What the Bible Says About the Future of Your Body (2)

In John 11, Jesus finally makes it to Bethany where Lazarus had died a few days earlier. Prior to raising Lazarus from the dead, Jesus has an interesting discussion with Martha, a sister of Lazarus: "Jesus said to her, 'Your brother will rise again.' Martha answered, 'I know he will rise again, in the resurrection at the last day' " (John 11:24-25).

In her response, Martha refers to an expectation about the end of the world, one that was commonly accepted by many Jews of her day. As Martha understood it, when God brought down the curtain of history, all the dead would be raised. (According to Mark 12:18, a group called the Sadducees did not accept this doctrine).

In John 5, Jesus himself endorsed the view that Martha took. He said that a time is coming "when all who are in their graves . . . will come out -- those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned" (John 5:28-29). Clearly, this language refers to the end of time and the final judgment of all who have lived.

Now, this is very different from several stories found the Bible where someone was brought back from the dead. That is, they were resuscitated or restored to life. Here is a list of those instances:

Old Testament

1. Widow of Zarephath’s son — raised by Elijah
   1 Kings 17:17–24

2. Shunammite woman’s son — raised by Elisha
   2 Kings 4:18–37

3. Man revived when touching Elisha’s bones
   2 Kings 13:20–21

New Testament

4. Jairus’s daughter — raised by Jesus
   Mark 5:21–43; Matthew 9:18–26; Luke 8:40–56

5. Widow of Nain’s son — raised by Jesus
   Luke 7:11–17

6. Lazarus of Bethany — raised by Jesus
   John 11:1–44

7. Tabitha (Dorcas) — raised by Peter
   Acts 9:36–42

8. Eutychus — revived by Paul after falling from a window
   Acts 20:7–12

One other passage, Matthew 27:52-53, tells of a large number of people, unnamed and described collectively, who, when Jesus died, "were raised to life." They went into Jerusalem, and "appeared to many people." It is a unique scenario in Scripture, . . . as was the death of Jesus. 

However we speak about these events, we should not refer to them as examples of resurrection. Why? Because all of these people were brought back to this life. They were not immortal. They were not raised to new and unending life. Not one of them was resurrected. That has happened only once: in the case of Jesus of Nazareth.

Think of it this way. Of all the people in the passages listed above, how many of them are still alive? Answer: none. They all died again. Incidentally, there's a passage somewhere in the writings of C. S. Lewis where he remarks that it must have been difficult for Lazarus to have been raised from the dead: it meant that, knowing what it was to die, he eventually had to do his dying all over again.

But not Jesus. Romans 6:9 says, "For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him." Unlike Lazarus, Jesus did not have to do his dying all over again. In fact, Paul insists that he cannot die again. That's because on the third day after his humiliating execution, Jesus was not brought back to this life. He was not resuscitated. Instead, he was resurrected.

But what does it mean to have a resurrected body? And what does that say about the future of your body? More about that another time.

Mary the Mother of Jesus (2)

The last post introduced the subject of this occasional series. From this point on, then, when I speak of Mary, I mean the mother of Jesus. As you might know, there are several other Marys in the New Testament: Mary Magdalene, Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus, and the list goes on. In fact, at least eight and perhaps as many as nine different women in the New Testament are named Mary.

So, we're talking about Mary the mother of Jesus, and the question is: What does the Bible say about her? What can we know about her? A few statistics. She is mentioned by name:

5 times in the Gospel of Matthew

1 time in Mark

12 times in Luke

never in the Gospel of John (we'll come back to that)

and 1 time in the Book of Acts

In addition to those 19 places where Mary is mentioned by name, there are a few passages where she is simply referred to as the mother of Jesus. For example, although the Gospel of John never names Mary, in fact this gospel tells us some things about her we would not know otherwise. Without calling her by name, the Gospel of John provides us unique information about her in two passages.

In John chapter 2, when Jesus performs his first miracle, turning water into wine, she's there. Here's how the chapter begins: On the third day a wedding took place at Cana of Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. . . .

In addition, John is the only gospel account that clearly tells us that Mary was present at the crucifixion: 19:25 says that his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene were present.

So, again, there are points in the New Testament where, although Mary is not named, the writer clearly refers to her.

There is still another type of nameless reference to Mary. Here I'm thinking of passages that do not speak of "the mother of Jesus" but nonetheless identify her. A good example of this is found in Galatians 4:4, where Paul says, But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, . . . And, of course, we know who that woman was.

So, then, what do we have? The New Testament mentions Mary by name 19 times. In addition, the New Testament includes a handful of references to her that do not use her name. More later.

Mary the Mother of Jesus (1)

Many years ago I was struggling to learn how to preach. It was around then that the elders of my home church in Altus, Oklahoma, invited me to deliver the Sunday-evening sermon.

I have no memory of what that sermon was about. That's probably good. The more I remember about my sermons back then, the more I feel a little embarrassed. There is a true sense in which ignorance is bliss.

What I do remember about that evening is not what I said, but what someone else said afterwards. After the final "Amen," after many of the people had left, I was talking with a woman who said something I haven't forgotten.

Before I tell you what she said, let me describe her to you. She was a widow, about seventy years old, in good health, very active for someone her age. She always looked nice, was soft-spoken, unassuming, kind-hearted, and just a fine person.

We were standing near the back of the auditorium, when she said to me, "I was so glad to hear you mention Mary tonight in your sermon. I don't think you know this about me, but before I became a member of the Church of Christ, I belonged to the Roman Catholic Church."

"No, I didn't know that."

She said, "After I became a member of the Church of Christ, one of the first things I noticed was, it was as if Mary had never lived. The preachers and teachers didn't talk about Mary, which was a shock because, in the Catholic Church, I heard about Mary all the time." 

Then she said, "I understand: the Catholic Church has made her out to be something she isn't. But, you know, there's quite a bit in the New Testament about her. And she was a great person. I sort of miss Mary, and wish I heard more about her."

As you would guess, the lady who said that to me isn't with us anymore. But I like to think of my posts about Mary as being partly for that good Christian woman. More later.

The New Testament Letters of Peter and the Challenge of Biblical Interpretation

Ancient manuscript
containing parts of 1 Peter 2

This morning, a bit of musing. This post takes up the question of the relationship between the letters known as First and Second Peter. From there, it highlights a few aspects of biblical interpretation.

So, what is the connection between First and Second Peter? It might not be as strong as we might imagine.

2 Peter 3:1 begins with these words: "Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you." From there, it's a short step to the following conclusion: The Apostle Peter wrote two letters. First, he wrote First Peter. Later, he wrote Second Peter. Not only that, in this verse, he refers to the first letter when writing the second letter. But is it that simple? A few points to consider:

1. In 1 Peter 1:1, the author identifies himself as "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ." In 2 Peter 1:1, the signature is slightly different, "Simon [actually, Simeon] Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ." This is a very rare occurrence of Simeon as a reference to the man we sometimes call Simon Peter. Only one other time is he called Simeon, and that's in Acts 15:14, when James, the brother of the Lord, calls him that. If Peter called himself that, then this is the only example we have.

2. The recipients of these two letters are addressed differently:

To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1b)

To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours (2 Peter 1:1b).

The first verses of each letter suggest something different. Whereas the beginning of First Peter is quite specific, the beginning of Second Peter is general. So there is a bit of tension with the view that 2 Peter 3:1 points to the recipients of the first letter.

3. When the author of Second Peter announces the purpose of both letters he has written, the themes do not match up very well with the ones we find in 1 Peter. Here is what the author says in 2 Peter 3:1-4:

I have written both [letters] as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles. Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”

These verses do not raise anything like an absolute inconsistency. But they do seem a bit skewed. The two letter we have in the New Testament bearing the name of Peter are not that much alike.

So here I want to ask: When the author of Second Peter says this is his second letter (2 Peter 3:1), was the previous letter the one we call First Peter? If the answer we gave was "No," would the situation be unprecedented? 

You might remember that in 1 Corinthians 5:9, Paul refers to an earlier piece of correspondence that is not longer available to us. It appears, then, that what we call First Corinthians is, at best, Second Corinthians. So, is it possible that the first letter referred to in 2 Peter 3:1 is not First Peter? It is certainly possible. Is it probable? That question is difficult to answer.

Now, what is the upshot of all of this probing and questioning?

1. At the very least, we should say that First and Second Peter must be read and understood on their own terms. In other words, First Peter should not be read as the first half of The Letters of Peter. And, Second Peter should not be approached as a continuation of First Peter, a sort of First Peter, Part II.

2. We also conclude that there are some things we just don't understand. Or, if we really do understand them, our conclusion will not necessarily command the assent or agreement of everyone else. There is a real distance between us and the texts we find in the Bible, and treating that distance as though it isn't there is not wise.

3. Wrestling with such questions reminds us that although the books of the Bible were written for us, they were not written to us. If they were written to us, they would not be in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. They would be in English. (See the photo above. The fragment was part of an ancient copy of First Peter). We are not in the same position as those who wrote and first read the books of the Bible. This is true not only of the broad, general context of the Bible, it is also true of the specific context of the Bible. For example, consider the challenge of interpreting a letter. Imagine that you went for a walk and found a letter that read as follows:

Dear Jim,

We are hoping Joe will be released by the weekend. Mollie can hardly wait. The old gang is planning the usual party at Charlie's place. Please bring Tracy. See you there, Peggy.

The reader of this letter will likely have many, many questions:

• Who is Jim?
• Joe has been scheduled to be released. Is he in the county jail, a maximum security prison, the hospital, a psychiatric ward, the military?
• Who is Molly? Why is it that she can hardly wait for Joe to be released? 
• Who is Peggy?
• Who is the "the old gang"?
• Who is Charlie? What and where is his place? Is the reference to Charlie's house? His tavern?
• What's going to happen when "the old gang" meets once again at Charlie's place?

The list of questions goes on and on. And it's very short letter. Of course, Peggy and Jim know all the answers to all of these questions. They don't need a commentary on the text of the letter. To them, writing a set of comments on this letter would not only be unnecessary, it would be weird.

Yet, even when we do our best to retrieve all of the information we'd like to have in order to understand the books of the New Testament, including the letters, we sometimes come to a point where we have to say "I don't know."

At the very same time, we enter the study of Scripture with the expectation that God can and will speak to us, that the Lord will reveal to us his will for our lives so that our faith will be informed and rekindled, so that we will be encouraged and filled with hope. It's a bit of a paradox isn't it? There is so much we do not know. There are only a few things we absolutely must know.

Note: I first wrote this post while reading several works on the Letters of Peter written by a variety of New Testament scholars. I do not now remember who all I was reading then. So I am unable to cite my sources here.

David Lipscomb on the Roles of Christian Women, 1892

In October 1892, David Lipscomb set out to define what Churches of Christ should teach and practice regarding the roles of Christian women in church and society. He began by quoting New Testament passages restricting the activities of women in Christian assemblies (1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11), and passages that call on Christian wives to submit to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22; Colossians 3:18; and 1 Peter 3:1-6). Lipscomb insisted that the teaching of these verses "does not degrade woman." He also insisted that, aside from contemporary influence to the contrary, the divine teaching must be obeyed. To see what can happen when women lead churches, one would need to look no further than the Congregationalists of New England who had drifted far from their staid Puritan past. Lipscomb concluded by referring to the Disciples' General Christian Missionary Convention, held that year in Nashville, where women had spoken from the stage in full assemblies. "That meeting," he said, "should be regarded a sin against God and an offense to the Christian womanhood of Nashville and of the South."[1]

Note

[1] David Lipscomb, "Woman and Her Work," Gospel Advocate 34 (October 13, 1892), 644.

The Letter to the Hebrews: Some Basics

The author of the Letter to the Hebrews describes it as a "word of exhortation," a sermon (13:22). The anonymous writer was a thoroughly-Hellenized Jewish Christian steeped in the language of the Septuagint, an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Also trained in rhetoric, he wrote some of the finest Greek to be found anywhere in the New Testament.[1] Hebrews bears a number of marks suggesting it was written to a house church in an urban setting, perhaps Rome. Like the writer, the intended audience had roots in the Hellenistic synagogues of the Jewish Diaspora. The congregation had endured persecution for their Christian faith and, in the eyes of the author, had now become spiritually sluggish. They were in danger of drifting away from their commitment.[2] The community stood in need of pastoral rebuke and encouragement, which is exactly what this sermon in written form was intended to provide.

Notes

[1] William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8, Word Biblical Commentary 47A  (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1991), xlvii-li.

[2] Ibid., liii-lx. For this reconstruction of the historical situation, Lane points to passages like Hebrews 2:1, 5:11, and 10:32-35.

E. G. Sewell on the Tabernacle (3)

In a follow-up article, "The Altar of Incense, the Brazen Laver, Etc.," which appeared in The Gospel Advocate for February 3, 1886, E. G. Sewell continued his Christian, symbolic interpretation of the biblical tabernacle. In his first article, he had written about the table of shewbread and the candlestick.

Altar of Incense

In his second article, he turns to another item in the Holy Place, the altar of incense. Sewell notes that the priests of ancient Israel were to burn incense on this altar "every morning and evening continually." In this way, they constantly sent up to the Lord, as it were, a fragrant scent. And what does this image typify? Sewell answers that "the general understanding is that the offering of incense was a figure of prayer," and he cites a handful of passages from both the Old and New Testaments in which the burning of incense and prayer are related. For example, in the first half of Psalm 141:2 the writer says to God, "Let my prayer be set before thee as incense." In Revelation 5:8 and again in 8:3, the offering of incense is analogous to the prayers of the saints.[1]

Brazen Laver

This item stood "near the door of entrance into the tabernacle of the congregation," but was "on the outside." There the priests washed themselves before entering the tent. And this, wrote Sewell, "is understood to be figurative of baptism. And as the priest upon washing entered . . . into the tabernacle, so now those who obey the gospel, enter Christ by baptism." Conversely, "as the priest was not allowed to enter the tabernacle without washing at the laver, so no one can enter the church now without being baptized into Christ." Sewell highlights an inference that can be drawn from this interpretation: baptism, represented by the laver on the outside of the tent, comes before prayer, represented by the altar of incense which was inside the tent. Any priest who burned incense on the altar had to first cleanse himself at the laver. "So also if any one wishes to attend at the altar of prayer in the church of God, he must be baptized, must have his body washed with pure water at the door of entrance" into the church. Baptism, which brings the penitent believer into the church, comes before the life of faithful prayer.[2]

Moreover, wrote Sewell, this indicts "those people who teach alien sinners to pray to God for pardon, without baptism, without washing first." Such teachers are guilty of "reversing heaven's order." Sewell goes so far as to compare them to Nadab and Abihu of Leviticus 10. They were two of Aaron's four sons and were thus among the first priests in ancient Israel. Nevertheless, when the brothers "offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not," they were destroyed by fire that went out from the Lord (Lev. 10:1-2). Again, wrote Sewell, preachers who promote "a reversal of God's order" can be compared to Uzziah, King of Judah. According to 2 Chronicles 26:16-21, though he was not a priest, Uzziah burned incense upon the altar. Consequently, he was stricken with leprosy, a skin disease he had for the rest of his life. Only when people are "washed" and thus "sanctified, justified" do they remove all doubt about their being prepared to officiate at God's altar in all spiritual things," including prayer to God through Christ.[3]

Here, Sewell clearly reflects significant differences between the doctrine of Christian initiation according to the Stone-Campbell tradition and that of most other conservative Protestants, like Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians. Much earlier in the nineteenth century, Barton Stone, Alexander Campbell, and like-minded leaders concluded that according to the New Testament, people who came to believe in Jesus as the Christ were to turn from their sins in repentance and be immersed into him for the remission of their sins.[4] Their teaching generated a noticeable change in the way that preachers in the Stone-Campbell Movement concluded their evangelistic sermons. Unlike many other Protestant preachers, whose sermons ended with an invitation for individuals to walk to the front of the assembly in order to anxiously pray for salvation at the mourner's bench, preachers among the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ invited those who believed the gospel message to come forward as an indication that they were turning from their sins and turning to the Lord in repentance, and that they desired to be immersed into Christ.[5] When emphasizing the significance of baptism, however, Sewell guarded against the idea of baptismal regeneration: "Not that baptism is the only prerequisite by any means. Faith and repentance must precede baptism, or no one is ready to be baptized. Everything in its proper place."

Altar of Burnt Offering

Nearing the end of his second article, Sewell refers to the Torah instructions regarding the altar of burnt offering: "two lambs should be offered to the Lord every day."[7]  This, writes Sewell, is "another indication of continued sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and of prayer to the Lord on the part of Christians." The sacrifice of two lambs each day at the tabernacle was the standard under the Old Covenant. If that was so, then should not "we that enjoy the reality, the New Covenant, the fullness of God's love and mercy . . . with a loving, a joyful heart approach God daily with our sacrifices" of thanksgiving and praise?[8]

Apparently, Sewell did not notice or did not care that in making these comparisons he seemed to contradict the principle he had established earlier: it is only after being baptized that the believer, now a member of the priesthood, inside the Holy Place, can fittingly participate in spiritual activities. If confronted with this apparent inconsistency, Sewell would no doubt have clarified that it is altogether fitting for all people, in or out of Christ, to praise and give thanks to God. His earlier concern involved the virtual substitution of prayer for baptism. And it is baptism, according to his view, to which all penitent believers must submit in order to receive the forgiveness of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and entrance into the church that Christ established.

Notes

[1] E. G. Sewell, "The Altar of Incense, the Brazen Laver, Etc.," Gospel Advocate 28 (February 3, 1886), 65.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] See, for example, Barton W. Stone, "The Christian Expositor," Christian Messenger 1 (January 25, 1827), 56-63; Alexander Campbell, "Ancient Gospel--No. I. Baptism," Christian Baptist 5, no. 6 (January 7, 1828), 121-24; "Ancient Gospel--No. II. Immersion," Christian Baptist 5, no. 7 (February 4, 1828), 158-63.

[5] Thomas H. Olbricht, "The Invitation: A Historical Survey," Restoration Quarterly 5, no. 1 (First Quarter 1961), 6-16.

[6] Sewell, "The Altar of Incense," 65.

[7] Ibid. The reference is to Exodus 29:38-43 and Numbers 28:3-8, according to which a lamb was to be sacrificed every day, one in the morning and one at twilight.

[8] Sewell, "The Altar of Incense," 66.

Getting a Handle on Hebrews

In the New International Version of the Bible, the New Testament contains forty-one occurrences of the word better. Of those occurrences, eleven, more than one fourth of the total, appear in the book that was known in the Early Church as To the Hebrews. The word superior occurs five times among the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. Three of the five occurrences of superior are in Hebrews.[1]

The relatively high frequency of better and superior in the Epistle to the Hebrews points to the author's use of comparisons. He sets out to compare God's dealings with the human race in two different periods of time, specifically before and after the redemptive work of Christ. The first four verses of the epistle point to its before-and-after perspective:

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs (Heb. 1:1-4, NIV).

As the writer explains, prior to the coming of Christ, God spoke to humanity "through the prophets." But ever since the Incarnation, the same God has been speaking to humanity "by his Son." The superiority of the messenger, Jesus Christ, implies the superiority of the dispensation in which the readers are living, the Christian age.

So, if the people of God prior to the time of Christ were expected to devote themselves to the Lord and to their covenant obligations, how much more should believers living in the Christian age devote themselves to following the ways of God? To use the language of Hebrews, if the message from God before the coming of Christ "was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation?" (2:2-3).

These patterns of both continuity and discontinuity permeate the rhetoric of the Epistle to the Hebrews and provide a key to understanding its content.[2] 

Notes

[1] Word statistics are taken from the Zondervan NIV Exhaustive Concordance, ed. Edward W. Goodrick and John R. Kohlenberger III (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999). Still one of the better discussions of the title of this book in the ancient church is provided by Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan and Company, 1892), xxvii-xxx.

[2] The discussion here of comparisons and of patterns of continuity and discontinuity in the Epistle to the Hebrews was informed mainly by Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), ch. 20 titled "The Letter to the Hebrews."

Meta Chestnutt as a Bible Teacher: The Tabernacle

Housed in the Oklahoma History Center, not far from the state capitol in Oklahoma City, is a visual aid that Meta Chestnutt likely used in her Bible lessons at the Church of Christ in Minco, Chickasaw Nation, Indian Territory. A heavy oilcloth, approximately five feet high and three feet wide, presents an overhead schematic of the biblical Tabernacle. It clearly labels the Court, the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies. It also presents the locations of, and labels, the Brazen Altar, Brazen Laver, Table of Shewbread, Candlestick, Altar of Incense, and the Ark of the Covenant.[1]

Photo by Frank Bellizzi

The Tabernacle was a portable sanctuary constructed by the ancient Israelites during the time of Moses. The "Tent of Meeting," as it is sometimes called in Scripture, was the unique dwelling of the Almighty, the place where the descendants of Abraham met with their God. It served as a place of worship and a site of divine revelation during the period of the wilderness wanderings. Once the Israelites crossed the Jordan River and entered Canaan, their promised land, the Tabernacle was stationed successively at Shiloh (Joshua 18:1) and Gibeon (1 Chronicles 16:39). Later, King David brought it to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:1-12). Solomon’s Temple, constructed in Jerusalem around 950 B.C., replaced the Tabernacle. Yet, it survived. Eventually, Solomon brought it to the Temple (1 Kings 8:4).[2]

From earliest Christian times, the followers of Jesus considered the Hebrew Bible to be their Bible. In this as in all other matters, they took their cue from Jesus himself, who regarded the Hebrew Bible as authoritative Scripture. Along this line, a survey of the words attributed to Jesus in the New Testament reveals a remarkable consistency. To borrow the words of biblical scholar John Bright, "Jesus knew no Scripture save the Old Testament, no God save its God; it was this God whom he addressed as 'Father.'" Jesus "regarded the Scriptures as the key to the understanding of his person; again and again he is represented as saying that it is the Scriptures that witness to him and are fulfilled in him."[3] In the same way, the New Testament the writers never question the authority of the Hebrew Bible. Instead, they always assume and occasionally assert its unique standing, as in the words of 2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (King James Version). The earliest Christians made theological meaning and bolstered their moral exhortations by highlighting and drawing connections to people, events, objects, and stories from the Jewish Scriptures, which they came to call the Old Testament.[4]  

Notes

[1] The oilcloth is located in box 2 of the Meta Chestnutt Sager Collection, Research Division, Oklahoma Historical Society, Oklahoma City.

[2]  "Tabernacle" in Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III, eds., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1998), 837-40 provides an excellent, non-technical discussion. See also Roland Kenneth Harrison, "Tabernacle," in The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, ed. Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1967), 821-24. Richard Elliott Friedman, "Tabernacle," in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 6:292-300, is an outstanding piece of technical scholarship. Along the way, Friedman argues that evidence amassed since the beginning of the twentieth century, such as the large number of tent shrines in the Ancient Near East, undermines the older scholarly view that the biblical Tabernacle was only a pious fiction.

[3] John Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1967), 77.

[4] C. K. Barrett, "The Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New," in Cambridge History of the Bible, ed. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 1:377-411, provides an insightful discussion of the interpretive assumptions and methods exhibited by New Testament writers as they alluded to, quoted, etc., the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. George W. E. Nickelsburg and Michael E. Stone, Faith and Piety in Early Judaism: Texts and Documents (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991), reveals how New Testament authors developed Old Testament themes like worship, piety, divine wisdom, judgment, and deliverance.

A Simple Introduction to 2 Peter

This post is a simple, one-page introduction to the New Testament letter known as 2nd Peter. I wrote this as a study handout for a Sunday-morning adult Bible class that I teach occasionally.

In this study, I set out to resist the reputation of 2nd Peter as a "paranoid" or "combative" rant characterized by "mud slinging." Instead, I approach 2nd Peter as a letter in which the enemies of truth should be taken seriously, and according to which truth and goodness will defeat error and ungodliness when the Lord's people "double down" on their commitment to develop virtue (2 Peter 1:3-11) and grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord (3:18).

Who Wrote This Letter?

The writer identifies himself as “Simon Peter” (1:1). If our translations were more exacting, they would have it "Simeon," a rare spelling for the Apostle’s name (the only other occurrence is found in Acts 15:14). In 2 Peter 1:16-18, the author recalls his experience of the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-7). According to 3:15, he seems to know very well the man he calls “our dear brother Paul.” And, the author refers to the writing of Paul as “Scriptures” (3:16). We can only imagine that Peter and Paul had reconciled after their public controversy reported in Galatians 2:11-21.

To Whom Was the Letter Written?

The recipients of 1 Peter are identified as Christians living in what we might call a five-state region: "Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Peter 1:1). 2 Peter is different. The letter is addressed in a much more universal way: it is to “those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours” (2 Peter 1:1). This is a bit of a puzzle since 2 Peter 3:1 might lead us to believe that 2 Peter was written to the same group as the first letter.

  

When Was It Written?

2 Peter 1:12-15 makes it clear that Peter wrote this letter not long before he died. A broad and consistent tradition has it that Peter was executed outside the city walls of Rome during the reign of the particularly cruel and depraved Emperor Nero. That likely happened around the year 66. An educated guess is that 2 Peter was written in 65.

Why Was It Written?

Here we might compare 2 Peter to 1 Peter. In his first letter, Peter instructs his readers about how to deal with outsiders who misunderstand and persecute Christians (1 Peter 4:4, 12). But in 2 Peter, he’s teaching them how to deal with insiders who are evil and who teach what is false (2 Peter 2:1; 3:3-4). The beginning and the end of 2 Peter suggest that, when it comes to spiritual warfare, “the best defense is a good offense” (see 2 Peter 1:3-11 and 3:17-18). This is the central the theme of our study.

P.S. The more extensive and detailed introduction to 2 Peter linked here comes from the NIV Study Bible.

Are We Living in the Last Days? (3rd of 3)

New Testament Teaching

What the Old Testament might have left in doubt, the New Testament makes absolutely clear: when the Scriptures speak of the last days, that expression refers to the entire Christian age, from the first appearance and saving work of Christ to his Second Coming.

One of the earliest examples of this is found in Acts 2. Quick to answer the slur that the Spirit-filled apostles were full of new wine, Peter announced to his hearers that what they were witnessing was the fulfillment of the prophecy recorded in Joel 2:28-32. It is important to note that Peter clearly says that the words of the prophet were, at that time, being fulfilled "in the last days" (Acts 2:17).

In much the same way, 1 Peter 1:20 reports that Christ "was revealed in these last times." The passage places the recipients of the letter, the first-century readers, in "these last times." Peter, along with his first-century audience, lived in the last days.

By themselves, these two passages would make the case. But even more revealing is Hebrews 1:1-2:

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

These first few words from Hebrews are especially important because they place Old Testament times and "these last days" side by side, identifying the second and concluding period as the time in which God has spoken to humanity by his Son. Because this was the common understanding and teaching in New Testament times, Paul could speak of Christians as those "on whom the ends of the ages have come" (1 Corinthians 10:11 NRSV).

Conclusion

What the Old Testament prophets saw as the future last days has become present reality through the work of God through Christ. According to the New Testament, the last days began with the ministry of Jesus and will conclude at his Second Coming. The biblical expression the last days refers to the entire Christian age, not merely to the very end of that age.

Without losing the edge of expectation, Christians must remember and teach that "no one knows about that day and hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (Matthew 24:36). It is best to remain ready by consistently living as we should before God.

Five Purposes of the Book of Acts

An acquaintance on Facebook recently posted this: I'm preparing to introduce our new class on the book of Acts. So I ask, "What is the book about?" Or put another way, "Why was it written? What does the author intend for his readers to get out of this work?" This is a great question. It challenged me to come up with the following. The Book of Acts was written . . .

1. To present a selective history of the earliest Christian movement, which purports to be an extension of the life of Jesus himself (1:1). According to this perspective, the Gospel of Luke, volume one of Luke's two-part work, reports what Jesus had merely begun to do and to teach.

2. To identify this movement, the Way (9:2), as the long-awaited restoration of Israel and the fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham (for example, 3:24-25).

3. To show that Christ Jesus the Lord remains present with his people by means of the Holy Spirit (1:1-8; 5:32; 16:6-10).

4. To showcase Christian teaching and preaching. The Book of Acts contains a high percentage of public discussions and sermons. One scholar determined that compared to other historical works written in classical antiquity, Acts contains a concentration of speech material five times greater than the average. Luke seems to be saying, "If you're responding to questions about the faith, and preaching the gospel, here's how it's done."

5.  To present a standard view of how to become a Christian, and what it means to be a Christian. A believing response to the preached message includes repentance and baptism into Christ, which bring the forgiveness of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit (2:38). For repentance as the demand, see 17:30. For baptism as the expected response, see passages like 8:12 and 18:8.

J. C. Beker on the Theology of Paul

Beker, J. Christiaan. The Triumph of God: The Essence of Paul's Thought. Translated by Loren T. Struckenbruck. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.

How should the letters of Paul be interpreted? Is there a key that will unlock the door to understanding? In The Triumph of God, the late J. Christiaan Beker, who then taught New Testament Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, presented his answers to those questions.

In 1980 Beker published Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Fortress Press, 1980), an insightful and provocative book which established him as a leading interpreter of the Apostle. In 1988, he issued a German, popular-level abridgment of the first book. His abridgment contains concepts from another of his previous works, Paul's Apocalyptic Gospel (Fortress, 1982).

The Triumph of God is Loren T. Struckenbruck's translation of Beker's German work of 1988 with an appendix entitled "Paul the Theologian." So, the book I'm reviewing here was at the time Beker's most recent attempt to explain to a popular audience what Paul's letters were, and are, all about.

Following the preface, which introduces the reader to Beker's basic concepts, "Part One: The Pauline Letter" presents his answer to the question of identifying the universal truth conveyed in Paul's contingent, occasional letters. Beker explains that this historical enterprise has often sacrificed the contingency and particularity of Paul's letters in order to gain coherence and "catholicity," which other attempts to interpret Paul conjecture too much. He critiques what he calls the "catholic solution" in which the author of Acts is said to have reduced the entirety of Paul's thought to a minimum. This solution stands behind several textual variants among Paul's letters which would give them a more universal appeal.

Second, Beker faults the "Marcionite solution" for its arbitrary attempts to identify the center of Paul's thought, attempts which sacrifice the situational character of the Apostle's letters in order to "discover" their doctrinal core.

Third, the "psychological solution," which proposes Paul's developing religious psyche as the basis for discontinuity or diversity among his letters, mistakes a conjecture for a real answer. For Beker, the satisfactory answer must be rooted in something firmer than mere speculation about Paul's religious psychology.

Having dispensed with what he considers misguided attempts to understand Paul, Beker turns to his own two-part solution. First, Paul's letters represent a dialectic, an interaction between the Apostle's thought (which is coherent) and the situations to which he writes (which are contingent). This approach rightly views Paul not as a systematic theologian who wrote timeless, doctrinal treatises, but as a missionary interpreter of the gospel who wrote occasional letters to churches in a variety of unique situations. Second, the coherence of Paul's thought is rooted in his Jewish apocalyptic worldview, which is the "basic framework" of his gospel. Beker outlines what he means by "apocalyptic worldview": (a) the faithfulness and vindication of God, (b) the universal salvation of the world, (c) the dualistic structure of the world, and (d) the imminent coming of God in glory" (p. 21). Then he elaborates on each point.

In "Part Two: Theological Consequences," Beker demonstrates his first thesis by revealing contingency in Romans and Galatians. With seasoned observation he notes, for example, that in Galatians 3 Paul's argument centers on Christ, the seed of Abraham, as the object of faith; but in Romans 4 it is rather the God of Abraham who is the object of faith. These sorts of distinctions reveal that, far from being a timeless systematic theology and its abstract (as they are typically portrayed), Romans and Galatians employ basic symbols such as "law," "Abraham," and "faith" in significantly different ways.

Next, Beker demonstrates his second thesis that it is the apocalyptic background that represents the real coherence in Paul's thought. Examining the Apostle's interpretation of the death and resurrection of Jesus, his triumph over demonic powers in his cross, and the Christian life of anticipation, the author shows that Paul's thought is, indeed, rooted in an apocalyptic outlook. Beker adds a chapter in which he discusses the close tie between sin and death in Paul's thought, along with Paul's understanding of the Law as both good but also instrumental in the hands of death.

Finally, the appendix underscores, first the need to find the coherence of Paul's thought at a level beneath the text of his letters and, second, the transparency of apocalyptic as that coherent center, a quality lacking in other attempts to interpret the Apostle. A useful bibliography, index of passages cited, and index of names round out the book.

At least two questions arise in response to Beker's position. First, will not the "fluid" and "subtextual" center of Paul's theology allow for a more open stance toward questions of authorship? (Beker denies the Pauline authorship of Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, and the so-called Pastoral Epistles). In other words, how can the flexible coherence of Paul's thought become the final arbiter in deciding which letters should be attributed to him? Second, if the apocalyptic framework and semantic system which are necessary to a true understanding of Paul's message no longer exist as such, in what way can his "truth of the gospel" be proclaimed in our contemporary setting?

Notwithstanding such questions, preachers, teachers, and other serious students of Paul can profitably use this book to understand one of the Apostle's leading modern interpreters who consistently provides penetrating insight into Paul's thought and letters.

Note: An earlier version of this review first appeared in Restoration Quarterly, Volume 35, Number 1, 1993.

Albert Schweitzer's Failed Quest. Or Was It?

Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede. New York: Macmillan, 1968.

This book is a translation of Schweitzer’s classic of 1906, Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschicte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung. It provides a landmark overview of the then-modern quest to identify the Jesus of history. Schweitzer chronicles the work of, among many others, H. S. Reimarus, the pioneering German skeptic; D. F. Strauss, who brought the anti-supernatural approach to the life of Jesus into the foreground of scholarship; Bruno Bauer, who notoriously concluded that Jesus of Nazareth never existed; Ernest Renan, who introduced the rationalistic treatment of the life of Jesus to a popular French-speaking audience; and Johannes Weiss, who emphasized that the teaching of Jesus assumes and advances the ideas connected with contemporary Jewish eschatology. Finally, Schweitzer pits his own thoroughgoing eschatological understanding of Jesus against the completely skeptical view typified by W. Wrede’s book, The Messianic Secret in the Gospels.  He concludes: “There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the Life of Jesus” (p. 398), and he asserts that it is Christian experience that authenticates the way of Christ.

 

For a brief overview that deals with the question and updates the discussion, see N. T. Wright, Who Was Jesus? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), pages 1-18. Or, see Wright's academic article, “Quest for the Historical Jesus,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 3, pages 796-802.

A Few Notes on MacCulloch, Chapter 4

Back to Diarmaid MacCulloch's book, Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. I mentioned in an earlier post that when it comes to the New Testament and Christian origins, MacCulloch displays a penchant for finding disagreement or contradiction where there isn't any. More of this shows up in Chapter 4.

For example, MacCulloch claims that when Paul refused to accept financial support from churches he was working with at the time, he acted "contrary" to the teaching of Jesus who said that "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." But why is it contrary if Paul, for the sake of his mission, chose to relinquished his rights?

In an attempt to bolster his point, he actually makes matters worse with a complete misreading of 2 Thessalonians 3:6. There Paul instructs Christians at Thessalonica to distance themselves "from any brother who is living in idleness." According to MacCulloch, Paul's rigid work ethic here runs counter to the example of "Jesus and his wandering Twelve." The author appears to have forgotten that he had earlier quoted Jesus to the effect that those engaged in a teaching ministry had a right to be supported. The idle Christians at Thessalonica had not left fishing nets in order to follow and to learn from Jesus. As 2 Thessalonians makes clear, assuming that the return of Christ was just around the corner, they had quit working altogether only to become a public nuisance, which is a vast difference. In the words of Paul, they had gone from busy to being busybodies. Not to mention that MacCulloch shouldn't be quoting Paul from 2 Thessalonians anyway since he earlier claimed that the Apostle didn't write it, labeling it one of the "later pastiches of the authentic letters" (see 97, especially note 53 which can be found on 1025).

Shallow reading of the New Testament turns up again in a discussion of Romans 16. Contrary to MacCulloch, in verses 1 and 2 of that chapter, sister Phoebe, a diakonos of the church at Cenchreae, does not receive a greeting from Paul. Instead, the Apostle instructs the Christian community at Rome to receive her and to give her any help she may need from them. The passage makes clear that Paul had given to Pheobe the responsibility and honor of delivering his Letter to the Romans, a bit of evidence that MacCulloch might have used to strengthen his point about the relatively-high status of women in at least some segments of the first-century church (116-17).

Again, I think that MacCulloch is a pretty good researcher and writer. And I still expect that, in later portions of his book, he'll be able to teach me a few things about Christian history. Until then, I'll say that in these early chapters he should have been more careful, not so quick to question the New Testament.

Add to Your Faith! A Message from 2nd Peter 1

Tucked away in 2 Peter chapter 1 is a great passage that deals mainly with two things: what God has done for his people, and what he expects his people to do in response.

Peter begins the letter by reminding his Christian readers of what God has done for us. By exerting his "divine power," the Lord has given us "everything we need for life and godliness." By sending Christ, who was crucified for our sins and raised by the power of the Spirit for our justification, the Father has provided the way through which we can receive everything that we really need. Christians have joy and confidence because we know the one who has "called us by his own glory and goodness" (1:3).

Also, by calling us and allowing us to know him, God has extended to his people "very great and precious promises." Such gifts are not an end in themselves. They are meant to enable us to “participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world" (1:4). To put it another way, the promises of God draw us closer to him and encourage us to live lives in which we become holy, even as God is holy (Leviticus 20:7-8; 1 Peter 1:15-16). By living this way, we are set free from the destructive power of a sinful lifestyle so that we can fulfill our one great purpose of bringing glory and honor to God. This leads directly into a discussion of the human response to divine grace.

Beginning with verse 5, Peter turns from his description of God’s grace to the responsibilities of God’s people. We are to give “all diligence” (KJV) or “make every effort” (NIV) to “add” certain qualities to the foundation of our faith. There’s hardly a good way to translate the Greek word for “add,” which actually means “to provide at one's own expense.” The term highlights the idea of personal effort and sacrifice. The language suggests that although adding to your faith is worthwhile, it is not always easy. Consider each item that Christians are to have or to add:

Faith refers to our loyalty to God as well as our trust in him. It is mentioned first in the list because without faith we cannot even begin to please God (Hebrews 11:6). But on the basis of faith, we can obey and live for God. It is in this sense that we are justified by faith (Romans 5:1). Faith is the victory that overcomes the world (1 John 5:4).

Goodness carries the idea of "moral excellence" in the broadest sense of that expression. Because the Greek term here is so very general, the King James translators chose the word "virtue." Like their Lord, the followers of Jesus Christ should be known as people who do go about doing good things (Acts 10:37-38).

Knowledge supplies a Christian what he or she must have in order to make moral choices and doctrinal decisions. It is only upon the basis of knowledge that Christians can “test everything” (1 Thessalonians 5:20-21) or “test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1-3).

Self-control is the virtue that enables a Christian to resist temptation and closely follow the footsteps of Jesus. Developing this trait requires a person to rise above our environment. To be self-controlled runs against the grain of a society that practically worships unsuppressed action and the breaking down of inhibitions. But people who want to please God will work at strengthening the muscles of restraint so that they can act as they should.

Perseverance is translated from a word whose verb form means "to remain under." From this we gather that to persevere is to willingly remain under a heavy load you'd rather not carry. In this sense, the call for patience is similar to our expression, "Stick to it" or "Stay with it." Far too many families and churches are plagued by a lack of loyalty, an unwilling attitude in the face of those inevitable conflicts. The gospel has something to say to people who are prone to give up. It says, “Stick to it, and learn to patiently endure whatever you must for the sake of the kingdom of God!” (compare Hebrews 12:1-3).

Godliness refers to a right attitude towards God which leads to the right actions towards God's creation. Whenever we gratefully acknowledge the Almighty as the maker and sustainer of everything, we develop a sense of how we should treat other people, who bear the likeness and image of God (Genesis 1:26-27, James 3:7-10, and 1 John 4:20).

Brotherly kindness initially speaks of the warmth and affection that should be found in every family, but especially in the church, the family of God. According to Peter's first letter, sincere love for our brothers and sisters in the Lord is a by-product of our obedience to the truth (1 Peter 1:22).

Love is mentioned last. Why? Because love is the single quality that encompasses and supports all the others. Love is the capstone quality of the Christian life. It is what makes our abilities and sacrifices worth something in the eyes of God (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).

So what do you need to add?

Suffering in Second Timothy

Suffering and sacrifice just aren't a part of God's plan for you. True Christianity is all about having peace and prosperity and everything you want, or at least most of what you want most of the time.

No, I wasn't speaking for myself there. Yes, I was trying to give expression to what I hear a lot of these days. Sickening, isn't it?

For a few months now, I've been teaching a Wednesday-night adult class that's surveying the New Testament. A couple weeks ago, getting ready for our time with Second Timothy, I sat down and spent about fifteen minutes or more slowly (and I mean slowly) reading through this short letter. Here's some of what I noticed, or noticed again. . . .

It seems that by the time he writes this letter, Paul has managed to get himself into prison in Rome (1:16-17). At an earlier stage in his life, when he wrote to people like Philemon and the Philippians, Paul told them to get a room ready for him. Even though he was confined for awhile, he said he would soon be coming to see them (for example, Philippians 1:12-26 and Philemon 22-23) But this time around, usually referred to as his "second Roman imprisonment," he doesn't seem to be hopeful about getting out (2 Timothy 4:6-8).

Timothy, on the other hand, is apparently at Ephesus (1:18), which is where Paul had left him according to 1 Timothy 1:3. From the first letter, it seems like Timothy was having to deal with a lot controversy. The second letter continues this theme. In a situation like that, says Paul, Timothy must teach his people to avoid disputing over words (2:14). Timothy himself must have nothing to do with these stupid, senseless controversies. And, he must avoid falling into the trap of becoming quarrelsome. He should be kind to everyone (2:23-24).

Apparently, handling this sort of assignment will not be easy for Timothy. Why? Because he is not one for taking the bull by the horns, so to speak. Running all the way through 2 Timothy is the hint that this young evangelist is very uncomfortable with conflict. At the beginning of the letter, for example, Paul says that he remembers Timothy's tears (1:4). What Timothy had been crying about is not clear. But what does seem clear is that Timothy is prone to being timid. Paul needs to remind him that the Spirit that God gave to us is not one of fear, but one of power, love, and self-control (1:7). Paul goes on to tell Timothy not to be ashamed. Neither he, Paul, nor his helper, Onesiphorus, were ashamed (1:12-17). From there, Paul goes on to issue several related examples and words of encouragement:

• be strong (2:1)
• take your share of suffering (2:3)
• I am suffering (2:9)
• I endure everything (2:10)
• You have witnessed my persecutions and sufferings. Now you endure (3:10-15)
• endure suffering (4:5)

These add up to a powerful testimony about the necessity for Christians, and especially their leaders, to endure hardship for the Lord's sake. So here are some questions we started out with in class. Before I asked these questions, I told the group that it wasn't my intention to bring everyone down. I was my intention to cause them to think about some things that are inevitable:

1. What is the most difficult thing you've ever had to endure? I'm not asking about just anything that was hard or painful. I'm thinking about enduring hardship for the sake of someone else, or for the sake of something that was important to you.

2. What is the most difficult conflict you've ever had with another person or group of people?

3. In those circumstances, what helped you or inspired you to hang on?

Date is Set for Christ's Return

Just in case you hadn't heard, Jesus is coming back . . . . on May 21, 2011. Be sure to mark your calendars.

My favorite part of the story: The article begins with, There are 24 shopping days left till Christmas. And 171 days left until Jesus' second coming. I looked through the comments section for this story. Here are some of the more interesting lines:

What? Jesus is coming back right after graduation? I'm SO done working!

Where are we going? And why are we in this hand basket?

Dangit! That's my dog's birthday. I'm totally going to have to change the theme for her party!

Does this guy also predict winning lottery numbers?

Isn't this strange? What do you think? Is it all a publicity and marketing campaign? Or do you think the people making this prediction are sincere?

Some New Testament Resources

Over the last few days, I've taken a closer look at some Internet resources that I can use either for myself, or for the students who are a part of my New Testament course. Here are four:

1. A new scholarly journal called Early Christianity has published all of the content of its first issue online. Volume 1, Number 1 includes "An Editorial Manifesto" and a series of articles that deal with "New Directions in Pauline Theology," as well as some book reviews. Looks interesting. I'm wondering, though, if they'll provide free access to every subsequent issue. I'm thinking they won't.

2. New Testament scholar and Duke University professor Mark Goodacre has a site for his podcasts. I've listened to two or three of them so far.

3. As many have already discovered, Goodacre also hosts a much larger site called New Testament Gateway, an "award winning web directory." It's huge and first-rate.

4. Sometime back, Open Yale Courses posted the videos and transcripts of Dale Martin's lectures in an undergraduate class called "Introduction to New Testament History and and Literature." Ever wondered what it would be like to sit in on an Ivy League N.T. course? This is it.

Complete in Christ: Introducting Colossians with Questions and Answers

1. Who wrote Colossians?

In the very first verse the author calls himself Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus (NIV). This is the former Saul, who was called into Christ's service on the road to Damascus (Acts 9: 1-19)

2. If Paul was the author, who was he writing to?

According to chapter 1, verse 2, Paul wrote to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ at Colossae.

3. Colossae. Where was that?

It was in the Roman province of Asia, a region about the size of the State of Arkansas and located at the western end of modern-day Turkey. The site of ancient Colossae is now uninhabited. Prior to New Testament times, it was a major city. But by the time Paul wrote to the Christians there, Colossae had been in decline for many years, and would have been regarded as "off the beaten path." Not exactly colossal. Here's what the site of ancient Colossae looks like today:

4. Most of the time, Paul wrote to churches that he himself had planted. Is that true of Colossians?

No. In 2:1, Paul clearly states that the Colossians had never seen him. And according to 1:6-7, the Christians at Colossae had learned the gospel from Epaphras.

5. So who was Epaphras?

From what we can gather, he was from Colossae (4:12), and had planted the church there. It's safe to assume that he had learned the message about Christ during that time recorded in Acts 19:9-10, when Paul taught every day in the hall of Tyrannus for two years, so that all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.

6. If Paul had never been to Colossae, what caused him to write to the church there?

The best explanation is that Epaphras, knowing first-hand the trouble in the church, traveled to Rome where Paul was under house arrest (4:3, 18). Epaphras went there knowing that he could ask for Paul's advice and help. In response to his appeal, Paul wrote the letter we call Colossians.

7. What were the issues in the Colossian church?

Apparently, the congregation had come under the influenced of some impressive but misguided teachers. According to 2:4, these people were capable of deceiving others. In the words of 2:8, they threatened to take the minds of others captive by philosophy and empty deceit.

8. What was this "philosophy and empty deceit"?

Once again, the letter itself, especially chapter 2, is our best source for answering the question. Apparently, the false teaching at Colossae involved a mixture of Jewish and pagan beliefs and rituals. These included the following:

• Abstaining from certain foods and drinks, and observing special days (2:16)
• Worshipping angels, who may have been seen as mediators between God and humanity (2:18)
• Observing general rules that emphasized denial: "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch" (2:20-21)
• Harsh treatment of the body (2:23)

9. Why were these beliefs and practices opposed in the letter?

For a variety of reasons. First, in some cases, the doctrine of the misguided teachers was outright error. An obvious example is the worship of angels mentioned in 2:18.

Second, some of these observances may have been right in and of themselves. But in the case of the Colossians, they were kept for the wrong reasons. As Paul explains in Romans 14:1-6, an individual Christian is free to regard one day more sacred than another, so long as he is convinced in his own mind, and so long as he doesn't make what he values an ethic for the entire church.. On the other hand, if a Christian feels compelled to observe certain days in order to remain in God's grace, that Christian is headed in the wrong spiritual direction (Galatians 4:8-11).

Third, and most serious of all, the effect of such teaching was to give place to the elemental spirits of the universe and to downplay the importance of Christ.

10. "Elemental spirits"? What does Paul mean by that?

In his book, Backgrounds of Earliest Christianity, Everett Ferguson helps us to understand what people in the first century assumed about them. As Ferguson explains, long before the time of Christ, many Greeks came to believe that the heavenly bodies were gods. To this day, the planets in our solar system bear the names of pagan gods. The spheres of the universe were under the control of these gods, whose power was unlimited. Of course, the religious thinking and practices of the day were heavily influenced by this view. Much of what people did was designed to protect themselves and to win the favor of the elemental spirits. Evidently, the misguided teachers at Colossae had mixed this view of the world with the Christian view.

11. So what did Paul say in order to correct and warn the Colossians?

Plenty. The first goal was to re-establish the majesty and pre-eminence of Christ in the minds of the Colossians. The word all shows up 24 times in this short letter. In most instances all refers to Christ in some way. Notice, for example, the use of that word in a passage that intensely focuses on the supremacy of Christ, Colossians 1:15-20. According to these verses, Christ is:

• the image of the invisible God and the first- born of all creation (1:15).
• the creator of all things (1:16).
• before all things, and the sustainer of all things (1:17).
• the head of the church, and the first-born from the dead (1:18).
• the dwelling place of all the fullness of God (1:19).
• the one who reconciles all things to God the Father (1:20).

This was the Jesus of whom the Colossians had first heard. This was the Jesus whom they had first received. And they were to live in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as they had been taught (2:6-7). To put it another way, living for Jesus Christ meant not only the right understanding of him, but also right kind of life. This is the subject of the very practical section in 3:1-4:6.

12. What kinds of behavior does Paul emphasize there?

He seems to be writing to a group made up mostly of former pagans. Having referred to a sinful lifestyle, he goes on to say, You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived (3:7). But now, as God's chosen people, the Colossians are to put off the old ways of sin, and put on the new way of righteousness in Christ. They should give special attention, says Paul, to the way they relate to other people and to what they say.