Sylvia C. Keesmaat
The ancient city of Colossae was located in the Lycus Valley (modern-day Turkey), less than fifteen miles from the more prominent cities of Laodicea, an important imperial center, and Hierapolis, famous for its healing springs. Due to Roman resettlement and its location on a trade route, the population of Colossae was quite diverse, including a Jewish community. An earthquake destroyed Colossae between 60 and 64 CE, and it appears that the city was not rebuilt for some time.
The letter itself suggests that Epaphras was the founder of the community (1:7–8) and that Paul was not personally known to them. Although the opening of the letter indicates that Paul wrote the Letter to the Colossians, there is some debate among scholars as to whether he indeed did. Those who argue against Paul’s authorship point out that the vocabulary and theological emphases of Colossians differ from the letters that are universally accepted as Pauline. Not only does Colossians seem to have a more exalted view of Christ, but there is also less of an emphasis on the Spirit, as well as a turn to a more authoritarian and hierarchical social structure. Those who argue in favor of Paul’s authorship point out that the different circumstances of this community could have resulted in differences in vocabulary and emphasis; that an exalted Christology is also found in Philippians; and that the perception of a more hierarchical social structure is a misunderstanding of the text in its original context. Some scholars argue that the letter was written in the presence of Paul by an associate and that that this accounts for differences of style and theological emphasis.
Given the occasional nature of Paul’s letters, and the diversity of vocabulary and theology found in his other letters (for instance, justification by faith is central in both Galatians and Romans, but not in Corinthians), differences of style and theology are not a sufficient argument against authenticity. In fact, the theology of Colossians fits squarely with that of the other Pauline letters. In addition, the rich theology, evocative poetry, and clear familiarity with both the Scriptures of Israel and wider imperial culture are overwhelmingly consistent with Paul’s other writings and suggest that Paul was indeed the author of this letter.
Paul’s reference to his chains in Col. 4:3 suggests that he was in prison at the time of writing. Possible locations for this imprisonment are Ephesus (inferred from 1 Cor. 15:32; 2 Cor. 1:8), Caesarea (Acts 24:27), and Rome (Acts 28:16). Traditionally, the “Prison Epistles” (Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon) were thought to have been written during Paul’s imprisonment in Rome. More recently, others have suggested that Paul was imprisoned in Ephesus when he wrote Colossians, since the proximity of the two cities would have facilitated the presence of both Epaphras and Onesimus with Paul at the time of writing. However, it is not clear that Luke (referred to in Col. 4:14) was with Paul in Ephesus. Although arguments are strong for both Rome and Ephesus, the balance of the evidence is slightly stronger for Ephesus. This would mean that the letter was written between 52 and 55 CE.
A few scholars have suggested that the close connection between Philemon and Colossians could provide a specific context for the letter. The letter itself indicates that it was carried to Colossae by Tychicus and Onesimus (4:7–9). If the latter is the slave Paul discusses in the Letter to Philemon (see commentary on 4:9 below), this could provide the occasion for Paul’s extended comments on the relationship between masters and slaves in Col. 3:22–4:1.
The Colossian community was undoubtedly shaped by the strongly hierarchical character of Roman society, particularly the household unit, structured under the control of the paterfamilias (literally, “the father of the family”). The paterfamilias had economic and moral authority over the women of the household, slaves, and his own children, even after they reached adulthood. As we shall see, Paul’s comments on the role of masters, women, children, and slaves in 3:18–4:1 provide insight into how this community struggled with what it meant to be followers of Jesus while negotiating their identities in the context of the story and hierarchy of the Roman Empire.
The closing of the letter indicates that Paul expected it to be read in neighboring church communities (4:15–16). The corporate address suggests that while it contained advice specific to the Colossians, this letter was also more widely applicable to other believing communities. Since these communities lived, moved, and had their being in cities that were shaped architecturally, liturgically, and economically by the historical realities of the Roman Empire, the following reading of Colossians will draw on recent research to show the ways early believing communities negotiated their identity in light of imperial realities (Horsley; Walsh and Keesmaat; Maier). In addition, the story of Israel deeply shaped Paul’s understanding of the work of Jesus and God in the world. Hence, Paul’s many allusions to the Scriptures of Israel will also be highlighted in this reading.
It is important to note that Paul’s imagery and metaphors in this letter are rooted in the stories and symbols of his world. The overarching story of Rome with its myths, symbols, and images provided a rich cultural context for both Paul and the believers in Colossae. In addition, the story of Israel was the primary symbolic world for Paul and perhaps some of this letter’s recipients. It is no surprise, therefore, to discover throughout this letter not only the metaphors and imagery of Rome but also those of Judaism.
Colossians 1:1–14: Greeting and Description of the Colossians’ Story
THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT
At the outset of this letter, Paul roots the identity of the Colossian believers in the story of both Jesus and Israel. As people who lived under the powerful rule of Rome, the Colossians would have been aware of the need to be faithful to the emperor, Nero, a faithfulness rooted in the widespread hope that Nero’s gospel would unite the whole of the known world under the civilizing influence of Roman culture and law. Paul, however, not only describes a different identity, one of faithfulness to Jesus, but also a hope in a different gospel, one that also bears fruit in the whole world (1:2, 5–6). In fact, the imagery of bearing fruit is a direct challenge to Rome, since the fertility and abundance of the empire was celebrated as a result not only of Roman rule in general but also of the new age inaugurated by Nero. Paul, in contrast, asserts that it is the gospel of Jesus Christ that is bearing fruit not only in the whole world but also in the life of this particular community (1:6, 10).
Paul describes this fruit in a number of ways: it is the love that the Colossians have in the Spirit (1:7); it is connected to growing in the knowledge and understanding of God (vv. 9–10); and it is the fruit of “good work” as they walk in ways that are holy to the Lord (v. 10). All of this will be unpacked as the letter unfolds.
Throughout Jewish Scriptures, not only is fruitfulness a sign of Israel’s obedience, but Israel is also the one called to bear the good fruit of justice and righteousness (Isa. 5:1–7; 2 Kgs. 19:30 // Isa. 37:31; Hos. 9:10–17). This fruit, moreover, is the way in which Israel would be a blessing to the nations (Isa. 42:6; 49:6). Paul evokes that story not only in his reference to bearing fruit but also in verses 12–14, where he describes the actions of Jesus, the beloved Son, who has rescued the Colossians from the power of darkness and transferred them to his kingdom. By referring to inheritance, redemption, and forgiveness, Paul is alluding to the exodus, where Israel was redeemed from the powerful kingdom of Egypt and welcomed into an inheritance and redemption by God.
By the end of this introduction, the recipients of this letter have been grounded in love and called to wisdom, knowledge, and the fruit of good works, all shaped by the story of Jesus.
THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION
In a later time, when the early church was exploring the implications and parameters of Christian faith, both Tertullian and Augustine appealed to Col. 1:6 to emphasize the universal nature of the true gospel, in contrast to heresies that, they asserted, tended to be limited in both time (in that they were recent doctrinal innovations) and location (for instance, the Donatists in Africa: Gorday, 4).
John Calvin (148), writing in a context where the mediating presence of the church was understood to be required for salvation, noted Paul’s emphasis on faith in Jesus Christ in verses 4 and 7, along with the redemption and forgiveness found in Jesus, the beloved Son (v. 14), as evidence of the need for Christ alone for salvation. These verses, then, constituted a challenge to the papacy, which, in Calvin’s opinion, undermined the sufficiency of Christ.
THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION
For much of church history, the emphasis on the all-sufficient character of Christ’s salvation was comfort in the face of uncertain circumstances. In a postmodern context, however, the overwhelmingly masculine and all-encompassing nature of Paul’s claims in these verses may evoke a totalizing character that is experienced as oppressive. If this letter is addressed to those who are faithful and who are holy, how can this letter speak to others who make no such claims to holiness or faithfulness? Similarly, is Paul not making a totalizing claim about the story of Jesus that rivals the totalizing hegemonic claims made by the Roman Empire? Does this story not then function in what is potentially a similarly oppressive way as any hegemonic metanarrative? (Walsh and Keesmaat, 17–18).
Other questions arise in light of recent research into the importance of slavery as a context for this letter. Do the references to being made strong and enduring everything with patience (v. 11) indicate that even those who are followers of Jesus in this community suffer not only at the hands of the wider culture but also at the hands of masters who may or may not be believers? Can the reference to sharing the inheritance of the saints (v. 12) nevertheless provide a word of hope for those who are enslaved to imperial powers, both in Paul’s time and today?
Colossians 1:15–23: Who Is Lord: Jesus or Caesar?
THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT
The poem found in Col. 1:15–20 describes the “beloved Son” of verse 13, into whose kingdom the Colossians have been transferred. It begins with an allusion to both the story of Israel and the story of Rome: “He is the image of the invisible God.” In keeping with the theme of creation that permeates this passage, these words echo the biblical creation account of humankind’s being created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26–27), an echo Paul picks up again in 3:10, where he describes the new nature of the Colossian believers as “renewed in knowledge according to the image of its creator.” Throughout Israel’s history, the language of humanity’s being created in the image of God carried polemical weight in the face of mythologies that portrayed humanity as slaves who do the menial labor of the gods (Middleton). In the Roman Empire, where the emperor embodied the glory of the gods and where the images of the emperor dominated public space, Paul’s appeal to the story of Adam would have sounded a subtle challenge to the superiority of the emperor.
The references to creation in these verses find their context not only in Genesis but also in the wisdom traditions of Israel, where Wisdom is described as the image of God (Wis. 7:26), the firstborn of creation (Prov. 8:22; Sir. 24:9), the one who designed all things and permeates all things (Wis. 7:24; Prov. 3:19–20; 8:22–30), and the one in whom all things are made new (Wis. 7:30). Paul has taken these rich wisdom traditions and applied them to Christ (Moule, 59–67; D’Angelo, 317–18). Later they become explicit in his argument (1:28; 2:3).
Paul’s language concerning the powers is also rooted in Israel’s Scriptures, where the terms “thrones” (thronoi), “dominions” (kyriotētai), and “powers” (exousiai) commonly referred to kings and their dynasties, their realms, and the power that they exercised. While “rulers” (archai) could be used to refer to spiritual entities, it also referred to earthly rulers (Wink, 11–18). There is some debate as to whether these verses refer to spiritual powers or earthly institutions. Paul, however, insists that he is talking about all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, suggesting that “thrones or dominions or rulers or powers” cannot simply be a reference to “invisible” or “heavenly” realities; they must also have a visible and earthly reference. In the Roman Empire, thrones, dominions, rule, and powers referred above all to Rome; to her ruler, Caesar, on the throne established by the gods; to his dominion over all of the known world; to his military power and might. In a few short words, Paul draws deeply on Israel’s traditions to undermine the whole mythic structure of the empire: its ruler, its throne, its dominion, its power. Jesus is the one who created these structures and holds them together.
For those surrounded by the imagery and symbolism of Rome, Paul’s language continued to sound familiar themes in a jarring way. In a world where Caesar was the head of the body politic, the empire, Paul describes Jesus as the head of a new body politic, the church (1:18).
Paul brings these verses to a climax with the claim that in Jesus, all things in heaven and earth are reconciled, for he has made peace through the blood of the cross (1:20). Making peace is nothing new in the empire. In fact, making peace is the language used “in Roman political discourse to celebrate the universal pax or military pacification arising from imperial rule” (Maier, 333). In striking contrast to Rome, where peace was brought through violent military might, economic oppression, and cultural domination, Colossians proclaims a peace achieved through the bearing of violence. This is not the violent hegemony of Rome. This is the reconciliation of all things, even the things that wound by a self-sacrificial love.
This reconciliation continues in the lives of the Colossian believers, who have heard the gospel proclaimed to them as it was proclaimed to every creature under heaven. It is this good news to every creature that rounds out the creation language of the poem, and it is this good news for which Paul became a servant (1:23, 25).
THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION
In the face of the Arian assertion that Christ was not preexistent with the Father, but was a creature who was later exalted, the fourth-century church fathers appealed to these verses as the basis for the eternal preexistence of Christ and, in the fifth century for the doctrine of the two natures of Christ. Later, Calvin (149) pointed out that because they had been struggling with Arianism, the church fathers had missed the chief point of this text, which is that the Father is made visible to believers in Jesus. In so doing, he shifted the focus from Jesus’ relation to God to Jesus’ relation to believers.
More recently, Paul’s description of “thrones, dominions, rulers and authorities” in verse 16 has played a central role in the debate on the meaning of the principalities and powers. Some argue that this language refers to heavenly spiritual beings who are identified with the powers of darkness in verse 13 (Arnold, 251–55). Others argue that these powers also include human systems and structures (Wink; Sumney, 67), an argument that is convincing in light of the political overtones of “thrones, dominions, rulers and authorities” in the first century.
THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION
Colossians 1:15–20 has become a central text in discussions of environmental theology. In that context, Paul’s allusions to the story of creation, the centrality of the wisdom tradition with its emphasis on creation, Paul’s description of the reconciliation of all things, whether on earth or in heaven (v. 20), and the proclamation of the gospel to all creatures (v. 23) provide a basis for a message of good news and redemption for all of creation (Bouma-Prediger, 105–10; Wilson, 309). This stands in contrast to the creation-denying asceticism that Paul critiques in 2:16–23.
Postmodern and postcolonial readers might also question, however, whether in these verses Paul continues to reinscribe the violent and totalizing character of the Roman Empire itself. His description of Jesus appropriates imperial language so powerfully that it seems that Jesus functions like any other imperial ruler. This is reinforced by the repetition of the phrase “all” and “all things” throughout the passage (vv. 15–16 [×2], 17 [×2], 18, 19, 20), and by the language of Jesus triumphing over his enemies in 2:15.
Interpreters struggle with this dynamic. Some argue that a ruler who makes peace by bearing rather than inflicting violence is engaging in self-sacrificial love rather than violent hegemony. Others argue that by imitating the language of empire, the text provides a basis for the sort of hierarchical and authoritative control that has often characterized Christendom. In such a context, the nonviolent character of Jesus’ actions has been lost in the oppressive dynamic of the language of the “kingdom.”
THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT
In light of Paul’s other letters, the assertion that Paul is “completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” is an unusual concept, because it suggest that Paul’s suffering adds to or completes the suffering of Christ. Some argue that because the identification of Christ and the church is so close, the suffering of believers is the suffering of Christ (MacDonald 2000, 79); others argue that Paul is referring to the messianic woes, the sum of suffering that God’s people must fulfill before the end times; and others argue that Paul is referring to the tradition of noble death in Greco-Roman literature, where the death of martyrs vicariously provides an example for the benefit of others (Sumney, 101).
However it is interpreted, in the context of participation in the story of Jesus’ death and resurrection, which runs throughout this letter (see 2:10–13; 3:1–4), this verse serves to root Paul’s experience more deeply in the story of Jesus. By implication, any suffering that those in this community might be experiencing is also rooted in that story.
In the imperial story, the mystery that is revealed, and the glory that is celebrated, is that of the glorious rule of the emperor himself. Instead, Paul asserts that wisdom and knowledge are hidden in God’s mystery, Christ, who is, in Roman eyes, a failed Messiah who died at Roman hands. For the Colossians, however, he is the hope of glory (1:27). This Messiah, Jesus, who is Lord (while the slogan of the empire is that Caesar is Lord), is the one in whom they should walk. The language of “walking in the Lord” is rooted in Torah observance, in the story of Israel. Moreover, the Colossians not only walk in him but also are rooted and built up in him. These are images from the empire, usually applied to the way in which Nero gives root to, binds together, and builds up the whole of Roman society (Maier, 328). Rather than Nero, however, the Colossians are rooted and built up in a different Lord.
THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION
In light of Paul’s assertion that his sufferings complete what is lacking in Christ’s suffering, interpreters from the church fathers to the present have been concerned to defend the sufficiency of Christ Jesus’ death for salvation. In the sixteenth century, the Catholic Church taught that the blood of the martyrs played a role in the expiation of sins, using this verse to argue that the suffering of the saints has redemptive power (Gorday, 36). In opposition to this, Calvin argued that the suffering of the saints had no redemptive role; rather, their suffering confirmed the faith of the church. Since Christ lived in Paul, his suffering is the suffering of Christ; as a result, Paul’s suffering edifies the church, rather than redeems it (Calvin, 165–67).
THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION
The question of the place and role of suffering in the life of believers continues to dominate the interpretation of this passage. In the North American context, where the church has been shaped by a theology of blessing and prosperity, what meaning does Paul’s language of suffering carry? Do these verses suggest that the church in North America has something to learn from the suffering of believers in other parts of the world?
Furthermore, in light of the legacy of suffering inflicted by Christians, in contexts like residential schools for native peoples in Canada and the United States, is there a way theologically to interpret this suffering in light of the suffering of Christ? Moreover, if Christians are the ones inflicting this suffering, have they abandoned the story of Jesus?
THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT
What is at stake in this letter is the very freedom of the believers at Colossae. If, as we have suggested, this community is struggling with the roles of both masters and slaves, Paul’s allusions and ethical exhortations in the next section suggest that life shaped by the story and structures of empire is fundamentally an experience of being taken captive. His argument begins by showing the Colossian believers that their story is rooted in the story of Jesus: they have come to fullness in him (2:10); they were spiritually circumcised in him (2:11); they were buried with him in baptism (2:12); they were raised with him (2:12, 3:1); and they were made alive with him (2:13). All of this was made possible because Jesus, the head of every ruler and authority, erased the legal record against them, setting it aside.
The irony is complete: Jesus was stripped by the Roman authorities and held up to contempt as they celebrated their triumph over him. Now the tables are turned. Those rulers and authorities who were known to conquer and take captive the peoples of the world were disarmed by Jesus on the cross and made a public example (2:15). First-century hearers would have discerned an allusion to the victory parades that formed part of Roman triumphal celebrations, where conquered peoples, now Roman slaves, were paraded as a public example of what happens to those who resist the benefits of Roman imperial rule (Wright, 116). Rather than violently triumphing over and then parading conquered and enslaved losers, Jesus triumphed over the rulers and authorities by disarming them on a cross. This nonviolent suffering is not only a challenge to Roman power but also a word of hope to those who were enslaved under this empire. Jesus is not someone who glories in violence and the demeaning humiliation of captives.
There is much debate about what sort of “philosophy” and “empty deceit” Paul is referring to in these verses, especially since in 2:16–23, he describes religious restrictions and practices that could relate to Judaism (festivals, new moons, Sabbaths [v. 16]; angelic visions [v. 18]; and food restrictions [v. 21]). Others have found references to pagan ascetic religious practices in these verses.
Some have suggested that Paul is not referring to any one specific problem in the Colossian community but rather that he has in mind a range of possible challenges that these new disciples could face (Hooker). Others have explored Paul’s allusions in these verses to the prophetic critique of idolatry found in Israel’s Scriptures (Walsh). Just as idolatry is worthless, vain, and nothing (Pss. 97:7; 115:4–7; 135:15–18; Isa. 44:9; 57:13; Jer. 2:5), so the philosophy to which Paul refers is described as “empty deceit” (2:8) and a shadow without substance (2:17). Just as idols are constructed by human hands (Ps. 115:4; Isa. 2:8; 41:6–7; 44:11; Jer. 10:1–10; Hosea 8:4, 6; 13:2; Hab. 2:18), so the philosophy is a human tradition (2:8), and a human way of thinking (2:18) that imposes human commands and teachings (2:20). Just as idolatry results in a deluded mind and a fundamental lack of knowledge (Isa. 44:18–20; Hosea 4:6) and just as an idol is a teacher of lies (Hab. 2:18), so the philosophy is puffed up without cause (2:18) and deceives people by employing supposedly plausible arguments (2:4, 8). Just as idolatry is impotent, without value, and does not profit (Pss. 115:4–7; 135:15–18; Isa. 6:10; 46:1–2; Jer. 2:11; Hosea 7:16; Hab. 2:19), so the philosophy is of no value in checking self-indulgence (v. 23). And just as idolatry is a matter of exchanging glory for shame (Ps. 106:20; Jer. 2:11; Hosea 4:7; 7:16; 13:1–3; Rom. 1:23), so the philosophy disqualifies, insists on self-abasement (2:18), and promotes severe treatment of the body (2:23).
Of course, in biblical tradition, the critique of idolatry is rooted in the confession that Yahweh is the creator of heaven and earth (Pss. 115:16; 135:5–7; Isa. 40:12–26; 44:9–28; 45:12, 18; Jer. 10:11–16; 51:15–19). Paul also grounds his critique of the philosophy in the assertion that Jesus is the one through whom and for whom all things were created (Col. 1:15–17). And, of course, Jesus triumphs over all rulers and authorities on the cross (2:15), just as Yahweh triumphs over other gods.
Throughout the Jewish Scriptures, it is when the people of Israel forget their story that they succumb to the idolatry of the surrounding peoples. Paul, too, frames this whole section with the story that provides a context for the life of the Colossian believers. Picking up the narrative thread of Col. 2:12 in 3:1, he continues: “If, then, you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God.” In an empire where the deified imperial rulers were considered to continue to rule with the gods after their death, Paul asserts that Christ—who has been raised to new life—is seated at the right hand of God. Paul is not advocating an otherworldly dualism, but rather raising the question of ultimate authority. Who is really in control? Is the whole body of the empire held together by the emperor who nourishes and upholds it, or by Jesus? In using the imagery of the body politic in 1:18 and 2:19, Paul has already challenged the rule of Caesar. By stating that the whole fullness of the deity dwells bodily in Jesus (2:9), and placing Jesus at the right hand of God (3:1), Paul has undermined the sacred canopy of Roman rule. Not only are the religious practices of paganism characterized as idolatry, but Paul is also reminding this community that throughout Israel’s Scriptures, the religious practices of Judaism were considered idolatrous when they were used in service of injustice and captivity (i.e., Isaiah 58). Paul’s language reminds the community at Colossae that their practices reveal whom they worship and the story of which they are a part.
THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION
In a later context, where Christianity was engaged in differentiating itself from both Judaism and other religious and civic associations, the early church fathers emphasized how these verses undermined the rituals of both Judaism and pagan mystery religions. As time went on, these verses were also used to challenge the body-denying practices and beliefs of Gnosticism.
For those in Christian traditions who practiced asceticism and taught its importance as a form of Christian discipleship, however (for instance, the desert fathers), these verses were problematic because they appear to condemn the ascetic practices that shaped early monasticism. As a result, these commentators emphasized that it was not the ascetic practices themselves that were the problem but rather the intention of the practitioner, who must ensure that such discipline is grounded in Christ and reflects a reliance on grace rather than human achievement (Gorday).
Later, in the face of Catholicism, with its emphasis on the intervention of saints and martyrs for salvation, Calvin identified Paul’s reference to the worship of angels not only with the worship of saints in his own time but also with the practice of relying on the mediating role of those who had died. He argued that these verses assert that no mediator other than Christ is necessary to approach God (Calvin, 194–96).
THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION
Paul’s critique of the practices of the Colossian community has raised a number of questions in the minds of readers. Most prominent is the question of whether Paul is engaging in a supersessionist strategy here, denigrating the practices of Judaism and equating them with the elemental spirits of the universe that have the appearance of wisdom. Given Paul’s allusions to the prophetic critiques of idolatry, along with his allusions and echoes of Israel’s story and Scriptures in this letter, supersessionism seems unlikely. There is no doubt, however, that these verses have lent themselves to antisemitic purposes in the past.
It is also difficult to discern the precise nature of the beliefs and practices that Paul is critiquing, given the fact that we have only Paul’s allusions to them, and these may be pejorative and emotive rather than entirely accurate (Caird, 162). How much can we trust Paul’s depiction of “the philosophy” here?
Some have also asked whether Paul is describing his opponents in ways that can be applied just as easily to his own teaching. He describes the opponents’ belief as “human tradition” (2:8) and “simply human commands and teachings” (2:22). In short, he says, “Do not let anyone condemn you” (2:16), and then proceeds with his own words of condemnation. The text invites us to identify with Paul’s perspective here. But what is it about Paul’s teaching that makes it more acceptable than that of his opponents (Walsh and Keesmaat, 102–14)?
Colossians 3:5–17: Living as Image Bearers
THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT
In light of this story, how then are the Colossians to live? In light of the creation-affirming language in Col. 1:15–23, it is unlikely that Paul is referring to a dualist rejection of the body when he tells the Colossians to “put to death whatever in you is earthly” (3:5). Instead, he lists examples that include not only sexual sins (sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire) but also sins that tear apart community: covetousness, greed, anger, wrath, malice, slander, abusive language, and lying (3:5, 8–9). Moreover, he explicitly links greed with idolatry, suggesting that it is the consumptive economic practices of the empire that reveal the idolatry at its very heart. Sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness all demonstrate the way in which greed manifests itself, both sexually and more generally.
Paul’s language here again links the story of the Colossian Christians with that of Jesus. The new self with which they are clothed is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of its Creator. This is the knowledge that Paul has been praying for this community since the outset (1:9–10; 2:2), a knowledge that causes the Colossians to look more like this image of God found in Jesus, who suffered the violence of the empire in order to bring peace.
Paul again challenges the claims of imperial rule to bring pacification to all the peoples of the world by asserting that in the renewal Jesus brings there is “no longer Greek or Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free,” but that “Christ is all and in all” (3:11). Even those most marginalized and oppressed in the far-flung reaches of the empire (barbarian, Scythian), the most marginalized and abused in the households of the Colossians along with those who control them (slave and free), and those most easily dismissed as unworthy by the other (Jews and gentiles) participate in the story of Jesus and are being renewed in his image. It is an audacious claim in a context where only the civilizing influence of Rome was thought to bring renewal to the world.
In the face of the community-destroying practices that the Colossians are to put to death, Paul calls the community to be clothed with those virtues that instead build up community: compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience (3:12). Paul, however, also recognizes the need—particularly in this community, where people are just learning to negotiate their old power structures and relations in light of their new identity in Christ—to bear with one another and to forgive. Not only will love be needed, but also the peace of Christ, to make such forgiveness possible. The reconciliation that comes from self-sacrificial love is the only thing that is to rule them. Paul winds up these admonitions with a call to thankfulness that permeates all they do: teaching, admonishing, singing, and learning. Such love, forgiveness, peace, and gratitude will be necessary to negotiate the complicated relationships that Paul alludes to in the next section.
THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION
The central debate over these verses has been whether Paul considers the body to be evil. More Platonic interpretations of this text throughout history have associated that which is “earthly” with the body and its passions. John Chrysostom and others have challenged that view, arguing that it is our moral choices that determine what is earthly. Following Platonism, gnostics argued that true spirituality meant an escape from the body; once again, the church fathers strove to affirm the goodness of the created order. This temptation to denigrate the body and its desires has continued to plague Christian tradition through the ages, right up until the present time. It is striking that the church fathers, surrounded by a culture that was permeated with otherworldly spirituality, continued their emphasis on the goodness of the created order (Gorday, 42).
THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION
What does Paul’s assertion that there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free mean in a world where identity is constantly being negotiated and renegotiated? In the Roman Empire, all races and people were to be brought under the all-encompassing sway of Roman culture. In our own world, where cultural identity is rapidly being erased by the pervasive nature of global technology and culture, what are the implications of cultural and social differences being erased “in Christ”? Is this a denial of cultural difference? Or does the language of reconciliation hint at a different kind of cultural equality in Christ?
THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT
The household code, as Col. 3:18–4:1 is known, has been the focus of much recent scholarly work (other household codes are found in Eph. 5:21–6:9 and 1 Pet. 2:18–3:7). No longer interpreted as an unequivocally oppressive text, these verses—in particular their nuanced character and the socially complex context in which they were written—have received more attention than in the past. As a result, there is a growing acknowledgment that they contained a subversive and liberating message in their ancient context (MacDonald 2000; Standhartinger; Sumney; Walsh and Keesmaat).
In the first place, while the language of these verses appears to uphold the status quo in directing women to be subject to their husbands, children to be obedient to their parents, and slaves to be obedient to their masters, it also subtly undermines the absolute authority of the head of the household. Not only are women, children, and slaves addressed in these verses; but the husbands, fathers, and masters are also uncharacteristically given commands to love (3:12), forgo provocation and harsh treatment (3:19, 21), and act justly and fairly (4:1).
It is difficult, however, to know how these commands were heard in Colossae. Within the Colossian community, there were complex and overlapping identities: slaves may have been parents, wives may have been masters, children may have been freeborn or slave and may have had parents who were believers or not, or have been the product of a mixed marriage between a believer and a nonbeliever (MacDonald 2010). In addition, a child may have been the offspring of the master of the house and a slave (McDonald 2012). How these commands were heard would have varied widely amongst the hearers themselves.
Second, when slaves are told that they are to obey their masters according to the flesh (v. 22, translated often as “earthly masters”), a question arises. In Pauline writings, the flesh (sarx) often has negative overtones, referring to a way of being that is opposed to the Spirit of God. Are these negative overtones present here?
Moreover, the language of these verses plays on the Greek word for “lord” and “master” (kyrios). If we translate all occurrences of kyrios in these verses as “master,” capitalizing those occurrences that refer to Christ (and are usually translated “Lord”), the sense is much clearer. Paul tells slaves that they are to fear the Master, and do their work as if it is done for the Master, not for their masters. He tells them that they serve the messianic Master (usually translated “the Lord Christ”).
This last phrase is important, because it concludes a sentence where slaves are told that from the Master they will receive an inheritance (3:24). It was not normal in Roman law for slaves to expect to inherit. However, in Israelite tradition, there is a time when slaves are released to receive their inheritance. This was known as the year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25). In the shifting sands of Jewish messianic expectation, there were certainly those who linked the coming of the Messiah with Jubilee expectation. When the Messiah came to establish God’s kingdom, debts would be forgiven and slaves would be freed. It may be that this reference to the messianic Master refers to that tradition (Walsh and Keesmaat, 207–8). In addition, masters are called to treat their slaves justly and with equality; this last word, isotēs, denotes the equality of different social groups before Roman law. It has been suggested that this verse is the key to the passage as a whole, undermining the dominant ethos of subordination (Standhartinger, 13).
This careful language with regard to slaves likely reflects the complexity of slave relationships in the first century. Slaves at this time, whether children, adolescents, or adults, were simply assumed to be sexually available to their masters (MacDonald 2007, 95). If some of the slaves listening to Paul’s letter had masters who were unbelievers, the possibility of following Paul’s commands to put off immorality (3:5) would have been difficult. Even if their masters were believers, it is not immediately clear that sexual use of their slaves would have ceased, given cultural assumptions (MacDonald 2007,101–3). However, it has been suggested that the fact that Paul warns masters of their accountability before their Lord, and the fact that “the relinquishing of past patterns of life is an ethical priority in the work (cf. Col. 1:21–23; 2:20; 3:5–7)” (MacDonald 2007, 101) means that masters were to cease their use of slaves for sexual relations.
The fact that Paul has already referred to the cancellation of the debtor’s bond in 2:14 would have subtly undermined Paul’s commands in these verses. So would his reference to the way in which Jesus had triumphed over those who gloried in parading slaves and conquered men, women, and children from around the empire in 2:15. In addition, in an empire where slaves comprised mainly those people who had been conquered and taken from their own lands, Paul’s assertion that there is no slave and free, alongside no Greek or Jew, barbarian or Scythian, would have painted a picture of a world where the structures of slavery were called into question (Sumney, 254).
THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION
For much of the interpretive tradition, these verses have garnered relatively little attention, primarily because Paul’s commands here were seen as self-evident in the predominantly patriarchal culture of Christendom. The church fathers acknowledged that Paul was merely describing the natural order in relation to husband and wives, fathers and children. On the vexing issue of slavery, some asserted that while slavery was an inequity, the wise person is always free, even when outwardly enslaved (Ambrosiaster, cited in Gorday, 53).
In the 1800s, both sides in the heated debate over slavery appealed to these verses as a justification for slavery on the one hand (since Paul does not here judge the institution of slavery) and as providing a challenge to it on the other (for if masters were to treat their slaves justly and fairly, slavery as we know it would disappear [Swartley]).
THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION
For many, Paul’s commands in these verses provide an interpretive crux for the letter as a whole. Is Paul here upholding the authority and power of the patriarchal household, and therefore upholding the power structures of the empire? Do these verses demonstrate that Paul’s all-encompassing language about Jesus as the one with ultimate authority and power in 1:16–20; 2:9, 15; and 3:1 provide the basis for a model of totalitarian control that is founded on male authority and hierarchy?
These are important questions to bring to the text, not only because they force us to ask what the theology of the letter looked like in the actual lives of first-century believers (especially those who were most vulnerable) but also because they compel us to realize how our own contemporary assumptions can affect our reading. In the context of modern feminism, and in a culture where slavery is considered morally repugnant, these texts seem oppressive. When read in their own nuanced and complex circumstances, it is apparent that Paul is carefully attempting to speak a word of liberation and hope into a situation of complex power structures.
If this letter does indeed explore the difficulty of faithful living in complex circumstances, then questions of discipleship come front and center. What are the contexts in which followers of Jesus find themselves negotiating different power relationships as they strive to be faithful? On the one hand, how do Western Christians, who benefit from slave-like working conditions prevalent in the two-thirds world, read these texts? Is there a need to heed the call to justice and equality in Col. 4:1? What does the biblical call for Jubilee look like in contemporary contexts? On the other hand, how does an abused young man who has to sell his body to live on the streets hear this message of the renewal in Jesus in a way that can possibly be lived in his situation? What is the word of hope to those who find themselves working as sharecroppers for North American companies in Colombia, knowing that the working conditions will likely kill them? Or the women working in a maquila who must endure sexual abuse in order to feed their families? How can those who are powerless and at the mercy of those who control their lives be faithful followers of Jesus?
Colossians 4:2–18: The Shape of the Community
THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT
The closing section of this letter provides insight into the social context of this letter. In the first place, it is clear that Paul is urging those in this community to be careful in their walk, particularly in relation to outsiders. By urging them to walk in wisdom (sophia), Paul is alluding to the beginning of the letter (1:9; 2:3); however, the reference to outsiders makes it clear that such wisdom requires discernment. Similarly, and in light of Paul’s somewhat coded language throughout the letter, his call to gracious speech, seasoned with salt, indicates a need for appropriate speech in different contexts. This is strengthened by the fact that there is more for Tychicus and Onesimus to tell the community than what has been put in the letter (4:9), suggesting that there are some things that Paul did not want to entrust to writing.
Paul’s language in 4:7–9 alludes to some of the central tensions in this community. It is clear from the content of Colossians that the issue of slavery has been front and center throughout, as seen in the reference to both Epaphras and Tychicus as fellow slaves (1:7; 4:7), the references to the philosophy as that which enslaves (2:8), the overturning of the patterns of slavery (2:15; 3:11; 3:24–4:1), and the clear linking in the last verses of this letter with the Letter to Philemon. The author suggests that this letter has been brought to the Colossian community by Tychicus and Onesimus. Onesimus is described as part of this community by Paul (v. 9); it is likely that this is a reference to Onesimus the runaway slave mentioned in Philemon (MacDonald 2000, 188; Sumney, 269; Thompson, 106; cf. Wilson, 296; Lincoln 2000, 580). This makes it all the more astounding that Paul describes both Tychicus and Onesimus as beloved and faithful. How can a runaway slave possibly be faithful? By describing Onesimus this way, Paul is suggesting that previous commitments have changed for Onesimus. He is faithful in serving another Master, and this faithfulness is more important than faithfulness to his earthly master. More than that, however, Paul describes Tychicus as both a brother and a fellow slave (doulos) in the Lord, while Onesimus, who is an actual slave, is described as a brother. If the hearers of this letter haven’t realized before this point that the categories have shifted, Paul now makes it explicit.
The greeting to Nympha and the church in her house (4:15) suggests that Nympha was the leader of the Christian community in Laodicea, raising the interesting question of how the commands of 3:18–4:1 would have been heard in a context where a woman exercised leadership over the community. There is such a similarity between the Christian communities in Colossae and Laodicea that they are encouraged to read each other’s letters.
Paul’s last request, “remember my chains,” reminds the Colossians not only to pray for Paul (see 4:3) but also to remember where this gospel can lead. Participation in the story of Jesus leads to the same suffering that Jesus endured (1:11, 24). Even in that context, Paul hopes for grace for this community: grace as they remember the story of which they are a part, and grace as they discern how to live out that story in the complexities of life in the empire.
THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION
Paul’s presence in prison as he writes this letter has provided an important context for interpreting his words. The church fathers highlighted the importance of prayer in situations of suffering, particularly as a guard against sin and as a way to overcome adversaries. In a time when many Christians were facing persecution, it was acknowledged that prayer, rather than weaponry, was the way believers fought against their adversaries; through prayer, they acknowledged that God provided strength to bear suffering (Gorday, 55).
THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION
In a postmodern context, which acknowledges the coded nature of language, Paul’s reference to gracious, seasoned speech that seeks to be appropriate in context highlights our need to be attentive to the way in which Paul’s language may be guarded in this letter (Walsh and Keesmaat, 209). In a situation of oppression, what might Paul have been careful about articulating? How might his context in prison have affected his ability to write freely? Might his allusions to Jubilee and equality in the household code, for instance, be embedded in seemingly usual commands for obedience because it was too dangerous for this vulnerable community to be perceived as undermining the social structures of imperial society? For those with ears to hear, the references to a new social structure are present in these verses and throughout the letter. For those who expect allegiance to accepted social codes, that language is present as well. In the same way, Paul is telling this community to be attentive to how their language will be perceived by those who have power over them.
In addition, when interpreting this letter, should readers perhaps privilege the hermeneutical insights of those who speak from a social location similar to Paul’s? Should we question our own ability to interpret the letter well if we read from a position of privilege? Perhaps readers need to remember not only Paul’s chains but also the chains of those in the present world before they can truly fulfill the task to which this letter calls them in the Lord (4:17).
Arnold, Clinton E. 1996. The Colossian Syncretism: The Interface between Christianity and Folk Belief at Colossae. Grand Rapids: Baker.
Bouma-Prediger, Steven. 2001. For the Beauty of the Earth: A Christian Vision of Creation Care. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Caird, G. B. 1976. Paul’s Letters from Prison (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon) in the Revised Standard Version: Introduction and Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Calvin, John. 1860. Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians. Translated by John Pringle. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society.
D’Angelo, Mary Rose. 1994. “Colossians” in Searching the Scriptures. Vol. 2, A Feminist Commentary, edited by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. New York: Crossroad.
Francis, Fred O. 1962. “Humility and Angelic Worship in Col. 2:18.” Studia Theologica—Nordic Journal of Theology 16, no. 2:109–34.
Gorday, Peter, ed. 2000. Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament 9: Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Hooker, Morna D. 1973. “Were There False Teachers in Colossae?” In Christ and Spirit in the New Testament, edited by Barnabas Lindars and Stephen S. Smalley, 315–31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horsley, Richard A., ed. 1997. Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.
Lincoln, Andrew T. 1999. “The Household Code and the Wisdom Mode of Colossians.” JSNT 74:93–112.
———. 2000. “The Letter to the Colossians.” In The New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. 11, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, edited by Leander E. Keck, 553–669. Nashville: Abingdon.
Maier, H. O. 2005. “A Sly Civility: Colossians and Empire.” JSNT 27, no. 3:323–49.
MacDonald, Margaret Y. 2000. Colossians and Ephesians. Sacra pagina. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.
———. 2007. “Slavery, Sexuality and House Churches: A Reassessment of Colossians 3.18–4.1 in Light of New Research on the Roman Family.” NTS 53:94–113.
———. 2010. “Beyond Identification of the Topos of Household Management: Reading the Household Codes in Light of Recent Methodologies and Theoretical Perspectives in the Study of the New Testament.” NTS 57:65–90.
———. 2012. “Reading the New Testament Household Codes in Light of New Research on Children and Childhood in the Roman World.” SR 41, no. 3:367–87.
Middleton, J. Richard. 2005. The Liberating Image: Imago Dei in Genesis 1. Grand Rapids: Brazos.
Moule, C. F. D. 1957. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Standhartinger, Angela. 2000. “The Origin and Intention of the Household Code in the Letter to the Colossians.” JSNT 79:117–30.
Sumney, Jerry L. 2008: Colossians: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Swartley, Willard M. 1983. Slavery, Sabbath, War and Women: Case Issues in Biblical Interpretation. Scottdale, PA: Herald.
Thompson, Marianne Meye. 2005. Colossians and Philemon. Two Horizons New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Walsh, Brian. 1999. “Late/Post Modernity and Idolatry: A Contextual Reading of Colossians 2.8–3.4.” ExAud 15:1–17.
Walsh, Brian, and Sylvia Keesmaat. 2004. Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Wilson, R. McL. 2005. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Colossians and Philemon. ICC. London: T&T Clark.
Wink, Walter. 1984. Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Wright, N. T. 1986. Colossians and Philemon. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.