Colossians 1-4 | Pepper's Homepage

Colossians

Chapter 1
MSB Notes on the Book:
Written to the church that bears its name. Also to be read in Laodicea.
Paul is the author, affirmed also by those very early church fathers: Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius. Also, the book has close parallels with the book of Philemon, which is "universally accepted as having been written by Paul". Perhaps that is why we read both the same day in the chronological 1 year Bible plan. The books were written about 60-62 AD while Paul was a prisoner in Rome. Another reason for its location in the chronology. Safe to assume that all the rest of Paul's books yet to be covered were written from Rome, while he was captive there.

"Colosse was located in Phrygia, in the Roman province of Asia (part of modern Turkey), about 100 miles E of Ephesus..." Colosse was a thriving city in the 5th century BC, noted for black wool and dyes made from chalk deposits nearby. Main N/S and E/W trade routes went through it. By Paul's time, however, the trade routes had relocated to the nearby cities of Laodicea and Hieropolis, and the city was in decline. The population of the city was mostly Gentile but there was a strong Jewish presence also. The heresies that plagued Colosse were a mixture of Jewish legalism and pagan mysticism (NOTE: This is all from MSB - not my research, not my words.)

Paul had never been to Colosse. The church was possibly founded by Epaphrus, who was saved in Ephesus. There is a long explanation of the heresy(s) threatening this church. A threat that so bothered Epaphrus as to make him go all the way to Rome to talk to Paul about it. This from the MSB is a bit long, but I think a very helpful background to the book:
"It contained elements of what later became known as Gnosticism: that God is good, but matter is evil, that Jesus Christ was merely one of a series of emanations descending from God and being less than God (a belief that led them to deny His true divinity), and that a secret, higher knowledge above Scripture was necessary for enlightenment and salvation. The Colossian heresy also embraced aspects of Jewish legalism, e.g., the necessity of circumcision for salvation, observance of the ceremonial rituals of the OT law (dietary laws, festivals, Sabbaths), and rigid asceticism. It also called for the worship of angels and mystical experience."

Hmm...here is some good historical background, also from MSB. Colossians is a so-called "prison epistle", because it was written while Paul was a prisoner in Rome. So were Ephesians, Philippians, and Philemon. It may have been composed about the same time - contemporaneously - with Ephesians, and Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon may all have been carried to their destinations by Tychicus (Eph 6:21,22 and Col 4:7,8). Onesimus, the runaway slave who is the subject of Philemon, accompanied Tychicus on this mail run. Philemon was a member of the Colossian church (4:7-9). Epaphrus remained behind in Rome, possibly to get further instruction from Paul.

MSB says that Colossians includes these theological themes: The deity of Christ, reconciliation, redemption, election, forgiveness, and the nature of the church. It also addresses the specific heresy flourishing in the church at Colosse.

MSB also mentions these "Interpretive Challenges", which I would call "Controversial" or "Disputed Meanings":
Some use 1:15 as proof that Christ is not deity.
1:22, 23, which has an "if" is used against perseverance of the saints.
1:24, used by some to argue for the existence of purgatory.
2:12 used to support the concept of baptismal regeneration.

And now, chapter 1:
Pretty standard Pauline opening. Paul, and apostle...so we see who the letter is from. Then he tells them about thanking God for them in his prayers, and he does in so many other letters. Note that it is from Paul AND Timothy. So at this time at least, Timothy is still with Paul, and is in Rome also. Timothy, as I recall, was from Ephesus.

2022 - This verse:
4 since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love that you have for all the saints, [Col 1:4 ESV]. A strong indication that Paul has never been to Colosse. Otherwise he would mention his remembrance of the time he spent there, as he does in other epistles. So what we have is this guy Paul writing a letter more or less of rebuttal to correct false teaching that has arisen in this church. They likely know his reputation, they know who he is, they know where all he has started churches, but they have never met him. So his authority is likely to be met with even more skepticism at this church than at those where he could at least remind them of his teaching when he was there, and challenge them to find some reason to doubt him based on their first hand knowledge of him. Those arguments are not available to Paul here.

He summarizes with these verses:
12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. 13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. [Col 1:12-14 ESV]
Three things God has done for us. Qualified us, delivered us, transferred us. Elected us, saved us, moved us from death to life, from the flesh to the spirit. How can there possibly be an "undoing" of these three? Note also the implied dualism of darkness and light, since he has moved us from darkness into his kingdom. Note also the persistent position of the saved "in Christ" at the beginning of vs 14. This theme of our being "in Christ" shows up over and over and over. John's gospel particularly hits on it...but this letter to the Colossians was written 20 or more years before John's gospel.
2021-2, There is a lot of information on the whole concept of "in Christ" included in one of the Judgment notes. I think it is in the verse by verse part. I traced down all the times "in Christ" shows up, and determined that those "in Christ" are those indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit came at Pentecost. So those who are in Christ are those who were alive and saved on the day of Pentecost, and all those who have been saved since then. One would be pretty close saying "the Church" is made of those "in Christ". For more detail, go "Key Scriptures in Final Judgments". It is under question Sixth.

Then Paul moves to a section titled "The Preeminence of Christ", likely addressing the Gnostic teaching that Christ was far removed from the absolute perfection of God. The opening verse of this section is the source of one of the controversies:
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. [Col 1:15 ESV]
"He" is referring back to vs 13, to His beloved son, perhaps invoking the synoptic gospels account of Jesus' baptism. An image of what is invisible. So...we cannot see God, the original, but we can see His incarnation in the flesh. His image - is it okay to call Jesus the projection of God into physical space? I think we must agree here that Jesus is not precisely the same as God, yet is what our eyes can see of God. MSB note says the Greek word for image is where we get our word icon. The point is that Jesus is "the perfect image - the exact likeness - of God and is in the very form of God", per MSB. MSB continues with "...and has been so from all eternity. By describing Jesus in this manner, Paul emphasizes that He is both the representation and manifestation of God. Thus, He is fully God in every way." Jesus is fully God and fully man. This is a difficult thing to get one's head around, and we see that in these very verses that Paul is using to make that point. One who is fully man is NOT invisible. But God is, as Paul has just stated. We are into the theology of the Trinity here. Jesus is different because we can see him. Yet he is the same. Not going to spend all morning on this. It is a matter of faith, in my opinion, and beyond human understanding. So. I agree that Paul is saying Christ is God AND man.
2021-2, Back then, did firstborn mean something beyond "the first child born to her/him", or "the first calf born from this cow"? I would think there were some implications as to inheritance associated with the word - but that still ties it only to physical birth. Doesn't firstborn "of" creation sort of reverse the process? Creation was born (created by) Christ, not the other way around. A number of translations word it that he was "the firstborn over all creation". Making use of the idea of the heir of God, and so the one with authority over all that is. NKJV, NIV, NLT, CSB - all these translations that translate "meaning" rather than word for word. The point Paul is making is that Jesus is not "less than" God. How does this make that point? The heir steps up to the top spot. The heir becomes what his father was in all aspects of position and authority. The heir is not , is NEVER LESS than the father. Even when the father is alive, the heir acts on his behalf, and those who submit to the father's authority also respect and respond to the sons - as if they are the same in every way. I think that's the point he's making. This is what vss 15-17 establish. They go on to say that all creation is by him and for him. I think this means that as the heir of God, Jesus created everything in the distant past. This is saying that with the authority and position that he has as Son and heir, Jesus created everything. The success of the estate owes to the action of the heir. He is the active one, he is the initiator and completer. All that is done is done according to Jesus - with full authority and approval from the Father. This might be thought of as defining the role of the second person of the Trinity. Here is where it is spelled out. So firstborn is not about "having babies", but about position with respect to the estate.

2022 - Where did Paul get this idea that it was Jesus who created all things, and not the Father? I don't read it that way in Genesis. I don't if anywhere prior to this book we have seen that idea. What is its source? Does it come only from direct revelation to Paul? He talks about it as if it is common knowledge in the church. I have never see it discussed or challenged. But that might be because it is spelled out so clearly right here in vs 16. There are many attributes of Christ here.
2022 - Later same day. Looked this up in Grudem. It takes up less than a page. Here are the scriptures given:
3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. [Jhn 1:3 ESV]
6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. [1Co 8:6 ESV]
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. [Heb 1:2 ESV]
That's it. He does not even mention the one in Colossians - the one that made me ask the question in the first place. That he did not mention it is more than a little disappointing, as was the absence of the name Melchizedek anywhere in his book, including the one about Christ's title of High Priest:
16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. [Col 1:16 ESV]
So. Nothing in the OT is listed, meaning that it isn't there even at a stretch. In the NT, Paul says it, John says it in his gospel, 50+ years after Jesus was gone, and it is mentioned in Hebrews. This is possibly three different sources saying it, which gives it a good amount of credibility. I am certainly not prepared to doubt Paul, John, and probably Apollos. Note also how common creation was "through" him. It is only that verse in Colossians, that Grudem left out, that leaves no doubt that it was Jesus who did ALL the creative work of God. Creation was the Father's plan and Jesus carried that out. Redemption was God's plan, and Jesus carried it out, as God had planned it. Is it Jesus, in Revelation that "creates" the new heaven and the new earth? Here are those verses:
5 And he who was seated on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." Also he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true." 6 And he said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. [Rev 21:5-6 ESV]
8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." [Rev 1:8 ESV]. Kyrios ho theos, not kyrios Iesous christos. And yet...
12 "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." [Rev 22:12-13 ESV]. This sure makes it look like Jesus will be on "a" throne, and that it is indeed Jesus in 21:5 who remakes all things. That, to me, certainly hammers home that Christ as creative agent is beyond question. But at this point, that information would have to have come by direct revelation, not from some obscure verse in the OT.

And "born" rather than co-existent would be my guess as to how heretics interpret this one verse, pulled out of context and made to stand alone. (2021-2, That is, they were saying that if Jesus was "born", as all knew that he was, to Mary and Joseph, then he descended from the Father because he came later in time, rather than being always there with the Father, from the very beginning. This was the basis of the heresy.) Because most certainly the bulk of Scripture teaches God and the Son as One. MSB emphasizes that Jesus is "firstborn" in the sense of position, of rank, of preeminence, and NOT first in order of creation. Something that is created cannot be the creator of ALL that is. If Christ is "first-begotten" he is not also "only begotten". If we interpret this otherwise, then we have made Paul agree with the heresy he is trying to refute. (2021-2, yeah, I no longer understand what I was driving at with the two sentences about first- and only-begotten.)

2022 - It is pretty easy to see how those in Colosse took now take Paul's own words and say "See, God first, then the Son his first creation, and the Son created everything else. It is almost as if Paul gave them the sequence they were falsely teaching! But what Paul meant, I think, was that the Son pre-existed all those things. That he existed with God when there was only God - as Father, Son, and Spirit - but nothing else existed in that time. But when you thrown in "by him all things were created", it is like you leave the door ajar.
2022 - And I am out of time. Need to get the kids up for church in 20 and still have two chapters of Isaiah to read. Haven't done tomorrow's post yet either. I need more time on this. I need to read the commentaries on 15-20, especially 16.

2021-2, Paul then lists some additional "first in authority" roles of Jesus. He is head of the church. None has more authority in the church than Christ. He is the first to be resurrected from the dead into a new and perfect body. The first "born" from the dead, and so with authority over any subsequently resurrected - which means authority over all who are saved. So in EVERYTHING, Christ is pre-eminent, highest in authority.

The rest of the paragraph completes the argument that Christ is above all things, and through Christ, God reconciled all creation - not just people but all things polluted by sin at the fall - to Himself. Paul seems to be showing that God could not use one of these Gnostic "emanations" - by definition imperfect - to "perfect" all that is. That makes no sense at all. Jesus must be perfect, un-created, and preexisting with God else He would not qualify for the perfecting of everything else.

This verse:
19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, [Col 1:19 ESV]
This seems to be a direct attack on the heresy in this church that Jesus was "less perfect" than God because Jesus was born with a physical body. Paul's argument that God is perfect - and they ALL agreed on this part. But what is perfect - God - would never dwell inside the imperfect. Taking that on out, Jesus must have therefore been perfect also, and every bit AS perfect as God. He is not "less" than God, though he was born in the flesh. What is perfect, the only thing that is perfect, is God. So God dwelt in God, the perfect in the perfect. God, a spirit, within a human body.
2021-2, I think Paul is going beyond saying that are separate but equal, and is saying that they are the "same" but different. If perfect would only be "in" perfect, and we know from the gospels that Jesus says repeatedly that He and the Father are one, the He is in the Father, and the Father is in Him, then the Father is God and the Son is God. I had not quite seen the rationale here before. That is what Paul is saying. Both are one God. Yet there are two. But Paul, never one to stop just because he's presented two irrefutable arguments, goes on to make a third. How can there be a perfect sacrifice for reconciliation of all things to God if the sacrifice is not itself perfect? So Jesus could not be our sacrifice if he was several "emanations" less than God. Only God is perfect, only God could be our sacrifice. Jesus was that sacrifice, so Jesus is perfect, and if perfect, then Jesus is also God. Three beautiful, tied up tight with a bow on them, arguments as to the perfection of Jesus Christ, and to his position as the second person of the Trinity. So awesome.

It continues with this:
20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. [Col 1:20 ESV]
God, through Christ - through His perfect image, and IN WHOM all the fullness of God was present. God was in Christ when Christ died on the Cross, therefore God reconciled us to himself.

Vs 23 is another controversy:
23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. [Col 1:23 ESV]
That seems a big "if". Again, if you pull this verse out and make it stand alone, rather than compare and contrast to the rest of Scripture, then you can make it say what you want. (MSB refers us to Mt. 24:13 for a note on Perseverance of the Saints.). The"if", in my opinion, means "if" you are truly saved, rather than deluded by the promises of Gnosticism and the false doctrine of the legalists. A "new creature" will always continue in the faith and seek always to follow God's will and look only to the Scriptures for guidance - NOT to those masquerading as spiritually elite, placing themselves and their knowledge between God and man. If you have true faith, you will not be diverted from the gospel that saved you. He wants the Colossians who have fallen for the heresies to examine themselves and see if they still have the characteristics of those who are saved.
2021 -2, Or, Paul is not addressing individuals here, but is addressing the continuation of the church in Colosse. If this church will stick with the gospel as Paul presented it, and will be firm in who the object of the gospel is and not try to reduce him to something less, something inadequate, IF you stick with the original version, then your church will continue and grow and be blessed. BUT, if you allow these "gnostics" to tell you that Jesus is less in order to make themselves the keepers of the "real deal", and that only they are enlightened enough to comprehend, and that you should follow them first and Christ second - because after all, Jesus wasn't all that special according to them - then your church will stumble and fall and fade away. I think that's what this "if" is about. It is about the church, not about individual salvation.

2021 - One "deceit" that comes from the idea that flesh is bad and spirit is good - which seems to have been the widely accepted philosophy of the time - was seen in Corinth, where false teachers were pushing the church to indulge in all things hedonistic and worldly, because those things can only affect the flesh anyway, and the flesh is never going to be part of the good things awaiting a "pure spirit" after death. Here in Colossi, we see that same philosophy being used to "separate" God and Jesus, to make Jesus less than God and consequently not quite as perfect as God. It is almost as if this Greek dualism as to spirit and body was invented just to undermine the early church! I wonder who actually postulated this first, and I wonder what kind of life that person lived?

And yet another controversy...hopefully they are all in Chapter 1!
24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, [Col 1:24 ESV]
The controversial part is underlined. Some see "purgatory" in this verse. We have a certain amount of "suffering" required, perhaps as penance for the things done in the body, that must be "paid" before we can be glorified in heaven. This one verse - again - cannot be interpreted in a vacuum. Poor exegesis. So what does Paul really mean? I have no clue. Here is the MSB note in full:
"Paul was experiencing the persecution intended for Christ. In spite of His death on the cross, Christ's enemies had not gotten their fill of inflicting injury on Him. So they turned their hatred on those who preached the gospel (cf. Jn 15:18,24; 16:1-3). It was in that sense that Paul filled up what was lacking in Christ's afflictions (see notes on 2CO 1:5; Gal 6:17). To me, this is still not 100% satisfactory as an explanation...but it is far better than "inventing" purgatory to explain this one verse.

2021-2, As Christ was afflicted physically because all the anger and animosity of the Jewish establishment was "focused" on Him, now Paul is often the focus of the animosity of the world against "The Way", or maybe the church. I think that's what this means.

Chapter 2
Paul says he's telling them this so they will know how much concern he has for them, and for Laodicea. He wants them to have a full and complete knowledge of the mystery - which is Christ now revealed. There is this verse:
4 I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments. [Col 2:4 ESV]
Paul knows that the deceivers and plotters can make their arguments sound very plausible, and that they can present impressive credentials as to why you should believe what they say. They pretend to "build" on Scripture, and to "reveal" the truth of Scripture that isn't written in so many words but that you have to be brilliant to understand. They can help you out...in exchange for your generous love offering in any amount....
2021-2, Go back just a bit and look at how this is worded:
[Col 2:2 ESV] that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ,
[Col 2:3 ESV] in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
The idea here is that the key to understanding the "mystery" - and apparently the false teachers were really playing up the secret, mysterious, inner circle knowledge that only they could share - is to understand Christ and his work. The mystery is not in secret rituals, hidden explanations, or very likely additional revelations (think Book of Mormon and Quran, both of which play right into this), but in what Christ did. He is the entire mystery, and understanding Christ completely is all the mystery there is.
2022 - Paul mentioned "the mystery" twice in Chapter 1, and now again here in 2:2. It is "mystery" that was the currency controlled by the false teachers here and by direct reference in Laodicea, and indirectly I think we see it other places, and circulated only minimally among the rank and file. These false teachers claimed that their exclusive mastery of advanced logic, debate, and oratory - such as they and they alone had, and only they could teach to the special, qualified, and biggest contributors - qualified them to decide what was required for salvation by and proper service to God. This is what Paul is arguing so strongly against. He is not saying that secular knowledge is bad or faulty nor is he saying that religion is only for dumb people. What he is saying is that the rules and regulations and methods of science will not and cannot reveal supernatural truth. He says this multiple times. Each time he uses that word mystery he is saying that God is supernatural and cannot be proved by theorem and corollary. In vs 3, above, he says the truths of God are "hidden" in Christ. The treasures of wisdom and knowledge are HIDDEN in Christ, and only through Christ, therefore, can they be discovered. Vs 8, below, is more of the same.

2021-2, vs. 5 seems to be a refutation of another argument of the false teachers - If Paul cared anything about you really, he would be here. We ARE here, so listen to us. Paul says that's a straw man.

2021 - I think here also Paul is acknowledging by his repeated use of the word "mystery", that the Trinity is a supernatural concept, not reducible to logical syllogisms, no matter how brilliant the person trying to express it. Yes! Because the concept of the Trinity is supernatural, and not subject to logic anyway, any attempt to "confine" it to logical argumentation must necessarily lead to error!!! Any strictly "natural" definition of the Trinity will be incomplete by definition! YES, this is what it means! And this is the way to argue it - just as Paul is doing. The Trinity is a mystery not yet fully revealed!
Still 2021 - Paul uses the word mystery four times in this little book. 1:26,27; 2:2; 4:3. The word is used 21 times in the NT, 17 times by Paul in his letters - 7 of these in Ephesians - and 4 times by John in Revelation. It does not appear in the gospels. A good study here I think, making the point that God is supernatural, and because of that, there are things about Him that strict compliance with the natural cannot begin to grasp.

2021-2, Vs. 6, You don't need anything new. There is no further revelation than the mystery of Christ that converted you in the first place. Continue in that.

Then this to follow it up:
8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. [Col 2:8 ESV]
MSB says "takes you captive" is robbery. By their deceit, the false teachers are stealing the true knowledge, wisdom, and sufficiency that can be found in Christ alone, outside the helpful hands of the false teachers. "Elemental spirits of the world", or "elementary principles of the world" per TCR footnote. The gist is that anything the philosophy, psychology, and conjecture of man can devise, are but simple, immature, childish primers in light of the truth of the gospel of Christ. Paul tells them these self-described enlightened ones are in fact trivial in their philosophies. 2021 - Further, the highest heights of logic, rhetoric, debate, science and so on, must necessarily be inadequate to explain what lies outside their naturalistic scope. These things are all aimed at describing/explaining/unraveling the intricacies of the natural world. As such, they cannot be applied correctly to the supernatural world. This repetition of what I think vs 4 was saying is pretty good corroboration that we're on the right track.

This statement is in direct refutation of the teachings of the Gnostics. Paul pulls no punches, leaves no room for quibbling:
9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, [Col 2:9 ESV]
Christ is divine, indistinguishable from God Himself, because Christ IS God Himself.
2021-2, This is nearly a repeat of 1:19: [Col 1:19 ESV] For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
What is to be learned by a word to word comparison/contrast of these two verses.

2021-2, This whole section, vss 9-15, are a picture of what happens when we are saved. The key to it is, I think, here:
[Col 2:10 ESV] and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.
We have been "filled in him". Here are the meanings of the word "pleroo", pronounced "play-rah-oh":
1.    to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full
1.    to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
1.    I abound, I am liberally supplied
2.    to render full, i.e. to complete
1.    to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
2.    to consummate: a number
1.    to make complete in every particular, to render perfect
2.    to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)
3.    to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise
1.    of matters of duty: to perform, execute
2.    of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish
3.    to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

It is a very encompassing word, and this is likely why Paul chose it. He is saying first of all that nothing is wanting after salvation. When we are saved, we are completely filled and there is no more room for anything else. Some other translations:
[Col 2:10 KJV] And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
[Col 2:10 NASB95] and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;
[Col 2:10 RSV] and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.
You have received all there is to receive. If you already have all that the one who is head of all rule and authority - which would include these false teachers - then there is nothing additional to receive from them. They are "adding what is unnecessary, and you have no room for it, since you're already full". And see how the picture is put together after that. We see in vs. 11 that once saved, we are participants with Christ in all that he did physically. Our participation is through our spiritual analog to his physical foundation. We are circumcised spiritually, as he was circumcised in the flesh. This is because he fulfilled the old law physically, followed all its rules, which are outward and physical. But the new covenant is spiritual. So we are not physically circumcised, only spiritually. He died physically, we die spiritually to the old law of sin and death. He rose physically, we rise spiritually as new creature "on the inside". It seems likely from the way this is stated that the false teachers were either preaching that some of the old ritual needed to be continued, or they were introducing new rituals. Paul is explaining that physical ritual is no longer required.

2022 - To clarify, this is about salvation because of vs 10. Christ is all-encompassing. He is the "fullness" of deity, not removed from deity (read from God) by several degrees of separation so that he might be born as a human. Paul is saying that Jesus is fully God. But regarding salvation, once Paul establishes that Christ IS God, then all wisdom and knowledge would be "in Christ". We ALSO are in Christ, according to vs 10. We are complete in him. If we are in Christ, we have all that we need because we are "in there with divine knowledge". Paul's point is that the saved have no need of secular experts to come to an increasingly precise and complete knowledge of God. Access to this is INCLUDED with salvation, positionally.

Then he seems to broaden his scope to include the legalists by saying they already have a circumcision done without hands, a spiritual circumcision even more efficacious than that done in the flesh, through their position in the body of Christ - who was circumcised, and in whom the saved already dwell.

This verse:
11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. [Col 2:11-12 ESV]
As we are circumcised spiritually, we are raised spiritually. We are circumcised because we are in Christ who was circumcised. We are raised from the dead because we are in Christ, who rose from the dead. Circumcision - which was a physical, bodily symbol of participation in the Old Covenant - is now needed only in the spiritual sense, because that Old Covenant has run it's course. It is no longer of effect, so the signs of participation in it are of no use whatever. Baptism, which does not require any modification of the flesh, is the symbol of participation in the New Covenant, and since the New Covenant has no ongoing physical requirements, it's symbol need not be permanently observable either. The circumcision was an identification in the flesh of the Law, which required physical signs of compliance. But now that Christ has fulfilled all the requirements of the law, the renewal - which was annual under the law - is now once for all and a spiritual internal invisible thing, of which baptism is now the one, dare I say required, outward sign. Recall that even under the law, it was faith only that mattered to salvation, not the physical observance. The Law only delayed wrath until Christ fulfilled the Law. Then those with faith escaped the penalty of the Law, being made perfect by their position within Christ as he shed his blood and died. We died in Him when he died. All the physical manifestations of the Law - sacrifices, feasts, observance of the Sabbath - were symbolic of the underlying faith of those who were saved while the Law was in effect. Outward signs of ongoing inner faith. In that same way, baptism is now symbolic of the underlying faith that saves us under the New Covenant. All the religious observances of the Law are now compressed into the single physical symbol of baptism. Faith alone saved men before the Law was given. Faith alone saved under the Law, and faith saves under the New Covenant. This must be true, and the same arguments Paul uses over and over in the NT wrt the Law, are just as applicable to the New Covenant. The rites of the Old Covenant and Baptism of the New Covenant are therefore not requirements for salvation, but symbols of underlying faith. In the case of baptism, the symbol is also of the death, burial and resurrection of the One in whom we live.
(So much here...and looking back at last year's notes, I see that I didn't even mention baptism in this chapter.)
2022 - Later. Got a call from Dwight about how this "idea" of mine about baptism as the sign of the new covenant is almost precisely the argument made for infant baptism - paedobaptism. The idea is that circumcision was performed on male children at 8 days old. They weren't making a choice, but by birth were a part of Israel, a part of God's people, and so a part of God's covenant. Under the New Covenant, baptism can be understood as the same thing. Born into a New Covenant believing home, to believing parents, and so in a sense, by birth a part of the New Covenant. As circumcision did not save, neither does baptism, but it is a sign of the covenant. This is NOT where I was going with the argument, and it certainly needs some serious rethinking in light of Dwight's phone call. There is also much in Grudem on this topic - including a whole section in refutation of this argument as justification of paedobaptism.
2021 - Nothing to add. I believe this more than ever. Especially the highlighted statement.
2023 - 11-13 are surely the best explanation we can have for the purpose of baptism. It is literally contrasting circumcision and baptism, physical vs "invisible", while comparing them as evidence of faith. Can we say, though, that as circumcision was required in the old, so baptism in the new. It WAS NOT SAVING in either case, but it can be required without being "saving".

2022 - The Kingdom of God, in our time, is a spiritual Kingdom. Therefore, its seal, its promises, its basis, are all spiritual. Under the Old Covenant, made with Israel, the laws were tangible, literally written in stone. Therefore, the seal of all who depended on that covenant for salvation needed a tangible sign of their participation. That sign was circumcision. A physical sign imposed on the bodies of all those who sought God's will through the physical, tangible Law. The New Covenant is spiritual. The Law is written on our hearts. We don't need stone tablets to discern right and wrong, our consciences, in collaboration with God's Holy Spirit inside us, reveal God's truth to us. Baptism is the outward sign of our commitment to this spiritual covenant. This sign does not remain with us. No one can determine whether or not we were baptized. Water is often used as a metaphor for spirit. Circumcision saved no one under the Old Covenant. No one would argue that. I would argue, based on that, that baptism saves no one now. Circumcision was "required" under the Law, but was not saving under the Law. Salvation was based on faith and faith alone, under the Law. In the same way, baptism is "required" under the New Covenant, but is not saving under the New Covenant. Salvation comes by faith. Baptism spiritually "marks us", tattoos us, brands us as followers of Christ, just as circumcision marked Israel as Israel, under the Law.
Possible FB post for 12/8/22.

2021-2, This verse: [Col 2:14 ESV] by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. This surely says that there is no sin left in us to be judged. All that is done. And how can we be "lost again" if ALL our sins are set aside. All of them were future when he died. Why would he only take some of them? If he already paid for them, then they cannot come back to condemn us - not the ones he's already died for. So we would have to commit "unanticipated" sins, sins that Jesus excluded from his redemptive work on the cross, and those sins would condemn us anew. But...how then can those sins ever be paid for? Jesus is not going to die again. (Perseverance of the Saints)

These verses, starting with therefore:
16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. [Col 2:16-17 ESV]
These were symbolic of spiritual truth yet to be revealed. They are not what they appear to be literally, but are symbolic of what will someday be revealed as the underlying truth. MSB note says it better: "The ceremonial aspects of the OT law (dietary regulations, festivals, sacrifices) were mere shadows pointing to Christ. Since Christ, the reality has come, the shadows have no value."
2021 - I would rush to point out that during the Millennial, there will be sacrifices, there will be a high priest, and there will be other priests taking care of the new Temple. At that time, the shadows will be overcome by light, and we will understand what these things were really about.
2021-2, The main points of the false teaching are listed here:
[Col 2:16 ESV] Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.
[Col 2:18 ESV] Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,
It is this whole Greek "body bad spirit good" thing again. Deny the body (asceticism) and you increase the spirit. They wanted to make a hierarchy of poor, better, best Christians based on the sacrifices you were willing to make. I am sure these teachers were very visibly ascetic in what they did publicly - denying good food, good drink, and wearing long faces. Not sure where the angel worship came in, unless it is because they are higher beings than us, and so ought to be worshiped. Much like Catholics do with saints. They were having visions - which they were representing as new revelation from God about the practice of the gospel. Only they were having these visions, therefore this gave them authority to teach and credibility in what they said. They were focused on the physical, on eating and drinking, or not, on mysterious visions and their interpretations. It was all about the "experience" of the gospel. Paul says they had it all wrong.

Paul says that no one on earth has authority to condemn another to hell based on the actions of the one condemned. You don't eat according to their rules? No matter. You don't speak in tongues? No matter. You don't practice asceticism? Who cares. You can do those things, but not doing them gives no one the right to condemn you. If we take to heart the previous verses saying we are dead to the world - physical things that foreshadowed Jesus are no longer of any use - why would we still submit to regulations based on what was required while we were still part of the world? It used to be heavily weighted to the physical and now is heavily weighted to the spiritual. Don't mix them up!
2021 - In vss 16-19, I think Paul is making a direct, unmistakable attack on the false teaching and false teachers that were trying to catch on in the church at Colossi. It is interesting to me that so many churches had these serious internal attacks coming against them, and Paul never ever says to abandon that church and start a new one and do it right. He never tells anyone to leave because of false teachers. Instead, Paul sends a letter - a written word - that shines a light on the error of this doctrine that is introduced AFTER the church is founded on Christ alone - and urges the church to correct it's problems, to shut down false teaching, and if necessary to put out the false teachers. But Paul never says "just let them have this one, and we will start over across the street." The lesson is to get back to orthodoxy. Get back to the original teachings of the church, to those things clearly supported by the written word in the Bible.
2021 - Paul never says "Well, I understand that there in Corinth, the idol worshipers outside the church have women preachers and are cool with "all church orgies", and it is absolutely true that the Bible says men and women are the same in the sight of God, so the idolators do kind of have that part right so it is surely ok to do things the way they say...since they have this little part correct, we shouldn't correct them about their larger application of the precept." Hmm...That's what they do isn't it? They use a principle found in one place in the Bible to overrule a commandment somewhere else in the Bible, and then they justify it by their advanced knowledge, their deeper understanding, their greater maturity in the Word, which allows them to pick which concept is the keeper. Could I not as easily say that not suffering women to teach means that women are less than men in the sight of God? If it is ok to say the Bible's teaching that men and women are equal in his sight makes it ok to ignore the injunction against women teaching, then why can I not reverse it and make the other concept the one that needs to be "updated"? Well...because that's just not what it means - according to the ones who prefer to read it the other way. This is exactly the kind of thinking that has always been used by outsiders to undermine the church. It is because we do things like this, depending on the times and the cultures and the priorities. We NEVER SHOULD do this!!! Not in either direction. The fact is that the Bible says both. Says men and women are equal, says women are not to teach. We have to resolve these two in a way that both are true, both are observed, both are inviolable!!!! And we can, all we have to do is talk about different roles for equal men and women. Your defensive tackle makes a very poor wide receiver in almost every case.

2022 - Vss 16-19 are saying that physical things are not a "path", and especially not a "highway" to be a better Christian. You do not gain if favor with God by petitioning him indirectly through angels - or those who died before us. Not having any "religious visions" does not mean we are not saved. We live and breath and grow through the Spirit of Jesus Christ, NOT through physical, external things, whether signs of dedication or self-denial or self-harm. Paul does not prohibit these things, he just says they are not going to "earn" you anything. And that is all summed up in these verses:
20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations-- ... 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh. [Col 2:20, 23 ESV]
Vs 23 - Physical things might make it LOOK like you are a profoundly advanced Christian, but they do nothing to make you a better Christian SPIRITUALLY...which is the only thing that counts under the New Covenant! And I think that last phrase means that such things don't help you physically either. You body will still crave the things of the flesh, no matter how many self-inflicted scars you have.

I believe the last few verses of the chapter say that physical sacrifices - like not eating certain things, like living only on bread and water in a cave in the winter - do not actually preclude in any way the sin that living in a mortal body entails. He is saying that wherever you live, whatever you do, no matter how "divorced" your life is from the comforts and pleasures of a physical body, that body is by its very nature just as sinful as one who eats bacon every day. Self-denial in no way diminishes our sinfulness in the flesh.

Chapter 3
Very good verses to memorize at the start of this chapter. I wonder why it seems like those who "divided" the Bible into chapters so often divide them in the wrong place. Seems like they are forever separating the "therefore" from all that led up to it with a Chapter division! These verses:
1 If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. [Col 3:1-2 ESV]
There is no profit in focusing on "improving" our mortal bodies. The only real profit is in heaven.
2021 - "things that are on earth". Feminism, gender equality...? No...I don't think that's the kind of thing Paul means. I do think the point is that bringing advanced level logic into the church and trying to explain the supernatural with it is a bad idea, and doomed to fail. I think the point is that trying to bring rules that are no longer applicable into the church is a bad idea, and I think the point is that judging people based on whether they adhere to outside rules is a bad idea. And if we take that as a principle, then we do not let arguments that originate from the culture we came out of dictate required behavior inside the church. I think that is axiomatic.

(2020 - I got a late start today, and it seems like I'm never going to finish. So many distractions have come along - all worthwhile I believe - that staying on track is getting more and more difficult.)
(2021 - No distractions, but this is a LONG session. So much in Colossians that applies to this time also. We don't really have a problem with the idol worshipers and dervishes and tongue talkers trying to bring their stuff in, but we most definitely do have a problem with logic and science and social justice warriors trying to get it.)
2021-2, Vs 3 says it straight out: [Col 3:3 ESV] For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. Instead of focusing on what is done in the body - asceticism, dietary laws, and so on, remember that the body is just a dead shell anyway. It is not the focus of our lives, it isn't even an afterthought. What matters is what we think and what we do for others.

If we aren't to become good asceticists as a way of purifying ourselves, then what exactly is it we are supposed to do - because surely purification is our goal? Paul tells us in 5-11. We are to avoid sin itself Focus on the real problem, not on "physical deprivation" in the name of cleansing ourselves. The sin is in our body, therefore focus on the spirit. Don't "feed" the flesh, "feed" the spirit, and deny sin, but not what is needful? Have I got that right? Yeah...the right track anyway. We are not to put away sin by doing what is detrimental to our physical bodies. Jesus taught that sin in the mind was no different than sin in the body. So the mind can still sin no matter how much we deny our bodies. This is still a Gnostic principle in that if we make our body (which is evil) less, then we make our spirit (which is good) more. This is fundamentally wrong. Our body sins, but our body is dead. What we do to it - even to the point of something as extreme as making ourselves paraplegic - will not make us less likely to sin. A paraplegic can sin just as much every day as a professional athlete. Sin is not about the condition of our body! That's what I was looking for! Sin is about the mind. The spirit is different from mind and body, and struggles to be pure though locked into the imperfection of mind and body. I think....
Possible FB post with a bit of work...

2022 - More on vs 5:
5 Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. [Col 3:5 ESV]. So if what we do to the flesh - to our bodies - is ineffective in making us more spiritual, then what is it that we ought to do? And here is Paul, with that answer ready at hand. Stop committing sins, stop indulging the desires of the body that are in fact sin. Who can argue with this list? We should avoid all these things, and we all know that. Passion is the Greek worth "pathos". As used here it means "inordinate affection" or "lust", putting it right in line with the two terms before it - immorality and impurity. The body is dead, so don't indulge it.
Possible follow up post on FB after Col. 3.3

2023 - Verse 5, above, is worth a closer look:
21 I fear that when I come again my God may humble me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality, and sensuality that they have practiced. [2Co 12:21 ESV]
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, [Gal 5:19 ESV]
These two verses contain the word impurity, used in vs 5. In the BLB definition, impurity is like uncleanness. That is ceremonial uncleanness I think, though it can just mean dirty. In both these verses impurity is associated directly with sexual immorality, with the pursuit of whatever has a sexual connotation, instead of being pure and seeking what is above. This world throws sexual connotation, and the pursuit of sexual immorality at us constantly. Shorts on YouTube, Reels on Facebook, movies, books....when's the last time we were given as entertainment a story with a "pure" hero? Maybe "It's a Wonderful Life"? Of the five things in vs 5 that we are to put to death, the only one that is not about sexual matters is covetousness - and even that COULD be about obsession with the object of our desires. This is about the contrast of earthly vs spiritual. The implication is that there is no sex in heaven, nor even a desire for it. There will be no need for reproduction, the angels do not marry...Sex exists only here, and is a primary impediment to spiritual living. So much so that we almost have to wonder why God did things in such a way?

2022 - And yet another follow up:
7 In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. 8 But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. [Col 3:7-8 ESV]. In addition to the list above, we ought to change these things also. A deeper dive into the sins that we must avoid if we want our spirits to "win". That first list was about how we deal with our own bodies, which was what Paul was talking about. But now he goes on and extends the list to our relationships with others, to how we treat others and whether we express respect or disrespect toward them.
Possible Second follow-up.

2024 - This verse: 11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all. [Col 3:11 ESV]. Conspicuous by its absence is male and female. I know there is another place, used by some to say that the roles of men and women are dissolved under the new covenant. Here are a couple more verses from the footnote to vs 11 in MSB:
13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit. [1Co 12:13 ESV].
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. [Gal 3:28 ESV]. This is the one I was thinking about. Perhaps not a compelling argument that the male and female distinction continues, but still a log on the fire.
2024 - NASB translates the Colossians verse differently:
11 [a renewal] in which there is no [distinction between] Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. [Col 3:11 NASB95].
In the NASB, "a renewal" is implied. They are tying this back to vs 10 which spoke of the new self as being in a process of renewal, and where we are the recipients of that renewal, not the causer of the renewal. Note also that "distinction between" is also inserted in teh NASB. It just says there is no Greek and Jew, no circumcised and uncircumcised, no barbarian, no Scythian, no slave and freeman. Not that there is no distinction between them, but that they are not even valid designations. NO DIFFERENCE, not even a former difference. In Christ, ALL are now the very same, indistinguishable and all undergoing the renewal that comes from the Spirit.
I would say that male and female are not specifically mentioned here because that distinction was not a "thing" in Paul's time. Or possibly it was not a thing in the church at Colossi, but perhaps was a big deal in the church at Galatia. Perhaps in Galatia, there was debate as to whether men in Christ under the New Covenant were "better" in God's eyes than "women" under the New Covenant. And perhaps that was carryover from the Old Covenant. Perhaps women in Galatia were being excluded from study or their input in church matters excluded....but no, that doesn't make sense. I think the first idea is more likely correct - that saved men were considered more important to God than saved women, as former Jews were considered more important to God than former Gentiles. A hierarchy within the church. Not necessarily to do with office or function but with perceived status. Yes, that seems pretty spot on. This is talking about getting rid of any attitude that said "I am better than you", getting rid of any arrogance or pride based on previous status, and realizing that in Christ, all are the same. We don't stand before God as "Gentiles in Christ" or "Men in Christ" or Scythians in Christ. We are ALL IN CHRIST and seen AS CHRIST to God. This point is well made in the Colossians verse without having to mention male and female to be clear on the point. (And see vs 18, right after this, where Paul says "Wives, be subject to your husbands..." right in the same passage. CLEARLY, UNARGUABLY, the whole "no difference idea is NOT about roles, but about standing before God. This OVERRIDES any argument based on the verse in Galatians!!! Furthermore, the whole passage, 18-24, is a summary of the passage in Ephesian 5, which goes into a lot more detail, and ought to be studied for deeper understanding of this passage in Colossians. Which one came first? Is Paul assuming the Colossians would have read his letter to the Ephesians, or did he expand to Ephesus one what he had already written to the Colossians? MSB puts the writing of Colossian to be AD 60-62 while Paul was in prison in Rome. Exactly the same note is in Ephesians. So we have no real way of knowing which came first. Too bad...but certainly Paul was thinking the same way each time.
Here is another interesting thing. Where it says circumcised and uncircumcised the gender of both nouns is female. Seems very odd, since females cannot be circumcised. Why would this noun be feminine??? Is it always so? (Yes. It is always feminine.)

2022 - Get rid of the bad things listed above, and instead, do these (a long list!, so there is enough to keep us busy). Stop perpetuating evil, and instead inject good into the world:
12 Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, 13 bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. 14 And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. 15 And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. 16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. 17 And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. [Col 3:12-17 ESV]
Another FB post. What a sequence!

2021 - But...this means I might be reading too much into the previous verses about letting the culture into the church. Am I? The problem in Colossi that Paul is addressing was Gnosticism and asceticism. But...worldly logic was the means being used to promote these things. It was a worldly, pervasive, argument that the body was corrupt and the "cure" recommended by the false teachers was asceticism. These teamed up with the former Jews who insisted that the Mosaic Law must still be observed. And I turned that into "women teachers are bad". Hmm...Seems like quite a jump really. No it isn't!!!! Some of the false teachers were saying "Here is the philosophy of our time - dualism, with spirit good and flesh bad - and here is what that looks like when we bring it into the church - we must deny the body to a fault." And the Judaizers were saying that included not eating pork, or anything else that was unclean. Today that reads "Here is the philosophy of our time - men and women are equal in all respects and it is wrong to make distinctions in their roles or functions. Here is what that looks like when we bring it inside the church: Women can teach, preach, rule, govern, and administrate on equal footing with men, and in fact no distinction should be made at all." In both cases, the world's opinion is being brought into the church from outside, and accepted even in the face of scriptures that directly contradict it. (wow...as if on cue, there are verses 18, 19.)

Vss 12-17 are contrasted with vs 5-11. The first verses talk about characteristics of an unregenerate person, and the kinds of activities they gravitate toward. Vss 12-17 list characteristics of the regenerate person. The unregenerate are focused entirely on physical gratifications, on inward, selfish, self-serving activities. The regenerate person is always looking outward, away from themselves, toward doing good for others, and seeking to make their lives better instead of our own. The focus of our ambitions is the difference. From ourselves to others.

2021-2, Just look at this list of Greek words about what we are not to do:
porneia - immorality. We get the word pornography from this. Obsession with sexual gratification.
akatharsia - impurity. Catharsis comes from this word, meaning remove, to purge something "infecting" to us. The "a-" in front of it means opposite. So the opposite of pushing out impurity is to take it in. This is the noun.
pathos - passion. Pathological. pathetic come from this word.
epithymia - desire. Not sure about this one. Epithelial? The outer covering.
kakos - evil (about which we've made much before!)
pleonexit - greed. I cannot think of any English words derived form this, but surely there are some.
The idea behind all of these is that they are a state of mind, not an action. None are the verb form, all are nouns. He didn't say "don't fornicate", he said avoid immorality. There is a whole list of personal conduct that reflects what is above. The body only does what the mind embraces. He is saying make your mind pure, make your mind sinless, and stop worrying about that dead body you're dragging around.
Now here is something interesting. Beginning in vs 12, we have another list - of things that should be going on in our minds, and our hearts. Here are those words:
oiktirmos - compassion. We get our word compassion from the Latin word compassio.
chrēstotēs - kindness, from Old English and proto-German?
tapeinophrosynē - humility, from Latin humilitatum
prautēs - gentleness, from "Old French" and Latin
makrothymia - patience. from "Old French" and Latin
Why is it that I cannot think of a single English word that came from any of these Greek words? We just don't use the "good" words in our language at all. It just seems interesting to me that these English words used to translate these lists are exclusively Greek for what not to do, and exclusively NOT Greek for what we should do.

Then we move in a new direction. Paul addresses our conduct within our own households.
Wives submit, Husbands love, children obey.
Bondservants serve.

2021-2, This is like a very condensed restatement of the instructions in Ephesians 5.
These verses:
knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. [Col 3:24 ESV]
For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality. [Col 3:25 ESV]
First, our reward is "the inheritance". That is worth searching out, as it bears directly on the whole idea of a bema seat judgment.
The phrase "you will receive" is 2nd person plural. So Paul is talking to "everyone", not to an individual, as in "y'all all will receive in the future..." The word translated "inheritance" is only used 14 times in the mGNT. Here are some that I think are relevant:
Yet he gave him no inheritance in it, not even a foot's length, but promised to give it to him as a possession and to his offspring after him, though he had no child. [Act 7:5 ESV]
And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. [Act 20:32 ESV]
For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. [Gal 3:18 ESV]
who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. [Eph 1:14 ESV]
having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, [Eph 1:18 ESV]
For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. [Eph 5:5 ESV]
Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. [Heb 9:15 ESV]
to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, [1Pe 1:4 ESV]
Just looking at these makes it clear that this "inheritance" is a very important concept. It seems to have a specific meaning, not just a general one, and as such we ought to know to what it refers. What exactly do we inherit? In our day, the inheritance is that which the testator wants conveyed to us when the testator dies. It is generally something of value, sometimes of great value. It is something that belongs to the testator - that is, it is his to give. So what did Christ give us? Eternal life comes to mind first. Justification in him. Forgiveness of sins. Which one do we not yet have but expect and the unsaved do not have and will never have? Because on that difference it all hinges. I am moving all this to the "How Many Judgments" note and will dig more into it over there.

2021-2,
And this wrongdoer? Who does he have in mind? This almost implies that even Christians will be paid back for their sins. The verse might well be used to argue that there will be a judgment for sin for EVERYONE, without partiality. I took a look at the interlinear for this, and it is interesting that the word translated "wrongdoer" and the word translated "wrong" are the same root word, but used as different parts of speech.
"Wrongdoer", is nominative case, which means it is the subject of the sentence. But it is also sort of a verb, and is a present active participle. Here is what participle means:
Corresponds for the most part to the English participle, reflecting "-ing" or "-ed" being suffixed to the basic verb form. The participle can be used either like a verb or a noun, as in English, and thus is often termed a "verbal noun."
So translating it as the ESV does, "wrongdoer", keeps the sense that it is a verb while leaving no doubt that it is the subject. NASB translates it "he who does wrong", which seems to go beyond what is strictly necessary. Then in the second use of this word "adikeo", it is an aorist active indicative. In English, you can't really translate all that with just one word. So ESV turns it into "paid back for the wrong he has done", and NASB renders it "the consequences of the wrong he has done". The full ESV is above, here is the NASB95:
For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality. [Col 3:25 NASB95]
So it is saying that a "wrongdoer" today will reap consequences at some time. The aorist doesn't allow us to pin down past present or future. So if you don't want the saved to be judged for their sins, you say that what is in view are consequences in this lifetime. As hangovers follow drunkenness, as divorce follows infidelity, as disgrace follows dishonesty. It does not help that the way Paul constructed this requires us to almost to translate the phrase, rather than the individual words.

(Running out of time. Reading on through 4, will focus on that next year.)
(2021-2, After very nearly 2 full hours on Col 3 alone, I'm moving on, though it feels unfinished. I still have two chapters of Isaiah to read, and Prov. 6!)

Chapter 4
Masters are to treat their servants justly and fairly. (Have to remember that we are not talking about slaves in the civil war sense here, but about those working off a debt, and who will ultimately be freed.)

I like this verse. I would that others would pray this for me:
3 At the same time, pray also for us, that God may open to us a door for the word, to declare the mystery of Christ, on account of which I am in prison-- 4 that I may make it clear, which is how I ought to speak. [Col 4:3-4 ESV]
There is a similar verse elsewhere that asks for prayer that he be bold. I should memorize both verses.

2024 - It is interesting, and instructive, that Paul does not ask them to pray for his freedom from Rome, nor that his thorn in the flesh would be taken away, or that he be healed from sickness, or protected from societal evils concentrated in Rome. Is there a prayer for these things anywhere in teh NT? Instead, Paul asks them to pray that he be effective in carrying out God's will for him - the preaching of the gospel. He asks them to pray that he be a better evangelist, that his words be more clearly understood. This is also what we ought to ask others to pray for us. We need to stop treating God as a genie in a bottle before whom we can parade our "three wishes". We should pray that God would help us, and help others, to live in a way that exemplifies our faith in God, and a way that glorifies Him.

2021-2, These little verses that say so much:
5 Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. 6 Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person. [Col 4:5-6 ESV]
First vs makes it clear that "outsiders" are not to be avoided. We are most definitely to interact with them, and not just as missionaries. But pay attention to the time spent. You don't just hang out with outsiders. You make use of time with outsiders. There's a direction and a purpose when we are with them. Then vs 6 seems to be an extension of that thought. Watch every single word! Make it gracious, even if they cut you off in the grocery store line. Make it tactful, even if you are correcting an employee who is unsaved. Think about the words coming out of your mouth. Say nothing that isn't "going somewhere", and especially, specifically if you are talking to outsiders. These verses go far beyond "Tell the truth, or at least don't lie".

Final greetings are in vss 7-18. Many names are named. Many of the deductions about this letter and Philemon come from reading between the lines of these last verses.

It looks like we get the names of the "mailmen" in vss 7, 8. Tychicus and Onesimus. Probably a bad idea to travel alone, so Paul sent them both. I thought I had read that Epaphras brought this letter, but it does not seem so here. Hmm...in Philemon, Epaphras is named as a fellow prisoner with Paul. Not sure when Philemon was written though. Ah. Epaphrus is mentioned in Col 4:12. He is with Paul and sends greetings. So that settles the mailman question.

***2021 - This verse: 15 Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. [Col 4:15 ESV] How many places do we see this phrase "in her house" or "in their house". What is this about? Why is it so often a woman who has a church in her house? Why do they have churches in their houses if they are members of "The Church of Colossi"? Why would they be separated??? Later - NOTE: It always says the church is in a house, never in a "home". Don't know if that matters, but it is a distinction. "House" is used 176 times in 153 verses in the NT. I don't think I will find this usage in connection with the church in any of the gospels. That eliminates 122 times in 107 verses, leaving 54 times in 46 verses to be studied. Here are the ones that seem relevant to me:
12 When he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying. [Act 12:12 ESV]
5 Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in Asia. [Rom 16:5 ESV] Prisca and Aquila. This letter was written by Paul from Corinth to the church at Rome. The wording implies that Prisca and Aquila had started a church in Rome, because he is telling the Romans to say hello to them for him????
19 The churches of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Prisca, together with the church in their house, send you hearty greetings in the Lord. [1Co 16:19 ESV] This is Paul writing from Rome...so again, maybe Prisca and Aquila are there???? Why???? Paul is there, why wouldn't a second church be in his house?????
15 Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. [Col 4:15 ESV]
2 and Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house: [Phm 1:2 ESV] Philemon's house is in view. Philemon is sent a separate letter from the one to Colossi, though it came by the same mailman (per MSB notes at the beginning of Colossians. It was a personal letter, so would be separate, but perhaps also had a different city of destination. A small place perhaps.
So it happens three times. Pretty easy to make the case that Aquila and Priscilla and Philemon - two of the three cases - had access to churches already, without needing to start one in their own house. All we know about Nympha is in this one verse in Col 4:15. She is not mentioned anywhere else. Not many clues here, but at least there's more than one.
2021-2, Maybe the church in Laodicea was in Nympha's house because they wouldn't let her use the synagogue, naturally, and maybe there wasn't another building available? Maybe it's as simple as that in all these cases. Might be that no one would rent a building to a group of "cult" members? Maybe the Jews made sure no one would rent to them, so the only choice was to have church in someone's home? In Rome, maybe they didn't allow synagogues at all. And maybe it wasn't all that smart to have a big church with a sign because it made everyone there a target for persecution. It was just smarter to meet in a house. Seems like I may be making a lot bigger deal of this than necessary.