l ! ~ Hi THENEW INTERNATIONAL GREEKTESTAMENT COMMENTARY Editors I. Howard Marshall W.WaroGasque(1978-93) Donald A.Hagner THEEPISTLESTOTHECOWSSIANS ANDTOPHILEMON THE EPISTLESTOTHE COLOSSIANS ANDTO PHILEMON ACommentaryonthe GreekText JAMES D.G.DUNN LightfootProfessor of Divinity Univenity of Durham Ni8/1 I ll... WILLIAMB. EERDMANSPUBLISHINGCOMPANY GRANDRAPIDS,MJCH1GAN THEPATERNOSTERPRESS CARLISLE !}fJ/tf/o/'20 .$.99 oS. Aug.199\l C1996Wm.B. EeTdmansPublishing Co. Firs(publi shed1996 jointl ybyWm. B.EerdmansPublishing Co. 255JeffersonAve. S.E..GrandRapids.Michigan49503 and by ThePaternosterPress Lid .. P.O.Box300. Carli sle.Cumbria CAJOQSEngland Allrightsreserved PrintedintheUnitedStates of America 0100999897967654321 Library or Congress Cataloging-io-PublicationData Dunn. JamesD.G .1939-TheEpistles 10theColossians andPhilemoo: acommentaryonthe Greek tut l by James D. G. Dunn p.em. -(TheNewInternationalGreek TestamentCommentary) Includes bibli ogmphicalrd"erencc:5andindexes. ISBN0-8028-2441-2(alk.paper) I.Bible.N.T. Colossians - Commentaries.2.Bible.N.T. Philemon - Commentaries.I. Tille.II. Series:NewInternat ional Greek Testament Commentary (GrandRapids.Mi ch.) BS2715.3. D861996 227' .7077 - deZO95-26758 CIP PaternosterPressISBN085364571X To GrahamStallIOn friend alld companion for manyyea rs inthequest and questioning whichis Christianscholarship CONTENTS Foreword Preface Abbreviations THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS BlliLiOGRAPHY INTRODUCTION THESIGNIFICANCEOFTHELEI"IER COLOSSAEANDTHE ESTABLISHMENT OF CHRI STIANITY THERE THE TROUBLE AT COLOSSAE Presuppositions GnosticizingSyncretism. .. ? ... or Jewish ? TheC%ssianPhilosophy WHOWROTECOLOSSIANS' WHERE AND WHEN WASCOLOSSI ANSWRII"I EN? THESTRUcruRE OF COLOSSIANS COMMENTARY ADDRESSANDGREETING( L1-2) EXTENDED THANKSGIVING(13-23) Thanksgiving(1.-3-8) Prayer for theColossianRecipients (I :9-14) AHymninPraise of Christ (1:15-20) Reconciliationand (1:21-23) A PERSONAL STATEMENT ( U4-2,5) Paul 'sCommitment10theGospel (1:24-29) '" x .. xu X" 3 19 19 20 23 24 27 29 33 35 39 41 43 53 54 67 83 105 11 3 11 3 VIIICONTENTS Paul'sCommitmemtotheColossians (2:1-5) THE THEME OF THELEI'I ER(2:6-4:6) THE THEMATICSTATEMENT (2:6-7) THE CROSSOF CHRI ST RENDERSUNNECESSARY ANY FURTHERHUMAN TRADITIONSANDRULES(2:8-23) TheScope ofChri.n's AccomplishmentsontheCross (2:8- 15) Beware of ClaimsThatThereAre MoreImportallt Praclices 128 136 138 144 145 and Experiences (2: 16- 19)171 LifeinChristDoes NotDepend onObsen'ance of Jewish Practices (2:20-23)188 THEPATTERNOF LIVINGTHATFOLLOWSFROMTHE CROSS(3: 1-4:6)199 The Per,spective fromWhichIheChriSTianLifeShould Be Ul'ed (3: 1-4)202 GeneralGuidelinesandPracticalExhortations (3:5-17)210 HOIHehoidRules(3:18-4:1)242 ConcludillgExhortalioflS(4:2-6)261 CONCLUSION (4:7- 18)269 MaintainingCommunicaTion(4:7-9)271 Greetings(4:10-17)274 AFilial,PersonalGreeling(4: 18)289 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON BIBLIOGRAPHY INTRODUCTION THE AlJfHOR THERECIPIENT THEOCCASION THEPLACE OF WRITING THE STRUcrURE OF THE LE 1"1 ER COMMENTARY ADDRESSAND GREETING(1-3) THANKSGIVINGANDPRAYER(4-7) APPEAL TOPHILEMON(8-20) INCONCLUSION(21-25) 294 299 299 300 301 307 309 310 315 322 343 Subjects ModemAuthors CO!\'TENTS INDEXES BiblicalandOtherAncientWorks . >X 35 1 355 362 FOREWORD Althoughtherehavebeenmanyseriesof commenlari esontheEnglish text of theNew Testamentinrecentyears.very fewattempts havebeen madetocaterparticularlytotheneedsof studentsof theGreektext.The presentinitiative tofillthis gap bythe publication of theNew imernalional GreekTestamentCommentaryisverylargelyduetothevisionofW.Ward Gasque, who was one of the original edi tors of the series. (The present editors wouldlike toplace onrecordtheir recognition of Dr. Gasque'sworkinthe establishment and development of theseri es umil the pressure of other dUlies made it necessaryfor himtoresignfromhis editorship).Atatime when the study of Greek is being cunailedinmany schools of theology,we hope that the NIGTC will demonstrate the continuingvalue of studying the Greek New Testament andwillbe animpemsinthe revi valof suchstudy. Thevolumesof of theNIGTCareforstudentswhowantsomething lesstechni calthanafull -scalecriti calcommentary.Atthesametime,the commentaries are intended to interact withmodem scholarshipand tomake theirownscholarlycontributiontothestudyof theNewTestament.The wealthof detailedstudyof theNew Testamentinarticlesandmonographs continueswithoutinterruption.and the seriesismeant toharvest theresults ofthisresearchinaneasilyaccessibleform.Thecommentariesinclude, therefore,adequate.butnotexhaustive,bibliographiesandattempttotreat allimponant problems of history. exegesis,andinterpretation that arise from theNew Testamenttext. One of thegains of recent scholarship has beentherecognitionof the primarilytheologicalcharacterofthebooksoftheNewTestament.The volumes of the NIGTC attempttoprovide a theologicalunderstanding of the text,basedonhistori cal-crilical-linguisticexegesis.Itisnottheirprimary aimtoapplyand expoundthetext for modemreaders,althoughitishoped thattheexegesiswillgivesomeindicationof thewayinwhichthetext should be expounded. Within thelimits set by the use of the Englishlanguage, the seri es aims tobeinternationalincharacter.thoughthecontributorshavebeenchosen ootprimari lyinordertoachieveaspreadbetweendifferentcountriesbut above allbecause of their specialized qualifications for their particular tasks. -FOREWORD X< supremeaimof mis seriesistoservethosewhoareengagedin of theWordof God and thusto glorify God's name.Our prayer ISthatItmaybefoundhelpfulinthistask. I.HowardMarshall DonaldA.Hagner PREFACE I didnotexpecttofindthewritingofacommentaryonColossiansquile so enjoyable.For one thing, it provides anunexpectedlyinterestingwin-dowintothecharacterof ChristianityinAsiaMinorinthesecondhalf of the first century.Our knowledge of how Christianity developed in the second andthirdgenerationsisvel)'scanty.butitisfullestinregardto AsiaMinor (givenalsonotleastthelettersofRevelationandof Ignatius).Colossians providesaf a ~ i n a t i n gthirdperspective,andwiththeinfonnationitgives aboutthereli gioustensionswithi nwhi chemergentChri stianitywas caught up,notleastthosebetween Christianityand diaspomJudaism,webeginto gainmoreofaninsightintotheinfluencesandfactorswhichshapedthe transitionfromapostolicto subapostolicChristianityintheregion. For another, the letter represents such a cruci al stage in the development of Pauline theology.Whether itwaswri ttenattheend ofPaul 'slifeor soon afterhisdeath(thetwomostlikelyalternatives).itindicateshowPauline theologyretaineditsownvitalcharacteranddidnotdiewithPaul.Asthe marginbetween seaandlandcontai nssome ofthemostinterestingnatural phenomena.andthetransitionbetweenepochsproducessome of themost interesting people and culturalexpressions.sothetransition fromPauline to post-Pauline theologyhas a distinctive imponance for our understanding of bothwhatwentbeforeandwhatcameafter. ableto throwlightonboth. Anotherreason,Isuppose,isthathavingwrittentwo largecommen-tariesonearlierPaulineletter:s(GalatiansandRomans)Ihad" goneninto the swing ofit. "More to the point.sincethi s commentaryispart of a larger projectonPaul,whoplayeda(probablythe)deci siveroleinthespread, foonation,andtransfonnationofChri stiani tyinthefir:stdecadesofits existence, the interaction of thisfresh material with the findings of the earlier commentari eswaspanicularlystimulatingandrefreshingintheconstant fine-tuningwhichitoccasi oned.Myhopeisthaiotherswillnotbe over-whelmedby the detailed workings of the commentary and ex.perience some-thingof thesamestimulusandrefreshment. Thefirstdraft of thecommentarywasresearchedandwrittenduring mystudyleave in1993.I remai ngmteful tomyDurham colleagues, whose commi tmenttomaintainingthetraditionof aone-in-nine-termsabbati cal ... PREFACE XIII poli cymakessuchscholarship possible, particularlyasitmeansmorework forthosecoveringfortheirsabbaticalcolleagues.Theexegesiswas"((ied oul"on su,:cessivefinal-yearseminarsduringtheacademicyears1992-95. andIremamequallygralefultomystudentsforthestimulusof OUftheo-logicaldialogueinandthroughexegesis.Myhopehere,too,isthatthe commenlarywi llnOIonl yinformtheexegesisof Colossiansforitsreaders bUialsoprovide aproductivepanner fortheir owntheologicaldial ogue. JamesD. G.Dunn December1995 AB ABO AnBib ANRW ATR BAGD BBB BDF Bib BibLeb BibSac BJRL BNTC BR BU BZ BZNW CBQ CGT CGTC CIG C/J CNT CTJ DPL DSS ABBREVIATIONS AnchorBible TheAnchor Bible Dictionary.ed.D.N.Freedman (6 vois.; New York: Doubleday,1992) Analecta8iblica Au/sliegund Niedergangder riimischenWelt,ed.H. Tempori ni andW.Haase (Berlin) AnglicanTheological Review W.Bauer, AGreek-Englishuxiconof theNewTestamentand Other Early Christian Uterature, ed. W. F.Arndt. F.W. Gingrich, and F.W.Danker (Chicago:Universi tyofChicago,1979) Bonner biblischeBeitrage F.Blass,A.Debrunner.andR.W.Funk,AGreekGrammar of theNewTestamell1(CambridgeUniversitylUni versityofChi cago,1961 ) Biblica Hibel und Leben BibliothecaSacra Bulletinof theJohnRyfandsUniversityLibrary Black'sNew TestamentCommentary Biblical Research BiblischeUntersuchungen BiblischeZeitschrift BeiheftezurZNW Catholic BiblicalQuarterly CambridgeGreekTestament CambridgeGreekTestamentCommentary CorpusInscriptionumGraecorum CorpusInscriptionumJudicarum CommentaireduNou ... eau Testament CalvinTheological Journal Dictionary of"Paul and HisLetters.ed.O. F.Hawthorne.et al. (DownersGroveandLeicester:InterVarsity,1993) DeadSeaScrolls EB EC EDNT EGGNT EKK E,Q EvTh XpT FRLANT FS GLAJJ GNB GNTe HNT HTKNT HTR IB ICC /DB /DBS 1m rrQ IB JBL JITS JJS JR JSNT ISNTS JTS KEK LCL LSI LTP MM ABBREVIATIONS Etudesbibliques EpworthCommentary xv ExegeticalDictionaryof theNnvTestament,ed.H.Balzand G. Schneider (3"'ols.;GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1990-93) ExegeticalGuidetothe GreekNewTestament E ... angelisch-katholischerKommentar EvangelicalQuarterly EvangelischeTheologie Expository Times ForschungenzurReligionundLiteraturdesAltenundNeuen Testaments Festschrift M. Stem, Greek and LalinAuthors on Jews and Judaism (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities,1976-84) GoodNewsBible J.H.Moulton.AGranmwrof NewTestamenrGreek..Vol.I : Prolegomena(Edinburgh:Clark.21908),vol.3:Syntax,by N.Turner (Edinburgh: Clark.1963) Handbuch zumNeuenTestament HerderstheologischerKommentarzumNeuen Testament HarvardTheological Review Interpreter 'sBible InternationalCriticalCommentary Interpreter 'sDictionary of the Bible,ed. G. A. Buttrick(4 vo1s.; Nash ... ilIe:Abingdon,1962) SupplementaryVolumetoIDB,ed.K.Crim(1976) Interpretation IrishTheologicalQuanerly Jerusalem Bible Journalof Biblical Literature Journal of theEvangelicalTheological Society Journalof JewishStudies Journal of Religion Journal fortheStudyof theNewTestamem JSNT Supplements Journal of TheologicalStudies Kritisch-exegetischerKommentartiberdasNeueTestament LoebClassicalLibrary H. G.LiddellandR. Scott, A Greek-Englishuxicon,re ....H. S. Jones(Oxford:.Clarendon,91940;withsupplement,1968) LavalThe%glque etPhilosophiqlle J.H.MoultonandG.Milligan,TheVocabularyof theGreek Testamellt(London: Hrld of Formative ChristiDfJity and Judajsm.H. C.Kee FS, ed. J.Neusner. et al . (Philadelphia:Fortress.1988)219-34 ---,. " UniversalReconcili ation(Col.1:20),"SNTU10 ( 1985)109-2 1 10COLOSSIANS H'"HDie VQrstelfuflg 110m Scnopfungsmitlfu im hdlenistischen Judenlumulld egcrm",.n.".. Urrh,isttntum(TIJBerlin: Akadcmle.196I) HILR"Colossians1: 1520:Pre-Pauline or Pauline?" JETS 26 ( 1983)16779 eyer,.-,dnI(London" HIM" HymnsandChrislO]ogy, "inBe,...unJU IUanr au.enge ,_,SCMlPhiladelphia:Fortress.1983)78-96. Hemer.C. J.,Theutters to 1MSewmChurchesoj AsiflinTheir Local Sellmg(JSNTS I I 'Sheffield: 150T.1986)178-82 H'E'G"TheChristianHouseholdinColossians3: 18-4:1:'RevExp70( 1973)IOson,._, 495-506. Hackel.A. ,ChristusderErstgeborene.ZurGesehichtederExegesevonKal.1./5 (DUsseldorf:Palmos.1965).. Hollenbach,B.,"CoL 2:23:Which Things Lead totheFulfilment of theFlesh.NTS25 (1978-79) 254-61"'....h Hooker,M.D.,"WereThereFalseTeachersinColossae?InChns/ and SPirit t New Testament,C.F.D.Moule FS, ed.B. Lindars andS.S.Smalley (C.ambndge. CambridgeUniversity,1973)3 15-31. reprinledinFromAdam 10ChrISt:Essays 011Paul (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity.1990)121 -36.". HR"Theo-Iogie in den Deuteropauli!len (Kolosser- undEpheserbrief),In Mon.a-und Christ%gie:Zu, GotteifrageimhellenistischenJudentumund 1m Urchrisuntu.tm.ed.H.J.KJauc k (QD138:Freiburg:Herder,1992)16385 Hubner, H., des NeuenB(lIld 2.Die The%gie des Paulus (Gollingen:Vandenhoeck,1993) Hunt, J,P. w.,"CoIossians 2: 11 -12, Ihe Circumcision/Baplism AnalogyandInfantBap-tism," TynB 41(1990)227-44 Humer,A.M.,Paul and HisPredecessors(London:SCM,21%1).. Hurtado,L.W.,OneGod,OneLord:EarlyChristianDevotion(lIldAncientJewuh Monotheism(Philadelphia:Fortres!l,1988) Jervcll, J., ImagoDei: Gen, 1:26/ im Spiitjudentum, in der Gnosis and in den paulinischen Brie/en(FRLANT 76; GOltingen:Vandenhoeck,1960).. J -"SE."Laodicea andlISNeighbors,"Biblical Archae%gl5l13(1950)1- 18 ""nson,.,I''" I Juel , D . Messianic Exegesis: Christ%gicallnrerpretation0dTestament Inry Christianity (Philadel phia: Fortress,1988) KamIah,E.,''' YltotaaCJa(!al indenneutcstamendi chenHaustafeln," inVerborumVeri-tas,G.StahlinFS,ed.O.BocherandK.Haacker (Wuppenal :Brockhaus,1970) 237-43.Dek ---, "Wie beUI1eiltPaulussci nLeiden? En Beitrag zur Untcrsuchungsemern-struktur," ZNW 54 ( 1%3) 21732 Klisemann,E .." Kolosserbrief,"RGGl3. 1727-28 --_. " A Primith'eChristian BaptismalLiturgy," inEssays on New TestamentThemes (London: SCM,1964)149-68.. Kehl , N.,De, Christluhymnus im Kolossubrief:EineU,lIe,suchung VIKol.1:11-20 (SBMI;Stuttgart:Kalholisches 1967) ---, "EmiedrigungundErhOhung in QumranundKolossa,ZKT91(1969)364-94 BIBLIOGRAPHY " Kertelge,K. ,ed.,Paulu.findenneutestamentlichenSpiitschn!ten(QD89:Freiburg: Herder,198 1) Kiley,M"Colossians as Pseudepigraphy(Sheffield: JSOT,1986) Kippenberg,H. G.,"EinVergleich jUdischer, christlicher und gnostischer Apokalyptik, " in Apoca/)pticism in lfurld and the NMr East, ed.D.Hellholm (1Ubingen:Mohr,1983) 751-68 Klauc k.H, J., Hausgemeinde und Hauskirche im/riihen Christentum (SBS103: Stuttgart: KBW,1981 ) Knox,1.,Philemonamong 0/ Paul(Nashville:Abingdon,1959/London: Collins,1960) ---" "PhilemonandtheAuthenticity of Colossians," JR18(1938)144-60 Knox,w. L .. St Paul and the Church of the Gentiles (Cambridge: Cambridge Universiry, 1939) Ktaabel.A.T.," Paganism and Judaism: The Sardis Evidence," in Paganisme, Jilda;'sme, Chris nan;sme:Influenceset of!rontemems dansIemonde antique,M.SimonFS (Paris:Boccard,1978)13-33,reprintedinDiasporaJewsWIdJudaism,A, T. KraabelFS,ed.1.A.OvermanandR.S.MacLennan(Atlanta:Scholars,1992) 237-55 Kramer,W.,Christ,Lord,Sono/God(London:SCM,1966) Kremer, 1.,WQ..f an denLeidenChrist; noch mangelt.Eme imerp"tations-geschichlliche and exegetische UntersuchungVIKoL1:24b (BBB12;Bonn:Hanstein,1956) KUmmel.W.G.,lmroduction to the New Testament (London: SCMlNashville: Abingdon, 21975) Kuschel ,K.-J.,Born be/o" All Time?Dispute over Christ's Origin (London: SCM, 1992) Ladd,G, E.,"Paul'sFriendsinColossi ans4:7- 16, "RevExp70 (1973) 507. 14 Liihnemann, 1.,De, Kolosserb,ie!Komposition.Situationund A'8U111entation(SNT3: GUtcrsloh: GUterslolIer,1971) Lamarche,P.,"Structure del'tpitre aUllColossiens, "Bib 56 (1975)453-63 L..angkammer, H""Die EiDwoonung der'absoluten SeinsfiilJe' in Christus.Bemeriwngen zuKol.1: 19," HZ12 ( 1968)258-63 Larsson,E.,Christusalslbrbild,EineUntersuchungzudenpaulinischenTau/- und Ei!onlexten(Uppsala:Gleerup,1962) Legart.C .."FiguraletFiguratif dansI' !;prt" alU'C%ssiens,"LTP 48 ( 1992) 31-42 Levison, J.R .."2 Apoc.Bar.48:42-52:7 andthe ApocalypticDimension of Colossians 3: 1-6," JBL108(1989) 93. 108 Lincoln,A. T .. (WBC42;Dallas:Word,1990) ,ParadiseNowand NotYet(SNTSMS43:Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity, 198 1) Lindemann,A.," Die Gemeindevon' Kolossl.:Erwigungenzurn'SitzimLeben' eines deuteropaulinischenBriefcs,"WD16 (1981)111. 34 ----" PaulusimiiltestenChristemum (TUbingen:Mohr,1979) lohse,E.,"ChristologicundEthikimKolosserbrief, "inApopho"ta,E.HaenchenFS (8ZNW 30;Berlin: lbpelmann,1964)157-68, reprintedinEinheit 249-6 1 12 COLOSSIANS , "ChristusherrschaftundKircheirnKolosserbrief,"NTSII(196165)203-16, reprintedinEinheit262-75 ___, Die Ei1l Mil des Neuer!Testaments.Exegetische Studien V4rTheologie des Neuen Testamellls (GOttingen:Vandenhocck.1973) ___."Ein hymnischesBekennmisinKolosser2:13c- 15," Einheit276-84 ___" DieMitarbeiter desApostelsPaulusimKolosserbrief."inVerborumVeri/as. G.SliihlinFS.ed. O.Bocher andK.Haacker (Wuppenal:Brockhaus,1970)189.-., ___," PaulineTheologyintheLetter 10theColossians," NTS15( 1968-69) 211-20 ___.T/te%gictJlJhicsintheNewTestanU'1I1(Minneapolis:Fortress,1991) Lona,H. E..DieEschow/ogie 1mKnlos.fer- und Ephe.l'erbrie!(Wilrzburg: &bIer.19&4) LOwe,H.," Bekenntnis.ApostelamtundKircheimKolosserbrief,"inKirrhe.G.8om-kammFS,ed.O.LUhrmannandG.Strecker (T'Ubingen:Mohr,1980)299-3 14 Uihnnann, D.,"Neutestamentl iche Haustafeln und antilce Olconomie,"NTS 27 (1980-81) 83-97 ___"Das beiPaulusundinfKJulinischenGemeindtn (WMANT16;Neukirchcn:Neulcirchencr,1965) ___,. " WomannichtmchrSk.laveoderFreieris!.Uberlegungenzur StrulcturfrUh-chrisdicher Gemeinden.'WD13( 1975) 5383 Lyonnet,S. ,auxColossiens(Col.2:18)etlesmysteres d'ApollonClarien," Bib 43( 1962) 41735 --==="Paul'sAdversariesinColossae,"inFrancis andMeeks.COfIflicl147-61 _:"StPauletIegnosticisme:lalettreauxColossiens."inuOriginidello GlIOstidsnw,ed.U. Bianchi(Leiden:Brill.1967)538-50 MacDonald.M., ThePaulineChurches:A Socia- HistoricalStudyof instiruti(malization inthePaulineand Writings(SNTSMS60:Cambridge:Cam-bridgeUniversi ty.1988) Mach.M ..Entwick]ungsstudiendesjiidischenEngelglaubensin\'orrabbinischuhit (TlIbingen:Mohr.1992) Manns.F"Col .I : 15-20:Midrash duitien de Gen.I : 1." Rei'SR 53(1979)100-1 10 Marshall,I.H ."'TheMeaningof'Reconciliation',"inUnityandDh'ersityinNew Testament Theology,G.E. LaddFS. cd.R. A. Guelich(Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1978)117-32, reprintedinJesus lhe Saviour:Studies inNewTestament Theology (London:SPCK,1990)258-74 Martin.D.B.,SlaveryasSoll'otion:TheMetaphor of Slal'eryinPaulineChristianity (NewHaven:YaleUniversity.1990) Martin,R.P..Colossiafl5:TheChurchs Lord and theChristian sLibert}' (Exeter:Pater-noster.1972) --===' "An Early ChristianHymn(Col.1: 15.20):' 1-036(1964)195-205 _,"HymnsintheNewTestament:AnEvolvingPatternof WorshipResponses," ExAuditu8(1992)33-44 --==:. RecOtlciliation: AStudyof Paul's Theolog},(Atlanta: JohnKnox.1981) _," Reconci liationandForgivenessintheLetterto theColossians."inReconcil iationalldHope,L.L.Morri sFS.ed.R.J.Banks(Exeter:PatemosterlGrand Rapids:Eerdmans.1974)104-24 BIBUOGRAI)I'IY 13 ---" "SomeRellectionsonNewTestamentHymns:'inChri.fttheLord,cd.H.H. Rowdon(Leicester:Inter-Varsity,1982) 37-49 Marxsen,W.."Christliche"undchris/ficheEthikimNeue"Testament(GUtersl oh: GUtersloher.1989)'"Ne ...TestamentFoulldationsforChristiunEthics(Mi n-neapolis:Fort ress.1993) Maurer,c.."DieBegriindungderHeITSe-haftChristiUberdi eMachtenachKolosser 1: 15-20."IVD4(1955) 72-93 McCarthy,J.."Le Christ oosmiquc atl'Sge deI'&:ologie.UnclecturedeCol.1:15-20," NRT116( 1994)27-47 Meeks.W.A.,TheFirst UrbanChristians:TheSocialWorld of theApostlePaul (New Haven:YaleUniversity,1983) ---. " InOne Body: The Unity of Humankind inColossians and Ephesians" in God s Christand HisPeople.N.A.DahlFS,ed.J.Jen-ellandW.Meeks(Oslo:Unl. versitetsforlaget,1977) 209-2 1 Merk,0 ..HandeinausGlauben.DieMotMenmgender paulinischenEthik (Marburg: Elwen.1968) Merklei n:H., ,::Paulinisch.eTheologieinderRezcptiondesKolosser- undEpheser-brides.10Paulus IIIdenneutestamentlichen SpUtschriften, ed,K.Kenelge (QO 89:Freiburg: Herder.198 1)25-69 Michaudl -P.,"L'OmbredesAutoritif etdesPouloirs.Ladimensionpolemiquede I'tp ftTeaux Colossiens." UP 48 ( 1992) 43-52 Michl. J.," Die'Veoohnung' (Kol.1:20)." TQ128( 1948) 442-62 Milot, L . Rivard,R.,andTheriault, J.-Y..';Defi it la Lecture.Souffrances et Soumissions en Colossiens, ,.LTP 48(1992) 65-79 Mitchell. S ..Anatolia:Land,Men,and Gods ill Asia Minor,2 vols.(Oxford:Clarendon 1993), Moi r. 1.A. ,"Some ThoughtsonCol.2:17-18."12 35( 1979)363-65 Moore.G.F.JudaismintheFirstThreeCenturies oftMChristiunEra:TheAge of the Tannaim,3vols.(Canlbridge.MA:Harvard,1927.30) Morray-Jones, C, R.A .." Paradise Revisited (2 Cor.12: 1 12): The Jewish Mystical Back. ground of Paul's Apostolate," HTR86( 1993)177-2 17,265-92 ---,. 'TransformationalMysticismintheApocalyptic-MerlcabahTradition," JJS 43 ( 1992)1-31 C.F. ,?..... ' TheNewLife'inColossians3: 1-17,"Rel'E.:cp70 (1973) 48 1-93 Muller,K.,DieHaustafeldesKolosserbriefesunddasantikeFrauenthcma.Eine kri tischeRUckshauaufaileErgebnisse,"inDieFruuimUrchristentutm,ed. .G.Dautzenberg.et al.(QO 95;Freiburg: Herder,1983) 263-319 T. Y. . "The Thanksgivings of Philemon and Colossians," ,,"S 30 ( 1984) 288-93 J.,'Paul tmd the Sah'ation ofMankind (London:SCM/Atlanta: John Knox.1959) Munderlem.G .."Die Erwiihillng durch dasPl eroma.BemerkungenzuKol.1: 19" NTS 8( 1961-62)264-76. Munro.W.,"Col.3:18-4:1andEph.5:2 1-6:9:Evidencesofa LateLiteraryStratum?" NTS18( 1971-72)434-47. Nielsen,C.M.," TheStatusofPaulandHisLetten;inColossians"Pers", R/. ,S'pee/vesIn e 'gloustudies12( 1985)103-22 14 COLOSSIANS Nonien,E"Agnor/osTheo!.Unursuchungen1,ur reUgiOsuRede (8 erlinlLeipzig:Teubner,1913.1923) O' Brien, p, T.,Introductory ThonJagi'l.lingsinthe Leners of Paul(NovTSup 49:Leiden: Brill ,1977).. Ollrog.W.-H"Paulusundseint!Mitorbeirer(WMANT50;Neukirchen:Neukirchener. 1979) O' Neill, J. C . "The Source of the ChriSlology inColossians," NTS 26 (1979-80) 87\00 Overfield, P.D"" Pl eroma: A Study inContent andContext," IVfS 25 ( 1978-79) 384-96 Percy,E. . DuLLibChristi in den paulinischel1Homo/OgUmt!Mwnd Anlilegome/W (Lund: Gleerup.1942) _ _ _ ,DieProblemeder Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe (Lund: Gleerup,1946) Pierre. i. "TotaIiu: el PIt:nilUde:Une Straligie de saturation de I' espace et du temps dans rtpitrt!lux COlo.fliens,"LTP48( 1992) 53-63 POhlmann,W.,"Die hymnischenAlI_PradikationeninKol.I : 15-20," ZNW 64(1973) 53-74 Polhill,J. B.,"TIle Relationship betweenEphesiansand Colossians."70 (1973) 439-50 Poll ard.T. E.."Col.1:12-20: A Reconsideration," NTS27(1980-81) 572-75 Porter,S.E.,"P.Oxy.744.4 and Colossians3:9." Bib 73( 1992)565-67 Ramsay.W.M.,CiliesandBishopricsof Phrygia,I-U(Oxford:OxfordUniversity, 1895-91) Rapske,B.,TheBookof ACISandPaulillRomanCUSlody,vol.? of TheBookofin Its Firsl Selling,ed. B.Winter, et aI. (Grand RapIds:EerdmansJCar\isle. Paternoster,1994) Reicke,B.,"Caesarea,RomeandtheCaptivi ty Epistles,"inAposlolicHislory andIhe F.F.BruceFS.ed.W.W.GasqueandR.P.Martin(Exeter:Patemos-terlGrandRapids: Eerdmans,1970) 277 86 ___,"TheHistoricalSetting of Colossians," RevExp70 ( 1973) 429-38 ___ "Zum sprachlichen Verstandni svonKol. 2:23,"SrTh6( 1953) 39-53 Richards.E.R .SecrtlaryinIheuUersof Paul(WUNT2.42:TIibingen:Mohr, 1991) Robertson, A. T.,Paul and Ihe(Garden City,NY:Doubleday,1928). revised by W. C.Strickland(Nashville:8 roadman,1956) Robinson.J.M.," A FormalAnalysis of ColossiansI: 15-20,"JBL 76 (1957) 270-87 Roloff,J.,DieKirche imNeuenTeSlament(NTD; G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck,1993) Rowland.c., .. AlXlCalypucVisionsandtheExal tationofChristintheLettertothe Colossians."JSNT19 (1983) 78-83 ___,TheO/UnHeal'en (London:SPCK,1982) Sanders.E.P.," Li teraryDependenceinColossians," JBL 85 ( 1966) 28-45 Paul andPaltSlinianJlldobm(London:SCM,1977) J.T.,Elhics inIheTeSlamenl (Philadelphia: FortresslLondon: SCM,1975) BIBUOGRAPHY 15 ---,. NtwTeslamentChrisl%gicalHymru:TheirHistoricalReligiol4sBack-gral4nd(SNTSMS15; Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity,1971) ---, Schismatics,&clOrians, Devianls:TheFirst Hl4ndredYears of JewishChrislianRelations(London:SCM.1993) Sappington. T. J ..Rel"t:/tllionand RedemptiOll01Colossae (lSNTS53; Sheffield: JSOT. 199 1) Saunders, E. w.. "The CoJossian Heresyand Qumran Theology,"in Srudies in the Hislory and theTUIof IheNewK.W.ClarkFS,ed.B.LDaniels andM. J. Suggs (SaltLakeCity:Uni versi ty of Utah,1967)133-45 Schenk,W.,Christus. das Gelleimnis der Wel t. aJ s dogmatischesundethi sches Grund-prinzipdesKolosserbriefes."EvTh43( 1983)138-55 --- ""DerKolosserbriefinderneuerenForschung( 1945- 1985): 'ANRW2.25.4 (1987) 3327-64 Schenke.H.M.," DieneutestamendicheChrislOlogieundder gnostischeErI6ser:'in GnosisundNe/U!sTeslamenl,ed.K.-W.Troger(Gulersloh:Giilersloher.1973) 205-29 --- ," DerWiderstreitgnoslischerundchristlicherCluisto1ogieimSpiegeldes Kolosserbriefe s." ZTK 61(1964)391-403 Schmithal s,W.,"CorpusPaulinumundGnosis,"inNewTeSlamentandGrunis, R.MeL. Wi lsonFS(Edi nburgh: Clark.1983)107-24 Schnackenburg.R.," DieAufnahmedesChrislUshymnusdurchdenVerfasserdes Kolosserbriefes," EKKNT VorarbeittnI(Neuki rchen: Neukirchener,1969) 33-50 ---" Baplism in Thoughtof 51.Paul:ASiudyinPaulineTheology(NewYork: Herder.1964) ---" Die sillliche BOIschaft des NeuenTeslaments. Band 2: Die I4rchristlichellVerkiin-diger(Frei burg:Herder,1988) Schneider. G.," Praexistenz Christi:DerUrsprung einer neUlestamentlichenVorstell ung unddasProblemihrerAuslegung." inNeuesTeslament und Kirche.R. Schnack-enburgFS. ed. J. Gnil ka (Freiburg:Herder,1974)399-412 Scholem, G. G .JewishGlIOslicism,MerkabahMyslicrsm and TalmudicTradilion (New York: Jewish Theologi calSeminary of Ameri ca,1960) Schrage. W.TheElhics of the NewTeslament (Philadelphia:FortresslEdinburgh:Clark. 1988) --- " "Zur Ethik der neUiestamentlichenHaustafeln. NTS 21 ( 1974-75)1-22 Schubert,P.,FormamiFUllclionof thePaulineThanksgivings(BZNW20:Berlin: 1'I:ipelmann.1939) Schulz.S . Elhik (Zurich: 1beologischer.1987) Schllrer,E.Historyof JewishPeopleintheAgeof JesllS Chrisl,rev.anded. G. Vennes,F.Millar, et al . (4vols.;Edinburgh: Clark,1973-87) Schweizer.E. , ZMrTheologie des (Zurich: Zwingli,1970) -==::::."ChriS!intheLetter tothe Colossians." Revup 70 ( 1973) 451-67 - "Christianity of the Circumcised and Judaism of theUncircumcised: The Back-ground of Matthew and Coloss.ians." inJ eK'S,Grtelu and Christians, W. D. Davies FS, ed.R.Hamerton-Kell y andR. Scroggs(Leiden:BriU.1976)245-60 ---. "Chri stus und Gdsl imKolosserbrief," in Chrisl and Spirit in Ihe New Teslamenl , 16 COLOSSIANS C.F.D.MouleFS.ed.B.LindnrsandS.S.Smalley(Cambridge:Cambridge Universi ty.1973)297-3 13.reprintedinNellesTestament179-93. ___," Die'ElernentederWelt.'Gal.4:3.9:Kol.2:8.20:'inVerborumVerlfas. G.StahlinFS, ed. O.B6cher andK.Haacker (Wupperw.l:Brockhaus,1970) 245-59,reprintedinBeifriige147-63 ___," Die Kircheals Leib Christiindenpau]inischenAntilegomena:' Nee/titamc,,-rica(Zurich: Zwingli.1(63)293-3 \6 --==:::' .. Kolosser1:J 5-20."8eitriigl!113-45 _" DerKolosserbrief wederpauiinischnochnach-paul inisch. ,- NeuesTe.ua-ment150-63 _ __" "Zur neucrenForschung amKolosserbrief (seil1970)." 122-49 ___.. NeUl!sTestamentlindChri.d%gieim\\'tonlen. (GtlItmgen:Vanden-hoeck.1982) ___,. "Slavesof meElementsandWorshi ppersof Angels:Gal .4:3,9and Col.2:8, 18,20," JBL107( 1988) 455-68. ___,. " TraditionalEthicalPatternsinthePaulineandPost -PaulineuttersandDevelopment(ListsofVicesandHouse-Tables)_ ,- inTextand. M. Black FS. ed.E. Best !lnd R.McL. Wilson (Cambridge: Carnbndge UmversllY.1979)195-209 ___," Veoohnung desAils.Kol.1:20,"in JesusChristusi,rHis/orie und Theou:gie, H.Con:relmannFS,ed.G.Streckcr(Tllbingen:Mohr,1975)487-501.repnnted in NeuesTestament164-78 _ _ _ " DieWeltll chkeit desNellen Testamentes:dieHaustafeln:' in Neuer Testament 194-210 Scroggs, R ..The Unt Adam: A Study inPauline Anthropology (Oxford: Blackwell,1966) Segal,A. F. , Paulthe TheA{X)$/olate and Apostasyof SaulthePharisee(New Haven:Yale Uni versity.1990) Sheppard,A.R.R.,"PaganCultsofAngel sinRomanAsiaMinor."Talanta12-13 (1980-8 1)77- 101 Stegemann.E .." AI!undNeubeiPaulus undindenDeuteropaulinen(Kol-Eph):' EvTh 37( 1977)508-36 Steinmetz.F.J. ,ProtologischeHeilszul'ersicht.Die Stnlkturendessoteriologischenund chn'stologischenDenkellsimKolosser- lindEpheserbriej(Frankfurt:Knecht, 1969) Stewart,J.5. ,"AFirst-CenruryHeresyandItsModemCounterpart."SJT 23(1970) 420-36 Suh!.A .Paulusund seineBrieje.EinBeitragzur palilinischenChr(mologie(SNT\\; Glllersloh: Giiterl soher.1975) Sumney,J.. "Those Who' Pass Judgment' : TheIdentity of the OpponentsinColossians," Bib74( 1993)366-88 Tachau.P.... EiltSt " und im NeuellTestamellt (FRLA"'T105; Gottingen:Vanden-hoeck,1972) Tannehill .R.c.. Dyillg andRisillgwithChrist: ASillilyillPaulineTheology(BZNW 32:Berlin:TOpel mann,1966) BIBLIOGRAPHY 17 Thraede.K .." ulln historischen Hintergrund der' Haustafe[n' des NT, "in Pinos.B.Kllt-tingFS.cd.E.DassmannWIdK.S.Frank(MUnster:Aschendorff.1980)359-68 Trebi lco.P.,JewishCommunitiesinAsiaMillOr(SNTSMS69; Cambridge:Cambridge University,1991) Trudinger,LP.,"A FunherNoteon Colossians1:24." 45( 1973) 36-38 Turner,N. ,Grommmicalln.sighlJ in/OtheNewTestament(Edinburgh: Clark,1965) vander Horst,P. W.,"Observations on a Pauline Expression. "NTS19( \972-73)181-87 Vawter,B.," TheColossiansHymnandthePrincipleof Redaction,"CBQ33(1971 ) 62-8 1 Verner.D. C .. The HOllsehold ojGod: The SociallVorldojthe Pastoral Epistles (SBLOS 71:Chico:Scholars.[983) Vogtle. A.,Das NelleTestament uIId die Zukunft des Kosmos (DiisseldOlf: Patmos,1970) Walter.N .."Oie'HandschriftinSatzungen'KoL2:14." ZNW70 (1 979)115-18 We(jderbum,A.J .M ..BaptismandResurrectiOIl:StudiesinPalilineTheology against ItsGraeco- R(mumBackgmlllld (WUNT 44; TIibingen:Mohr,1987) ---in idem andLincoln. A. T ..7he The%gyofthe Later PQl4line Letters (Cambridge: Cambri dgeUniversity.1993) Wegenas t,K ../JlISVerstandnisderTraditionbeiPaulusundindenDeuleropaulinen (WMANT 8;Neukirchen:Neukirchener,1962) Weima.J.A.D.,NeglectedEmlings:TheSignificanceof thePaulineLeiterClosings (jSNTSlQ] ; Sheffield: JSOT.1994) H.,"The law intheEpi stletotheColossians,"CBQ34 (1972)294-3 14 Wei SS.H.-F.."GnostischeMotiveundantignostischePolem.i.kimKolosser- undim Epheserbrief,"inG'IOsisWidNellesTestament,ed.K.W.Trtlger(Gll tersloh: GUtersloher.1973)311-24 - --" ':Taufe und neues Leben im deUleropaulinischen Schrifttum," inTauje und neue ExlSlenz,ed.E. Schott(Berlin:Evangelische.1973)53-70 ---.. Untersuchungenl ur Kosmologie des hellenistischenund pdiistinischen Jillien-tunu (TU97:Berli,n:Akadcmie.1966) Wengst.K. , ChriswlogischeFomrelnlindLieder desUrrhristentluns(SUNT7:Guter-sloh: Giitersloher,1972) ---.' undBefreiung.EinAspektdes Thernas'SchuldundVergebung' 1mLichtedesKolosserbriefes." EvTh36 ( 1976)14.26 G. F.,"The Eschatology of Colossians andEphesi ans," Neat 2 1 ( 1987)183-202 A.L ..:' The Cult of theAngelsat Colossae,"JTS10( 1909) 41 3-38 Wilhamson.t.. "led inTriumph:Paul'sUse ofThriambeuo,"/nr 22( 1968) 317-22 WinkW" TheHymfhip(e.g.Lohse. CoIoMians and Philtmon175-n; Lindemann. 72,75;Yates.Colossians85:WollC"r216-7:Aletti . tpim DIUColossitru 268:otherwiseOlirog 23S-39n.14).E.P. Sanders."Literary Dependence." argues theIIl(lf"e elaborate hypodw:sis that Coll)5I;il ns was contrivedby someone mking pllrascs from Paul', sevenletten:butRIChapatchworlr.quilt ..h)'pothe$isisnomorecrediblethantheolder 5OUn:e-criticaltheoriesof thePentaleUoChortheSyrtllpticGot;pcls(explained.'l(l1e1yinICrmsof 38COLOSSIANS lenerswrincnataboutthesametime:Bruce.Colossians.Philemon,and Ephesiwu177).Oneit hertheoryPhilemon' sfailuretomentionTychicus (whoaccordingtoCol.4:8-9wastheprincipalmember of thepartysentby Paulto Colossae)and thefai lure of ColossianstomentionPhilemon(espe-ciallywhenit docsmentionArchippus:cf.Col.4: 17withPhm. 2)haveto beexplained.Thepuzz.leisgreaterifColossianswaswrincnlaterusing Phi lemon's data (why include a reference 10 Onesi mus butnotto Philemon?). Itcouldbeexplained.however,iftherewasarelativelybri eftimegap betweenthetwoiellers(sothatPaul'scompanionsweremoreOflessthe same).Ifinthe eventIheletters werebroughtto Colossac atthe same time. PhilemonbyOncsimus10PhilemonandhishomechurchandColossians byTychicustotheotherColossianbelievers.thatcouldbesuffici entto explainwhyeachdidnotmentionaprincipalfi guretodowi ththeolher. Ahernatively.ifPaulwasimprisonedinnottoo di stantEphesus.wecould certai nlyenvisage apersonallettertoPhilemon.wi ththehappyresultthat Onesi muswasreturnedtoPaulwithinafewdays.onlytobesentafteran intervalbacktoColossaewithTychi cus(whohadcome10Ephesusinthe meantime)butafterPhilemonhadhimself leftColossae (onbusiness). Thedataaresomewhatconfusing,andnohypothesisfitsitallwith equal comfort. Buton thewhole themost plausible solut ionisprobably that theletterwaswrittenataboutthesametimeasPhilemonbutactually composedbysomeone otherthanPaulhi mself.Wemay.forexample.en vi sagePauloUllininghismainconcernstoasecretary(Timot hy)whowas fami liarwiththebroadpatternofPaul' slener-wri tingandbeingcontentto leaveittothe secretarytofonnul atetheletterwithafair degree of license. perhapsunder theconditi onsofhi simprisonmentatthatpointable onl yto addthebri efestofpersonalconclusions(seeon4: 18).Ifso.weshould perhaps more accurately describe the theology of Colossians as thetheology of TImOlhy.or.moreaccuratelystill ,thetheology of Paul asunderstoodor interpretedby Timothy,Onthe othcrhand,if Timothydidindeedwritefor Paul atPaul's behest but also withPaul's approval of whatwas inthe event wri tten(priortoadding4: 18),thenwehavetocallthelettcr" Pauline"in thefullsense of theword, and the di stinctionbetween" Pauline" and"post Pauline" asappliedtoColossiansbecomesrelat ivelyunimportant.47 "l iterary dependence").Kiley 76.9targuesthemc:nlimitedhypolhesis of aIener contrivedusing onlyPhilippi ansandPhilemonasitssouJtt ;butthedqlendenceinthiscaseisnotof thesame dllu..; terasinthemorewidelyII!!recdexamplC:'l ofsuchusage(Ephesian01\Colossiansor Laodkeanson the basis of Col. 4: 16) andis probably bcllerexplained assorneone thinking in P:ruline fashion,or indeedasPaulthinkingsimilar but variantthoughts, AsRichards5 notes in referenceto Cicero'spractice." hSClems10havebernquiteacceptabletou,;ethe.samemataial ,theme.or argumentinmorethanone !eller,if them:ipientsweredifferen t," 47.I find thus pu..tJed t!)Wardthe same conclusion as Schweizer. C'XQSSillllS23-24 andsisters: Inahistorictext,however.ilisbettertoretaintheoriginalusage.whileDOlingthat women within these congregations would have under-stood Ihallhc: term included them: to that it wasnOlgcnder specific. 5. Some manuscriplS and addksus:' presumably because the.scribeswere accus-tomedto !he fuller title.cchoinS1: 1. but forgetfulof 01"less familial"with theregularPaulineusagc MinClIriSl.'" 6.Some prominentwitnessesadd" andthe{or our]Lordksus Christ.toaccordwiththe fullerformula,whichisanalmoStinvariable feature of the earlicr Pauline lctters(Rom.1:7:ICor. 1:3: 2 Cor. I :2: Gal.I :3; Phil.I :2: 2 Tbes. 1:2:Ptlm. 3: also Eph.I :2:I TIles.I : I is sliShlly different). 7.See,e.g..DoIy 29 )0;andIl"IOR:gcnerallyS.K.StO'olocrs. Lmu WritingInGre;:o.. Roman Iwiquity (Philadelphia:WestminsteT.1986);J. L.White,LigllJ fromA,,,dtllll...men ( Philadelphia: Fortress.1986);D.E.Aune,TheNewTt!stamtntinItsUlt!raryEm'irotll7lt!nt(Philadelphia:WeSl. minster.1987)t58-82;D.Pardee.P. E. Dion. andS.K. Stowcrs, ABO 4.282-93:P. T. O Bricn, DPI... 55G-53. 44 COLOSSIANS hadbroughtthemessage of aJewishMessiah/Christso effectivelyto Gen-tiles. Does any of this have any bearing on whether me leller was wri tt en/dic-tated byPaulhimself or by one of his close disciples/associates in his Theanswerisunclear.Aletterthatclaimedhisauthori tyandborehiS signature (4: 18) would carry greatwe ight inChristi anlionsof theregion.Andif modemscholarshipIS persuadedbydifferences of style and emphasisthatthe letter cannot havebeenby Paul himself, that stillleaves the possibility that Paul (incapacitated In poson) approvedaletterwritteninhisnameandwillinglyappendedhissignature to a documentwhose centralthrustandmainoutlinesheapproved of,even if the details werenot stated quiteashewouldhimself (seefUrlhcrp. 38in thelntroouction).Eitherway.theauthorityoftheapostlelaybehindthe letter.andthatwouldbesuffi ciellltoensure thattheletter wastreasuredby theColossiansand/orotheroftheotherchurchestowhichtheletterwas circulated (cf.4: 16). subsequentl y to be includedintheearliest colJection(s) of Paul' sletters. AsusualinthePaulineletters.adescriptivephraseisattachedtothe name itself:"an apostle of Christ Jesus."Inwiderusage thetcrm"apostle" couldbear thesense"authorizedemissary"(BAGDS.v.U1t60"tOAOC;).Thi s sensewasfamiliarinthePaulinechurches.as2Cor.8:23andPhil.2:25 makeclear:authorizedemissaryofparticularchurches.Butasalwaysin Paul's claimsforhis own apost leship,theclaimisthathiscommi ssionand authori zat ion camedirectly fromChrist Jesus. Itisas arepresentative of and spokesman for Christ Jesus.therefore, thatPaul would lay clai mto ahearing _notsimplyasspokesmanforsomeagreedtraditionorsomechurch council.AndforPaulthatmeantacommissionandauthori zationequalin weight tothat of the earliest and most prominent Christianleadership ( I Cor. 15:5- 11 :2Cor.12: 11 - 12;Gal.2:7-9).Inotherwords,theaddedphraseis notmerelyamatterof providingfulleridentificat ion,asthoughthename " Paul"wasi nsuffi cient.Itisalsoandstiltmoreaclai mtoauthorit yand respect. TheearliercrisisinGalatiahadcalledPaul' sauthorit yinqueslion andhadevidentlypersuadedhimof theneedtoassertitforcefull y(Gal. I : I ), so that inhi ssubsequentletters where a strong display of authority was necessaryhemadeapointof introducinghimselfbymeansof hi sChri st-authorizedti tle"apostle"(Rom.1:1;1Cor.I:L2Cor.1: 1).Giventhe variousparallelswi thGalat ians(seetheint roductionto2:6-4:6),however, itisnoti ceablethat,incontrasttoGalatians.thereisnohintherethatPaul felthi sapostolicauthorityto beinquestion.S 8.f"{lrbibliographyon""apotlc"secJ.A.Kirlr..'"ApostleshipsioceReng$l.orf:To .... ardsa Synthesi s. NTS 21(19747S) 249. 64; J . A.BUhner. EDN1'1.142-46; F.Agne....,"The Origin of the l'OI' Apostle. Concept:AReview of Re:;earch, "J8LlOS( 1986)7S \I6;H.D.A.BD1.309-11; 1;1 45 Thisisallthemorestrikinghcreif Paulwasnotinfactthefounder of the Colossian church. For it indicates thatPaul saw hi s authori ty as apostle extcndingmoregencrall ytoGcntil echurchcs(Rom.11 : 13;Gal.2:7,9), eventhoughanapost le'sauthorityrelatedmostdirectl ytothechurchcs he/she had founded(ICor. 9: 1-2: 2Cor.10: 13-16).Hereacomparisonwith Romansisrelevant.Forthere,too,Paulwas writingtochurchesthat hehad not founded.But inthat case hewas all 100 consciousth:l t hecoul dnot claim the authorit yofthefounder(Rom.1: 11- 12). Incontms!.inColossiansthere isno simi larsense of embarrassmcntatclaimi ngtheri ghl10ahearingthat olhcrsmi ghtquesti on.Thissuggeststhereforeasenseof personalident ifi-cation with evangeli stic andpaslor.t.iwork carried out by hi sinuncdiate circle ofassociates.whichagai nwouldhelpexplainbothhowPaulcouldbe introducedasapostleinrelationtoachurchfoundedbyoneof hi steam (Epaphras.see onI :7) andhow aletter (perhaps) written forPaulbyone of these associat.es. (Timot hy?) could qui teproperly bear his name and authoriry. InthatcaseItIStobenotedthatthetitl e"'apostle"isreservedforPaul (contrastICor.4:9:IThcs.2:6-7):onlyPaulhadthatbreadthof mandate ("apostleto the Gentiles") whichgavehim apostolicauthorityinreference toachurchnotfoundedbyhim. Thattheauthori tative andauthorizingagent thusrepresentedisnamed si mpl y."emorestronglyauestcdandmorediffi cultreadi ngisundoubtedlyl'u-tillY('"our," followed by most commenta{OI1I and Il1I nsl ations except NRSV: secMoul e. C% u h"'s mw l'hile",o" I :355 As inIhe olher Pauline [etters. the Ihemes and language of the thanksgiving are echoed inIhe rest of the letter (0 ' Brien, TlwlIksgivings,69; Mullins 29 1), from whichMuUins concludesthatthe Slructure andchamcter of thethanksgiving arePaulineandprovidenoargumentforpost- Paulineauthorshi p(against LOOse)." Hemightwellbereproducingthekindof utterance hewasaccus-tomed to make in solemn liturgica[gatherings of his churches .. . . the liturgical (or quasi-li turgi cal) utterances of a practical pastor and apost[ e" (Houlden 149). 1:3 EuXapUJ"tOUIlVlaEncupllOU xupio\)T'lIl v' I'loo\)XpIOlO\) naVlolE 1tEplUIlOOvnpooEux6JlVOI.A characteristi cfealure oftheancient artofletterwritingwasthecongratulatorythanksgi ving)InPaul.too,it followsaregularpattern:athanksgiving(EUXapIOlEiV)addressedtoGod; stressinghi s(unceasing)prayerful concernforthereaders,withthesubject of thanksgivingusuall ythefai ththeydisplay(inICorinthiansthe irri ch experience of grace rather than their fai th). The closest paral[eI here isI Thes. 1:2-3 and, perhaps significantl y, Phm. 4-5. The plural"we thank. "may impl y a conscious lydouble aUlhorship (Timothy and Paul ). si nce elsewhere inPaul thesingularismoreusual(Rom.1:8;[Cor.1 :4;Phil.1:3;Phm. 4: butnote alsoIThes.1:2and2Thes.[ :3) .8 Themostinterestingvariat ionbereistheinsenionofthephrase" the Fatherof ourLordJesusChri st."ItisaphrasethatPaulusesanumber of times - usuallyin thefonn" theGod andFather of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom.15:6;2Cor.[ :3:[ 1:3 1;al soEph.1:3,17;[Pel.1: 3).Contai nedin it isthe implicit Christian claim that God. the one God made known toIsrael. is now to be understood nolonger simply asFather of Israel, but most clearly astheFatherofJesusChrist,andonlyassuch';ourFather,"Fatherof GentilesaswellasJews(see on1:2). Moretothepoinl.hereagain,usinI :2,theremaybeadeliberate attemplto stressthe sa lesovereignt y of God althebeginning of a letter that focusessomucbonthedivinestatusofChrist(seeagai nonI :2).The significanceisaUthegreater,thegreaterweightweseeintheattachment of( "Lord") to" JesusChri st"(seealsoon2:6).Giventhedegree of heavenlymajestyanddivi neauthoritythatthattitl ecarried(particularly Rom.10: 13:ICor. 8:5-6:Phil.2:9- 11 ; see further.e.g"myRomans 607-9), itisimponant to recognize thatPaulandTi mothybeginby remindingtheir readers that God is the Father of Jesus Chri st theLord. or in the ful ler fonnula 27n.I:Pokorny44n.SO;Wolter 56).{boughNAandUBSprefer becaueofthe brtadthof f'lI"thelatter andbecause earlycopyistsmayhavebeeninfluenced byl\!J.illYand l\!J.iv inclose proximity 00 ei ther side (Metzger 6 t920: Bruce. Colo.'l$imu. Phi/u nml. (md Ephesians 40 n.7). 7.Schubenl>oI y3 1-33;sununaryinI...ohsc.CoIOilsimulJnd Philmwn12;butsu now Ant Sec alsotheintroduction10PIlm. 4- 7below. 8."Thaeisnoreason10thinkdUllSI.PauleVe!" uscsan' epiSto lary'pl ural.referringto himself (Lightfoot229 : cf. Gnilka.Ko/tseriJrie/32). 56COLOSSIANS Paulusesmoreoften.thatGodistheGodandFatherof ourLordJesus Christ.From the oulset, therefore.Pauland Timothy wish it to be understood thatthehi ghchrislologytobeenunciatedshortl yiskeptwithinthecon-srraintsof Jewishmonotheism. Godthe Fatheri s theone10whomprayer shouldproperlybeoffered(in3: 17,asinRom.1:8,thethanksgivingis directedtoGod'; throughhim/J esusChrist";Conzel mann134minksthe mediatorship of Christ is implied also here), just as heis theultimate source ("Father") of aU creation and allbeing.incl udingthedignityand authority of Jesus'Mess iahship andLordship. Theunceasingnature ofthispmycr (naVTOt,"always. atalltimes") is one of themost characteristicfeaturesofPaul'sopening assurance of his prayersforhisreaders,whetherattachedtothetUXaplcrtivC' thank"-ICor.I :4;IThes.1:2:2 Thes.I :3)or tothen:pooruX09at ("pray."asin Rom.1: 10andPhil.1:4).Phm.4, ashere,couldbetakenei therway.Paul couldhavemeantthateverytimeheprayedherememberedhisvarious churches.Perhapshemaintained theJewi sh practice of prayer three timesa day(cLDan.6: 11 ; Acts 3: I;10:3: Didache 8:3), or perhapshe usedthelong hoursof travel and of work institching toholdhis churchesbefore Goo(see al so on1:9and 4:2).Butnottoo muchshouldbemade of the language since itis anepistolary flourish characteristic of theperioo(O' Brien, Colossians. Philemon10). The use ofm:pi ("concerning") ratherthano1ttp ("on behalf of";seen.2)issufficienttoindicatethatPaulsawhisprayersnotasa substitutefortheir own prayers but asa naturalexpressionof Christian love andconcern. 1:4 axoooavte; tilv 1Il(JtlV tv XplO'ttf,l ' hlO'oi)xaJ ayun:'lv ilvfXEtde;n:avtru;tOUl;ayioW;.Thecongratulatoryelementfocusesas usualontheirfaith(Rom.I :8)andlove(IThes.1:3;2Thes.1:3;and. perhaps significantly.Phm. 5;also Eph.I : 15),That thi s isa malter of report ratherthanofpersonalknowledgeconfinnsthatPauldidnotknowthe Colossi anchurchpersonally(thoughcf.Rom.I :8);theparallelwit hPhm. 5is againworthnoting,It alsoreminds us thatnewsof hi s churcheswould reachPaulregularly along thetrade routes. even to far-off Rome,thoughin thiscaseEpaphrasseemstohavemadeaspecialpointofkeepingPaul infonned( 1:8),TobenOledalsois the degreetowhichthevertical("faith inChrist")was integratedwiththehorizontal("lovefor thesaints").Paul wouldnever havewantedthesetwotofallapart. Perhapsmorethananyotherword,"faith"sumsupthedistincti ve featureof theChristiangospelandlifefor Paul(see,e.g., G.Barth, EDNT 3.95).Rather like"grace"(see1:2),Paul' suse of"faith"dominatesNew Testamentusage(142of243occurrences).ItsdistinctivePaulineforceis most evidentinRomans 4, where hemakesunforgettably clear the character offaithassheertrustinthepowerandgraceofGod,asagai nstamore typicaltraditionalJewishemphasis onfaithfulness(see onI :2," faithful" ). 1:3-457 AndinGal.2: 16-3:26 heindicatesbyemphaticargumentthatthisfaithhas nowbeen givenits eschatological focus inChri st to become the single most detenninativecharacteristicof thenewphaseof God's savingpurposein-troducedbyChrist.WhatPaulandTimothy commendhere,therefore,is the wayin whichthe Colossians received themessage about Christ (as Abr.tham receivedthepromiseof ason,Gen.15:6;Romans4;Galatians3)and committedthemselvesintrusttotheonesoproclaimed,makingChristthe focus and determinantof theirlivesfromthenon(seeon1:2,;'in Christ"). Oneof themostinterestingdi vergencesfromnormalPaulineusage comesin the phrase n:kJt\e;EVXPIOtcp' I'looi) ("faithin Christ Jesus").For Paul never sospeaks.Normall yheusesthenounphraseinthefonnniO't1e; ' ITlooi)XP10tOi)or an equivalent (Rom.3:22,26;Gal.2: 16, 20;3:22;Phil . 3:9;seealso2:12).Sometakethisinthesense;' thefait h(fulness) of Jesus Christ," but almost cenainl y it denotes "faith in Jesus Christ" (see my"Pis/is ChrislOu"andGala/ians138-39).Healsousestheverbalform7[\OtUe\v Eie;XPUJ1:0V ' ITlO'oi)v("beli eveinChristJesus,"Gal.2:1 6;soalsoRom. 10: 14; Phil.1:29; see also 2:5).BUInowhere doesheuseEVwiththedative, ashere(Gal .3:26isnOlanexceptionsincethetwoprepositionalphrases there areindependentof each other, asisgenerally agreed).9Incontrastthe letters morefrequentl y accepted aspost-Paulineusephrasessimilar to what wehavehere in1:4 a number of limes (Eph.I: 15;I TIm. 3: 13;2 lim. 1: 13; 3: 15;alsoJ Clemem 22: I; 43: I).Herethenisanother suggestion thatwith ColossianswearealreadymovingbeyondPaul'sownusage.Thereis, however, no significant di fference in meaning (if anything, the tv fonnulation is more static), andthe thought isotherwisewhollyPauline incharacter and emphasis. The other element that drawsthe prayerful congratulationof Pauland TImothyis the Colossians' "'ove for allthe saints."Here within the compass ofshortverseswehaveathirdword(after"grace" and"faith") to ,Christiani ty,andagainPaulinparticular (75out of 116occurrences theNewTestament),gavedistinctiveweightasacarrierof oneof the andfar-reaching emphases marking out Christianityamong other religl?ns of thetime.Forof thedifferent Greekwordsfor" love,"aya1Ill washtUeusedalthe time:itappears only rarely in nonbiblicalGreek before thesecondor thirdcenturyAD(c.Spicq,TheologicalLexiconof theNew Testamem rPeabody: Hendri ckson,1994)1.8-22) and is relati velyrarein the 9, strQf\gsuppol't(e.g.,UghlfOOl131:Dibelius.Kolo.... tfr.EphtfStfr.PhiltfnlOn5; Moule49:Lohse.C%ulons and PJr.i/tf"lOll16:Bruce.ColOSsians,Philemon.and EpMsiam 41 ; Wall44-45;d. Masson90andn.2).ilisunlikelythaItv XPI Extia9f\ til xCtvta EV )((x\.En\. to.6pato.)((Xl.t o.oopa'ta,Ein:8p6vOlin:X\)Pt6"t11tEA;titEtlpXal.du: ESoootatto.1tClVt(l01'at)"l:ou)Gal.autovb:nO"'tal.That"firstborn" must denote primacy over creation, and Ilotj ustwit hin creation, isindicated bytheconjunctionlinkingthetwoverses:heis"firstbornofallcreation becauseinhimwere createdallthings(to. x6.vta). "thatis. everything, the universe, thetotality of created entiti es (seeBAGO s.v.no.; 2ad),incl uding, astheappendedphrasesmake clear, everything within thattotality,however itbe subdivided- both" intheheavens" (seeon1:5);' and ontheearth," 18.PhilopreferredtospeakoftheLogosasIIp;xallq..LU..t'!toU; XlltEVMtlOVauto'll.Thedarker thepast.themoredramati cthetransition 4.Cf. Eu:1r.: .14:5. 7. oneexpressionof a regul arwarningthaiidolalr}'lfollowi ng other gods resul l$inIsrael', eslCangemml from God. II isprecisely in this eOllleXI that we might havesomeuseofthealternativeITOelaphorofj uStiftclIlionJmakingri ghteous.sincethatmetaphor50 dominates earlierpresenlationofaJewishgospelfor Gentiles (Romans3-4;Galati ans); Philippi ans3;cr. evenEph. 2:8; 4:24). 1:2 1-22107 (seeLona99-1(0)." Butnow"(vuvl&1)isagenuinePaulinismtoexpress thiS momentof divinereversal(Rom. 3:2 1;6:22;7:6 ;11 :30;ICor.15:20; Phm.\I ; seealsoCol.3:8andEph.2: 13;Heb.9:26;seefurtherTachau). Thetheme ofcosmicreconciliationispickedupfromI :20 (withthesame verb; seeonthatverse)andpersonalized:"he (thi ssame one'inwhomall the fullness of God was pleased to dwell' )has reconciled you." Unli ke1:20, wherethemaintenanceof thepatternof "in,through,to"resultedinthe thoUghtof reconciliation"tohim"(thatis,toChrist),thelanguagehere, freedfromthepoeticconstraintsof thehymn.revertstothemoretypical Paulinethought of reconciliationthroughChri sttoGod(Rom. 5: 10: 2Cor. S: 18-20; see also Marshall125-27: Martin, Recofl ciliariofl125-26), buthere withChri stassubject(thoughseen.I).asinEph.2: 16(Findeis432-33), AsinI: 13. the aoristtense('; hasreconciled" )indicatesthedecisivenessof whathappenedonthecross,notthecompl eti onofthewholeworkof reconciliation( I :20). Thereconciliati onof Gentiles(tobealso the church) isthefirststageinthereconciliationoftheworld;notealsothe" notyet" noteimpliedinthe followi ng7tapao"tiiaCtl,whichistheobjecti veof the act ofreconciliation, asal soin1:28. Inthi selabomtionof theimageryofI :20themeansofreconciliation are explai ned, as already alluded to inthe (likely) addi tion inI :20 (" through thebloodof hi scross").Reconciliati onhappened"inthebodyof hi sfl esh through(hi s)death."Thi sisthesecondoccurrenceof o6J,.la.( " body") in theletter(afterI: 18a),thesecondof oneofthemostfascinatingkaleido-scopesof usage thatwe canimagineinakeyPauline category(seeDunn. " Body").Hereitclearl ydenotesthehumanbodyof Chri stonthecross. thoughthe" in"maybelocativeandnotmerelyinstrumental(cf.Bruce. Colossians,Philemon,andEphesians78n.181 ).denoting,thaiis,not merelythemeansofidentificationbutal sothatidentificationwithChrist whichisat the heartof Paul's" inChri st"(see onI :2) and"sufferi ng with Christ"motif (see on1:24),Themost strikingvariati onatthi spointisthe addition" of fl esh"(asinthe otherreference to Christ'sbody onthe cross. 2:11 ),resultinginaphrase(toac4tatil; oapx6;"" bodyof fl esh" )that OCCursonlyinColossiansinthePaulinecorpus. Thetwowords anda&jJ.aarecharacteristicall yPaul ine(each OCcursmorethanninetytimesinthelettersattributedtoPaul.morethan oftheNewTestamentusageof thesewords).Andtheyneverappear hnkedtogetherelsewhereinPaulsimplybecausethei rrangesof meaning overlap tosuch an extent.Thebasic di stinction is that denotesthe fact of embodiment,thataspectof human(andother)existencewhi chgivesil placeinitsworldandmakesilpossibleforembodiedentitiestointeract uponeachother (so,e.g. ,ICor.6: 1618;7:4).while isthematerial of which the body is composed inthi s worl d. It is al ways important 10trying tounderstand Paul to remember that o &J1a does not mean " physical 108COLOSSIANS body"assuch. Thus.most clearly,the distinctionhemakes inI Cor.15:44, betweenthebodyofthisage,o&jJ.o:(" naturalbody"),andthe resurrectionbody. aWj.JaltVOl"uxmc6v ("spirilUalbody"), shows thai differ-ent embodiments arenecessary for different environments. Since inHebrew anthropologydisembodiedexistencewasscarcelyconceivable,traflsfonna-tion of the "body" was simplythe means bywhich transi tion from this world (Qthenexttakesplace (cf.Phil.3:21),In contrast," flesh" remains rootedly of this world, inextricablypartofit, so that"flesh and blood"cannot inherit thekingdom(ICor.15:50).Nevertheless.si ncetheembodimentofwhi ch Paulspeaksmostfrequentlyisthatwithinthisworld.aphysical(three-dimensional)world. theindividualoWj.JainPauldoesinfactusuall y denote physicalbody.Afairdegreeof overlapbetween" body"and"flesh"is thereforeinevitable(seealso on2: I). Fromtheothersideof theoverlapbetweenthetwowordsinPaul, initsmngeof meaningqui cklygatherstoitself acharacteristi cally negative nOle. The deglee towhich belongsto and ispart of thisworld means that it shares thisworld' s weak, ephemeral character (contrast o&!J.a, 2: 17)andthatitscorruptibilityleavesitreadypreytothepowerfulentice-ments of sin(classicallyexpoundedinRom.7:7-8:3). Thi s negali vetoneis atitssharpest inPaul's bluntant ithesisbetween" flesh"and"Spirit"(Rom. 8:4-8; Gal.5: 16-1 7).:5Incontrast,o&\la assuchis characteri stically neu!rdl andonlyrarelynegati ve(Rom.8: 13isexceptional). The usage here,then.is unusualinthatthe unprecedented combination of these two terms look..al most tautologous. Almost as striking is the degree towhichthesecondtcnn, ( " flesh"), initiall yandmorefrequentlyin thisletter denotes merephysical presence or existence(l :22, 24; 2: I, 5,11), withthenegat ive notesmorecharacteristic of Paulconting onl yin2: 13,23 and3:22.though" mindof flesh"in2: 18isequall yunprecedentedinPaul (see on 2: 18 end). Why then the unusual fonnu lationhere? Clearly,in Pauline terms,wecansaythatthemoreneutraltenn"body"isbei ngqual ifiedby thetraditionallymorenegativetenn.However,thatmaymeanheresimply aheighteningofthesenseof merephysicalit y.Incontrasttoaheavenly existenceinthefonn of Wisdom(1 :15-17)andtoaidentifiedeither wi ththeuniverseasawholeorwiththechurchinparticular( I: 18a),the oGlj.lCtwithwhichChristachievedhi sact of reconciliationwasmerelythat of onesinglefrailhumanbeing." Of fl esh"ensuresthatthisocilJJ.Ctcould neverbeconfusedwiththe ofI: 18.Thenegativehere,then,would bethesharpnessoftheantithesisbetweengloriouscosmicbodyandin-dividualhumanframestretchedoutinthe agonizi nghumili tyof crucifixion (cf.thesimilarusageinIQpHab9:2;also 4QpNahl4Q1692:6="corpse, 5.Secfunher my "Jesus - Aesh and Spirit;AnE:stoli cministry(al so1 Cor.4:9- 13:2Cor.11:23-27;Gal , 6:.17).bu.t di stincti ve of it either (over against that of other Christians). Nor Indeed IS It a distinctively Pauline theme, since positive evaluation of suffering is to be found inStoic sources (such as Seneca's De Providelltia 4),asalsoincontemporary Jewish sources (e.g.,lQH 9:24-25:P,m/ms a/Solomon10: 1-2; 2 Baruch 52:6, cited in my Romam; 250). Rather, it is the response of those who recogni ze that sufferingpositively reactedto canbea maturing experience.asalso ofconvinced of the rightness of thei r cause. which conviction functions as an lOner sourceof slrengthand(Tansfonnsthesufferingsintoaconfinnati onof that ri ghtness.AtthisJX>intthelinebetweenblindfanaticismandunflinching devotion can become verythin. Here at least we can say that Paul accepted suffering on behalf of olhers Coup- areminderthatthesufferingswerenotsoughtin anything likeamasochisticspirit,butwereaccepted.indeedwelcomed,astheun-avoidable consequence of the all-imJX>rtant objecti ve of preaching the Whatthesufferi ngsinviewheremighthaveinvolvedisdocumentedIn 2Cor.11 :23-28. Paul's theology of suffering. however,was stillricher.For Paulsuffer-ingmeanlsufferingwithChrist,sharingChrist' ssufferings(.Ro".'.8: 17: 2Cor.1:5;4: I 0- 11 ;Phil.3: 10-11).It isclearl ythisthemewhichIS laken furtherhereinthesurpri singsentence," Ifi llupwhatislackingofthe afflicti ons of theChristinmynesh." Thewordshavecaused bewi lderment to generations of translators6 andcommentators.7 But infact theyare simply 6.NEB:" Thi sismywayof helping 10 complete,inmypoorhumanfl esh.me full of Chri st' safflictionsst illtobeenduml ";REB:" 1 amcomplelingwhatSlillremaillllforChristto suITerinmyownperson"';NJ B:"inmyownbody 10makeup al l thehardship!llhatstillhavew beundergoneby Chrisl ".. 7.The one thingonwhichmoSIare clearisthattherecan be no Ihoughthereof Christs 1:2411 5 theextension of Paul'scomplete eschatologicalschema.It contains several elements:( I) Christ'ssufferingsanddeathasthe eschatological tribulation astheantecedenttothenewage - Paul'sadaptation.renecled particularlyinRom.8: 18-23, of anolder Jewish Iheme;8(2) participationin (hedeathof Christasitself(hemeansoftransitionfromoldagetonew (Rom.6:3- 11 ; 8: 18-23prefacedby8: 17:2 Cor.4: 10-12leadinginto4: 16-5:5:Phil.3: 10- 11 ;Heb.2:9- 10offersadifferentmodelwithequivalent effect):and,consequently,(3)Christianexistenceasalifelongprocessin whichdying withChrist leads toa shareof his finalresurrection(Rom.6:5; Gal.2: 19:6: 14 - sti llnailedtothecrosswithChrist[notetheperfect tenses):Rom. 6:5: 8: 11 , 23;Phil. 3: II- resurrection stillfuture: see further myJesus326-38). Col.1:24isdearly bui ldingonthistheme.9 Inparticular, thethought thatPaul'ssharinginChrist'sdeathwasessentialtothewe ll -beingofhis convensisalreadypresentin2Cor.4: 10-12.Tobesure,theschemais modifiedinColossians in thethought thatresurrection withChrist is already paSI(seeon2: 12).Ontheotherhand,theretentionoratleastechoofthe tit ular forceof Christ(" theChrist")reinforcesthe Jewish character of the schema(sowecanspeak already of"the messianic woes"; see G.Bertram, TDNT9:671-72). But Paulhere hasalso made a unique addition (0the theme byaddi ngthe(implied)thoughtthatChri st'safflictionslacksomething (i>o-tiprllla," lack. deficiency")IOandneedtobecompletedinPaul 'sflesh vkariOU$sufferings beinginadequate or insufficienL 001leastsincePaulnever calls Christ'ssuffer-ings"arnielions"(seepanicularlydiscussininSchweizer.Colossians101-3;Aleni.[pit" alU" Colassitns134-36).Almost ismeviewthatthecaccgoryof "mysticalunionwith Christ"isinappropnace,particularlysinceitleavesunexplainedtlx:"IackinChri St'Safniclions'" panicularl y Lohmeyer 71-78).For exegeti calalternatives seeKremer 174-95; Gnilka, Kolos.er-brie/95_96: OBrien.C% ssi(Jfl s.Philemon77-78:andPokorny96--99:andfor IIx:earlierhistory ofimerpretldion!>CCKremer5-152. 8.Dan.7:21-22.25-27;12:1-3; Jubiltes 23:22-31;IQH3:28-36;TestamemIII Mosts 5- 10: MaiL 3: II!Luke 3: 16 (drawing on tsa. 30:27-28): Mark10:38: AdS 14:22. Sec furtbe rSt r-B 4.977-86. 9.Cf. Kolosser.Ephes"r,PhiltmQn22-23;Best130-36:Mouie,CoiossitllUand Philtnwn76-79;Kamiah." W'tcbeuneillPaulus seil\ Bauckh:un; O Brien.CoIoJsitlllS. Philtmotl78-80.MLightfOOl163noIed,..'the amiction!;... which QuiSI endured'... !>CCms10 betheonlynaturnlinterpretationof thewords:' Schweizer.Colossians1{I4,however.miststhis wholetrainof Ihoughtwhenheinsiststhat"one canunderstand' Christ's amiclions'onlyasthe SUfferi ngsenduredinthecommonityforthesakeofChrisLor'inChrisI'": similarlyA.Wiken-hauser.Pau/intMysticism.' ChristInlhtMyslical 1eoching0/5tPaul(Frdburg:Herder.1960) 1.59..62.ThemlXifisonlypanially graspedalso by Gnilka.KO/O'IJerbri ../98(alsoThtologie340). :okomy99-100.Thusthelaner:" TIleapostlestruggles andsuffersinorderthatpeoplemay rtahu' thwtheirsalvationinChriSI isalreadycomple!ed.. .. WhatissliIl' lacking'isthe. lIpp! opriac ionof thealready oompleleSIIlvation." 10. The fact that OOtt9l11aalso a Gnostic technicallenn e.g ..Colossian.< tlIId Philtmon79) simplyundt:rlinesthedanger of readingtheoutlinesofHtlleColossillllheresy" back fromti1e5etwer sources.sinceic i!\'eryhanlw conceive whatuoe the"(alse leaching"would havebeenmaking 0( tbc concqx 10 whichPaulwouldtheobem;ponding. 11 6 COLOSSIANS (nvtClvct1tA.T]pcil.literally" fi llup inplace of'-: cr. the similar phrase inI Cor. 16: 17andPhil.2:30:seeAbbott229-30:Lohse,Colossiallsalld Philemon 71n.25).Thisagai nispanJyareflectionofthecosmicscopeofthe reconciliat ionenvisagedand of Paul's awareness that it isnot yet complete; therefore the decisivesufferi ngs of the Christ cannot yetbecompl ete.Fore-shadowedistheapocal ypticthoughtthatthereisanappoi medsumof sufferingthat must beenduredin order to trigger (as itwere) the finaJevents of history(Rev.6:9- 11 ; 4Ezra 4:33-43):11the thoughtthenisthat thedeath of Chrislhas(asitwere)activatedthefirs t trigger,but thosesufferingsare notyet complete,otherwisethesecondandfi naltriggerwouldhavebeen activatedtoo. Centraltothisfun herthoughtistheclaimthattheseremaini ng affli ctionsarebeingexperiencedbyPaulhimself("'i nmyfl esh").12 The clai misnot megalomanic, as though Paul thoughthe couldsupplement the workof di vine Wisdom-Christ's actof cosmi creconciliati on("atheologi call yuntenabl eglorifi cati onoftheapostlebyoneof hisfoll owers,"ac cordingtoH.Hiibner,EDNT3. II 0;si milarl yLOwe313;NielsenI I J - 14; Beker,Heir:,' 68;Roloff22526).Itisratherthemoststrikingexpression of aconvicti onwhi chPaulseemstohavehadfromthebeginningof his apostoli cmi nistry,namelythathismissionwastofulfillor completethat oftheServantof Yahweh,thatis, also of thesufferingServant of deutero-Isaiah.13Thisunderl inesintumthedegreetowhichPaulunderstoodhis apostl eshipineschatologicaltermsas the last act on thestage of thisworl d before(aswe wouldsay) the fmal curtain (particularl yICor. 4:9).14It was becausePaulsawhimselfasamajoractorinthefinaldramaofGod's reconci lingpurposethathecoul dalsoseehisalltoorealsufferingsas somehowbringingtocompleti onwhatwassti lloutstandingofthesuffer-t t. SeefunherR. Sluhlmann.DmMassim (FRLANT ])2; GiIIlingen:Vandcnboeck.1983).here 99-101;olherwiseNielsen112. 12,Not" theafflictionsof Chriscinmynesh"HlouldenISO).whichwouldrequirelOU XpIO'tOUt OO tvtfI oapxi ).10\1.Rcmingtonalsoinsist!;onlh=impoWJ,Lan naprov BEtcJ>1tVtUllan),there we see a much stronger assertion of a powerful " spi ritualpresence"( ICor.5:4).Nevertheless,theparalleldoesraisethe question whether the claim was intended to be understood as something more than the weak modem convenlional" Iwillbe with you in spirit"(so Gni lka. KolOJserbriej 114:" a rhetori calflouri shlfloskelhaftell AlIs::mgef'),9 thatis, whether Paul did notinfactthinkof bei ngsomehow reallypresentwiththe Colossians,inthespiritualrealmbymeansof theSpirit(seemyJesus73; so alsoFee 646; cf.O' Brien. C%ssialls, Phi/emOIl98; Wall102).In neither case is there any suggestion that the JtVulm is the real pen;on (escalXdfrom thebody):rather,thattheonlymeansof communionwiththeColossians wasinthe realm of the Spirit(hence a degree of ambi guitybetween human spiritanddivineSpirit).l0 Attheveryleasttheclaimrencetstheintensity of Paul' sprayersfor theColossians ( I :3, 9) andpresumablyimpliesamore effecti vepresencethansimpl ytheleiter itself provided. The implication that Paulcan actuall y see the state of affairs at Colossae ( "rejoicingandseeingyourgoodorder. . . ") is,of course,intendedmore as an expressionofwhathewouldhope to see were itpossible. Thenote of rejoicingechoesthethemeof thanksgivingwi thwhichthelelleropened ( I :3-8).WhatPaulsees(wouldliketosee)isthe"good orderand flfnmessof their faith . The former denotes an"arrangement." somethingsetinorderly fashion (hencetheEngl ish"taxonomy,"principles of classification):hencetheonlyotherPauli neuse,1 Cor.14:40. Thelaller tenn. on:pEWila. means basicall y"what is made firm or thi ck," hence'; basis. foundation, or solid body. "LXXusage islargel yinfluencedbytheGenesis 1 accountof creation.whereittranslates;;finnamen, "(raqia'=thesolid vaultofheaven;seefurtherG.Bertram,TDNT7.609- 11).Buttheless 9. For (-,ontemporary uamples see G.Karlson." Formelhaticsin denPaul usb.\.'fen." I:.' m/lOs S4( 19S6)13841. 10.Cf.Masson119.l..ollse.CO/WSiOfUlind 83;Schweizer.Cc/ouions119-20: Dibeli lls.K"I"sur. 26: andPokorny108thi nksi mplyof[heHol y Spirit. 2:4-5135 specificuseof"finn ness"issuffi cientlyindicatedbythe cognatesinAcLItptnClteiu:here.then,is equivalenttothempl1tcxtEi'tEof Gal.5: 16(pacePokornyIll). This combination of "receiving tmdition of Christ Jesus as Lord" and"walk-inginhim 'j is thus a neat summary of the mutualcheck andbalance between outwardguideline andinwardmotivationwhich was a feature of the Pauline ethic(asinGal.5:25-6:2). ..The other strandof the preaching/teaching all udedtohereis probably Imdil10n about Jesus' ownministryandleaching. summedupinthephrase " the Chris!." Thepointis much less clear andmore disputed.6But theecho ofthetit ularusage(" theChri st"- Moule,Colossiansand Philemon89; N.Turner. GNTG3. 167) probablyatleastincludes a reminder to the Colos-sians that this Jesus wasftrst andforemost Jewish Messiah. For this to make sense toGentiles inAsia Minor,andnotforgettingthelikelihoodof a large Jewish colonyinColossae(seepp. 21f. intheIntroducti on),itwouldhave beennecessaryfor someinformationtobegivenaboutthisJesus andhis ministryintheJewishhomeland.BecausePaulmakessofewexplicitref-erences to the Jesus tradition thatitis generall y arguedthat he hadno interest inthelifeandministryof Jesus,apartfromhi s deathandresurrection. But suchahypothesismakesli ttlesenseof whatweknowof thesociologyof ) 6. Though!;etl partkularly O. CUllmann,.. Tl1!dil ion.' TM Eorly Churrh (London: SCM. 1956)59 75:C.H.Dodd. Xpunov,"NewTt:slamenlSrudiu UniversilY.1968)134-48. 2:6-7141 w movements.It is scarcely credible. in other words,Ihata newmovement ne uldbegatheredrounda single name without a story being told(Qidentify :t nameandexplainitssignificance andthus to providefoundation (note themetaphorusedin2:7)andidentityforthemovementitself.Andto Gentilesli vi nginAsiaMinor,butawareof Judaism andperhaps attf""dcted toitspractices(cf.particularly2: 16),thatstorymusthaveincludedafair amount about Jesus' life andministry(which hadtakenplace less thanthirt y yearsearli er) a.nd. notjust t.hefact. of his deathandresurrection. Thisa pnon specUlationISsuffiCientl y confirmedby (I) referencesto traditionsbeingpassedon aspartof theprocessof found inga newchurch, whichclearlyinclude ethi caltraditi ons (particularlyI Thes.4: I and2 Thes. 3:6), (2)indications of the importance of therole of teachersinthe earli est Christiancommunities(Acts13: I;I Cor.12:28: Gal.6:6 - surel y not sim-plyrepeatingthe bare account of Jesus' death and resurrecti on; seealso 2:7), and(3)all usionstotheteaching andexampleof Jesus(e.g.,Rom.12: 14; 13:9;14: 14;15: 15; Gal.5: 14: 6:2;hereCol.2:22).1Herewemightsimply notethatfortraditionsofJesusas(the)Christtoprovideanykindof guidelinesfortheColossians'"walk,"theymustatleasthaveincluded illustrationsof whatJesussaidanddid - the" inhim,"inotherwords, includingrelationshiptotheearthly Christ aswellastotheheavenlyLord (see also on1:2).8By includingsomanyof these traditionsintheir Gospels theSynopticevangelistslatersimplyformali zedwhatmusthavebeenan alreadylong-standingpracticeinchurchfoundingandcatechelicalforma-tion. 2:7xaltv CXUtxallklkuoUIlvOI T!i nlo'tEtxa6COiW cpt .... ,oIlocnJ..tt ..xa.\ 1hqJ.6vor;. 170 COLOSSIANS death.anda wiping out of the record of transgressionanddestruction record.Butthefinaloneisboldestof all :a stri ppingoff of therulers authori tiesasdiscardedrags,puttingthemtopublic shameandtriu, over them inhim. Thi s isapieceof theological audacityof the same asdCUI cro- lsaiah's proclamationof theGod of a small . devastated the one andonl y God. Totreat the crossasa moment of triumph wasabout as huge a of nonnal values as couldbeimagined, sincecrucifixi onwasjOs' asthemostshamefulof demhs(M.Hengel.CrucifIXionfLoodon: in thisletter it issimpl y of apiece with the theological of seemg In a man, Jesus theChrist, the sumandembodiment of the wisdom by whichtheworldwas created and issustai ned ( I :15-20). The canonlybetorecognizethatforPaul, forthefi rstChri stians thecrossandresurrectionof Christitself constiwtedsuchaturning down of aJlthat hadpreviously determined or been thoughtto detennine life that onlysuch imagery coul d sufficeto express itssignificance.Thepowersandinvisible forcesthatdominatedanddeterminedso much of life neednolongerbefeared.A greaterpowerandforcewasatwork,whicb couldrule anddetennine their li vesmore effectively _ina word"Christ." Triumphindeed! Bewarethe ClaimsThat There AreMoreImportant Practices andExperiences(2:1619) 17 1 16Therefore do not let anyone pass judgmenron you over food and drink or in the marreroffestival, new moon, or sabbaths.17These things are a slw.dow of whatwastocome,buttherealitybeLongstotheChrist'!18Leinoone disqualify you,takingpleasureinhumilityand theworshipof theange/s,2 which things] he had seenon entering,2made arrogant without cause by his mindofflesh,19and not holdingtothehead, fromwhom"thewholebody. supported and held together by joints and ligaments,growswiththe growth of God. 2:16 ).11'\ U)l(l(; XPlVtrotvPPWolXo.\ev11:6011\tv lJ.pn1\ Vo}.lnvioo;1\ Havingbuiltuptosuchanimpressivecli max regarding(hesignificanceof Christ's death,PaulandTImothyproceedto drawouttheimmediatecorollary(oilv).Clearlywhatisenvisagedisa situationwherethe Colossianbelieverswerebeing (or mightbe) criticized for their conduct in respectof di etary rul esand festival days. Equally clearly the line of reply isthat a proper understanding of the significance of Christ's deathwouldrendersuchcriticismunnecessary,irrelevant.orwrong.By implication thosewhomadesuch criticism were themselvesfailingto grasp thesignificance of the cross. Canwebe more specific?Tv;couldbe unspecific.asin2:8.Butwith thepresentimperativehereandthe foll owingmoredetailedindications of the issues over which the "someone" was likely to level criticism (2: 16.18), the readerswere probably being told"you know who." That is 10 say,reports to PaulfromColossaehadgivena clear enoughideaof wherethe (likely) troublewascomingfrom.Here againthedetailswhichfoll owpointwith greatest consistencyto anessentiallyJewish teaching.s It ispresumablynotamatter of coincidencethaithefirstissuemen-I.Moir mllkestheunnecessary andimplausible suggeslion thai v.17b should be attoched!O Y. 18:'" Butleinoonedepriveldefrnud youof ... thebody of Chris1. ' 2.Gnilka.KoIosurbriQ" 144 (accidentall y?) orru1.5the firslphrase ("' the worship of angels "J andMasson130thesecond("whichthingshehadseenonentaing"; cf.MOIlle.Cow.UUI1Uand Pltikmon1(6).whichratherl, keSCooze1mann'Sopeningcomment- this5CCIi0llcannolbe tnlnslated"( 146) - 100literally! 3. The moreweakly attestedreading adds"not'" (" things 1101 secn"), probablyindicative of SOmcconfusionon thepan of scribesastowhether"things seen"wasitsel f aclaimthatought10 bedisputed(Metzger 623). Onfurther emendalions andattemptS10makesense of tl'fla2Uwoisee Moule.CoiomOlU and105-6;Bruce,CoIoJSiQIIs,Pllikmon, and EpMSUlIIS120n.130. 4.TheGreekhasmasculineherenltherthanreminine(whichwouldbe inagreementwith "'he-'''j, presumablybecausetheidentificationof theheadasChrislis takenfor granted. 5.AsrecognitedbyDupont49()..9 L. "Everythinghen[ch.21callstomindJudaism" (Lyonnet.'" AdVU5aries"148; see alsohis"S-int PauletIeJOOSlicisme'). 172COLOSSIANS overwhichthe;' someone"mighttaketheaddresseestotaskisthe question offood anddrink. The useof theverb xplVro("criticise" inNJB "condemn"inNRSV)al soindicatesclearl yenoughthaIwhatwould underattackwasfailuretoobservecertaindietaryrules.801hfeatures81 once suggest the importance whichtraditi onal Judai sm laid on the food laws andthefi ercenesswithwhichtraditionalJewsinsi stedonmaintenanceof their practice asa vi taltest case of Jewishidentityandfaithfulnessto God', covenantwithIsrael.AItherootof thisconcernweretheimportantrule. regardingcleananduncl eanfoodinLev.11:123 andDeul.14:3-2 1.These hadbeengivenamuchheightenedsignificancebytheMaccabcancri sis, :-vhere resistance on(hisissuewasone ofthernake-or-breakpoints."Many In Israel stood finn and were resolvedin their hearts nOI to ealunclean food. Theychosetodi eratherthantobedefiledbyfoodortoprofanetheholy covenant; andthey did di e" (IMacc.I :62-63).Thereafter observance of the foodlawswas counted afundamental mark of loyally tonation and religion, aswemayseeinpopularJewishtalesof thetime.inwhichtheheroesor heroinesarepresentedasmodels of pietyacknowledgedbyGodprecisely in tenns of their refusaltocatthefoodof Gentiles (Dan.1:3- 16:10:3; Tob. 1:10- 12; Jdt.12:2.19;Add. Est.14 : 17; Joseph and Asenarh7: 1;8:5).Such Jewi shscrupleswerewellknownintheancientworld(see,e.g.,GlAJJ 63,196, 258,28 1,301).Further factorsaffectingJewisheatingwerethe kosher lawsrequiri ngthaI theblood beproperlydrainedfroman animalfit forfood(e. g.,Lev.7:26-27;Deul.12:16,23-24)6andthefearpromi nent amongdiasporaJewsofeatingmeatfromanimalssacrificedinGentile temples,whichwascontaminatedbyidolatry(see,e.,s ..Schiirer 2.8 1-83). Inshon,observanceof vari ousrestrictionsonfoodwas essential to Jewish identityandtoaJewishway of lifeinthedi aspora. Theimportance of suchconcernsisequall yclear inthe historyofthe earliestChristianmission.AccordingtoAclSitwaspreciselyatthispoint thatthebamerhadtobebrokendowninthecaseofCorneli us.Peter 's response tothe vision in Joppa speaks for itself: " No, Lord!for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean" (Acts10: 14). And the s ubsequent point of cri ticism leveled against himis thathehad eaten with uncircumcised men(ActsII :3). SoalsoinGalatians,evenafter and despite theagreement thatGentilebelieversneednO{becircumcised(Gal .2: 1-1O),theissueof what onecouldeat withwhom resultedinamuchmore damaging confron-tationandsplit(Gal.2: 11 - 14). InICorinthi ans theissueoffoodofferedto idols betrays the same essentiall y Jewish fear of idolatry ( I Corinthians 8-10, where ppCixnC; appears at 8:4). And inRomans Paul feltit necessary to devote themajor part of hisparenesistotheproblemof how local churches could 6.1OM:phus./tntiqllinu 14.261indicale5 thaI pro"bion fordittary observances wouldrequire pennission. 2: 16173 liveinmutualrespectwherethereweredifferenlattilUdestoandpractice regardingcleananduncleanfood. I!istruethatrestrictionsondietwerenotconfinedtoJewsinthe ancientworld(see,e.g.,Wolter14 1-42).Butitisclearfromtheveryuse of thewords"c1ean"and" unclean"(Rom.14:20.14)thatitwasJewish sensibi litieswhichwereprimarilyinviewinRomans14,since thelaner tentlinparticularis di stinctivel yJewis h (see furthermyRomans 799-801,818- 19).Andthough drinkwasnotsuchanissueas cleanversus uncleanfood.itwasqui tenaturalforscrupulousJews(panicularl yinthe diaspora)toexerciserestraintthereaswellbecauseof thepossibilityof being given wine which had been offeredinlibationtothe gods andwhich wastherefore also contaminatedbyidol atry(Dan.1:3-16:10:3; Add. Est. 14: 17;JosephandAsetwth8:5;Mishnah'AbodahZarah2:3;5:2).7In Testament of ReubenI: 10 and Testomemof Judah15:4avoidance of wine andmeatisanexpressionofrepentance .OfthedevoutChristianJew James,thebrotherof Jesus.itwassaidthat" hedranknowi neor strong drink,nordidheealmeat "(Eusebius,HistoriaEcclesiastica2.23. 5). HencePaul' sexpressedwillingnessneithertoealmeatnortodrinkwine ifitwouldhel pthescrupulousJewi shbrother10maintainhisintegrity (Rom.14:21). In the present case, the signifi cant factor is the closeness of the parallel toRomans14.Therenotonl yand7t60"lC;areusedasone of the variant ways of posingthe issueof Chri sl"ianJewi shsensiti vi ties over food anddrink (14: 17, theonlyotherPauli neuse of thelatter teon).There,too, ashere. the question of (feast) daysisboundupwith that of foodand drink (Rom.14:5-6).Morenoteworthystillistheuse oftheverbxpivw.asin Rom.14:3-4.where it clearly indicates thetendency of themore scrupulous pass judgmenton otherswhodo notlive accordingtotheir scruples(cf. liSuseelsewhere,e.g.,Rom.2: 1.3,12;ICor.5:3:2TIles.2:12).Those whoinsist onamorerestricted lifestyleforthemselvesdo so becausethey thinkitanessentialexpress ionofthei rbeliefandidentityasbelievers. TheyobservebecausetheythinkGodrequiressuchobservance.That convictionwillinevitablyresultinthemcritici zingorevencondemning those who claimthe samefundamenlal faithloyaltybut who practi cea less restrictedlifestyle.If Godrequiresobservance,thenhedi sapprovesof nonobservance,andthosewhoignoreGod'srequirementsaretobe con-demnedandavoided,despitetheirclaimtothesamefundamentalfaith. wasthelogicof the devoutJewis htraditionalist.includingthetradi-1J 0naii stChri stianJew.Itisthisatti tudewhichismostprobablyinview here, j udged10bemore dangerousthantheequivalentattitudecriliquedin 7. As Wink notes. the Esscnes regarded drink as ITI()f"esusceplible to contamination than food (NQlllillS80 n.9 1). 174COLOSSIANS Romans14bUIrequi ringlessforcefulresponsethaninGalatians, sumablybecausethecircumstancesineachcaseweredifferent. Inshort.the fi rst item of the particularities envisagedhere points fairly fi nnlytoan essentiall y Jewish factionin Colossae who were deeply critiell of GentileChristianfailuretoobselVetheJewishfoodlaws.Fromthiswe maymakeafurtherdeduction:thattheyshouldbethuscriticalisequally indicati veof thefactthmtheGentilebelieversinColossaemusthavere.-gardedthemselvesasheirsof Israel'sinheritance.ineffectpartofanCJ:-panding Judaism(see also on1:2and12. andtheintroduclion tothe com. mentsonI :9 14).Onlyifsuchclaimswerebeingmade.onlyi fGentiles wereassumingidentitymarkerswhich Jewshadalwaysunderstoodasdis. lincli velytheirs,wouldJews.whootherwiseli ved(forthemostpan)ia mutualrespect withtheirGenti le fellowcitizens, havefoundit necessaryto beso criticaland condemnatory. The criticism here is that of the traditionalist devoutJewagainst would-beFellowreli gionistswhose claims hecouldnot reall y orfu lly accept. Thealreadystrongimpli cation thattheColossian"philosophy"was basicallyJewish in characteris further strengthenedbythe other items over whichtheColossianbelieversmightbecriticized or condemnedandwhich ' wemaylikewi sededucewerecentraltothe Colossian"philosophy" :" in thematter of [see SAGDS. v.Ic] a festivalor newmoonor sabbath." Thefirst of thesethreeterms." festival "(topn\). isunspecific: such feasts. festivals, andholidayswere commontoallsocieties(LSJs.v.). andthough elsewhereintheNewTestamentthe"feast"inquestionisoneofthe tmditionalJewishfeasts(PassoverorTabernacles),tt-etermitselfOCCUR onlyhereinthePauli necorpus.Thesecondterm(VEoJ.1TJvia)isequally imprecise: thenew moon wasreckonedtohave a religious significance and celebratedaccordingl yinmostancientsocieties,thoughhereagainthat included the Jewish cult(e.g .Num.10: 10: 2Kgs.4:23; Ps.8 1:3;Isa,1:13; Ezek. 46;3,6; see further G, Delling, TDNT 4:639-41). However.theissueisputbeyonddoubtbythethirdelement ,the sabbath." The sabbathwas another Jewi sh lradition which marked. out Jews asdistinctivefromGentiles,another essentialmarkof Jewishidentityand covenantbelonging (Exod. 31: 16- 17: Deut. 5: 15:Isa.56:6). Evenbefore the Maccabcancri sis." violatingthe sabbath"wasranked.wi th"eatingunclean food"asoneofthetwochiefmarksofcovenantdi sloyalt y(Josephus. AntiquitiesII :346).AnditsincreasingimportanceforJudaism isindicated by thedeveloping sabbathlaw. as auested bothwithinotherJewish groups of thetime (Jubilees 2: 17-33;50:6- 13; CD10: 14-11 : 18) and bythe Gospels (Mark2:23- 3: 5pars.).Characteri sticall y Jewish alsoisthepracticeofre-ferring to the"sabbath"intheplural."t ashere (Lightfoot192; SAGDs.v.Ibj3).Itistruethatthemostunusualpracticeof maintaining one dayinseven as a day of rest proved. attractive to sympathetic 2: 16175 Gentiles(Philo,DevitaMosis2:21; Josephus,Contra Apiollem2:282; Ju-venal , Sotirae14:96). but a critical or judgmentalattitude onthe subject, as here. ismuch morelikely to express a tradi tionalJewish attitude,defensive of identity andcovenant distinctiveness. Butif sabbathissoclearlyadistincti velyJewishfestival,thenthe probability isthatthe" festival "and"newmoon"alsorefer tothe Jewish versions of these celebrations. The point is putbeyond dispute when we note thatthethree terms together. ' sabbaths. newmoons, andfeasts. "wasin fact a regularJewish wayof speakingofthemainfestivalsof Jewishreligion ( IChron.23; 31;2Chron.2:3;31:3;Neh.10:33:lsa.1: 13- 14;IMacc. 10:34; Ezek. 45: 17,andHos.2: I Iin reverseorder. ashere; see,e.g.,Sap-pington163;A1etti,EpirreauxColossiens193n.112).Inviewoflater di scussionweshouldalsonotethattheEssenesclaimedtohavereceived special revelation regarding " the holysabbaths andglori ous feasts" and also the newmoon(CD 3: 14- 15:IQS9;26-10:8).We must conclude. therefore, thatalltheelementsinthisversebeara characteri sticallyanddistinctively Jewish color.that thosewho cherishedthemso critically musthavebeenthe (orsome)JewsofColossae,andthattheircriticismarosefromJewish suspicion of Gentiles making what theywould regard as unacceptable claims to thedistinctiveJewishheritagewithoUitaking onallthatwasmost dis-tinctiveof thatheritage.s Thatcircumcisionisnotalsomenti onedispuzzling,buttheissue clearlylayinthebackground.andthesilenceheremaybesuffi ciently explained if the Jewish posture overallwas more apologetic than evangelistic (see on2; I I). Incontrastto thosewho thi nk theabsence of anymention of the lawis a decisive impediment to identifying the Colossian phil osophy too closelywithatraditionalJudaism(soLohse.ColossiallSandPhilemon 11 5 16 n.II ; Martin, Colossiansand Philemon91), itshouldbenotedthat circumcision,foodlaws,andsabbathwererecognizedbybothJewand Gentile asthemost distincti ve featuresof theJewishwayof lifebasedon thelaw(cf.,e.g.,Justin,Dialogue8:4;seealsop.33n.39above).9And thosewhothinktheLinkwi th" theelementalforces"likewisediminishes the casefor seeingtraditionalJewi sh concerns herelo need simplyrecallthe samelinkinGal.4:9-10. 8.Themorethisconcernforobservanceof daysislinked10a lj feslyledC"lenninedby reference 10the"elementalforces " (2:8, 20; so Lohse, and Philemon11 the closer theparal lelwilhGat. 4:9-10. 9.cr. Houlden193:"TheseareJewsteachingStnelobedjence 10thejewishlaw(vv.16. 21,23)";Caird197:"'Thi 5ascclicismistheproduCIofanexagaeTlltedandpuritanicalformof Judaism"' : Wright.Colossians ond PhilettWII26:' "The regulaliOIl5referredwin 2: 16li t the k wish law andnothing else"; Schenk." Kolosserbrier ' I. 10.Lohmeyer122 n.2; O.mzelmann146; Emsl, PhiUpper.Philemon,Kolosser,Ephe.rer208; Gni lka,Kolcsserbritj 146. 176 COLOSSIANS 2:17atonv oxuxtfuvIJell.6vtrov, tolit.Ow,...CltOU XPUltou. responsetosuchJewishcrit icismisbrief andtoSuch .''','', arebul"a shadowof thi ngstocome,butthereali ty1!\withChnst. languageisultimatelyPlatonic,buthereisprobabl ythe. lenisti cJudaismwhichwefindmostclearl yexpressedTnPhilo.Basic Plato'sview of reaJi ty wasthe distinction between the theearthl ycopy.thefonnerbeingthetruereality.thelaner,evenin physicalobjectivity.onl ya"shadow"ofthe. idea(l)ormakesafairuse of thelenn"shadow" (0')(U1)In anumber of vanauons thisPl atonicdistinction(e.g ..LeglUlIaflegoriae3. 100-103;De 27;De Abrahamo119-20), Most significantis the fact that heselS againstOWf.tClasthenameoveragainstthaiwhi chitrepresents (Dedecalogo82),orascopytoarchetype(ixpIEWn:Ol;,De."". Abrahami12),oragain:" theletteristotheoracleastheshadowto... substance (cnnnc; tiVar; ooavt:t 0Wflcnoov)and thehigher val ues therein .. whalreally and truly exist " (De confusionefillguarum190. LCL seealsoS.Schul z.TDNT7.396;Lohse.ColossiansandPhilemon Gnilka,Ko/psserbriej 147). Thecontrdstintendedhereis evidentl y along similarli nes,1lbut twO importantmodifications.TheflIStissignaledbyt Wv1lU.6\1tro\! ...thi ngs to come"(for thisuse of theparticipleBA?O s.v IliUm 2). ThiI nodoubtisareOeclion of Jewisheschatology.Inwhi chthelongedfornew agecanbedescribedas6a trov"theageto come"(asinlsa.9:6 LXXv. l. : Matt.12:32;Eph.I :2 1).By theaddition of thisphrase, anesseftoo tiall ystaticPlatoni cdualism(betweenheavenandearth)hasbeen fonnedintoanexpressionofJewisheschatologicalhope.TheparallelisinHebrews,wherepreciselythesameamalgamofcosmology and Jewish eschatology has been carried through most effectJVely. SomostnoticeablyinHeb.10: I:" Forthelawhasashadowof thegood thingstocomeinsteadof the(true)formof thesethings(muttvt6>v A.6VtWVaya80.11:0""[&votOtXElcOV""[au x6o"j.lou, ,( cilIi EVx6aJJq> For thefrrstti meanote of appealseems to enter (as distinctfroma warning or instruction). Andfor thefirsttime the suggesti onismadethat(many/some?of)theColossianGentilebelieven werefinding,orbeginningtofind,theteachingoftheColossianJewS attractive andwere(indanger of)being drawnintotheirpractices.Hooker 123, however,maybe rightintranslating"Why submit?"mther than"Why doyousubmit?"sothattheclauseissti llawarningagai nstapossibility ratherthananaccusation inreferencetoalreadyadoptedpractices.Ei ther I. Anaturalimpulse IIJllOng later wime5Seswas toadd a conjunctionto smooth thelink wilb 2: 19:" If yoo died .. . " 2. 1lle " and"inserted here byKA C0and others disrupts whatwould Olhcrwisebe. ctoee echoof thesamecombi nation(worshi p . ndhumil ity)in2: 111.Itdlouldprobablybeomi tted. thererore.withp"6'Band others,50 thllthethirditemofthelisl ("severe oftht;body'") be construction of Rom. 7:6 ismoreawkward.Herethereferenceis to"theelementalforcesof theworld"(seeon2:8; thoughWink.Naming 76-77, surprisingly argues thatin 2:20 otOlxElahasa quite different sense). Theimplicationisalsoclear.Thesearethepowersandauthori tieswhich wereso decisively routedOn thecross (2: 15).They therefore haveno more authorityover those"inChrist. " The conclusionis equally clear: there is no need to live any longer" in theworld."Thatcan hardl ymeanthattheColossian Christiansshouldtry toli veas thoughphysically abstractedor cuioff fromtheworl d (cf.ICor. 5:10);believersareasmuchstill"intheworld"inthaisenseastheyare still"inthe flesh."IImustmean that theyarenolongertoliveunderthe authorityof" theelementalforces"whichrule" theworld,"livingLives determinedbyreferencetotheseforces(cf.Lohmeyer127;Lindemann, Kolosserbrie! 50;Wolter151),livingasthoughtheworlditself wasulti mately detennined bysuch factors,asthough the valuesandconduct which theystoodforwerewhatrerulycountedindailylife)The deathof Christ spelledtheend of allsuch systems;hisdeathandresurrectionprovidedthe keyinsightintotherealityof theworl d.4 Whylook anywhereelseforthe basis of dail y living(cf. Phil.3: 1820)1 3.HenceR5VINRSV" $Iil1belonged 10 thew(:l"ld"; NEBIRES" sUllliving thelifeof the World." 4. Cf. the whole thru-volume projeclby W. Wink.ThePl} ....efl (Minneapolis: Fortress,19114. 1986,1992),of whichNQJI1in8isthe volume. 190COLOSSIANS What"li vingintheworld"amountstointhi scaseisgivenbythe finalverb IIisthepassiveof"decreebyordi-nance,issueadecree(&'ryJ..Icr.),"andthuspresumablydenotestheresponse of thosetowhomthe decreeshavebeenissued.thai is."submittodecrees orregulations"(LSJ)." letyourself beregulated"( BOP314).Therecan benodoubtthatareference backtothe" regulations" (06'ntoo:nv)of 2: 14 isintended(thepassiveusedofpersonsisattestedonlyhere,soweare dealingwithaspecialfannation), Thedecreesare thusthose of "the rulers andauthorities"(2: 15),thatis,of" theelementalforces."Theyarewhat mightbecalled"the lawsof nature. "Or tobemoreprecise.they are rules whichorderthecosmosandwhichneedtobefollowedforlife" inthe world." Thisatanyratewouldbetherationale of thosewhopressedsuch regulations,of diaspora Jewaswellas Gentile. Whattheymeantfordaily lifeis indicatedbythe examplesfoll owing. 2:211.11lOE"fE00n Theregulations quoted(they couldbeputinquotationmarks)arealltodowithpurityandfood.Itis strikingthatj ustthesearechosen toillustratethedecrees/regulationsby whichthe Colossian" philosophy" thoughtitnecessary to regulate thislife, andnot greatmoralrules suchas thoselistedin3:5and8.However. they shouldnotbedenigratedasindicatingaprimitiveattitudetothecosmos anditscontrollingforces.Onthecontrary,theyareareminderofthe imponance attributed10riooal inallreligions asameans of accessi ng and maintainingharmonywiththespi riooalforcesbehindperceptiblereal ity. ThisistheColossi anphilosophy' svers ionof a"sacramentaluniverse." Ontheotherhand,theemphasi sonthevianega/iva(lifelivedby"Do not"s) is probably indicative of a somewhat defensive and introvened group sel f-u nderstandi ng.5 Whatpreciselyis in view in the three commands is not clear."touch, take hold of," must denote a purity concem (Lohmeyer128) ; behind itlies fearof defilementbyphysical contact withsomething forbidden. fear of impurity being transferredbyphysicalcontact (asregularly inLev. 5:2-3; 7: 19,21;11 :8. 24-28,etc.:al soIsa.52: 11 ,citedin2Cor.6:17;Lohse. Colossians andPhilemon123 n. 77, cites Lucian, De Syria dea 54, evidenc-ingthe same concern).It can also mean"touch food," andso "eat "(BAGD s. v.rutlW 2a), or "touch (a woman)." denoting sexual intercourse (Gen. 20:6; Prov.6:29:ICor.7: I : cf.ITim. 4:3).6Buthere. without an object. the more generalsenseispresumablyintended. Evenso, purityconcernsareusualJy 5.Abbotl273noIeS:"It is a singular iIlusrration of tlie asceticism of a laler date,thaIsome Latin commenlal0!'5 (Ambrose,Hilary,Pelagius) regardedtheseprohibitiollllHthe apostle', own:' 6.Th-elallcr is favoredby Gnilka.I cr.Aklli, tpfrf'e01 2(12 n.136. SappinglOn68-69nOles !hepossibili ty thatsuulllabstinence was regarded asaprcpanr.tion forreceivill&hea.-enlyrevdltion. 2:20-21191 at therootof foodtaboos,sothenextregulationisnosurprise:.. taSte, partakeof"food(BAGO; asinMati, 27:34:Luke14:24: John2:9; ActS10:10;20:11;23: 14;onlyhereinPaul ),Thethirdprohibitioncould againrefer to food(see again SAGO S.v.a1tlW 2a), but again probably means .. touch"(withthehand.LSJs, v.EhyyavroI),sothat" handle"becomesa wayof distinguishingthetwonearly synonymous words,Most translations, however,preferthesequence"handle,taste,touch, "followingLighlfoot 201;butitisthesense" touch"whichisappropriatefor inthis context (as the Leviticus references make clear), not the stronger sense " take holdof." Theseregulations couldindicatetheriooalpracti cesof morethanone of the ancient religions and cults. But here again the echo of characteristi call y Jewishconcernsisstrong,andparticularlypurityconcerns,thoughthatis mi ssed byalmost all commentators'?Wehave already noted the fundamental imponanceof observingthedistinctionbetweencle