonish and teach without wisdom? How much wisdom do we need before we are qualified to admonish and teach?
Read 1:28. What stops us from admonishing one another as Paul teaches in verse 28? Respond to these false beliefs below:
“I’m not going to bring up that issue… He’ll figure it out… eventually.”
“I’ll ask a more mature believer to admonish him.”
“I’m not going to correct her… She’s my best friend!”
Do people around me feel like they have the green light to correct me, or do I punish them for saying something?
Do people around me feel the freedom to raise questions about issues that are not black and white?
When was the last time that I thanked someone for correcting me in the moment?
Read 2:2. Why would Paul use a military term to describe encouragement (parakaleō)? In what ways is encouraging a fellow believer similar to encouraging a soldier during war?
Read 2:2. According to this verse, how do we gain deep encouragement?
Colossians 2:4-23 (False teachers)
In the introduction, we described the so-called “Colossian Heresy.” This portion of the letter gives us the best insights on what was being taught by the false teachers in this church.
(2:4) “I say this so that no one will delude you with persuasive argument.”
The term “persuasive speech” (pithanologia) comes from the roots “persuade” (peithō) and “words” (logia). What’s wrong with this sort of “persuasive argument”? After all, we typically use the term persuasion in a positive sense. However, in this context, the false teachers didn’t have good arguments or reasons; all they had were convincing words and rhetoric. Thus, this term can be understood as “persuasive rhetoric” or giving someone “a smooth line.”[85] Other translations capture this well by calling this “fine-sounding arguments” (NIV) or “arguments that sound reasonable” (NET).
(2:5) “For even though I am absent in body, nevertheless I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good discipline and the stability of your faith in Christ.”
The Colossians must have been holding up pretty well to this false teaching. They had stability and discipline to keep focused on the truth. Both of these concepts were “military metaphors.”[86]
“Good discipline” (taxin) was a “military term connoting the orderly array of a band of disciplined soldiers.”[87]
“Stability” (stereōma) also had military connotations. Vaughn writes, “If this is the imagery Paul intended, he sees the situation of the Colossians as being like that of an army under attack and affirms that their lines were unbroken, their discipline intact, and their ‘faith in [reliance on] Christ’ unshaken.”[88]
(2:6) “Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him.”
What does this passage tell us about sanctification? For one, this is an ongoing process. After all, Paul describes following Jesus as a “walk,” not a sprint. A walk is not a sprint or 50-yard dash. This implies that we will slowly make progress.
Second, Paul uses the plural to describe us “walking” with Christ. We’re all walking. But who will we choose to walk with? And who will be walking with us?
Third, Paul compares sanctification with justification. Of course, in Paul’s mind, we didn’t work for our justification; we received it as a free gift. This wasn’t accomplished through self-effort or hard work. In the same way, sanctification is received—not earned.
Why does Paul emphasize that sanctification needs to be by receiving it through faith? As we will see in the subsequent context, the “Colossian Heresy” focused on ascetic, formalistic practices (vv.18-23), rather than pure, ongoing trust in Christ.
Is Paul referring to water baptism? No. We reject N.T. Wright’s view that Paul is referring to making a public profession of faith when they were water baptized. He writes, “The verb ‘receive’ (paralambanō) is sometimes used in a technical sense, taken over from Judaism, referring to the transmission of teaching from one person or generation to another: compare ‘just as you were taught’ in the next verse. There are, in addition, several hints in the passage to suggest that he has the moment, and significance, of baptism in mind. The phrase ‘Christ Jesus the Lord’ corresponds closely to the early confessional formula ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’ (Phil. 2:11; cf. Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 12:3), which converts would profess at their baptism. Paul mentions baptism explicitly in verse 12, and various related ideas occur elsewhere in this passage.”[89] Much could be said, but frankly, this view is too strange and bizarre to labor too long on it. Suffice to say, the term “receive” (paralambanō) refers to receiving Jesus himself—not water baptism (cf. Jn. 1:12). We agree with Melick when he writes, “The strong impression from the text is that they actually embraced him, not simply the message.”[90] If Paul is referring to receiving a body of teaching similar to his example in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 (as Bruce holds[91]), this would still refer to receiving the “gospel” message about Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1), not to a formal initiation or catechism at a baptism ceremony. Indeed, such a view is entirely anachronistic. It originates in the post-apostolic era, not from the first century. It is frankly quite odd that Wright imports so much later church culture into this early text.
(2:7) “Having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude.”
We have been “firmly rooted” having “received Christ” (v.6). Now, our role is “being built up” and “established” in Christ.
“Firmly rooted” (rhizoō) is obviously botanical imagery. Elsewhere, Paul prays that “Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith” and that these believers would be “rooted and grounded in love” (Eph. 3:17, rhizoō).
“Being built up” (epoikodomeō) means to be “built upon” or “built over” the person of Jesus (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10-15).
“Established” (bebaioumenoi) was a term used in legal contexts to describe a legal guarantee. It means to “put something beyond doubt, confirm, establish” or “to make a person firm in commitment” (BDAG, p.173).
What is the relationship between being “firmly rooted… being built up… established” and “overflowing with gratitude”? We need to be firmly rooted in Christ (i.e. our position in Christ) before we can have access to “overflowing gratitude” (i.e. our condition). Moreover, this truth works in reverse: “One of the first indicators of departure from God is a lack of thanksgiving.”[92] Regarding the “gratitude” mentioned here, Vaughn writes, “The present passage may imply that those who lack a deep sense of thankfulness to God are especially vulnerable to doubt and spiritual delusion.”[93]
(2:8) “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.”
“Takes you captive” (sylagōgeō) continues the military metaphors. This term is used to refer to carrying away slaves or booty in war time (BDAG, p.955).
Paul is against this specific philosophy (or worldview) because it is errant and comes from “the traditions of men.” The “elemental principles of the world” in this context probably refers to angelic (demonic) influence (see Gal. 4:3), as the subsequent context makes clear (Col. 2:18).
(2:8) Is it wrong for Christians to study philosophy? Not at all. It may surprise some to read, but philosophy is actually a necessary prerequisite to studying theology. Theology assumes tools like the law of non-contradiction (e.g. God’s word cannot contradict itself) or philosophical language to describe complex teachings (e.g. the Trinity is three persons and one essence). We might compare philosophy to the rules of grammar. Without these rules, theology would be impossible. Do we believe that grammar is more authoritative than theology? Such a question is nonsensical. We need grammar to do theology—just as we need philosophy to do good theology.
Paul is addressing a specific Gnostic philosophy in Colossae. Vaughn writes, “The use of a single article and a single preposition with the two nouns suggests that Paul intended his readers to understand the second term (‘empty deceit’) as explanatory of the first (‘philosophy’). That is to say, the so-called ‘philosophy’ of the Colossian heretics is more aptly and precisely described as an empty delusion.”[94] In other words, Paul is telling us to avoid this bad philosophy—not all philosophy. If your friend told you not to drink the spoiled milk, this would not be a command to refrain from all milk.
This proto-Gnostic teaching included asceticism, angel worship, and bogus visions (Col. 2:16-23). It was man-made and errant (v.22). It came from the “traditions of men” (v.8), rather than from God. It comes from the “elemental principles of the world” (v.8), which no doubt refers to demonic spirits (see Gal. 4:3). As C.S. Lewis explained this, “Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.”[95]
The main problem with the false teachers is that they rejected God’s revelation in Christ. Melick writes, “The most serious error of the false teachers at Colossae was that they went about their spiritual lives with only natural insight. They did not go to God to learn of him, nor did they learn from the revelation of Christ that was available to them.”[96] At this point, Paul gives several reasons why this false teaching is useless at best, and harmful at worst.
We don’t need Gnostic teaching because Jesus is truly God and truly human
(2:9) “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.”
Paul affirms the full deity of Christ. Wright[97] states that Paul could’ve used a lesser term by calling Jesus “divinity” (theiotēs), rather than “Deity” (theotēs). However, he chose the stronger word (theotēs) to emphasize the fact that Jesus always has been in the “state of being god” (BDAG, p.452). Jesus is not one among many “spirit-beings” or Gnostic “aeons” that bridge the gap between God and humans. He himself is God in human flesh.
Were these false teachers denying the deity of Christ? No. In this setting, they were denying the humanity of Christ. The shocking part for us is that “all the Deity dwells” in Jesus. For this audience, they assumed the supernatural. For them, the shocking part was that God took on flesh and existed “in bodily form.” Because of their antipathy toward the physical world, these proto-Gnostics denied that God could or would take on human flesh.
“Fullness” (plērōma) was a Gnostic term used to describe the emanations that existed between God and humans (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.1.1; 1.1.3). Bruce writes, “In the mid-second century the word was used by Gnostics of the Valentinian school to denote the totality of aeons (divine entities or emanations), and it is conceivable that it bore some such meaning in incipient forms of gnosticism in the mid-first century.”[98] Later Gnostics held that spirit-beings or the entire “pleroma” aeons fell upon the man, Jesus of Nazareth. For example, in one Gnostic text we read, “All the emanations of the Father are pleromas, and the root of all his emanations is in the one who made them all grow up in himself” (The Gospel of Truth 41:14-19). Paul rejects this concept when he writes, “In Christ all the fullness (plērōma) of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Col. 2:9 NIV). In other words, Jesus wasn’t just filled with a spirit-being. Rather, the entire fullness of God filled the human body of Jesus. He was both truly God and truly human.
We don’t need Gnostic teaching because we are complete in Christ
(2:10) “In Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority.”
“Complete” (peplērōmenoi) is the same word used to describe the “fullness” of Jesus’ deity (v.10). Why does Paul use the same language? Most likely, Paul is responding to the Gnostic teaching that adherents needed more and more knowledge. By contrast, however, believers are “complete” by being in Christ. We don’t need to add legalism, asceticism, or formalism onto our relationship with God (Col. 2:11-14). He has already made us “complete” (plēroō) in our new identity. We need nothing else.
“He is the head over all rule and authority.” The realm of spirit beings in Gnosticism (“rule and authority”) were nothing compared to Christ (i.e. “the elementary principles of the world,” v.8). He is the “head” of them all. That is, he has all authority over them as their Creator (Col. 1:15-17).
We don’t need Gnostic teaching because we are spiritually baptized into Christ
(Col. 2:11-13) Does this passage support infant baptism? No. This passage never mentions physical circumcision. Instead, Paul mentions the circumcision made “without hands.” Spiritual circumcision of the heart is the connection Paul is making with baptism (cf. Rom. 2:28-29; Phil. 3:3). Thus, it isn’t the ritual of OT physical circumcision, but the reality of spiritual circumcision that is being connected with baptism. This point cannot be understated: Advocates of infant baptism claim that OT circumcision is parallel with baptism, and yet circumcision is not even mentioned.
(2:11-12) “In Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.”
“In Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands.” Paul is describing spiritual circumcision performed by God (“made without hands”), showing that this is not referring to a physical ritual performed by people. This is “one of the strongest reasons for seeing Judaism as his main target in the present chapter.”[99] Of course, we would hold that the so-called “Colossian Heresy” was a mixture of Jewish mysticism and proto-Gnosticism.
“In the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.” The “body of the flesh” refers to the old self of sin being crucified with Christ (Rom. 6:6). This corresponds to the “transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh” mentioned in verse 13.
“Having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” We would contend that this is similar to the baptism of Romans 6, which refers to spiritual baptism—not water baptism (see Romans 6:3-4). Melick agrees when he writes, “The primary stress lies on the spiritual experience of believers in their union with Christ…. Paul was not, however, addressing the event of water baptism; he was addressing the spiritual meaning that undergirds it. No one is baptized into the grave with Christ. Rather, believers are incorporated into the work of Christ at salvation. When Paul used the term ‘baptism’ in a soteriological context, it was spiritual rather than physical. These soteriological passages are Rom 6:3, 4; 1 Cor 10:2 (of baptism into ‘Moses’ system’); Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12. In soteriological texts, the spiritual reality predominates.”[100] He adds, “The logic of the passage demonstrates that Paul relates circumcision to baptism, rather than baptism to circumcision.”[101]
However, even if interpreters held that this refers to water baptism, they would still face difficulties in using this text to support infant baptism. After all, this only comes “through faith,” and babies aren’t able to exert faith.
(2:13) “When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions.”
“When you were dead in your transgressions.” Before meeting Christ, these people were separated from God. Separation is the meaning of “dead” (cf. Eph. 2:13-16; Lk. 15:24, 32). Elsewhere, Paul wrote, “Remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12).
Is this spiritual or water baptism? This describes spiritual baptism into Christ—not water baptism. We were baptized “with Him” and raised “with Him.” Likewise, uncircumcision is contrasted with being “made… alive” with Christ.
Why is Paul bringing up circumcision? This could imply that the false teachers were quasi-Jewish, and this is why they are bringing up circumcision. On the other hand, the concept of spiritual circumcision occurs throughout the OT. The concept of circumcision was to show that the person was set apart. Similarly, the believer in Jesus is set apart. If physical circumcision only took a small part of the flesh away, the “removal of the body of the flesh” shows that Christ’s spiritual circumcision is far, far more consequential (i.e. our position in Christ).
The contrast here is between the physical circumcision under Moses versus the spiritual baptism in Christ. Thus, we have been spiritually baptized into Christ, who has given us a spiritual circumcision (cf. Deut. 30:6).
If we hold that this is water baptism, then we would be forced into the difficult conclusion that this sacrament removes our “body of flesh” (i.e. sin nature). No Christian denomination (even those who hold baptismal regeneration) believe such a thing. We enter into spiritual baptism “through faith,” as Paul writes, not “through water.”
(2:14) “Having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.”
“Certificate of debt.” Vaughn,[102] Wright,[103] Melick,[104] and Bruce[105] hold that this “certificate of death” (cheirographon) supplies imagery that refers to a key practice during the act of crucifixion. A crucifixion victim had their crimes placed on this certificate (titulus), which was nailed above their cross. After they paid for their crimes (via crucifixion), this showed that their penalty was paid. For instance, when Jesus was crucified, they had a “certificate of debate” hung above his cross that said, “THE KING OF THE JEWS.” As a result, Jesus was able to scream “Tetelestai!” from the Cross, meaning “paid in full” (Jn. 19:19-22, 30). If our sin has been paid for, this means that formalism, asceticism, and legalism are all abolished. It is to these subjects that Paul next addresses.
We don’t need Gnostic teaching because Jesus conquered demons and death
(2:15) “When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.”
“He had disarmed the rulers and authorities.” The “rulers and authorities” are demons (Eph. 6:12, Col. 1:16; 2:8, 19),[106] and Jesus’ “triumph” refers to his victory over the demonic realm. How did the Cross disarm the rulers and authorities? Melick[107] states that this term could refer to “defeating” these demons or “disgracing” them. Perhaps both concepts are in view. Satan and his demons claimed that God was a malevolent, dictatorial control freak. The Cross abolished all of these spurious claims (see “Why did Satan Crucify Jesus?”). Wright is particularly insightful here when he writes, “These powers, angry at his challenge to their sovereignty, stripped him naked, held him up to public contempt, and celebrated a triumph over him. In one of his most dramatic statements of the paradox of the cross, and one moreover which shows in what physical detail Paul could envisage the horrible death that Jesus had died, he declares that, on the contrary, on the cross God was stripping them naked, was holding them up to public contempt, and leading them in his own triumphal procession—in Christ, the crucified Messiah.”[108] Melick writes, “The cross was the time and occasion of this action. A paradox occurred. Jesus hung naked and disgraced, dying publicly for sinners. The evil forces assumed they had triumphed. In reality, through this act of both sacrifice and triumph, God disgraced these evil beings. The tables were turned. God triumphed in the redemptive work of Christ.”[109]
“He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them.” Roman generals would lead a triumphal procession after they conquered a nation, bringing the vanquished soldiers behind them back to their country (see comments under 2 Corinthians 2:14 in “Introduction to 2 Corinthians”). Vaughn writes, “Christ, in this picture, is the conquering general; the powers and authorities are the vanquished enemy displayed as the spoils of battle before the entire universe. To the casual observer the cross appears to be only an instrument of death, the symbol of Christ’s defeat; Paul represents it as Christ’s chariot of victory.”[110]
Why go under false teaching when Jesus conquered sin and Satan?
(2:16) “Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day.”
The “food and drink” could refer to the Mosaic Kosher laws, or it could refer to asceticism in general (cf. 1 Tim. 4:3-4). If this proto-Gnostic teaching was also a blend of Jewish mysticism, both could be in view. Surely the concept of the “new moon” or “Sabbath day” refers to Jewish influence. Moreover, the fact that these things are a “shadow of what is to come” also implies that these are rooted in biblical—not proto-Gnostic—concepts.
There is a certain oddity, however, in the fact that Paul takes such a different view when discussing food laws in other passages. There, he appeals to conscience and deference to the “weaker brother” (Rom. 14:13-21; 1 Cor. 8:7-13). Here, however, Paul absolutely refuses to surrender to these laws. In our estimation, this implies that these are ascetic practices—far beyond Kosher laws or Jewish calendars.
(2:17) “Things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.”
What was the purpose of OT rituals and ceremonies? Paul says that these all prefigured the work of Christ. Now that Jesus has fulfilled everything, we shouldn’t return to the shadows, but move on to the substance. (Just imagine talking to a person’s shadow, rather than talking to the individual himself!)
Exodus 12:1-22 The celebration of the Passover foreshadows the work of Christ, who was the Lamb of God who came to take away the sins of the world (Jn. 1:29).
Exodus 25:10-22 The ceremonial practices of Tabernacle worship foreshadow the work of Christ.
Foreshadowing in the Festival System The religious ceremonies and festivals prefigured the Christ’s life and work.
Leviticus 16:16-22 The annual sacrifice of an innocent animal in the Levitical law foreshadowed the ultimate sacrifice of Christ—an innocent substitute on our behalf.
(2:18) “Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind.”
The danger with ritualism is that it can quickly degrade into false teaching. The Colossians were in danger of being drawn away from their “prize,” which presumably refers to their spiritual reward. Though, others understand the phrase (“let no one keep defrauding you”) as, “Let no one deny your claim to be Christians.”[111]
“Self-abasement” is the same term used for “humility” (tapeinophrosynē). Since the expression “self-abasement” and the “worship of angels” are part of the same preposition in the Greek, translators render this as “false humility” (NIV). Though it could also be understood as “asceticism” (ESV), which is clearly mentioned in verses 21-23 (“severe treatment of the body”).
“Worship of the angels.” Wright[112] has difficulties at this point with his thesis that Paul is responding only to Judaism. He needs to understand first-century Jews as worshipping angels. Surely some did. But these Jews held to syncretism, which would include proto-Gnostic practices (as we have been arguing all along). Indeed, perhaps these proto-Gnostic teachers were claiming that it is humble to worship angels, rather than God. Or perhaps, they argued that it was humble to torture their bodies out of “humility” before God. Paul flatly denies such a distorted view of spirituality.
“Visions” (embateuō) could refer to “the initiatory rites of the mystery cults… used by the heretical teachers.”[113] These Gnostics stood on their supposed visions, rather than on the revelation of Christ.
All of this false religion is not humility at all—but actually a form of pride! Paul writes that they are “inflated without cause by his fleshly mind.”
(2:19) “Not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.”
These rituals and false religion can quickly serve as a substitute or replacement for a relationship with Christ. This short-circuits our “growth.” Paul writes that they are “not holding fast to the head.” Consequently, they will “starve spiritually,”[114] because they are not “being supplied” by Christ. Consequently, it lacks “growth” that “is from God.”
(2:20-21) “If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 ‘Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!’”
“Elementary principles of the world” refers to asceticism and ritualism. These religious concepts effectively state that the work of Christ was insufficient. We have a new identity in Christ (“you have died with Christ”), and therefore, we are severed from false religious practices like these.
“Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” These could refer to dietary laws. However, the reference to “handling” and “touching” sound more involved than just food. It could be the prohibition to remove oneself from the physical world around them in various other ways.
(2:22) “(which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?”
“All refer to things destined to perish with use.” This is in contrast to having a mind set on things above (Col. 3:1-4), which is a hallmark of true spirituality.
“In accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?” Ritualism comes from human thinking—not from God (Mt. 15:9). Do we want human speculation or divine revelation?
(2:23) “These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.”
Ritualism doesn’t address the issues of the heart, or really change us at all. They might intuitively seem like a good way to grow, but they don’t help.
What about this type of religious practice would have the “appearance of wisdom”? What makes this so attractive? Why would anyone willingly choose it? After all, this asceticism and ritualism sounds terrible! This is why Paul is so against this “philosophy” (Col. 2:8). This is attractive because it makes the worshipper seem better. The worshipper has tangible access to spiritual development. Meanwhile, the rest of us have slow spiritual growth by “walking” with Christ (v.6).
Conclusions
There is a connection between the “disarming” of demons through the Cross (vv.13-15), and Gnostic asceticism (vv.16-23). Satan’s greatest weapons against God are the false beliefs that he is restrictive, cruel, or tyrannical. Jesus disarmed all of these objections publicly at the Cross. In the same way, the asceticism of the Gnostics really communicates that God is restrictive, cruel, and tyrannical. After all, what type of being would want you to harm yourself or restrict you from the physical world he created?
Questions for Reflection
Read verse 5. Why does Paul describe battling false teachers by using military language?
Read verses 6-7. What do we learn about spiritual growth from these two verses?
Read verses 8-23. How would you describe the Colossian heresy from this section? Based on reading this section, what were the beliefs of the false teachers?
How does Paul refute the teachers of the false teachers? What arguments does he give against these aberrant views?
What reasons does Paul give for rejecting ritualism and formalism?
Why would people prefer formalism to a personal and dynamic relationship with God? Why prefer rituals to relationship?
Are all rituals antithetical to a good relationship? How would you know if a ritual or tradition was starting to harm a relationship?
Read verse 18. Paul states that these people “delighted” in these rituals. What would you say to someone who claimed, “I feel closer to God through these rituals?”
Colossians 3
Paul just finished explaining the Gnostic asceticism that was holding people captive to a toxic and destructive spirituality in chapter 2. At this point, he shifts his focus to describe true spirituality in chapter 3.
Colossians 3:1-11 (Living out our New Identity)
(3:1) “Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.”
“If you have been raised up with Christ.” This is a first-class conditional clause.[115] Paul isn’t uncertain if these are true Christians. Rather, he is assuming that they are believers. Earlier, he wrote, “Having been buried with Him in baptism… you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead” (Col. 2:12).
“Keep seeking the things above.” The Greek term “seeking” (zēteite or zeteo) means “to seek information, investigate, examine, consider, deliberate” (BDAG). The Bible uses this word to describe the way Jesus would “seek” to save sinners (Lk. 19:10), or how Herod’s men “sought” to kill Jesus as an infant (Mt. 2:20). The verb is in the present imperative form, which can be translated “keep on seeking.”
“Where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.” Jesus is sitting at the “right hand of God” (cf. Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20). This is a position of total authority and sovereignty (Ps. 110:1-4). As Christians, our identity is wrapped up with his. Thus, since Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God, we have this identity as well. Moreover, Jesus Christ is not an intermediary spirit-being, as the Gnostics claimed. Instead, he is “seated at the right hand of God.” This brings us directly to God.
(3:2) “Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth.”
“Set your mind” (phroneō) means “to think” or “to give careful consideration” or “to develop an attitude based on careful thought” (BDAG, p.1065). It can be understood as “giving such things a large place in one’s thought life.”[116]
“On the things above.” Bruce writes, “The Gnostics also believed in aiming at what was above. They were seriously concerned with living on a higher plane than this mundane one. But Paul has in mind a higher plane than theirs.”[117]
“Not on the things that are on earth.” Paul isn’t condemning “earthly things” as evil. After all, he just denounced asceticism in the previous chapter (Col. 2:16-23). Instead, Vaughn writes, “Even things harmless in themselves become harmful if permitted to take the place that should be reserved for the things above.”[118]
(3:3) “For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God.”
“You have died.” Sin brings death (Gen. 2:17). This decree from God was never rescinded. Thus, as believers in Jesus, we have died. Our old self was crucified with Christ. I might pray, “James Rochford is dead. He is a cadaver—a corpse. That old person that frustrates me, disappoints me, and fails repeatedly is dead and gone… Thank you, God, that you have done away with that man!”
“Your life is hidden with Christ in God.” Now that our old self has been crucified, we are new creations in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). God didn’t try to rehabilitate or refurbish our old selves. Instead, he crucified the old self and has created us brand new in Christ. When God looks at us, he sees the righteousness of Christ (2 Cor. 5:21). When God the Father saw Jesus being baptized, he said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased” (Mt. 3:17). Since you are “in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:6), do you realize that God views you the same way? Do you regularly think about the fact that God is “well-pleased” with you? Truly, your “life is hidden with Christ in God.”
(3:4) “When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory.”
Our glorified bodies aren’t revealed yet. These will be revealed when Christ himself is also “revealed” at the Second Coming. The Second Coming will definitely be glorious to see, and part of the glorious nature of this event is that we will be glorified alongside of Christ. We will become, in some measure, like Christ. John writes, “We will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is” (1 Jn. 3:2). Paul writes, “[Jesus] will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory” (Phil. 3:21), and he writes, “We shall also bear the image of the man of heaven” (1 Cor. 15:49 ESV).
Not only will we finally see ourselves changed, but we will see one another changed as well—in all of their unhindered glory.
While we have a new identity in our position, we still struggle in our condition. At the Second Coming, these will no longer be split. The struggle between the flesh and the Spirit will be over, and our condition will line up permanently with our position.
(3:5) “Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.”
Should we “consider” our sin nature to be dead (NASB), or should we “put to death” sinful actions or our sinful nature (ESV, NIV, NLT, NET)? In the Greek, the term “consider” doesn’t occur. Instead, the sentence begins with “put to death” (nekrōsate). Thus, most translations state that we need to put our sinful actions to death. The difference is somewhat significant. On the one view, we are called to change our behavior. Vaughn[119] holds that we need to “completely exterminate the old way of life.” Likewise, Wright[120] states that we need to treat our sin nature “like a gangrenous limb” that needs to be “cut off” before it infects the whole person. However, if the NASB is correct, we are being told to change our mindset and agree that our sinful nature has already been deceased. In our estimation, the NASB has it right.
For one, the context should drive our translation of this text. Just two verses earlier, Paul writes, “You have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God” (v.3). Later, he writes, “You laid aside the old self” (v.9). This speaks to our identity in Christ, and it even uses the language of being dead to our old self. The same concept is in view here—namely, believe that your old self is dead and gone.
Moreover, the closest parallel to Colossians 3:5 appears in Romans.[121] Paul writes, “Consider yourselves to be dead to sin [nekrous]” (Rom. 6:11). In Colossians 3:5, the term “put to death” (nekrōsate) is aorist. Yet, Bruce observes that these concepts are “synonymous” because “there must be a decisive initial act introducing a settled attitude.”[122] He continues, “If, from one point of view, believers have died to these things, then, from another point of view, these things are dead so far as believers are concerned: they are no longer able to enforce their claims as they once did. So, in Rom. 6:11, Paul exhorts his readers to reckon themselves as dead to sin but alive to righteousness, while in Rom. 8:13 he says, ‘if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live’ (the ‘deeds of the body’ being such things as are listed here in Col. 3:5).”[123]
“Immorality” (porneia) is the root from which we get the modern term “pornography.” It has a broad semantic range that refers to any “unlawful sexual intercourse” (BDAG, p.854), and it refers to “any intercourse outside marriage.”[124]
“Impurity” (akatharsia) refers to “any substance that is filthy or dirty” or to “a state of moral corruption” (BDAG, p.34). Perhaps Paul uses this term to describe the “contamination of character”[125] that sexual immorality brings.
“Passion” (pathos) is sometimes translated “lustful passion” (1 Thess. 4:5) to show the meaning in its context. It is “the experience of strong desire” (BDAG, p.748).
“Evil desire” (epithumia) comes from the roots “over” (epi) and “desire” (thumos). Thus, it refers to an “over desire” or “a great desire for something” or a “longing” or a “craving” (BDAG, p.372). This occurs when we take a good desire (e.g. food, drink, sex, money, etc.), and we become “over desirous” of it. While this term is usually used in a negative sense, Paul had an “over desire” to be with Christ in heaven (Phil. 1:23), and Jesus had an “over desire” to eat the Passover meal with his disciples (Lk. 22:15). It seems that the object of our “over desire” is what makes it good or bad.
“Greed” (pleonexia) comes from the two root words “more” (pleon) and “to have” (echō).[126] It means “the state of desiring to have more than one’s due.” It can refer to “greediness, insatiableness, avarice, covetousness” (BDAG, p.824). It is an “unchecked hunger for physical pleasure.”[127]
All of these qualities are “idolatry.” This occurs when we place created things above the Creator. Whether it’s sex or greed or anything else, idolatry is trying to fill our desires outside of God’s will.
(3:6-7) “For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience, 7 and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them.”
“Sons of disobedience.” Why doesn’t Paul simply say that God’s judgment will “come upon the disobedient”? If he did, this would purely focus on the behavior of these people, rather than their identity. The expression “the sons of disobedience” only occurs here and in Ephesians (Eph. 2:2; 5:6). It refers to people who are unbelievers. Quite literally, their nature is that of “disobedience.” By contrast, the Christian has a new nature. We aren’t sons of disobedience, but sons of God.
Therefore, Paul isn’t arguing for the impossibility of engaging in these sins, but rather, he’s arguing for the inconsistency of it. Since we are no longer one of the “sons of disobedience” who is under God’s judgment, why would we continue to live like one? The Colossians formerly “walked” in these sins and “were living in them.” But now, their identity has changed. Therefore, they should “consider” their bodies as dead to these sins (v.5) and “put them all aside… since you laid aside the old self” (vv.8-9).
(3:8-10) “But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices. 10 And have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him.”
“Put them all aside… since you laid aside the old self.” Once again, the key to making a break from sinful habits is to acknowledge that the “old self” is gone. Our old self was crucified with Christ (Rom. 6:6). At the same time, we need to actively put away our old self: “Lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit” (Eph. 4:22). Furthermore, even though we are already have a “new self” (v.10), we still need to “be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self” (Eph. 4:23-24). The concepts of our “condition” and “position” in Christ make sense of this language: While we have a new self in our position, we need to trust in this in our condition.
“Anger” (orgē) refers to a “state of relatively strong displeasure, with focus on the emotional aspect” (BDAG, p.720). Wright describes it as a “continuous state of smouldering or seething hatred.”[128] Much of our anger is sinful, but not all. After all, Jesus showed anger (Mk. 3:5), as does God the Father (Heb. 3:11; Rom. 12:19). Indeed, Scripture teaches us to be “slow to anger” (Jas. 1:19), and Paul writes, “Be angry, but do not sin” (Eph. 4:26).
“Wrath” (thymos) refers to “a state of intense displeasure, anger, wrath, rage, indignation” (BDAG, p.461). Wright[129] distinguishes this from “anger” in the sense that this is an actual verbal or physical outbreak of anger. In other words, anger is the emotional state, whereas wrath is a verbal or physical state.
“Malice” (kakia) is “the quality or state of wickedness, baseness, depravity, wickedness, vice.” It can also refer to “a mean-spirited or vicious attitude or disposition” (BDAG, p.500).
“Slander” (blasphēmia) refers to “speech that denigrates or defames” (BDAG, p.178).
“Abusive speech” (aischrologia) is “speech of a kind that is generally considered in poor taste, obscene speech, dirty talk” (BDAG, p.29). Vaughn writes that the term can refer to “either filthy or abusive speech,” and the “authorities are divided as to its meaning here.”[130] Thus, this could refer to cussing someone out. After all, the context refers to angry and hateful speech.
“Do not lie to one another.” One of the greatest reasons for lying is that we don’t feel secure in telling the truth. We worry that we’ll be in trouble or judged. But if we realize that our Heavenly Father doesn’t judge us, we have no reason to fear the condemnation of anyone. Honesty flows from seeing our new position and identity in Christ.
(3:11) “A renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.”
The new identity changes various dimensions of interpersonal relationships. Since we are all in Christ, this means we have a basis to transcend sociological and racial boundaries. Instead of focusing on the color of my skin or the money in my bank account, I realize that Christ is the ultimate value (“Christ is all”), and he is the defining attribute that brings equality because he is “in all” of us, no matter who we are. This is a practical outworking of the description of Jesus in Colossians 1:15-20.
“Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised.” The new identity transcends our religious boundaries.
“Barbarian, Scythian.” In many ways, these are synonyms. The “barbarians” were seen as having lesser status than the Greeks in general (Rom. 1:14). Bruce[131] states that being a “Scythian” only “intensifies” the concept of being a barbarian. The term “Scythian” had “been a byword for uncultured barbarism,” and ancient Greek comedians made fun of them for their “uncouth ways and speech.”[132] All of this implies that our new identity transcends our moral boundaries.
“Slave and freeman.” Aristotle said that a slave was “a living tool, as a tool is an inanimate slave” (Nicomachean Ethics 8.11.6.1161b4). Christ brought dignity and humanity to people who were considered mere chattel and property. This implies that our new identity transcends our sociological boundaries. The amount of money in our bank account doesn’t change our value in the Christian community in the slightest.
Questions for Reflection
Read verses 1-4. What can we learn about our attitude toward Heaven from these verses?
Read verse 3. What does it mean to have your life “hidden with Christ”?
Read verse 4. What does this teach about our resurrected bodies in Heaven? What are you looking forward to the most about your resurrected body?
Read verses 5-8. According to this section, what is the key to having a break from sinful habits?
Read verse 8. What is the difference between righteous and unrighteous anger? What are signs that you do not have your anger under control? What steps might be helpful to gain control of your anger? See our earlier article “Anger.”
Righteous anger |
Unrighteous anger |
|
Done for the sake of others |
Done for the sake of self |
| Objective |
Subjective |
|
Humble: done even when we realize our own sin |
Hypocritical: overlooks our own sin in favor of another |
| Slow to anger (Jas. 1:19) |
Reactionary |
Read verses 9-10. How would you define the “old self” and the “new self”?
How does our new identity relate to our sociological status? (e.g. religious status, ethnic status, economic status, etc.)
Colossians 3:12-17 (Renovation project)
Paul now gives a contrast to the negative sins listed above. God wants us to break our sinful habits and addictions. But that’s not all he wants to do with us. We cannot just avoid sinful behaviors, because “nature abhors a vacuum.” We need to fill our lives with positive qualities as well. We need to “put on” our new identity (Rom. 13:14). It is to this subject that Paul now turns.
(3:12) “So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.”
The key to these qualities is to “put on” the new identity. Because this is who we are in Christ, we should line up our minds with what’s true. We don’t grit our teeth and try to force these qualities. Instead of trying to change ourselves, we present ourselves to God and trust that he will bring the transformation.
“Compassion” (oiktrimou) refers to a “display of concern over another’s misfortune” (BDAG, p.700). This is a quality that God has toward us (2 Cor. 1:3). Truly much of Christian work is simply being able to understand how people are feeling and showing emotional concern. As Paul writes, “Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep” (Rom. 12:15). Often, we lack this sort of compassion because we lack closeness in our relationships. Have you placed yourself in close enough proximity to others to be affected by the suffering and struggles of others?
Sometimes, we have feelings for others, but we don’t know how to express them. Pray that God would help you to visibly show you the appropriate emotion. Without this, people wonder if we really love them.
“Kindness” (crestotes) refers to “uprightness in one’s relations with others” or “the quality of being helpful or beneficial” or “goodness, kindness, generosity” (BDAG, 1090). It can also be defined as a “friendly nature”[133] or a “sweetness of disposition.”[134] Jesus was strong, confident, and fierce—being able to strike fear into the hearts of the religious authorities. Yet when kids saw him, they wanted to crawl all over him like a jungle gym! This is kindness—a disarming disposition toward others.
“Humility” (tapeinophrosynen) is a quality that involves thinking of others more than ourselves (Phil. 2:3-4). It is “exemplified in that readiness to forgo [our] rights.”[135] Peter writes, “Clothe yourselves with humility toward one another” (1 Pet. 5:5). There can also be an ungodly form of humility called “self-abasement” (Col. 2:18, 23). See our earlier article “Humility.”
Can you delegate responsibilities to others, or do you hoard all of the important opportunities for yourself? There are times where we need to take important responsibilities on our own shoulders, but this should be for the benefit of the Church—not for our own personal glory.)
“Gentleness” (praytes) refers to “the quality of not being overly impressed by a sense of one’s self-importance” (BDAG, p.861). It can also refer to the concept of self-restraint in our power or strength. Brown writes, “Words from the praÿs group are used of… [tamed] animals.”[136]
Jesus possessed this quality. Thus, it cannot refer to weakness. Boice writes, “Gentleness (prautēs) describes the person who is so much in control of himself that he is always angry at the right time and never angry at the wrong time.”[137] John Stott writes, “The word was also used of domesticated animals. So ‘meekness’ is not a synonym for ‘weakness’. On the contrary, it is the gentleness of the strong, whose strength is under control. It is the quality of a strong personality who is nevertheless master of himself and the servant of others.”[138]
“Patience” (makrothymia) can be defined as a “state of remaining tranquil while awaiting an outcome” (BDAG, p.612). It can refer to the preparation of battle. Brown writes, “Being strictly military terms, the various words are readily used as metaphors in connection with the battles of life.”[139] This is the ability to wait on God before the battle and not hit the panic button—whether “in season or out of season” (2 Tim. 4:2).
(3:13) “Bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you.”
Just in case these qualities were too abstract, Paul makes them crystal clear by giving a practical example: forgiveness.
Does someone need to repent in order for me to forgive them? Some interpreters argue that we should only forgive those who repent of their sins. After all, God didn’t forgive us without repentance. Instead, he waited for us to turn to him and ask for forgiveness. But this interpretation is askew for several reasons.
For one, Paul’s language is broad and all-encompassing. We should forgive “whoever” and “anyone.” Any interpretation that seeks to limit the scope of forgiveness shoulders the full burden of proof.
Second, we shouldn’t press Paul’s comparison too far. When Paul writes, “Just as the Lord forgave you,” this doesn’t mean that our forgiveness of others is identical to God’s forgiveness of us. For instance, when I forgive, I’m one sinner forgiving another sinner. Of course, this isn’t the case when Jesus forgives us. Moreover, when I forgive, I’m not releasing someone from eternity in hell. Yet, this is precisely the case for Jesus’ forgiveness of us. Finally, when I forgive, I don’t know the depth of the other person’s sin omnisciently. But again, Jesus knows it all. For these reasons (and surely many more), we shouldn’t press the analogy that Paul is giving (“Just as the Lord forgave you”).
Third, parallel passages support the idea that we should forgive whether or not someone else repents. Jesus said, “Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions” (Mk. 11:25).
Fourth, the focus is on the offended—not the offender. Melick writes, “It obviously speaks to the offended party, not the offending one. It may be that the offending person had little, if any, awareness of what he had done. The offended should take initiative in enduring and forgiving, rather than waiting for the offender to apologize.”[140]
It’s true that other parallel passages could support the view that others need to repent to warrant our forgiveness. Jesus taught, “If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. 4 And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him” (Lk. 17:3-4). At first glance, this statement seems to make forgiveness conditional upon repentance. But not so fast. This is making a positive statement about forgiving someone who repents. It says nothing about refusing forgiveness to the unrepentant. Such an interpretation would commit the “negative inference fallacy.”[141] In short, whatever Jesus is communicating, it is radically pro-forgiveness. In fact, Jesus’ statement exceeded the claim that they should only forgive seven times a day, and it resulted in the apostles responding by saying, “Increase our faith!” (Lk. 17:5)
In conclusion, Paul is stating that we should forgive others unconditionally. When we sin against the Lord Jesus, he forgives us over and over and over again. As believers in Christ, he forgives each and every sin. Jesus also doesn’t wait to forgive our sins until we repent of them. In fact, the vast majority of sins that I commit are long forgotten! Paul’s point is that we should forgive everyone for everything. When we release these debts, we experience a release of bitterness as well (Heb. 12:15) and a lifting of our souls in new and profound ways.
How should we forgive? Reflect on God’s forgiveness for you (Mt. 18:21-35). As you realize God’s forgiveness toward you, it allows you to release the demand to enact judgment on others.
- God forgives without excusing our sin (Rom. 2:1).
- God forgives without trusting us (Jn. 2:24-25).
- God forgives without making us weep or beg for mercy (2 Cor. 7:9-10).
- God forgives without conditions (Heb. 10:10).
(3:14) “Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity.”
Love and unity are tied together. Love is the ultimate virtue on this list, and perhaps the virtue that all of these others describe. This is similar to Paul’s list of the “fruit of the Spirit” which begins and centers on love (Gal. 5:22). Indeed, Paul’s use of the singular (“fruit,” rather than “fruits”) implies that love is the central and ultimate fruit of the Spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 13).
(3:15) “Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful.”
Some Christians interpret this passage to refer to the “inner peace” of Christ. While this is one way of taking this passage (cf. Jn. 14:27; Phil. 4:6-7), we agree with Bruce[142] and Wright[143] that this “peace” refers to the relational peace between believers. After all, the context is all about loving and forgiving others—not inner peace.
“Be thankful.” A key to peace with other believers is to “be thankful” for them. A friend of mine was embroiled in conflict with his college roommate. The bitterness mounted month after month, until he finally opened up about the issue with an older believer. The counseling session was quite short.
The older believer asked the young man, “What are you genuinely thankful about in this man’s life?”
The young man had to pause for a few moments to think about how to answer. Just then, the older believer interrupted and said, “That’s your problem right there!”
The lesson wasn’t lost on the young believer. He patched things up with his friend within weeks. When bitterness fills our hearts and heads, we can’t get a realistic picture of others (Heb. 12:15). Gratitude is the key to unlocking many of our relational dysfunctions.
(3:16) “Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”
“Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you.” This shows that Paul was not the only person who was called to disciple other believers (Col. 1:28-29). One of the keys to effective teaching and admonition is to let the word of Christ “richly dwell” within us. As we let the word change us, we’re more effective in handing it out to others.
“With all wisdom.” The subject of wisdom is integral to this letter (Col. 1:9; 1:28; 2:3; 4:5). It takes “wisdom” to handle God’s word well.
“Admonishing one another.” This implies that all Christians should have the capability to teach and counsel one another on some level (cf. Rom. 15:14; Heb. 5:12).
“Admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” The NASB implies that we should sing our admonitions to each other. Likewise, Melick writes that the “specific vehicle for teaching and admonition is song.”[144] He goes further and states that music is for “the evangelization of unbelievers.”[145] Melick is an excellent commentator, but we must disagree at this point. This is a list of participial imperatives—not intended to be joined together. Dynamic translations like the NIV capture this distinction. Moreover, since teaching and admonishing are “one another” passages, this would require admonishing others while singing! I have never seen a Christian do this (and I hope I never do!). We agree with Bruce who writes, “The punctuation of this sentence is disputed, but it makes better sense if the… words ‘in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs’ modify the verb ‘singing’ (and not ‘teach and instruct’).”[146]
Consequently, the singing portion of this text is not a “one another” passage, and therefore, this doesn’t describe a worship service. Instead, believers should sing throughout the week, and this should not be “restricted simply to weekly public worship.”[147]
(3:17) “Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father.”
“Do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” The new identity should change both our inward attitudes, thoughts, and convictions, as well as our outward lives. Paul gives examples of a changed life, but this isn’t the goal. The culmination of Christian maturity is to see “all” of life changed by Jesus (1 Cor. 10:31).
“Giving thanks through Him to God the Father.” Again, Paul mentions the importance of giving thanks. Gratitude is one of the engines that drives and propels spiritual growth and healthy Christian community. Gratitude is so widespread that it can accompany any aspect of life: Drinking a good cup of coffee, exercise, working hard at our job, reading a book, spending time with our friends, etc. In every activity, we can honestly turn to God in thanks for the good gifts that he gives us (Jas. 1:17).
Questions for Reflection
Read verse 12: Kindness. How might you help someone who comes off as “cold”? What are some practical steps that could help them to develop this “friendly nature”?
Read verse 12: Humility. Humility is such an abstract concept. What are practical ways to develop humility?
Read verse 12: Gentleness. What are the similarities between gentleness and weakness? What are the differences between gentleness and weakness?
Read verse 12: Patience. How do you recognize a patient person? What do you think it takes to become a patient person?
Read verses 13-14. What do we learn about forgiveness from this text?
Read verse 15. What are some positive steps that you might take in order to prepare for working through a major conflict?
Read verse 16. What do we learn about studying the Bible from this verse? How does this compare to simply learning a few Bible stories?
Colossians 3:18-4:1 (Living out our New Identity: Family and Work)
Paul now turns to how Christian truth applies to the family and to working relationships. Just as we see today, all of these were fallen systems, because they exist by necessity in a fallen world. Yet, Bruce writes, “The household codes did not set out to abolish or reshape existing social structures, but to christianize them.”[148]
(3:18) “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.”
“Wives, be subject to your husbands.” Wives are called on to willingly follow the servant leadership of their husbands. Vaughn comments, “The form of the verb (hypotassesthe, middle voice) shows that the submission is to be voluntary. The wife’s submission is never to be forced on her by a demanding husband; it is the deference that a loving wife, conscious that her home (just as any other institution) must have a head, gladly shows to a worthy and devoted husband.”[149] Moreover, Melick writes, “Paul addressed wives here, not husbands. In this context, the word differs radically from the word which describes the role of children and slaves who are to obey (hypakouō).”[150]
“Fitting in the Lord.” The term “fitting” (anēkō) means “to reach a point of connection, with focus on what is appropriate” (BDAG, p.79). O’Brien writes, “This expression may mean that the Lord Jesus is the criterion of what is fitting, or more likely it designates the proper attitude and behavior ‘within the new fellowship of those who own Christ as Lord.’”[151] Melick explains this well when he writes, “Voluntarily taking a position of submission is a matter of a wife’s relationship to the Lord, not to her husband.”[152] See our earlier article, “Christianity and Women.”
(3:19) “Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them.”
“Love your wives.” This is what healthy marriages need: Not merely an absence of hostility, but an abundance “love.” Sadly, in the ancient world, the wife “was often little more than chattel [i.e. property].”[153] Here, Paul tells the Christian husband to show Christ-like love to his wife (agapate; cf. Eph. 5:21-33). The word “love” (agapē) “never occurred in secular household tables.” Thus, the term “appears to be a distinctively Christian element of the marriage relationship.”[154]
“Do not be embittered against them.” This “term does not occur in other ethical lists.”[155] Paul tells husbands not to be “embittered” (pikrainō) which refers to an “irritable attitude.”[156] Think about that. Not only does this restrict severe acts of abuse, but it also addresses the irritable inclinations of the heart. Wright explains, “[The husband] must scrupulously avoid the temptation to resent her being the person she is, to become bitter or angry when she turns out to be, like him, a real human being, and not merely the projection of his own hopes or fantasies.”[157] Bruce places this command in context, when he writes, “The forbearance and forgiveness which are enjoined in the preceding section of the letter, together with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, forbid a Christian man to be harsh in his treatment of anyone, especially of his own wife.”[158]
(3:20) “Children, be obedient to your parents in all things, for this is well-pleasing to the Lord.”
“Children.” This refers to young children—not grown adults. In Ephesians 6:4, Paul writes that fathers should “bring them up.” Thus young children are in view. Wall writes, “The Greek word Paul uses for ‘children’ is tekna, which refers to young children living at home.”[159]
“Be obedient to your parents.” This refers to both parents—not just the fathers (who are specified in verse 21).
“In all things.” Surely this doesn’t refer to overarching moral principles like the safety and protection of the child. That is, a child shouldn’t submit to abuse or danger (see “Prioritized Ethics”). In the parallel passage, Paul notes that children are to be obedient “in the Lord” (Eph. 6:1). O’Brien writes, “Since Paul has a Christian family in view (en kyriō), he does not envisage the situation where parental orders might be contrary to the law of Christ. Clearly at that point the law of Christ must take precedence and children would have to obey God rather than men.”[160] Rather, the child should submit to the leadership of their parents. This means that children should never disobey the Lord, in order to obey their parents (i.e. doing something immoral).
Paul quotes Exodus 20:12 in Ephesians 6: “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you.” The reason for honoring parents is that it is good for the child (“that it may go well with you” Deut. 5:16).
(3:21) “Fathers, do not exasperate your children, so that they will not lose heart.”
“Fathers” (pateres) are specifically in view. While the term “fathers” (pateres) can be used for both our father and mother (see Heb. 11:23), here the term is contrasted with verse 20, where both parents are in view.
“Do not exasperate your children, so that they will not lose heart.” If we had better Christian fathers, we wouldn’t think that it is odd for children to submit to their parents (v.20). Paul gives only one imperative to fathers, but it summarizes his view of parenting in a few short words. He tells Christian fathers to not “exasperate” (erethizō) their children, which means “to ‘irritate’ either by nagging at them or by deriding their efforts.”[161] It can mean to “embitter” or “provoke.”[162] Otherwise, the children will “lose heart” which means “to be discouraged” or to “become timid.”[163] Vaughn writes, “Parents can be so exacting, so demanding, or so severe that they create within their children the feeling that it is impossible for them to please.”[164] Melick comments, “If correction were needed, it should have been toward the behavior of the child, not the child’s personhood, and it should have been enforced quickly. Discipline was not to be prolonged so that nagging occurred.”[165]
The words and actions of the Christian father can have a massive impact on the delicate fabric of a maturing child—for good or for bad. Paul says that we have a serious responsibility as fathers to nurture and also to provide for our families: “If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8). Elsewhere, Paul writes that fathers should do a lot of teaching and instruction, and this precludes provocation. He writes, “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).
What was the cultural context for the rule of fathers in the home? In both Roman and Jewish culture, the father was the head of the house, and he couldn’t be questioned. O’Brien writes, “In contemporary society the Roman patria potestas, i.e. the authority and power of the head of the house, gave the father unlimited power over his children and this law exercised a considerable degree of influence in the Hellenistic culture generally… In Hellenistic Judaism severe punishment could be meted out for disobedient children (Philo’s demand for severity on the part of parents has been attributed to this influence: Philo, Hyp 7.2; Philo, Spec. Leg. 2.232; cf. Josephus, Ap 2.206, 217; Ant. 4.264, and note Crouch, Origin, 114-116).”[166] How different is Paul’s picture of leadership in the Christian home!
(3:22) “Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.”
The solution to slavery was to win the slave masters for Christ. For a full explanation of the Bible’s view of slavery, see our earlier article, “The Bible and Slavery.”
(3:23-24) “Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men, 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve.”
Does this refer to working hard in your secular career? Perhaps the application is that broad. However, the original context refers to slaves (v.22). In the original context, the goal was not to succeed as a slave, but rather to was to win the “masters” to Christ (v.22). Therefore, in our estimation, the universal principle in this text is to win people at work.
“From the Lord you will receive the reward… It is the Lord Christ whom you serve.” Instead of focusing on their evil masters, Paul urges them to fix their eyes on God. By having a sincere heart and love for their masters, slaves could show themselves to be different. This would result in slave masters being open to the love of Christ.
(3:25) “For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality.”
This could refer to the natural law of cause-and-effect, or the “consequences” of our actions. If slaves worked sluggishly at their jobs, they would face harsher treatment. Likewise, if they revolted, they would be killed. Paul urges them to sacrificially love their masters instead. This plan led to many slave masters coming to genuine faith in Christ, and having a transformation of the heart (see Col. 4:1). Eventually, the transforming spread of the gospel ended chattel slavery in the Western world.
This could also refer to God’s impartial judgment (Eph. 6:8-9). Paul addresses this to all people—not just slaves. He shifts his pronouns from “you” in verses 23-24 to “he” in verse 25. The slaves likely felt wronged, and their situation was unfair. However, Paul is telling them, “Life is currently unfair, but God will ultimately balance the scales of justice.” How could these slaves be embittered at their masters who could be quickly facing the judgment of God?
Questions for Reflection
Read verses 18-19. What do we learn about God’s design for marriage from these two short verses? How does this compare to our culture?
Read verse 20-21. What do we learn about parenting from these two short verses? How does this compare to our culture?
Read verses 3:23-4:1. Does this refer to working hard in our secular careers?
Colossians 4
(4:1) “Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven.”
“Grant to your slaves justice and fairness.” In the Greco-Roman world, slave masters had no obligations toward their slaves. Wright explains, “Paul does not protest against the institution of slavery. That would be about as useful, for him, as a modern preacher fulminating against the internal combustion engine. His approach is subtler. He has found a fixed point on which to stand, from which to move the world: slaves too are human beings with rights.”[167] Paul doesn’t call for the overthrow of the system of slavery. Instead, he calls for “justice” and “fairness” within the existing, fallen world. The term “fairness” (isotēta) means “equality” (BDAG, p.481; 2 Cor. 8:13-14). This was in a time when slaves were treated as mere property. Thus, if slave masters gave their fellow men “justice” and “fairness,” the system of slavery would be effectively abolished.
“You too have a Master in heaven.” By using a play on words, Paul teaches that slave masters have a “Master” themselves. This theological truth decapitates the hierarchy and control of the systematic injustice of slavery.
Colossians 4:2-6 (The relationship between prayer and evangelism)
Paul just finished describing how to win an incredibly difficult class of people to Christ: Slave owners. Once he laid the foundation for this, it really puts evangelism in perspective. That is, if slaves can reach their masters for Christ, can’t we reach our neighbors?
(4:2) “Devote yourselves to prayer, keeping alert in it with an attitude of thanksgiving.”
“Devote” (proskartereite) means “to stick by or be close at hand, attach oneself to, wait on, be faithful to someone” (BDAG, p.881; cf. Acts 2:42; 10:7).
“Keep alert” (grēgorountes) means “to be in constant readiness” (BDAG, p.207) or literally “keeping awake.”[168] This is the same term that Jesus used in the Garden of Gethsemane when the disciples were sleeping, rather than praying (Mt. 26:38, 40-41).
(4:3-4) “Praying at the same time for us as well, that God will open up to us a door for the word, so that we may speak forth the mystery of Christ, for which I have also been imprisoned; 4 that I may make it clear in the way I ought to speak.”
“God will open up to us a door for the word.” The “word” refers to the “word of truth” mentioned earlier (Col. 1:5-6). Christians often pray for “open doors.” We get that concept from this passage (cf. 1 Cor. 16:9; 2 Cor. 2:12). The purpose of Paul’s request is so that he can share the message of Christ with others more effectively. Melick comments, “Paul always sought ways to communicate the gospel.”[169] He continues, “[Paul had a] normal ministry of preaching in the synagogues, with the situation on Mars Hill (Acts 17:16-34), with the address at the riot in Jerusalem (Acts 21:17-22:29), with the reasoned defense before Jewish and Roman officials (Acts 24:1-21, 24-27; 25:1-11; 26:1-27), and even when natural disasters occurred (Acts 27:13-26; 28:1-10).”[170]
“So that we may speak forth the mystery of Christ, for which I have also been imprisoned.” This harkens back to Paul writing about “the riches of the glory of this mystery… which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col. 1:27). The mention of his imprisonment dovetails with his earlier statements “I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake” (Col. 1:24).
“That I might make it clear.” Paul prays for his own clarity in being able to speak. Often, we pray for non-Christians to be protected from the evil one (2 Cor. 4:4), to have their hearts softened to the gospel (Acts 16:14), or for them to come under the conviction of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:8-10). All of these prayers are thoroughly biblical. But do we neglect Paul’s practice in this verse? How often do we pray for a fellow believer who is about to share the gospel? How often do we pray for God to empower him or her to have the ability to clearly explain the gospel to their friend or loved one? We should emphasize both of these important prayers in evangelism.
(4:5) “Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity.”
“Outsiders” refer to non-Christians (Mk. 4:11; 1 Cor. 5:12-13; 1 Thess. 4:12). Paul teaches us to have “wisdom” in how we communicate to unbelieving people. At the very least, this means that we also should be considerate of how our “Christian culture” or “Christianese” comes across to non-Christians, removing any possible barriers that would make a non-Christian uncomfortable. More importantly, it means that we communicate well when we share about Christ with others, learning how to “respond to each person” with grace (v.6).
“Making the most of the opportunity.” Vaughn writes, “The verb in the statement ‘make the most of every opportunity’ is a market term that meant ‘to buy out,’ ‘purchase completely’ (exagorazomenoi).”[171] As believers, we know that we have limited time to make an impact for Christ. We want to “buy up” every single minute before the clock runs out!
(4:6) “Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.”
Apologetics can easily become abusive, contentious, or just generally counter-productive. Paul foresaw this, and he saw our need to respond graciously. The term “grace” (charis) can “be used in the broader sense of ‘pleasantness,’ ‘attractiveness,’ ‘charm,’ ‘winsomeness.’”[172]
The reference to “seasoned with salt” could refer back to Jesus’ teaching that believers are “the salt of the Earth” (Mt. 5:13). This doesn’t refer to a preservative, but to a seasoning. As far as it depends on us, conversations about the gospel should be enjoyable and attractive to the non-believer.[173]
Colossians 4:7-18 (Conclusion)
Paul ends his letter by addressing and describing ten of his colleagues in ministry. What can we learn from each of the people whom Paul mentions by name?
Tychicus
(4:7-8) “As to all my affairs, Tychicus, our beloved brother and faithful servant and fellow bond-servant in the Lord, will bring you information. 8 For I have sent him to you for this very purpose, that you may know about our circumstances and that he may encourage your hearts.”
These two lines are almost identical to Ephesians 6:21-22. This shouldn’t surprise us. After all, they were being written and circulated at the same time, and it seems as though Tychicus carried this letter to the Colossians.
Tychicus was a faithful believer (Acts 20:4). Paul trusted him to carry his letters to the Colossians and the Ephesians (Col. 4:7-8; Eph. 6:21), and to update them on “all my affairs.” This implies that Tychicus was close to Paul. Moreover, Tychicus likely carried 2 Timothy to Timothy as well (2 Tim. 4:12).
Paul sent Tychicus to Ephesus to “relieve Timothy during the latter’s absence in Rome while visiting Paul.”[174] Likewise, Paul sent Tychicus to temporarily replace Titus in Crete: “When I send… Tychicus to you, make every effort to come to me at Nicopolis” (Titus 3:12). Tychicus must’ve been a strong leader who could take over at the drop of a hat. Tychicus could “tag in” when leaders needed a break.
Onesimus
(4:9) “And with him Onesimus, our faithful and beloved brother, who is one of your number. They will inform you about the whole situation here.”
Onesimus travelled alongside Tychicus. He had been a slave of Philemon (see Philemon). But instead of focusing on Onesimus’ past life of being a low-class slave, Paul gives him dignity. He calls him a “brother” and “one of you” (NIV). Onesimus’ life and identity had been completely changed in Paul’s mind. This could also imply that Onesimus was originally from Colossae (“one of you”).
Aristarchus and John Mark
(4:10) “Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends you his greetings; and also Barnabas’s cousin Mark (about whom you received instructions; if he comes to you, welcome him).”
Aristarchus grew up in Thessalonica (Acts 19:29; 20:4). He had been imprisoned during the Ephesian riot (Acts 19:29) and was with Paul in Rome (Acts 27:2). He was so well-trusted by Paul that he was one of the men to carry the charitable giving to Jerusalem (Acts 20:4). Paul calls him a “fellow prisoner” (sunaichmalōtos) which literally refers to a “fellow-prisoner-of-war.”[175]
John Mark (the author of the gospel of Mark) grew up in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12). John was his Jewish name, and Mark was his Gentile name.[176] He served with Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey (Acts 13), but he defected from their mission (Acts 13:13). Paul refused to take Mark on his second missionary tour, but Barnabas continued to believe in Mark’s potential (Acts 15:36-40). Mark turned out to be a good Christian worker. He was so good, in fact, that Paul requested to see him on his deathbed (2 Tim. 4:11). Even though Mark stumbled early on, he was able to finish strong. Earle comments, “John Mark is a vivid example of a young man who failed in his first assignment, but finally made good.”[177]
Paul’s mention of Mark shows us something special about this godly man: He didn’t hold a grudge. Mark had “deserted” Paul and Barnabas during a crucial time in their First Missionary Tour (Acts 15:38). But Paul could recognize repentance when he saw it. He warmly wants to see Mark—a man whom he didn’t trust a couple decades earlier.
Jesus (Justus)
(4:11) “And also Jesus who is called Justus; these are the only fellow workers for the kingdom of God who are from the circumcision, and they have proved to be an encouragement to me.”
We don’t have any other information about Jesus (Justus) other than this passage. Jesus was his Greek name, and Justus was his Latin name.[178] However, we know that these three men (Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus Justus) were ethnically Jewish, and they were very encouraging to Paul. It must have felt good to have some friends who were fellow Jews that were also following Jesus.
Epaphras
(4:12-13) “Epaphras, who is one of your number, a bondslave of Jesus Christ, sends you his greetings, always laboring earnestly for you in his prayers, that you may stand perfect and fully assured in all the will of God. 13 For I testify for him that he has a deep concern for you and for those who are in Laodicea and Hierapolis.”
Epaphras was the man to bring the gospel message to Colossae (Col. 1:7-8), and he was a man known for his prayer life. He uses the words “laboring earnestly” (agōnizomenos) to describe how he prayed. Of course, he wasn’t laboring with God, but with his own sinful nature and with Satan.
“For you and for those who are in Laodicea and Hierapolis.” These two cities were very close to Colossae. This shows that “Epaphras [had] a vision for God’s work in the Lycus valley, and is working hard to bring it to reality.”[179]
Luke and Demas
(4:14) “Luke, the beloved physician, sends you his greetings, and also Demas.”
Luke was a physician. So, it isn’t surprising to see him coming to Paul’s aid in the dungeon of a Roman prison (Col. 4:14; Phile. 24). Most likely, Luke gave medical treatment to Paul at the end of his life (2 Tim. 4:11). Luke wrote two major books (e.g. Luke-Acts), so we know that he was a proficient writer, and one whom Paul trusted. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke (2nd c. AD) states, “Luke was an Antiochian of Syria, a physician by profession. He was a disciple of the apostles and later accompanied Paul until his martyrdom. He served the Lord without distraction, having neither wife nor children, and at the age of eighty-four he fell asleep in Boetia, full of the Holy Spirit.”[180]
Demas was one of Paul’s trusted “fellow workers” who had served alongside Paul while he was in jail (Col. 4:14; Phile. 24). However, he later walked away from Christ (2 Tim. 4:10). Think of that: Demas was so loyal that he visited Paul during house arrest, but he eventually lost his walk.
Nympha
(4:15) “Greet the brethren who are in Laodicea and also Nympha and the church that is in her house.”
The NET note states that the “harder reading” for this pronoun (“her house”) implies that Nympha was a woman—not a man. The significance of this is that Nympha led a house church.
(4:16) “When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea.”
(4:16) Did Paul write a lost letter to the church of Laodicea? We agree with Wright[181] that this the letter from Laodicea was most likely Paul’s circular letter called “Ephesians.” This shows “the preservation of Paul’s letters in the sub-apostolic period, and their eventual adoption as part of the canonical ‘new covenant’ books.”[182]
Archippus
(4:17) “Say to Archippus, ‘Take heed to the ministry which you have received in the Lord, that you may fulfill it.’”
Was Archippus put in charge of the church in Colossae while Epaphras was gone? We’re not sure. This passage teaches that we need to “fulfill” the work that God has set before us. God has certain works and ministry that he wants us to fulfill (Eph. 2:10; Acts 13:25; 2 Tim. 4:7).
(4:18) “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. Remember my imprisonment. Grace be with you.”
Paul would sometimes close his letters by writing it himself, rather than using a scribe or an amanuensis (1 Cor. 16:21; Gal. 6:11; 2 Thess. 3:17; Phile. 19).
Questions for Reflection
Read verse 2. What is the most remarkable answer to prayer that you’ve experienced? What is the most recent answer to prayer that you’ve seen?
Read verses 1-6. What can we learn about sharing our faith from this section?
Read verses 7-18. What qualities does Paul encourage in the people he mentions at the end of his letter? How does this compare to flattering people for their gifts?
[1] Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 44, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1982), xli-xlix.
[2] D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Second ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 517.
[3] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 168.
[4] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 33.
[5] Cited in Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 44, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1982), xli.
[6] Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 44, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1982), xli.
[7] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 164.
[8] Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 44, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1982), xlii.
[9] Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 44, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1982), xliii.
[10] D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Second ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 518.
[11] Vaughn writes, “Vocabulary is not a great problem, however, for the distinctive vocabulary is most apparent where Paul is dealing with the Colossian problem. Therefore, it is not unlikely that at least some of these words were borrowed from the errorists for purposes of refutation; naturally, then, they would not be used in other totally different contexts.” Frank E. Gaebelein (editor). Curtis Vaughan (author). Volume 11. Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Zondervan. 1984. 164.
[12] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 167.
[13] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 201.
[14] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 34.
[15] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 163.
[16] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 164.
[17] We hold to the later date for Colossians, believing Paul wrote this letter from Roman imprisonment. However, Wright argues that an Ephesian imprisonment would be much closer to the events in question. Still Wright calls this “simply a hypothesis.” N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 40.
[18] Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 44, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1982), l.
[19] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 170.
[20] O’Brien also holds that an Ephesian imprisonment is also very possible, but he prefers the Roman imprisonment. Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 44, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1982), liii.
[21] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 170.
[22] D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Second ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 522. Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 44, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1982), liv.
[23] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 24.
[24] Both cited in Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 44, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1982), xxvi.
[25] Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 44, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1982), xxvi.
[26] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 163.
[27] Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 44, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1982), xxvi.
[28] Cited in Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 44, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1982), xxvii.
[29] Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 44, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1982), xxvii.
[30] Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 44, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1982), xxxiii.
[31] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 175.
[32] J.B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, 3rd ed. (London: MacMillan, 1879).
[33] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 173.
[34] Scott Berkun, Confessions of a Public Speaker (Cambridge: O’Reilly Media, 2009), 57.
[35] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 188.
[36] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 187.
[37] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 189.
[38] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 54.
[39] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 194.
[40] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 197.
[41] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 56-57.
[42] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 198.
[43] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 44.
[44] Bruce notes that this is the only reference to the Holy Spirit in the letter. We’re not entirely sure why—especially when the companion letter of Ephesians mentions the Spirit so frequently. F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 44.
[45] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 60.
[46] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 62.
[47] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 186.
[48] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 202.
[49] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 203.
[50] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 178.
[51] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 181.
[52] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 180.
[53] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 208.
[54] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 213.
[55] See footnote. Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 210.
[56] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 210.
[57] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 211.
[58] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 211.
[59] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 68-72.
[60] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 55-56.
[61] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 214.
[62] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 215.
[63] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 57-58.
[64] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 220.
[65] Robert Bowman, Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah’s Witnesses (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989), 64.
[66] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 220.
[67] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 78.
[68] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 221.
[69] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 186.
[70] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 227.
[71] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 227.
[72] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 186.
[73] F.F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 210.
[74] We recognize first-class conditional clauses by the helping word “if” (Greek ei) followed by a main verb in the indicative mood (in any tense). The NASB usually translates these conditions with the English rendering “If indeed…”
[75] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 78.
[76] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 190.
[77] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 191.
[78] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 95.
[79] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 87.
[80] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 193.
[81] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 242.
[82] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 97.
[83] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 91.
[84] W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1948), 173. Cited in footnote of F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 91.
[85] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 195.
[86] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 100.
[87] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 195.
[88] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 195.
[89] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 103.
[90] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 247.
[91] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 93.
[92] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 248.
[93] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 196.
[94] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 198.
[95] C. S. Lewis, “Learning in War-Time,” in The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (Orlando, FL: Macmillan, 1980,), 28.
[96] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 254.
[97] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 107-108.
[98] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 73.
[99] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 109.
[100] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 259-260.
[101] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 261.
[102] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 202.
[103] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 117.
[104] Melick holds that the symbol of the certificate refers to the cancelling of an IOU through “wiping (scraping) of the papyrus sheets so they could be used again.” However, he notes that the concept of “having nailed it to the cross” refers to the placard hung above the crucifixion victim’s head on the cross. Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 264.
[105] Bruce merely sees an “allusion” to Jesus’ experience on the Cross, rather than seeing this as a formal term or expression. F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 110.
[106] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 202.
[107] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 265.
[108] Emphasis his. N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 121.
[109] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 265-266.
[110] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 202.
[111] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 202.
[112] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 127.
[113] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 205.
[114] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 272.
[115] We recognize first-class conditional clauses by the helping word “if” (Greek ei) followed by a main verb in the indicative mood (in any tense). The NASB usually translates these conditions with the English rendering “If indeed…”
[116] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 209.
[117] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 134.
[118] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 210.
[119] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 211.
[120] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 138.
[121] The term “put to death” (nekrōsate) occurs in a similar form elsewhere. Paul writes, “Without becoming weak in faith Abraham contemplated his own body, now as good as dead [nenekrōmenon]” (Rom. 4:19). Abraham was thinking about his impotent body, and Paul sees this as a type of faith (cf. Heb. 11:12).
[122] See footnote. F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 140.
[123] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 141.
[124] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 138.
[125] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 138.
[126] Lothar Coenen, Erich Beyreuther, and Hans Bietenhard, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 137.
[127] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 139.
[128] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 141.
[129] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 141-142.
[130] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 213.
[131] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 150.
[132] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 150.
[133] Lothar Coenen, Erich Beyreuther, and Hans Bietenhard, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 105.
[134] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 215.
[135] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 146.
[136] Lothar Coenen, Erich Beyreuther, and Hans Bietenhard, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 256.
[137] James Montgomery Boice, “Galatians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 499.
[138] John R. W. Stott, God’s New Society: The Message of Ephesians, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1979), 149.
[139] Lothar Coenen, Erich Beyreuther, and Hans Bietenhard, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 764.
[140] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 300.
[141] D.A. Carson defines the negative inference fallacy in this way: “It does not necessarily follow that if a proposition is true, a negative inference from that proposition is also true.” D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), p.101. Consider some examples of this fallacy:
(1) “All the basketball players were exercising at the gym. Therefore, no one else was exercising there.”
(2) “Jeff hates broccoli. Therefore, he likes every other kind of vegetable.”
(3) “Jesus gave an exception for divorce. Therefore, there are no other exceptions for divorce.”
These are all examples of the “negative inference fallacy,” and it does not logically follow. A way to avoid the fallacy is to change or add the word “only” to the major premise of the argument or proposition (i.e. “Only the basketball players…”).
[142] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 156-157.
[143] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 147.
[144] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 305.
[145] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 305.
[146] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 158.
[147] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 149.
[148] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 171.
[149] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 218.
[150] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 311.
[151] Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 44, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1982), 222.
[152] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 312.
[153] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 218.
[154] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 313.
[155] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 314.
[156] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 218.
[157] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 152.
[158] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 165.
[159] Robert W. Wall, Colossians & Philemon, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), Col 3:20.
[160] Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 44, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1982), 225.
[161] Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 44, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1982), 225-226.
[162] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 152.
[163] Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 44, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1982), 226.
[164] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 219.
[165] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 315.
[166] Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 44, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1982), 225.
[167] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 154.
[168] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 221.
[169] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 322.
[170] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991).
[171] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 222.
[172] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 222.
[173] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 325.
[174] Donald Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 14, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 191.
[175] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 178-179.
[176] Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 328.
[177] Ralph Earle, “2 Timothy,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 414.
[178] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 180.
[179] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 162.
[180] Cited in Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 330.
[181] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 164.
[182] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 12, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 163.