Household codes

Reading commentaries on this passage can prove interesting. Almost all commentaries, including evangelical ones, work off the assumption that this passage as we have it from Paul seems to present a picture of role relationships that is not acceptable to our society. Commentaries seem to all move with one assumption : this passage presents a bad picture if not read with the right understanding. The commentary will then go on to explain why what Paul wrote is not as bad as it sounds to us. Or they try to explain why Paul did not write something we all know he should have wrote.

What do you think?
Does the role relationship Paul presents here strike you as bad? Do you wish he wrote something else? It looks like he is affirming at least some of the existing patterns in Greek/Roman households – is this a compromise on Paul's part? Is it possible that Paul still had some blind spots that in time the fullness of his message and the gospel have helped us better see? If you would like him to reword something or clarify something, what would it be? If you think these codes somewhat culturally conditioned, based on the gospel, how would you write these family codes for our own culture if you think they should change?
Why do we as a culture have trouble with Paul's words? Is it possible that instead of us thinking Paul has not fully understood equality, that we in our culture have misunderstood? Would perhaps Paul equally challenge our alternate views of family?

Lecture

Here is a good lecture I came across last week. NT Wright can give some thoughts that are a little hard to grasp if you are not used to this way of thinking, but I found wonderful thoughts in here about glory.

Here is the link. http://www.intervarsity.org/audio/
There are actually 3 sermons by NT Wright on Colossians here. But if you choose one try N.T. Wright’s second talk on Glory.

The Word and Singing - More Questions

These Colossians were probably mostly illiterate. And even if they could read there was no New Testament yet or even letters from apostle (excluding the one they just got). Yet Paul expected they could do small group. He expected they could come together to encourage one another, to have things to share with one another. Where would this come from? What would this look like? Each was to teach and admonish the others.

Interesting – the word and song. Sounds a lot like what we emphasize in our church! What is this “word of Christ?” Were they singing the Jewish psalms (and did they edit them for the good parts like we do)? Did they write their own songs? What do you suppose this looked like?

Follow the below link to read a letter from a Roman official to the emperor about Christians. Written about 111BC. Though the whole letter is very interesting – notice what he says about Christians meetings.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

A few more questions

Here are a few more questions to help in you thinking about chapter 3?

How does believing in and thinking about the resurrection of Jesus help you combat sexual immorality?

Often scholars will sum up how Paul admonishes Christians to grow is, “Be who you are!” What does Paul mean by that? Practically what does this look like? Is this something which you think of much?

What would it mean to see the church in all its current brokenness as full of God and his glory? What would it mean to see a fellow believer as he is in his fullness in Christ? What would it mean to see yourself with the eyes of faith as you truly are in Christ? How would these perspectives change the way you think about yourself, others and the church?

Luther on Works and Righteousness

If you have not yet had the opportunity to read Martin Luther's, Treatise on Christian Liberty, (also known as the Freedom of a Christian), I would highly recommend it. It addresses the works/righteousness issue that we have been discussing in our study of Colossians. I offer the following quote that Luther states on page 295:

"Nevertheless the works themselves do not justify him before God, but he does the works out of spontaneous love in obedience to God and considers nothing except the approval of God, whom he would most scrupulously obey in all things."

Chapter 2 versus Chapter 3

Comparing the “opponents” way in chapter 2 versus “Paul's” way in chapter 3...
What are the difference in the types of “rules”?
What is the difference in the way “spirituality” is defined?
What are the paths to holiness, right living? How are the starting points very different?
What sets us apart as God's people in each case?

Right Living is Important

Paul emphasized in chapter 1 that holiness, bearing fruit, and walking worthy are important. Christ called us for the aim of, and Paul is working for the aim of, presenting us before God holy and blameless and beyond reproach. Holiness and right living mean a lot to Paul. I have mentioned a couple of times that I feel we have wrongly said that Paul's letters are about faith versus works. I would say, “It is because Paul cares so deeply about genuine works that he emphasizes faith versus works of the Law.” Following the rules and traditions of a religion, even if they are from God, are powerless to achieve real godliness. As Paul said in chapter 2, they are works of the flesh that will be useless in battling against the flesh. He also emphasizes that those types of works tend towards pride, disunity, and dividing up humanity into cultural and religious systems. All this is NOT to say then that good works and right living are unimportant. Paul will heartily say with James that faith without works is useless. It is because he cares about right living that he emphasizes the cross and resurrection. Something happened there which will give us power to do works that no law or religious system could. How do you see Paul applying this in chapter 3?