Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (8)

Inner leaf of my copy
of Colossians/Philemon

I have not focused much on Dunn's commentaries so far. I find his books and articles much more stimulating. However, today I do want to single out his 1996 commentary The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon.

Thus far in this series:
1. The Evidence for Jesus (1985)
2. Baptism in the Holy Spirit (1970)
3. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (1977)
4. Christology in the Making (1980)
5. "Once more, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ" (1991)
6. The New Perspective on Paul (2005)
7. The Partings of the Ways (1991)

I have also slipped in Jesus and the Spirit (1975), Romans 1 and 2 (1988), Jesus, Paul, and the Law (1990), Jews and Christians (1992), Galatians (1993), Paul and the Mosaic Law (1996), and Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels (2011).

1. When I was a doctoral student in Durham, we had a weekly New Testament Seminar on Monday afternoons at 4pm. It was a highlight of each week. What was particularly exciting about these seminars was the chance to walk through some writing project that Jimmy was working on. During my time at Durham, Dunn wrote commentaries on 1 Corinthians (1995), Colossians/Philemon (1996), and Acts (1996).

For the first two, the seminar enjoyed the treat of engaging these biblical texts not only with the collective knowledge and insight of Jimmy himself but the whole department and the cadre of doctoral students in residence. Indeed, I would take from that experience a wealth of insights that I tried to bring to bear on a commentary of 1 Corinthians of my own. My take-aways on Colossians also made their way into other of my books, such as this one.

2. The most striking aspect of Colossians was the question of whether the "philosophy" of Colossians 2 was syncretistic or mystical. The standard interpretation was that this group about which Paul warns was a Jewish group that worshiped angels. Such a notion seemed strange unless it was hyperbole.

Enter the Dead Sea Scrolls. One of the newly published texts was "The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice." This text exposed a mystical aspect to the Qumran sect (presumably), who must have seen their worship on the Sabbath as a kind of participation in the worship of heaven. In his commentary, Dunn would take the position that this group thought they were worshiping with angels.

It was more of a treat than I realized then to be at Durham in the time just after the Dead Sea Scrolls were fully published. We spent a semester in the seminar going through Florentino Martinez's freshly published, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. They were also a major focus of Loren Stuckenbruck's expertise.

3. When Dunn's commentary finally came out, I was struck with a couple aspects of the introduction. First, although he had clearly worked with Colossians since time immemoral, it seemed clear that he had really approached this commentary with an open mind. He did not write the introduction until after he had written the verse by verse commentary. This method has stuck with me--how can you really introduce something you haven't written yet? You don't yet know what your introducing!

Second, I was impressed with how he handled the question of pseudonymity, whether he was right or wrong. Colossians is one of those writings in the middle of the authorship question. In the scholarly world, there is a strong tendency to consider the Pastoral Epistles as "pseudonymous," written after Paul's death in order to bring his authority to bear on a later context. On the other end of the spectrum are the writings like Romans and 1 Corinthians that no one questions were written by Paul himself.

Colossians is somewhere in the middle. Raymond Brown once suggested that perhaps 40% of NT scholars think Colossians was pseudonymous. Dunn, after finishing his commentary, concludes that Colossians just doesn't quite feel like Paul directly. His suggestion is quite clever. He suggests that Timothy was the principal writer, with Paul's approval.

Very clever. On the one hand, Timothy's name is on the letter. In that sense should we even call Dunn's position "pseudonymity"? It is a way to place Colossians within the lifetime of Paul and Timothy, by Paul and Timothy, and yet explain the slight differences in style and approach. Again, I don't know if Dunn is correct, but it is an example of his ability to bring fresh perspectives on old problems.

Worship of Angels in Colossians 2

Trying to pick back up writing the devotional I'm writing on Ephesians and Colossians.
____________
Mention of the “worship of angels” (2:18) has led many interpreters of Colossians to assume that the religious movement in question involved worshipping angels. If so, it would be a “syncretistic” or mixed form of Judaism, since Jews did not believe in worshipping anything but God. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls have suggested another possibility, namely, that this Jewish movement thought their worship participated in the worship that angels did in heaven. It would thus be a form of mystical Judaism that aimed at religious experiences such as the one Paul mentions in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4. Some have even wondered if the physical disciplines of 2:23 hint of food restrictions meant to induce such experiences, although perhaps Old Testament food laws are in mind.

Ephesians: Colossians Expanded and Universalized

It is also fascinating to compare Ephesians to Colossians.  For example, at one point Ephesians is exactly the same as Colossians for over twenty-five words straight, namely, at the end when commending Tychicus to the audiences (Eph. 6:21-22; Col. 4:7-8).  For this reason, some have suggested that Ephesians might be the lost letter to the Laodiceans mentioned in Colossians 4:16.  Indeed, at no less than thirteen points, Ephesians and Colossians say either exactly or almost exactly the same thing, in the same order.[i]  Because in each case Colossians’ version seems more concretely related to its audience’s situation and because Ephesians seems to expand many of the points, it seems that Ephesians used Colossians as its starting point.  Ephesians in some respects is an expanded and universalized version of Colossians.

---

[i] E.g., Col. 1:14 and Eph. 1:7 (in whom we have redemption, through his blood); Col. 1:16-17 and Eph. 1:21 (above all spiritual powers); Col. 1:18 and Eph. 1:22-23 (head of the body, the church); Col. 1:21-22 and Eph. 2:16-17 (reconciling those far away through Christ’s blood); Col. 1:26-27 and Eph. 3:4-6 (mystery of the Gentiles’ inclusion); Col. 2:1 and Eph. 3:2 (audience has only heard, not seen Paul’s ministry); Col. 2:3 and Eph. 3:4 (mystery of Christ); Col. 2:15 and Eph. 3:10 (rulers and authorities) ; Col. 2:19 and Eph. 4:16 (body grows out of the head); Col. 3:9 and Eph. 4:22 (put off old self); Col. 3:9 and Eph. 4:25 (do not lie to each other); Col. 3:18-4:1 and Eph. 5:22-6:9 (household codes); Col. 4:7-8 and Eph. 6:21-22 (word for word closing).

Household in Colossians (chap 6)

It is not hard to understand these instructions to the Colossians, a city that may very well have been destroyed by an earthquake in AD61. It is more difficult to know how to apply them. In the early 1800s, Colossians was one of many texts that those who opposed the abolition of slavery used to show that the New Testament accepted slavery as an institution. Certainly “there is neither… slave nor free” in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28). But Paul could reconcile this principle with the existence of slavery in the meantime. Sure, a time was coming when there would be no slaves, but for the time being each should “remain in the situation God called him to” (1 Cor. 7:24). “Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so” (7:21).

Of course Paul also thought that Christ would return far sooner than he has. In that same passage in 1 Corinthians, Paul wrote that “the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none” (7:29). In 1 Corinthians, Paul does not think we have time to worry about our social location in society. Slavery would not exist in the kingdom of God, but he had more pressing things to do in the immanence of Christ’s return than work to free slaves.

Colossians does not have this same sense of urgency, and we should recognize the distinction. Social structures that were temporary in 1 Corinthians have become an accommodation to the structures of the age in Colossians. Although women will not be subordinated to husbands in the kingdom—they are not given in marriage there (e.g., Mark 12:25)—Colossians acquiesces to this social structure of the ancient world. And although there will be no slaves in the kingdom, Colossians assumes its continued practice in the meantime.

Indeed, Colossians only puts into effect one of the equal pairs in Galatians 3:28, namely, that of Jew and Greek. Colossians addresses Gentile believers, since in Colossians 2:13 Paul speaks of how they were uncircumcised in flesh when they believed. Colossians thus tells a Gentile audience not to worry about keeping the Jewish particulars of the Law. But slaves are still subordinated to masters, and wives to husbands.

Therefore, the entire Western world—not only the Western church—moved closer to the kingdom of God when it did away with slavery here on earth. It may be hard for us to feel how the church of two hundred years ago struggled with this question. Many Christians argued that slavery should be reformed rather than abolished, and they came to this conclusion from a fair reading of the biblical texts. We now recognize that it was those who looked more to the spiritual principle of “neither slave nor free” who were the true prophets of that day, not those who argued over the specific instructions like those in Colossians, given in specific ancient situations and cultures.

We believe it is the same today with regard to wives and husbands. On the one hand, those who merely try to reform the hierarchical relationship between husband and wife are to be commended for their piety and attention to detail. They want to ensure that husbands do indeed love and not abuse their perceived position of authority. Similarly, wives are affirmed as equally valuable in God’s eyes, only with a different God-ordained role to play. They are like those who preached against masters who abused their slaves but who still taught slaves to be obedient to their masters, as the Bible teaches.

In the end, however, those who merely want to reform marriage while retaining the hierarchical relationship are spiritually short-sighted. Like those who affirmed slavery as biblical, they are correct in the letter but incorrect in the Spirit. There is nothing about the structure of this world that implies a wife needs to be or should be subordinate to a man. Male anatomy and physiology does not automatically make a man a better thinker or leader than a woman, just as female anatomy and physiology does not make women worse thinkers or leaders. Logically, husbands and wives should cooperate in leadership, deferring in love to the needs and desires of the other, deferring to the gifts and expertise of the other.

We know from Scripture that God is leading women in this direction anyway. The kingdom will afford women complete equality with men. We know from practice that one cannot single out a person for leadership or insight on the basis of his or her gender. We know from Scripture that God has used both women and men both in prophetic and leadership roles. In short, if we can move closer to the kingdom now, why would we not?

The instructions of Scripture were not given for their own sake. They were given in a context and must be applied with careful consideration of how the principles might apply today. To work within the structure of a husband-wife hierarchy was already in Paul’s day a concession to the structures of this world. For us to perpetuate them now, however, is for us to move backward, away from the kingdom. In a time when the secular world has enacted the structures of the kingdom, how ironic it would be for the church to resist!

Colossians Excerpt

From my second, forthcoming Paul book:
_________
Once we have a clearer sense of what Colossians is combating, we can also clear up some misapplications of these passages. Many a Christian has used Colossians 2:8’s critique of a “philosophy,” to rail against education and “highfalutin” learning. It is the all too common, popular, and deeply ironic notion that education makes you “stupider.” Certainly learning can confuse a person. The great thing about common sense is that it works! At least it seems to work. It just often does not work for the reasons we tell ourselves.

I can think of at least two reasons why so many Americans, including very many American Christians, have a negative sense of education. The first is that it exposes our own ignorance both of ourselves and the world around us. Learning can expose the faultiness of our reasoning, and it can expose our prejudices. We may find out that we do not think certain things for the reasons we pretended we did. The darker or ignorant sides of our motivations may be laid bare, and none of us like to feel stupid.

So we laugh at those “nerds” who can do math and science, in part to cover our own inability to understand. We make fun of scientists who believe in global warming or evolution, when we might flunk a college class in biology or environmental science. It is unfortunately and ironically the American way to think our opinion is just as valid as those who are actually experts and have studied a particular subject for years. Despite the fact that we spend our nights watching cartoons or the latest comedy on TV, we somehow, amazingly, think that our uneducated hunches are just as valid as “so called” experts.

If part of the problem is ours, part of the problem also lies with the experts as well. They often disagree fundamentally with each other. Indeed, sometimes their theories do not seem to correspond at all to our experiences on the ground. If the greatest validation of a theory is that it work in the real world, then many theories of thinkers in various fields do not ring true. Again, the reason why common sense is so compelling is because it seems to work in everyday life.

Of course science does seem to work very well. We drive cars, ride airplanes, use cell phones and computers. If our common sense seems to conflict with the applied sciences, we should probably concede the battle. When it comes to more abstract fields like philosophy and theology, it is more difficult to see the pay off. So many thinkers seem to live in a self-contained world, like they are speaking a completely foreign language to everyday life. At least in part, therefore, some of them have perhaps earned our questions.

But one thing is clear. The Colossian philosophy was not like the philosophy class you would take at your local college. Colossians is not protesting against education or against theoretical thinking. Colossians was warning the believers at Colossae about a particular form of Jewish religious practice more akin to something you would find at a charismatic church than at a university. If we want to protest against some aspect of education or philosophy, we will have to indict it on its own merits rather than with some blanket condemnation based on the word “philosophy” in Colossians. Indeed, this is a great illustration of where learning about the context of Colossians helps us understand the truth more accurately.

Schenck's Commentary Faves 1

Now that I find myself the Bible professor (at least for the moment) at a new seminary that is mostly online, the question of what commentaries to use surfaces repeatedly.  Online students can get any books they need in a day or two through Off Campus Library Services (which are excellent here at IWU).  But many would like to know what commentaries to buy on Logos or in hard copy.

Bible teachers almost always stumble at this point.  If you're Ben Witherington, you've written a commentary on everything and can just recommend your books.  I used to recommend they buy David Bauer's Annotated Guide to Biblical Resources for Ministry, since he catalogs everything and gives good advice.  But I've heard Hendrickson won't let him revise it since they think everything's going online with such things.  As much as I'd like to stick it up their nose, they're probably right.

So I was working in Colossians this morning and thought to myself, "Yes, Dunn's Colossians commentary is the one.  Forget all the other mamby pambies and go buy his."  Scholars will always say, buy by the author more than the series and even then the same author is usually better at some things than others.  But who has the money for that?!  If you want to be more scholarly, I suppose go with the Word Biblical Commentary.  If you want it more for preaching, go with the NIV Application series (realizing it does lean Calvinist at points).

So here's the first of what might turn out to be eventually a list of "Schenck's Faves." 

Colossians and Philemon
James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996).   

People sometimes think I'd be able to tell you right off which one I'd pick for Romans and Hebrews, but alas, I can't decide yet.  Ask me to write them and I'll tell you :-)

Sunday Scripture: Colossians

A keen eyed person might notice I'm about 24 hours late on this one. Two weeks ago I started a lectionary reading/preaching series to go through the Bible in three years. No promises how long I'll continue. The text of the first Sunday was Genesis 1. Last week it was John 1. Today, we move to the book of Colossians.

Genesis 1 gives the creation of the world, and John 1 mirrors it in the incarnation. Colossians fits in this sequence because one of its main points is to display Christ as far exalted above all other spiritual powers in the creation. Three points might be:

1. Christ is the firstborn over all creation.
2. Christ has defeated the powers of evil.
3. Live in the name of Jesus.

1. Christ is the firstborn over all creation.
Colossians 1:15-20 is sometimes called the Colossian hymn, although what poetic breakdown it might have is not immediately apparent. We can see clear parallelisms but the second half in particular is very difficult to put into poetic form. Most scholars see Jewish traditions about divine wisdom behind the first part of the hymn, but several (including myself) see the logos in the background here as in John 1.

The "hymn" exalts Christ as higher than anything else in the creation, including all visible and invisible authorities. I wonder if this passage may have played into the part of the Nicene Creed which speaks of God as creator of all things that are "seen and unseen." Colossians is parallel to Hebrews 1 in its clear placement of Christ above the angels. Here, a mystical Judaism is probably a target, which aimed to worship with the angels through mystical experiences and visions (2:18).

The bottom line, though, is that Christ trumps all other powers.

2. Christ has defeated the powers of evil.
Not only is Christ greater and of more authority than all other powers, but he has defeated those opposed to God. He has disarmed the powers and authorities that held sway over us (2:15). Colossians astoundingly seems to line up the power of these forces with various aspects of the Jewish Law like festival celebrations and food laws. Is this a reminder that a slavish, fundamentalist approach to Scripture is just as often likely to take one out of God's will? Is not this the approach that those who favored slavery took in the 1800s and those who oppose women in ministry take yet today?

3. Live in the name of Jesus
My favorite verse in Colossians, indeed, one of my favorite in the whole Bible is Colossians 3:17. It gives us yet another picture of Christian ethics in toto. Do everything in the name of Jesus. Christian action fits with the person and authority of Christ. Just as he is Lord over all creation, both those forces in submission and those that have rebelled in the past, he must be Lord of our lives as individuals and communities of faith, if we are to be worthy of the name Christian.

Colossians in a Nutshell

Finally, for the final...
__________

Hi I'm Paul, and you're the Colossians. Hello!

Thanks to God for you.

Christ trumps other heavenly powers and so called spiritual knowledge

(here’s a hymn to prove it: Christ is the image of the invisible God...)

I’m taking care of the suffering, finishing all that's left to suffer for Christ.

And I’m making known the mystery—Christ in you Gentiles!

Don’t buy the Jewish philosophy:
--food laws aren’t the ticket
--Sabbath is not your concern
--worship with angels, big deal we have Christ
--ascetic, earthly thinking

You've disconnected from the head, Christ.

So live accordingly.

Put to death the things of earth

Put off this list of bad things; put on this list of good things.

Do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus

Household codes (husband/wife; child/parent; heavy on the slave/master)

Pray!

A whole lot of greetings

Goodbye.

29 Things about Colossians

1. Style a bit different from usual for Paul. Perhaps Timothy had more to do with the drafting of this letter (so Dunn). Some say pseudonymous (40%?).

2. Colossians was apparently destroyed by an earthquake in the early 60's.

3. Epaphras apparently founded the church.

4. emphasis on knowledge, wisdom, and understanding in the thanksgiving section fits with a false Jewish "philosophy" that claimed knowledge of the heavenly realm.

5. Has what appears to have been a hymn. Hymn hints include a) introduction by "who"; b) parallelism (e.g., a first and second stanza that are at least vaguely parallel), c) but with clear interruptions (which implies that Paul/Timothy is interrupting something that already existed, d) unique Pauline vocabulary.

6. Hymn seemed to draw on logos traditions, Middle Platonic.

7. Hymn, as elsewhere in Colossians, emphasizes Christ's supremacy over heavenly powers, which fits with a false Jewish "philosophy" that prided itself in engagement with angels.

8. The audience likely Gentile (were formerly alienated from God).

9. The mystery of Colossians is that Christ can be in the Gentiles too.

10. Colossae and Laodicea closely located to each other and coupled several times in this letter (also Hierapolis mentioned).

11. Core purpose of Colossians is to address a false Jewish "philosophy" in their environs.

12. The "written account" that Christ nailed to the cross is apparently the record of debt against us, rather than the law (although Ephesians would push us to see it as the Jewish law).

13. The cross defeated the evil heavenly powers that rule the earth.

14. The "philosophy" is clearly Jewish in some way beause of the mention of the Sabbath, which Paul tells the Colossians they are not obligated to.

15. The "philosophy" involved self-discipline of some sort, probably at least the food laws but perhaps some sort of ascetic practice as well.

16. The "philosophy" involved visions of the heavenly realm.

17. The "philosophy" involved the "worship of angels," in this case perhaps participation in angelic worship, although perhaps the majority still sees it as a syncreticistic angel worship or at least a hyperbolic pot shot for overvaluing angels.

18. The mention that such people are severed from the head (Christ) implies that some Christians have actually gone for the philosophy.

19. Paul/Timothy seems to associate keeping food regulations with submission to earthly powers. A bit bizarre, although Galatians anticipates this trajectory.

20. Talk of them already raised with Christ, more realized eschatology.

21. Talk of putting to death the parts of them that belong to the earth, to put off their old self and put on their new selves. Slight shift from Paul's earlier image of this happening with baptism.

22. Similar set of "there is neither Jew nor Greek" statements, minus the neither male nor female one. Fits with the household codes, that appear here first in Paul's writings in this form.

23. Form and basic thrust of household codes taken from pagan moralists (e.g., Aristotle). Not uniquely Christian for Paul's day.

24. Colossians emphasizes the slave-master relationship, fits with Philemon. Masters not told to set their slaves free.

25. Extremely high overlap in names between Colossians and Philemon, including Onesimus. But Onesimus seems more established as a believer than in Philemon. Also Aristarchus and Epaphras have changed places as fellow prisoners.

26. 29 word commonality in the final part of Colossians with Ephesians, word for word with only two words omitted in Ephesians.

27. Luke is a doctor and, apparently, a Gentile.

28. Evidence that Paul's letters were shared with various churches. Laodicea and Colossae were to share their letters. Some think that Ephesians was actually the letter to Laodicea (e.g., Muholland at Asbury).

29. Paul signs the letter.