More From Alexander Campbell's Lectures

I'm taking my time reading through Familiar Lectures on the Pentateuch. A few highlights from numbers V and VI:

In Lecture V, Alexander Campbell speaks to the men at Bethany College about the superiority of man, and the wonderful wisdom and goodness of the Creator, as manifested in the closing acts of his six days' labor (pp. 89-90).

"Trinity" Used in the Sense of Three-ness

In an earlier post, I mentioned AC's aversion to theorizing and, thus, the unlikeliness of his using the term "Trinity." However, he does speak of God's triune character (90), and he does believe that the plural pronouns of the creation account refer to the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. He even speaks of their plurality (or three-ness) as the trinity (90).

Man's Superiority as a Moral Creature

The superiority of man is strikingly developed by comparison. Wonderful and grand are the qualities that distinguish man from all things else; for there is no creature beside man, on the face of the earth, capable of being inducted into the conception of a moral idea. You may impart different kind of instruction to animals . . . . but you can never communicate to any animal the idea of moral obligation (91). So far, I've come across nothing that even begins to sound like the depravity of man. The anthropology is high. Adam was the universe in miniature. He is not only the pinnacle of Creation, he's way up there.

"Soul" and "Spirit"

It may be enough for us to know, that there is an animalism in the soul of man, but that there is none in his spirit. The spirit of man is the glory of man, and the special emanation from God (92-93).

Necessity of Knowledge

And we claim, that if a man would enjoy himself perfectly, that is, if he would derive all the pleasure possible from the healthy exercise of all his faculties, he must possess a complete knowledge of his mental and physical, moral and spiritual constitution and character, together with his surrounding circumstances. Such knowledge will not only comprehend the whole outward and inward man, but it will radiate, and lead off the inquiring and ever active mind, into all the branches of material and social science (95).

The Week Has No Type in Nature

In Lecture VI, Campbell begins by emphasizing the uniqueness of the week as a measure of time: This ordinance of time, depends entirely upon absolute will for its origin. The cessation of the creative labors of God on the seventh day, gave rise to this division of time; for which there is no type in nature. There is a type, or some symbolic mark, for every cardinal institution of the divine economy, except the week, and that has none. . . . . The week culminated in the seventh day--at the end of creation of the world--and that being a day of rest for man, is commemorative of God's ceasing to create, and the term rest is disposed of, on the ground that it is simply a figurative expression, so far as God is concerned, signifying, merely, that he ceased to act at the end of the week, but by no means indicates that the Almightly stopped to rest--to recover from the exhaustion of labor (96-97).

Uniqueness of the Fourth Commandment/Sabbath Remembrance Forever

Keeping this subject-matter under consideration, we invite attention to another remarkable fact, bearing upon this interesting question. It is this : Every one of the ten commandments begins with the phrase, " Thou shalt" or " shalt not" do this or that, except the fourth, and that begins with, " Remember." This is quite peculiar, and its significance is worthy of notice. Why this variation in the form of expression, as introduced at this particular command ? May we not presume or affirm, that it is because the Author had in his mind the fact that there is one day above all others in importance ? It was of extraordinary regard, because God had ceased to work on that day, and for this reason man is especially commanded to "remember" (always) " the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." On that day of days, God terminated the creation of the heavens and the earth, and retired into the solitude of his own infinity. Out of respect for this great truth, this important event, it was meet that man should cease to work on the same day, for the purpose of commemorating the great termination. (98). So, does Campbell believe that the Sabbath is to be remembered always, or not? Would he make a distinction between remembrance and observance? Interesting. And what a blessing to get to hear him "speaking" in this book.

A History Project

Starting in about one month, I plan to dive head-first into one of the following historical studies: Some aspect of . . .

1. Quanah Parker and the Comanches, Texas, and Oklahoma

2. The King James Bible

3. John Glas, Robert Sandeman, and the Sandemanian movement in Great Britain and America

4. Alexander Campbell and his Familiar Lectures on the Pentateuch

5. Italian immigration to the United States in the late nineteenth century.

So what sounds interesting to you? Which one would you pick? Is there a certain bit of history you'd love to explore and just haven't yet? Or maybe you're in the middle of something like that right now. Tell us about it.

Alexander Campbell on Genesis 1-3

In Lectures III and IV of Familiar Lectures on the Pentateuch, Alexander Campbell comments on different parts of the first three chapters of Genesis. Lecture IV is, more specifically, about the first Adam and the last Adam, Jesus Christ. Here are some of the highlights:

Study hard to read well

Convinced of the unique quality and character of the Bible, Campbell asserts that it requires more and better learning to read a chapter of Holy Writ, as it should be read, than to read one of Cicero's orations; or that in European colleges honors are awarded to the best readers. We find much in the sacred volume that appears very simple to undeveloped minds, but it grows in value and importance as men become riper in years and understanding. It often requires hours of study to enable us to read a verse or chapter in the Bible as it should be pronounced (p. 75). I'm not convinced that many readers at church put in "hours of study" beforehand. A few minutes of study and practice would have improved some of the readings I've heard.

The serpent showed up as a human

For reasons that I don't completely understand, Campbell seems intent on the interpretation that the serpent of Genesis 3 actually showed up in human form: In the third chapter, the serpent is presented for our consideration. We call him serpent, as Moses did, but we presume that was not his name originally. The word serpent means creeper. He fell into this condition because of the deception he practiced upon the inhabitants of the garden. I presume he was originally very like man. I do not mean man as he is at present, but as he was originally. Men have become greatly humanized, and in this, our day, some are to be found scarcely distinguishable from the lower animals (78-79). . . . I entertain no doubt that the serpent was incarnated in the human form (80).

God's gracious protection of sinners

In Genesis 3, after Adam and Eve became the first sinners, they were driven from the Garden of Eden and prevented from eating of the tree of life. What Campbell gathers from this is that God expelled Adam from the garden, lest he should eat the fruit of the tree of life, and become immortal in misery, with no hope of changing or dying. Therefore, like all the acts of the All-wise and Beneficent Creator in dealing with man, it was gracious (82-83). That's a common approach to the passage, which makes perfect sense. I quote it here simply because I love Campbell's expression.

"Let us" in Genesis 1:26-27

In this connection, keeping in mind the form "let us," it will be well to observe, the peculiar and characteristic style of the language employed, which clearly indicates plurality; the doctrine and existence of three persons in the Godhead (84-85). Campbell did not accept all aspects of Trinitiarianism; which is not to say that he didn't accept the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. He did. But I suspect that he didn't use the term "Trinity" in a positive way, and that he didn't because it is not a biblical word.

Alexander Campbell on Genesis 1:2

For the longest time, I've been meaning to read Alexander Campbell's Familiar Lectures on the Pentateuch. He delivered them at Bethany College during the school year of 1859-60, when he was in his early seventies.

Campbell is an important member of my extended spiritual family, to say the least. And I've always wanted to find out more about how he handled the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. According to Campbell, how should the church put the Old Testament to use as Holy Scripture? Here, I suppose, he will answer that question not so much in theory, but in practice. So I'm looking forward to what will follow.

So far I've read the first two entries. Lecture I is introductory. Campbell highlights the necessity of the Bible for any education worthy of the name. He speaks against human theories, contrasting them with facts from the Bible. As I read this lecture, I thought about how members of the Churches of Christ, conservative heirs of Campbell, who have pursued higher education have almost always been "facts people." That is, they've typically studied history and languages, above all the Bible; but not so much philosophy or systematic theology. To get a feel for why that's the case, one would need to go no further than Lecture I, where Campbell says: The failure of popular systems of education . . . presents to us, very impressively, the truth that facts, and not theories, realities and not speculations, are essential to the true intent and meaning of education (p. 63). And where are the facts to be found? Where do we meet up with realities? Above all, says Campbell, in the pages of the Bible.

In Lecture II, Campbell covers the first two verses of Genesis 1. He presents running commentary on words and phrases. Up to this point in the Lectures, he hasn't made reference to specific Hebrew words. But he does mention the sense or the gist of the Hebrew text. In this lecture, I was especially intrigued by Campbell's reference to contemporary geology versus the biblical creation account. Here is part of his discussion of Genesis 1:2:

The second verse is especially important, inasmuch as it has to do with the many dates entertained by geologists, in regard to the antiquity of creation. But as already remarked, we take the Mosaic account, against all the world of authority of whatever nature--always accepting however, the geological history, so far as it accords with the inspired record. In this verse Moses presents us with a statement of the condition of things, in that undefined period, anteceding all the acts in the drama of creation, presented in the sequel of this chapter. How long a measure of time is assumed in this series of facts, is beyond the mental scrutiny of mortal man. (p. 71).

Here Campbell clearly states that when human theory goes against something the Bible affirms, then he will side with the Bible every time. Nevertheless, he notes, Genesis 1:2 does not give a time frame for that period during which the earth was without form and void. I don't know if the so-called "Gap Theory" had been formulated as early as Campbell's day. What is clear is that he leaves open the possibility of a huge gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:3. In spite of his loyalty to the Bible, I wonder how much he was concerned that the Creation account match up with modern geology. Either way, he makes it a point to emphasize the indefinite period described in Genesis 1:2. Interesting, don't you think?

Mexico, Comanche Bands, and the Culture of Texas

Among my summer reads, I'm especially enjoying S. C. Gwynne's new book, Empire of the Summer Moon. As readers have learned to expect, it's the subtitle that tells you what this one is about: Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Most Powerful Indian Tribe in American History.

It's like David McCullough wrote a book about the Comanches. It's that good.

But the book isn't just about Quanah Parker and his father's tribe. It also relates a good bit about other Indian tribes, the Spanish in the American Southwest, and the early days of Texas. The following passage is a good sample and relates something that I think is very important about the history and culture of the Lone Star State:

Texas was never supposed to be its own sovereign country. After their victory at San Jacinto the vast majority of Texans believed that their territory would be immediately annexed by the United States. There were a few would-be empire builders like Mirabeau Lamar and James Parker (who volunteered to fulfill Lamar's grandiose vision by conquering New Mexico) who had other ideas. But mostly everyone else wanted statehood. They were soon disappointed. There were two main reasons it did not happen. First, Mexico had never recognized the Independence of its renegade northern province. If the United States added Texas it risked war with Mexico, something that, in 1836, it was not prepared to do. Nor could it easily admit a slave territory.

Texas was thus left alone, broke and militarily punchless, for ten years to confront two implacable enemies: Mexico on the south, and the Comanche nation on the west and north. The fledgling country would never know peace. Mexican incursions persisted; the city of San Antonio was captured twice by large Mexican armies in 1842. Raids were constant, as was the the predation of itinerant bandits from across the border. And Texas's western frontier was the scene of continuous attacks by Comanches. It is interesting to note Texas's peculiar position here: Neither of these enemies would have accepted peace on the terms the new republic would have offered them. Even more remarkably, neither would accept surrender. The Mexican army consistently gave no quarter, most famously at the Alamo. All Texan combatants were summarily shot. The Nermernuh, [i.e., Comanches] meanwhile, did not even have a word for surrender. In plains warfare there was never any such thing; it was always a fight to the death. In this sense, the Texans did not have the usual range of diplomatic options. They had to fight. (p. 131, emphasis is original).

One of many priceless passages.

Glasite Beginnings: Scottish National Religion in the Early Eighteenth Century

This post picks up the topic of my previous entry on Robert Sandeman (1718-1771). Eventually, the student of Sandeman has to go back to his mentor and father-in-law, the Scottish minister John Glas (portrait above). And to understand Glas and the movement he inspired, we have to establish the setting, the religious and political climate of Scotland in the early 1700s.

For many decades, religion in Scotland was dominated by the idea of a national church. For example, the Scots Confession of 1560, written under the guidance of John Knox, clearly united church and state. Chapter 24 takes up "The Civil Magistrate":

Moreover, we state that the preservation and purification of religion is particularly the duty of kings, princes, rulers and magistrates. They are not only appointed for civil government but also to maintain true religion and to suppress all idolatry and superstition. (The Scots Confession 1560, ed. G. D. Henderson, trans. into modern English by James Bulloch, [Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1960], 78).

More-elaborate wording is found the Westminster Confession of Faith, which also provides for a national church. Drawn up and introduced during the 1640s, it became the official statement of the Church of Scotland in 1689. As late as 1910, all ministers of the Church were required to subscribe to it. Regarding the civil magistrate the Confession states the following:

It is his duty to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented and reformed, and all ordinances of God duly settled, administered and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatever is transacted within be according to the mind of God. (Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder, Documents of the Christian Church, 4th ed. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011], 308).

Similar language is found in the Solemn League and Covenant. For a time this document united the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, declaring them to be of one reformed religion. In 1644, in exchange for military assistance from Scotland, the statement was imposed on all Englishmen over the age of eighteen. Article 3 pledges to maintain the king's authority in the preservation and defence of the true religion. (Documents of the Christian Church, 317).

To the Scottish mind, then, a national church governed under a system of presbyteries and synods was natural. And due to the political history of the Church of Scotland, its national covenant was not so much about religious conviction as it was about patriotic zeal, especially opposition to the old enemy, England.

It was into this world that John Glas was born in Auchtermuchty, Scotland, on September 21, 1695. His family line included many clergymen, beginning with his great-grandfather, William Glas, a favorite of Scotland's King James VI, who would eventually ascend to the throne of England and oversee the translation of the Bible that bears his name.

A devout young man, Glas pursued his preparation for Christian ministry with remarkable zeal. The University of Saint Andrews awarded him the Master of Arts degree when he was still only seventeen years old. Glas later continued his studies at the University of Edinburgh. Although he doubted his own ability and readiness--"My uneasiness in all respects was evident to me" he later wrote--he finally agreed to go through with the exams administered by the Presbytery of Dunkeld. He passed the exams and received his probationary license on May 20, 1718.

The next year, Glas was called to become the next pastor of the small church at Tealing in the Presbytery of Dundee (John Howard Smith, The Perfect Rule of the Christian Religion [Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2008], 17-18). As a young preacher, Glas was in full sympathy with the long-established Church of Scotland. During those early years, he considered the Church's presbyterian polity the most scriptural and, therefore, the best form of church government. He completely rejected the episcopal form, referring to it as prelacy, and gave little thought to independency, congregational autonomy, which he regarded as mere confusion and the mother of all the sectaries (Smith, The Perfect Rule of the Christian Religion, 187, n. 12).

But he was compelled to reconsider the question when he began a course of evening lectures based on the Shorter Catechism. Question 26 asked, How doth Christ execute the office of king? Glas concluded that, ironically, Christ did not rule as king of the Church of Scotland. Instead, heads of state, often uninterested in matters of the spirit, and heavy-handed members of synods controlled everything.

In time, Glas came to understand the kingdom of Christ as essentially spiritual. He, therefore, rejected the notion of a national church and began to favor the idea of the independent congregation made up of followers of Christ, instead of all the citizens who just happened to live in a certain parish. In the words of Smith,

Stemming from a belief in the essential spirituality of the church, he came to the conclusion that such an institution must be composed of true believers who possessed a real experience of saving grace, who, in compliance with the will of Christ, felt an inevitable compulsion to separate themselves from the world. (The Perfect Rule of the Christian Religion, 21).

As Harry Escott put it, Glas concluded that National Christianity is not New Testament Christianity (The History of Scottish Congregationalism, [Glasgow: Congregational Union of Scotland, 1960], 17).

A radical commitment to the spiritual and, therefore, independent character of the congregation of Christ's people--the separation of church and state, announced by the church--became a hallmark of the group that would come to be called Glasites, and, later, outside of Scotland, Sandemanians.

But this wasn't the only idea that Robert Sandeman inherited from his mentor. More about John Glas another time.

Like a Giant among Dwarfs: Robert Sandeman

On April 17, 1771, Ezra Stiles, then pastor of the Second Congregational Church of Newport, Rhode Island, wrote in his diary about something he had recently seen in the newspapers:

that lately died at Danbury in Connecticutt [sic] Mr Robert Sandeman Founder of the Sect of Sandemanians. He came from Scotland into New Engld Autumn 1764. then about aet. 47. as he then told me.

Stiles (portrait below) would go on to serve as President of Yale College from 1778 until his death in 1795. An influential church leader during his day, he met Sandeman when the Scotsman first arrived in America, landing at Boston in 1764. Even before that time, Stiles and several of his fellow Congregationalist pastors had taken a wary interest in Sandeman and the independent Christian group of which he was the leading light.

It's hardly a stretch to say that Stiles, like many other great men, was interested in just about everything. The same was true of his friend Benjamin Franklin. But not everything captured Stiles' attention as did the life and times and demise of Sandeman. From the diary entry for August 5, 1772:

In the Boston print [i.e., newspaper] of 3d Inst. it is said.

"A Monument has been cut in this Town by Mr. Henry Christian Geyer, Stone cutter at the South End, to be sent to Connecticutt: it is executed on the composit Order with twisted Pillars, and the other proper Ornaments, having a Cherub's Head on Wings, and the following Label from his Mouth Rev. xiv 6, 7. --On the Tomb-stone is this Inscription.

Here lies

Until the Resurrection

The Body of

ROBERT SANDEMAN

A Native of Perth, North Britain,
who in the face of continual Opposition
From all Sorts of Men
Long and boldly contended
For the ancient Faith:
That the bare work of JESUS CHRIST,
without a Deed, or Thought, on the part of Man,
Is sufficient to present
The chief of Sinners
Spotless before God:
To declare this blessed Truth

As testified in the holy Scriptures

He left his Country--he left his Friends,

And after much patient Suffering

Finished his Labors

At DANBURY

2d April 1771,

aged 53 years.

Deigned Christ come so nigh to us

As not to count it shame

To call us Brethren--shall we blush

At aught that bears his Name.

Nay let us boast in his Reproach

And glory in his Cross,

When he appears, one smile from him

Shall far o'erpay our Loss."

The April 3, 1826 issue of The Christian Baptist includes an exchange between a semi-anonymous writer and the editor, Alexander Campbell. The initial letter, says Campbell, was written by one of the most worthy bishops in Virginia; whose standing in the learned world obtained for him the honorary degree of D. D. and whose piety and intelligence refused the title as a badge of popery. That, along with the signature R. B. S., leads to the conclusion that the letter's author was none other than Robert B. Semple, a great leader among the Baptists in Virginia at the time.

In his letter, Semple offers a number of compliments to Campbell as a preacher and writer. He also lists a few thoughtful and well-worded criticisms. Campbell then responds to Semple's letter. Among the points that Campbell takes up is the assertion that he is basically a Haldanian or Sandemanian, i.e. that he is a follower of the brothers Robert and James Haldane; or yet another church reformer from Scotland, Robert Sandeman. In his reply, Campbell acknowledges that he has learned from an array of writers, including the likes of the Haldanes and Sandeman, Luther and Calvin and Wesley. But, he adds, I do not believe that any one of them had clear and consistent views of the Christian religion as a whole.

Then, Campbell says more about Sandeman. He explains that many years before he had taken up a special project. He explored the question of rational versus experiential conversion: When a person initially comes to Christ, which is prior, the mind or the heart? Campbell admits that at the beginning of his studies, he was prejudiced against Robert Sandeman, the champion of rational religion. Instead, he had favored James Hervey, whose popular book Dialogues between Theron and Aspasio breathes the warm spirit of the revivalism of his day. Campbell mentions that, with the Bible nearby, he studied many authors, including Hervey, Marshall, Bellamy, Glass, and Cudworth. But as he went along, he discovered Sandeman to be like a giant among dwarfs . . . like Sampson with the gates and posts of Gaza on his shoulders (228).

So who was Robert Sandeman? And why did he so impress the likes of Stiles and Campbell? More to come in future posts.

Back in CT

Abigail was one of the readers during "Children's Sunday" this week at the Rocky Hill Congregational Church. She did a great job.


Benjamin was one of the seniors recognized that morning.

On Monday, Chloe and I had lunch at Bangkok Gardens in New Haven. Aubrey and Ben don't like exotic Asian food (!), and went for pizza slices instead.

Later that afternoon, I took Ben to see the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. It houses, among other things, Yale's copy of the Gutenburg Bible, printed in 1455. The book in the background isn't a reflection. It's the other of the two volumes.

D-Day Plus 66 Years

Sunday night after church, on the 66th anniversary of D-Day, I had my picture taken with one of my heroes, Roy Kiser.

Born and raised in the Texas Panhandle, Roy grew up at McLean and finished high school at Groom in 1938. He married in June of 1941. In December of that year, when he and his wife heard about the attack on Pearl Harbor, he knew that his life would soon change. He was drafted into the U.S. Army in September 1943 and immediately went to Camp Fannin, Texas, for seventeen weeks of basic training.

By the Spring of 1944, we was on a ship leaving New York Harbor, zig-zagging to avoid the fire of German submarines just off the U.S. coast. After a 22-day trip across the Atlantic, his group of infantry replacements camped on a high hill in England, taking what he called "a lot of physical training." Later, when he was double-timing behind a tank, he was thankful that his drill sergeants were so hard on the soldiers.

On the afternoon of June 6, 1944, he was a part of a group that landed on Utah Beach, Normandy, France, taking fire. Just a few days after the landing, he was promoted from private to sergeant because of his de facto leadership of an outfit that was moving across the French countryside, one hedgerow after another. A few weeks after D-Day, a huge artillery shell nearly ended his life. After the blast, he walked back to the medic's tent, with blood streaming from his ears and nose, and passed out. Days later, he woke up in a hospital back in England, where he was awarded the Purple Heart.

Years later, when he was working in the meat-packing business in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Roy became one of the elders of the Garnett Road Church of Christ. He says that of all the things he's ever done, he's proudest of the annual Tulsa Soul-Winning Workshop, conducted by the Garnett Road Church. He and his fellow elders constantly received letters reporting baptisms, mission efforts, and new congregations that could be traced back to the Workshop.

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.

Money for a Ceiling-Mounted Projector! Now What?

Amarillo Bible Chair recently received a generous grant from a local, private foundation that contributes to educational efforts like ours.

In my request letter, I said that it would be so nice if we could move our classroom projector from a floor stand to the ceiling, and just have it out of the way. They agreed. So now we have the money to make this improvement; and I have the summer to get it done. Only problem is, I have no idea of where to start.

A few of the particulars and some of my questions:

1. We have enough money, I think, to purchase a new projector as well as pay for the mounting hardware and installation, etc. If we go ahead and get a new projector, I'm not sure what we should do with the old one.

2. Also, I'm not sure of what brand and type of projector we need. Our classroom measures approximately 30 x 24 feet. It seats no more than about 30 students. So a projection with a diagonal measurement of about 50 inches is just right.

3. Here in Amarillo, I'm not sure who'd be best for the mechanical and electrical installation.

Any recommendations?

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.