The way to spot a forgery is familiarity with the real thing. I was a cashier throughout college and once discovered counterfeit $20s through touch alone. A coworker’s drawer count was off and she asked me to verify the count for her. As I counted the $20s, I encountered something that didn’t “feel” right. Thinking I’d pulled two bills instead of one, I counted the stack again and came up with yet another number. When I came up to the odd-feeling $20, I then held it up to the light and saw the telltale signs of counterfeiting. It was my familiarity with the feel of a real $20 that allowed me to spot the counterfeit, something that I did several times over the course of that summer.

Similarly, Paul gives the Colossians a picture of Jesus Christ that is very poignant and clear, so, having acquainted themselves with the original, they might be able to spot a phony when it was presented to them. This is the main purpose of the letter to Colossae.

In the midst of recounting the many blessings that the Colossians have received from God, Paul took time to announce strongly that Jesus is Himself God. This wasn’t news to the Colossians, probably. Paul called them “saints” which meant Christians, indicating they knew the gospel as well as we. So, why did Paul bother to reiterate this to the Colossians?  Because he was about to talk about counterfeits and the best way to spot of counterfeit is familiarity with the real thing.

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation;^[8] The One who is preeminent over all creation  because by Him everything was created, in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and by Him all things hold together.” Colossians 1:15-17

It should be noted that many scholars believe this is a hymn that was sung in the early churches. If so, it is probably not of Pauline origin, but may very well predate his conversion, as do some other doxologies and hymns Paul included in his letters. This hymn may have been well-known by the Colossians and it may have been Paul’s way of saying “This is a trustworthy saying” concerning this bit of oral tradition.

Paul wrote boldly and clearly here, stating that Jesus is distinctly God. He is the physical manifestation of the invisible God. He was not made in God’s image as we were, but was the Creator of everything in the universe. He is God! Although the Colossian Gentiles may have not grown up with the Genesis story, the Jewish Christians in the church would have understood that Paul was saying Jesus was Yahweh, the Hebrew Creator-God. As I said, this wasn’t news to the Colossians. Paul is simply recording the nature of Jesus so their existing belief that Jesus is God would be strengthened by his putting the belief in writing. They could also thus refer to it later if need be. Jesus created everything – what we can see, what we can’t, heaven, earth, the thrones and kingdoms upon the earth, even the officials in charge of the nations. Beyond that, He is the binding force that keeps the universe from flying apart. There’s nothing we can see or even imagine that does not have the influence of Jesus through and through.

This passage is subject to controversy with some sects claiming to be Christian. They want to make much of the term “first born”, believing that this indicates Jesus is a created being and, if a deity in any way, somehow a lesser deity than God. My mantra will always be “You must take the Bible in context with itself. You cannot read a passage or a word here and there to build your theology.” Second to that, is my belief that you really must look at the Greek.

Paul wrote in Greek, not in 17^th Century Elizabethan English or 21^st Century modern American English. Most of us read the Bible in a translation, though I do know one or two people who can actually read it in the original Greek. My friend Alan provided me with some insight into the Greek I looked up in Strong’s Concordance.

For example, prototokos (which is translated first-born) means “coming first”; however, its root word “protos” can mean “at the first.” This is one reason Biblical translators say you can’t put too much emphasis on that one word that the KJV and others translate as “first born”. Jesus is also said to have been “at the beginning” (Greek “arche”) in this same passage, which means “the origin or first cause”.  My friend the Greek scholar claims the correct reading for prototokos (or firstborn) should be “existing before all creation”, which connotes eternity, in the same way that Proverbs 8:23-26 speaks of God the Father as eternal. According to Alan, the problem with Bible translating is that sometimes the concept is bigger than just one or two words, but editors really want a word-for-word translation, so they will go – sometimes – with a less-exact translation in order to keep the phraseology concise. Further, my scholarly friend feels that placing too much emphasis on one word in the passage negates the evidence that the early church believed Jesus was God, as in the highest and only Deity in the universe. This passage also shows clearly that Paul, and apparently many other Christians, believed that Jesus was the Creator of the Universe. His role in creation is clearly stated here. He made the upper and lower world, with all inhabitants and furnishings of both.  This is echoed in John Chapter 1, showing agreement among the apostles that Jesus was God. In Proverbs 8, Wisdom is said to have created the universe and was with the Father in the very beginning, so that the concept is found even in the Old Testament.

It cannot be stated strongly enough that Paul and all the early Christians were Jews who did not reject Judaism when they became Christians. They continued to worship in the Temple. They insisted that Jesus did not come to establish a new religion, but to complete the already existing system of Judaism. He was God in flesh to these early Jewish Christians, who rejected polytheism with vehemence. Jesus was not some other, less or higher god. He was God incarnate, the same God they had been worshipping all along.

Perhaps the strongest argument for this belief is that this hymn was likely in widespread use, meaning that churches sang about Jesus being the Creator on a regular basis. How could they have sung about it and not believed it? The thought is irreconcilable.

“He is also the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He might come to have first place in everything. For God was pleased to have The bracketed text has been added for clarity. all His fullness [Eph 3:19] dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile everything to Himself by making peace through the blood of His cross —whether things on earth or things in heaven.” Colossians 1:18-20

Paul affirmed the hymn’s clear statement that Jesus was and is the head of the Church. Again, he used the word translated as “first born” that means “existing before all creation.” Jesus was the first ever resurrection from the dead. Whoa! What about Lazarus? Lazarus was indeed resurrected, but he did not break the chains of death as Jesus did. Lazarus was resurrected back to an earthly existence. Lazarus eventually died again and stayed in the grave. Jesus rose never to die again, which is the true resurrection that believers will experience in the end of time. Someday, we will all be resurrected in the same way Jesus was.

Explaining the Trinity is always a bit difficult, because it’s a complicated concept. God is so very vast, so very complex, that He can’t be explained simply. All through the Gospels, Jesus made statements that angered the Jewish leaders. They recognized that He was claiming to be God. They wanted to stone Him for it on a few occasions and it is ultimately why they hung Him on a cross. Though they were enemies, they recognized what He claimed. Thus, when it says that it “pleased God” to have all “His fullness dwell in Him” some people want to see two separate entities with one bestowing power on the other. In reality, God had always had a function that dealt face-to-face with mankind. They usually called it “the Lord” or occasionally “the angel of the Lord.” Abraham and Jacob both received visits from “the Lord” in this way. This aspect of God didn’t act as a prophet saying “Thus says the Lord”. No, it spoke as if from God Himself. It is this aspect of God, no different than who I am with my husband as opposed to who I am with my brother (and, yes, there is difference, but I am inarguably still the same person!), that became a human being in order to understand the human condition and show us that we can live according to God’s rules because He did. I’m not saying this is an easy concept; just that it is scripturally based. So, God chose (was pleased) to put all of Himself (Greek “pleroma” meaning fullness) in the physical form of Jesus (Greek “katoikeo” meaning to indwell). And, through this incarnation, He reconciled (Greek “apokatallasso”) a broken world to Himself by making peace through the cross. Everything in heaven and on earth was afforded the opportunity to become right with God as we have not been right since Adam and Eve sinned.

Jesus is also the pre-eminence of the Church. My husband noted that Roman Catholics (and he was raised RCC) call the pope “his eminence”. In studying this passage, he found himself having to renounce (once more) the pope as the head of Jesus’ Church. There is no other head of the Church besides Jesus. We should always be careful not to put men, any man, in Christ’ place upon His throne. Ministers for Christ can be wonderful people who deserve high praise, but we must always remember that they are not God. Jesus is perfectly capable of remaining the head of His Church. He doesn’t need a human intermediary because He has provided us with the New Testament working in concert with the Holy Spirit to communicate God truths to us.

Paul also touched on redemption, which includes the remission (removal) of sin. We are not only forgiven of our past disobedience, but it is moved into the never-owed column as if it had never existed. Because that debt of guilt has been removed from the sight of all (except perhaps Satan), we are reconciled (made right) with God. He was pardoned us and allowed us to enter into a state of favor and peace with Him that we have not earned.

Nowadays, we tend somewhat to flinch from mention of the blood of Christ, yet the blood that was spilled on the cross made an atonement, for in the Jewish system there can be no remission of sin without the shedding of blood. There is incredible value in the blood of Christ, for by its shedding, God became willing to deal with us upon new terms that allow us to enter into a covenant of grace (God’s unmerited favor directed toward those who do not merit it). We should not be afraid to talk about the blood of Christ, even though we may have to defend it from time to time.

“And you were once alienated and hostile in mind because of your evil actions. But now He has reconciled you by His physical body through His death, to present you holy, faultless, and blameless before Him— if indeed you remain grounded and steadfast in the faith, and are not shifted away from the hope of the gospel that you heard. This gospel  has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and I, Paul, have become a minister of it.” Colossians 1:21-23

Paul took pains to assure the Gentile Christians of Colossians that they had received the same reconciliation as their Jewish counterparts. They had once been alienated from God by their lifestyle choices and lack of understanding, but now Jesus had died for them as well. This allowed Him to present them to God (Himself) as faultless and blameless. Paul did warn them that they must keep their minds set on Jesus and not be drawn away into heresy. Paul assured them that he had the authority to speak in this matter. “This gospel has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and I, Paul, have become a minister of it.”  Again, my Greek scholar friend tells me that the verb construction in this sentence indicates a future working – the gospel will be preached. It’s interesting that Paul showed no real sense that his writings were scripture, but God directed him to indicate that he would minister the gospel to the whole world. This is something still in process 2000 years after his writing.

Paul was about to turn his attention to the primary reason he had written this letter. There are some who would find it odd that he chose this place to announce the majesty and authority of Jesus Christ and to remind his readers that he, Paul, had been given the task of telling the Gentiles about Jesus, but it should be understood that Paul was showing the real Jesus. This was the Jesus Paul had met on the Damascus road, the Jesus that he and the other apostles preached. This Jesus was fully man, but also fully God. This Jesus was the head of His Church, needing no intermediary. This Jesus had no failings and no lesser qualities. This was the authentic Jesus.

Only after you know the authentic stuff with great certainty are you able to spot a fake. Spotting a counterfeit doesn’t require special training; it only requires familiarity with the real thing. In the same way, Paul puts the authentic Jesus before the Colossians and says, “Study Him carefully. Get to know Him. See what He’s really like. Now, let’s take a look at the alternative you’ve been offered.”

By studying the real thing, we will learn to spot the fake!

The phenomenon of Christian cults has been around almost as long as the Christian Church. Truth casts a big shadow and in the dusk of that shadow grows many things that are not truth, heresies among them.

Some heresies were well-meant, no doubt. The Judaizers may simply have wished the Gentiles to know the joy they felt of being Jewish. They may have mistaken the apostles’ continued adherence to Temple worship and synagogue attendance to be a sign that you must be Jewish to be Christian. When the Jerusalem Council settled this critical question, those who refused to adjust their theology chose to become heretics and stand outside the Christian Church.

Although Paul is often thought of as primarily an evangelist, his writing ministry was principally of a discipleship nature. He was, after all, writing to Christians, mostly to churches he had planted. In his letters he expounded upon doctrine, but he also gave practice advice for Christian living. In his letter to the church at Colossae, he offered both theological doctrine and discipleship instruction.

“Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by God’s will, and Timothy our brother: To the saints and faithful brothers in Christ in Colossae. Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”  Colossians 1:1-2

Once again, Paul was not writing in isolation. The letter he wrote to the Colossian Christians was written with Timothy. It might be asked why Paul wrote to Philemon the supposed pastor of the church and the church itself in so short a space of time, but I actually found that answer in my own personal life. I recently wrote a summary letter concerning a trip our youth group took to an official at the Alaska Baptist Convention and the next day sent a personal letter off to that official and his wife, who are long-time friends. I actually started the letter before I wrote the report and finished it when the report reminded me that I still hadn’t sent it. In the same way, Paul directed Philemon in his situation with Onesimus mostly as a personal friend (though the church was addressed to make them aware of the situation) and then wrote to the church itself dealing with situations specific to the church. Since Onesimus is the bearer of both letters, it is entirely possible that he returned to Paul after his interview with Philemon and carried to the apostle questions the church had concerning heresy or that Paul had heard of other churches struggling with heresy while Onesimus was gone and now sought to address those concerns in a more general, rather than specific way. These are questions I intend to ask Paul when I get to heaven.

“We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, for we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love you have for all the saints because of the hope reserved for you in heaven. You have already heard about this hope in the message of truth, the gospel
that has come to you. It is bearing fruit and growing all over the world, just as it has among you since the day you heard it and truly recognized God’s grace. You learned this from Epaphras, our much loved fellow slave. He is a faithful minister of the Messiah on our behalf, and he has told us about your love in the Spirit.” Colossians 1:3-8

Remembering that Paul did not found the Colossae church, he was in effect its spiritual grandfather. Scholars differ as to whether the church was founded by Philemon or Epaphras (possibly Epaproditus who is mentioned in Philippians). I don’t think there is any certainty in that debate. The church met in Philemon’s home, indicating that he was the pastor. Biblical historians suggest that Philemon and Paul met during Paul’s extended ministry in Ephesus and Paul claimed that he had led Philemon to the Lord. Philemon apparently took his newborn faith home with him and founded the church in Colossae. However, Epaphras is here identified as the preacher who brought the gospel to them. Perhaps he accompanied Philemon back to Colossae. The exact sequence of events is not known.

“For this reason also, since the day we heard this, we haven’t stopped praying for you. We are asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding, so that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to Him, bearing fruit in every good work and growing in the knowledge of God. May you be strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for all endurance and patience, with joy giving thanks to the Father, who has enabled you to share in the saints’ inheritance in the light. He has rescued us from the domain of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son He loves, in whom we have redemption through His blood for the forgiveness of sins.” Colossians 1:9-14

Paul prayed for all the churches he wrote to, as I would suppose he prayed for all the churches he founded. The ones he founded were his own projects, but some of the churches he wrote to were the projects of his disciples. Paul didn’t seem to care if he were their direct authority or not. He sought to establish and deepen Christianity wherever there was fertile soil for it to grow.

What did he pray concerning Colossae? He prayed that they would have an overwhelming knowledge of Jesus, such as can only be acquired by communion with the Holy Spirit. This knowledge would help them to live exemplary Christian lives that would please God because of the resultant good works and deepening knowledge of the Divine. Paul understood that the Christian life was not always easy and that God might require difficult things from the followers of Christ, but Paul also understood that God would give strength in all situations, so that the Colossians (like all Christians) might endure whatever life brought their way with patience and joy, giving thanks to God for their salvation through the complete forgiveness of their former disobedience to God.

The fruits listed here are such as should be found in the lives of all Christians. We should seek to know Jesus best through Bible study and fellowship with Bible-believing Christians. We should allow the Holy Spirit to work in us to live praise-worthy Christian lives of service to others with forbearance for the weaknesses and foibles of our fellow human beings and joy in whatever circumstance God places us in. The salvation that Christ has granted us should so fill us with awe and happiness that we are willing to accept hardship for the sake of the gospel.

Paul hadn’t brought the gospel to Colossae, but when he and Timothy wrote this letter, they were writing as authorities in Christian doctrine. Heresy grows most effectively in dimness, where believers are not exactly sure what to believe. Such situations exist when Scripture is not readily available or is not read and when church leaders do not encourage their people to read the Scriptures. Obviously, the Colossian Christians didn’t have a Holman Christian Standard Bible online to refer to. They had men like Philemon and Archippus who had probably studied under Paul, but 1^st Century Christians were at a disadvantage that we cannot claim. They had to remember what they had been taught. They couldn’t go back and refer to it as easily as can we. It was much easier for heretical teachers to come to their church and say “Well, this is what the apostles teach” or “The apostles have it wrong, folks!” This letter to the church at Colossae was meant to bolster the teaching that the church had already received from men vetted by the apostles as a counter to what the heretics were teaching.

*Note: this should not be viewed as apostolic procession. There is no evidence that Peter ever “ordained” Paul for ministry. They met after Paul had already been ministering, they agreed with one another on most doctrines; Paul confronted Peter for flirting with the Judaizing heresy while in Antioch. Clearly Peter was not Paul’s progenitor in ministry. When I say the apostles had vetted these men, I mean that Paul (in this case) or one of his fellow ministers who had intensive Bible knowledge and discipleship either from Jesus or from one of the apostles had trained them and agreed they had the Holy Spirit.

For Christians in the 21^st Century, there is no excuse for Biblical ignorance. I saw a Bible at Sam’s Club the other day for $15.95, so it is within the reach of most people to own a Bible. If you can read this blog, you can log onto Lifeway.com and read the Bible online. The problem in our century is not a lack of access to the Scriptures, but a lack of willingness to read them and to apply them. We are in many ways more ignorant of Scripture than peasants in the Middle Ages, who at least heard Bible stories in mystery plays and homilies. Americans in the 21^st Century have an appalling dearth of Bible knowledge and sadly they don’t recognize that. They assume they know the Bible if they’ve read one or two quotes taken out of context on an atheist website. That’s like saying you know Alaska if you spent an hour in the Anchorage airport.

The Bible is not as simple as that. It is a lengthy and ancient document penned by many writers addressing specific concerns at the time that are applicable to our own circumstances. A rifling of pages will not bring you to the meat of it. Biblical ignorance is not an excuse for embracing Christian heresy. We have the authoritative writings of the apostles and the corroborating writings of the early Church fathers; we can know what early Christians believed and what they rejected as not being Christian. It is simply a matter of bothering to study and recognizing who constitutes an authority on Christianity. Paul and Timothy constituted such authority in the 1^st Century. They continue to speak as authorities down into our own century.

We have none better!

The epistle to the church at Colossae, written by Paul from imprisonment around AD 61 is perhaps one of the most important books of the New Testament for our generation. Some would disagree. It was written to a small church on the outskirts of Christianity, a church that would be abandoned only a year or two after the writing of this letter. Yet, it is in Colossians that we find Paul’s fully-formed theology against heresy. It is in Colossians where Paul presented a full view of Jesus Christ as God in opposition to the false view being presented by heretics.  The letter to the Colossians is as important a letter of theology as Romans and deserves fully the credit it receives.

Colossae was located in the southwest corner of Asia Minor in what was then the Roman province of Asia. Hierapolis and Laodicea were situated only a few miles away. All three were in the Lycus River valley. An important trade route from Ephesus to the east ran through the region, making it a virtual meeting point for east and west.

A prominent city during the Greek period, by Paul’s day Colossae had lost much of its importance, perhaps due to the growth of neighboring cities. Earthquakes that occasionally shook the area and caused severe damage were extremely detrimental to all of the cities of the region. Shortly after Paul wrote Colossians, the entire Lycus Valley was devastated by an earthquake (about A.D. 61-62) which probably ended occupation of the city.

Hierapolis and Laodicea also seem to have contained congregations of believers. Though small, Colossae was still a cosmopolitan city with a mingling of different cultures and religious beliefs. Since God doesn’t judge churches by human distinctions like size, the Colossian church was still dear to the heart of God and He obviously thought it important enough to inspire Paul to write. Early churches recognized the spiritual authority of this letter, so that by use and acceptance, this letter to a small church in a small town was included in the New Testament canon as one of the most important epistles because of what it teaches concerning the person and work of Jesus Christ.

The region included a mixture of people native to the area, Greeks, Romans, and transplanted Jews. The church probably reflected the same diversity. The Jewish population of the region may have been as high as 50,000. The wool business was particularly attractive to Jews and this was an important trade in the area. As far as we know, Paul never visited Colossae. His influence was felt, however, during his ministry in Ephesus. (Acts 19:10 records that all Asia heard the gospel.) The letters to Philemon and to the Colossians indicate that many of Paul’s fellow workers (if not Paul himself) had worked among the churches of the Lycus Valley. As a result, the relationship between the apostle to the Gentiles and the Colossian church was close enough that when trouble arose some of the church turned to Paul for instruction.

The letter to the Colossian church is one of the Prison Epistles (along with Ephesians, Philemon, and Philippians). The traditional date and place of writing is A.D. 61 or 62 from Rome. The letter itself does not name the place where Paul was imprisoned, and Caesarea and Ephesus have been suggested as alternatives to Rome. If written from Ephesus, the time of writing would be in the mid-50’s; if from Caesarea the late 50’s. The primary purpose of the letter to the Colossian church was to correct false teachings which were troubling the church. Although south from Galatia, it was in a near-region and may have been troubled by the same Judaizers.

The authenticity of the letter to the Colossians has been debated, as has the exact nature of the relationship between Ephesians and Colossians. Some scholars insist it was written by a disciple of Paul since they find significant differences in vocabulary, style and enough difference in theology to indicate, to them, that it was not written by Paul, though perhaps by a close associate. The wide acceptance among the early churches that this letter was of Pauline authorship speaks loudly for its genuineness, but it is true that the style and vocabulary differ somewhat from Paul’s other letters, primarily in the section which attacks the Colossian heresy (1:3–2:23). The unusual terminology in this section may be partially the result of addressing an unusual problem. It seems unreasonable to insist that a writer must be restricted to his usual vocabulary in all situations. Paul may have chosen his vocabulary for this letter on the basis of what he considered to be the most effective means of showing how the heretics were misrepresenting Christ. It is also possible that he was using the vocabulary of the heretics themselves, as he did in a similar fashion when discussing certain doctrinal errors in the letters to the Corinthian church.

Some promote the idea that the theology of Colossians is outside Paul’s usual scope. They claim the representation of Jesus as the Creator and as the fullness of God is too advanced for Paul. It is their contention that the ideas presented were not developed until 30-40 years later by John. This reads too much 19^th Century speculation into the New Testament and assumes that John reinvented Christ rather than building upon what was already believed about Him. In Colossae, a new situation confronted Paul who framed new arguments to meet it. Yes, the Christology in Colossians is an advance from earlier Pauline letters, but that doesn’t mean that Paul could not have written it, unless we want to argue that Paul’s thoughts remained static and never developed to meet new situations. In the face of a new set of circumstances, Paul thought out new implications of Christ. The germ of Paul’s theology about Christ as presented in Colossians does in fact exist in one of his earlier letters. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, he wrote “One Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom are all things and we by Him.” This is the same essence as Paul wrote in Colossians, where this simple acknowledgement of the omnipresence of Jesus is given fuller treatment.

In Colossians Paul extended the saving truths of Jesus’ salvation found in his earlier letters to a wider sphere. His thoughts developed upon existing foundations. He advanced while still abiding in the doctrine of Christ. Paul was indeed a theological genius, so that it is hard to credit scholars who want to relegate him to restricted thought.

Among the arguments against Pauline authorship are those scholars who identify the Colossian heresy as second century gnosticism. Such arguments are not convincing, however, because Gnostic thought, though not an established system as yet, had already begun encroaching upon the church by the middle of the first century. Paul might have seen the seeds of trouble and sought to nip it in the bud. Of course, the heresy the letter deals with cannot be identified with certainty.

There is also the relationship between the letters to Philemon and to the church at Colossae. Philemon lived and was apparently the pastor in Colossae. The letters mention many of the same people and were apparently carried by the same messenger, Onesimus (Col. 4:7-18; Philem. 1,2,10,23,24). The undoubted authenticity of the letter to Philemon argues in favor of the Pauline authorship of Colossians. To me, the argument against Pauline authorship is mainly advanced by scholars who reject the Christology of the letter. I believe they attack the authorship simply as a means of reducing the power of the theology. I would note that there was no such problem of acceptance among the early churches. While there were books that became canonized into the New Testament that early churches were uncertain of, Colossians was never one of them. The early Christians accepted both Pauline authorship and the Christology of the letter without any noted controversy, indicating that this was familiar theology.

Colossians may be divided into two main parts. The first (1:3–2:23) is a polemic against false teachings. The second (3:1–4:17) is made up of exhortations to proper Christian living. The introduction is in the form of a Hellenistic, personal letter, which is very typical of Paul. The senders (Paul and Timothy) and the recipients (the Colossian church) are identified, and a greeting expressed (the usual Pauline “grace and peace” replaced the more secular “greeting”).

Typical of Paul, a lengthy thanksgiving and prayer lead into the body of the letter. Paul thanked God for the faith, hope, and love which the Colossians possessed by virtue of their positive response to the gospel. He prayed that they might have a full knowledge and understanding of God’s will and lead a life worthy of redeemed saints, citizens of the kingdom of Christ.

The doctrinal section which follows begins with a description of the grandeur of the exalted Christ. Precise meaning of some words and phrases is uncertain, but there is no doubt as to Paul’s intent to present Jesus as fully God incarnate, as supreme Lord over all creation, as supreme Lord of the church, and as the only Source of reconciliation.

Scholars debate the origin of this grand statement on the nature and work of Christ. The structure, tone, and vocabulary of the passage have led many to speculate that Colossians 1:15-20 is a doctrinal statement or hymn that was in use in the churches of Paul’s day. This passage and Philippians 2:6-11 are thought by the majority of scholars to be the most obvious examples of pre-Pauline tradition in the letters of Paul. However, difficulty in recreating a balanced hymnic structure has convinced most that Paul rewrote portions of the hymn, if indeed he was not the author of the entire confession. Author or not, the apostolic stamp of approval is on these words which Paul used to state unambiguously that Christ is Lord and Savior of all.

The purpose of the first two chapters was to correct the false teaching which had infiltrated the church. The heresy is not identified, but several characteristics of the heresy (or heresies) are discernible through Paul’s defense. He combated an inferior view of Christ through the Christological passage of 1:15-20, indicating that the heretics did not consider Jesus to be fully divine or perhaps did not accept Him as the sole Source of redemption. Paul warned the Colossians to beware of plausible sounding “philosophies”, which were anti-Christ. The heresy also apparently involved the legalistic observance of “traditions,” such as circumcision and various dietary and festival laws. The false teachers encouraged the worship of angels and lesser spirits. They also promoted asceticism, the deprivation or harsh treatment of one’s “evil” fleshly body. Finally, the false teachers claimed to possess special insight (perhaps special revelations) which made them (rather than the apostles or the Scriptures) the ultimate source of truth.

Scholars do not agree on who these false teachers were. Some of the characteristics cited above seem to be Jewish; others sound like gnostic teachings. Some see the teachings of a mystery religion. Very capable scholars have proposed dozens of theories, some have even argued that Paul was not combating one specific heresy (or if he was, he did not have a clear understanding of it himself), but rather was warning the Colossians about a variety of false teachings which had troubled the Colossian church, or which might trouble it in the future, perhaps already troubling other churches. While the passage does not clearly identify the heretics, it does clearly state that Christ (not angels, philosophies, rituals, traditions, asceticism, nor anything else) is the Source of redemption.

Chapters 1 and 2 are theological in nature while Chapters 3 and 4 focus on discipleship. The command to “put to death” and to “rid yourselves of all such things” which will reap the wrath of God is balanced by the command to “clothe yourselves with” those things characteristic of God’s chosen people. The changes are far from superficial, however, but stem from the Christian’s new nature and submission to the rule of Christ in every area of one’s life.

Rules for the household are addressed. The typical first century household is assumed, thus the passage addresses wives and husbands, fathers and children, masters and slaves. Paul made no comment about the rightness or wrongness of the social structures; he accepted them as givens. Paul’s concern was that the structures as they existed be governed by Christian principles such as submission to Jesus, Christian love, and the prospect of divine judgment, determining the way people treat one another regardless of their social station. It is this Christian motivation which distinguishes these house rules from those that can be found in Jewish and pagan sources.

The letter closes with a final set of exhortations and an exchange of greetings. Readers should note the mention of Onesimus, which links this letter with the letter to Philemon. There is also a mention of a letter at Laodicea, which some scholars believe was really the letter to the Ephesians. Paul’s concluding signature indicates that the letter was prepared by a scribe or secretary, which is not unusual for most of the apostolic letters. Previous problems of epigraphy alluded to in Galatians now required that Paul sign the letters to assure that they were from him and him alone.

A study of slavery requires a look at its converse – freedom. Freedom is the ability of a person or group to be and do what they want instead of being controlled by another. It is popular today to believe that the individual is or should be in full control of him or her self. Such an understanding is alien to the Bible, which never depicts the individual as having total command or freedom over self.

Reviewing Scripture, we find that the Bible calls Christians to take control of our lifestyle choices. According to Scripture, we are able to choose our actions and attitudes, our responses to others and to God. Conversely, we cannot be and do what we want because we are not independent of others or God. We do not have the power to do what we want to, whether our desire is to fulfill the law, love others, or save ourselves. The Bible continually affirms that the kind of freedom all people have is the sort of freedom that slaves have. We control only some aspects of our lives, within a larger context which we do not control.

In the Old Testament, “freedom” is used to describe what God desires and grants to Hebrew slaves. According to the law, no person is to have complete mastery of another. Consequently, the Law stipulated that a person can only be used as a slave for six years. Even so, if they are mistreated during that time, they are to be released. Also, every 50 years, all slaves are to be freed, regardless of how many years of their slavery they have served (Ex. 21:2-11,26,27; Lev. 25:10; Deut. 15:12-18). In the example of the Exodus and the preaching of the prophets, whoever is oppressed is viewed as a slave, and God desires that the oppression stop. He not only makes it the task of His people to stop oppression, but even says that if they don’t, He will do it Himself (Isa. 58:6; 61:1, Jer. 34)

Throughout the Old Testament, freedom is predominantly used to express control over the physical circumstances of life. By the New Testament era, it was widely recognized that no one is free to such an extent that they have control of their physical circumstances. Even the rich are subject to war, drought, and other calamities. Nevertheless, an influential group called Stoics believed that anyone could still attain true freedom, because no person or force of nature can control the inner life. Thus, the individual is ultimately in control of self, though not of the environment.

Contrasted to Stoic philosophy, the New Testament recognizes that no one has such absolute control even of their inner life. Everyone is considered to be a slave in some sense. But being a slave in the 1st century world did not mean being without freedom.

Slaves during the New Testament era had much freedom of choice in daily affairs, and their decisions were not just trivial. They served in every position in society, including being the emperor’s advisors and filling other government positions. They were allowed to conduct their own personal affairs, earn and save money for themselves, own property, and even own their own slaves. Just as Roman slaves usually had much control over their daily affairs, every time the New Testament commands Christians to do something, it implicitly affirms that we have control over our daily decisions.

Most slaves of the 1st century were slaves from birth. They were children of slaves who served their parents’ owners. Few remained slaves for life, usually being freed when their owners died, or after 10 to 20 years of adult service. They also had the opportunity to buy their freedom if they could save or borrow the money their owner required. In fact, before the New Testament era was finished, a large percentage of the free population of the Roman Empire had either been slaves at one time or had parents who were slaves. The New Testament depicts all persons as being in slavery to sin (John 8:34; Rom. 3:9-12; 2 Pet. 2:19). Just as Roman slaves usually had the opportunity to gain their freedom, so all people have the opportunity to obtain release from bondage to sin by choosing to follow Christ (Rom. 6:12-14; 10:9-12). Though slaves, our free will is intact, and our decisions are real and meaningful.

The New Testament also affirms that we are not our own rulers. We do not have ultimate control of our lives. Just as we are not in control of our physical circumstances because nature or some other person is more powerful than ourselves, so we are not in full control of even our inner selves because the powers of sin and grace are stronger than ourselves (Rom. 7:15-25). Just as the slave’s master determined the service that the slave was to perform, since the master was more powerful than the slave, so our master, not ourselves, determines the general direction of our lives (Rom. 6:16).

When we yield to sin as our master, sin uses the law to deceive us into thinking that we are in control of ourselves and by our own works we can save ourselves by obeying the law. In reality, on our own we do not have the power, the freedom, to live righteously. Indeed, “I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.” (Rom. 7:18). So our attempts to fulfill the law by ourselves simply increase our pride, thus strengthening the control of sin over us. As we continue to live under the rule of sin, the daily choices we make become more and more consistently obedient to sinful purposes which eventually lead to death.

If, however, we yield to grace, given through Jesus Christ, the Spirit has the power to lead us into life and truth (Rom. 6:19; Eph. 1:11-14). As we continue to live in Christ, He uses His power to mold us more and more into His image (2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 1:6).

Since Jesus established His church, some people have always thought that we are no longer bound by the law but are “free” in Christ to act however we like. The Nicolaitan heresy alluded to in Revelation was the result of this belief. The Scriptures constantly remind us that following our every desire does not constitute freedom. We are free from our former master, sin; but we are still servants. As servants of Christ, though we have the freedom to disobey our Master, it is our responsibility to direct our actions to fulfill the purposes of Christ (Rom. 6:1,2,15,18,22; 1 Pet. 2:16).

Do we have freedom? Yes. Are we free? No!

The Bible affirms that our choices are not determined for us; we make them ourselves. But it also demonstrates that we are not in total control of ourselves. We live under the ultimate control and direction of a power greater than ourselves. The comforting thing about this conundrum is that “in everything, He (God) cooperates for good with those who love God” (Rom. 8:28).

What this meant for Christians, free or slave, in the 1^st Century, was that they were placed in circumstances in their lives that might not be to their liking – persecution, poverty, an unethical business, etc. – but they were responsible to God to be the best possible Christian they could be in the circumstances in which they found themselves. If they came to Jesus as a freeman, they must recognize that they had given up some of their autonomy to follow Jesus and their choices were not wholly their own. They must submit to God and do as He required. For slaves who had become Christians, this might have been an easier lesson, because they had practice in not having autonomy in their lives. However, they had freedom in their attitudes and daily actions and Paul called for them to be the best slaves they could possibly by in the situation where they were. Certainly, they could seek freedom of the opportunity presented itself, but they didn’t need to do so, because Jesus was their true master now, not that guy who held their bill of sale.

We don’t have slavery in 21^st Century United States, but we do have some similar structures. Most of us have employers, or are employers. We live in a world where the market economy often dictates how we will live our lives. As employees, we should do our jobs as if we were doing them for Jesus Christ rather than for our employer. Trust me; those I know who do so are considered exemplary employees by their bosses. For employers, there is always the reminder that the business you own doesn’t really belong to you. Everything you own belongs to Jesus. Therefore, it is required that you treat it as if you were merely borrowing it from God. When you consider that is the way Christians should view their assets, you start to consider if you’re doing a good enough job for your Master. That would include how you treat your employees. Christian employers should be known for their fairness. As Christians our interaction with the market economy should also be characterized by the traits of Jesus. We should be known as fair businesspeople, honest and not greedy. We should avoid excess amounts of debt because that leads to debt slavery. There are people I know who would love to help their church with this or that, but they can’t give money because it is all going to the credit cards and they can’t give time because both spouses are working overtime to keep up with the credit cards. Is that not slavery?

Ultimately, we are not free, because we are either under the yoke of sin, with its demands of time, money and energy, or we are freed into the service of Jesus Christ. He has His own demands of our time, money and energy. As Christians, it is our obligation to obey Him voluntarily. This is something we must decide to do daily, hourly, by the minute if necessary. When we do so, we show that Jesus in us is well worth following. Yet, we come to the question … are we a good advertisement for Jesus? We have the freedom to be to a banner ad, but are we?

The letter we call Philemon is the only completely personal letter to be included in the New Testament. That it deals with slavery seems extremely indicative of the mindset of the early churches toward the subject. It existed in their world, some Christians owned slaves, yet they didn’t reject the idea that Onesimus was Philemon’s brother in the Lord. Neither did they reject the long-established practice of their society of a man being able to control his property. You can’t say it is an anti-slavery letter. Yet, we find in this very short letter the Christian principles that would eventually end slavery in Christian countries.

“Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy, our brother: To Philemon, our dear friend and co-worker, to Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church that meets in your house. Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Philemon 1: 1-3

As I have often noted in past writing, Paul rarely wrote in isolation. He was not a pope who sent down commands from on high with no oversight. Though he wrote a personal letter this time, he wrote with Timothy, who by this time was becoming a mature Christian worker. Epaphras (who might have been Epaphoditus from the letter Philippians was also there, as were Mark and Luke. Some scholars believe this may have been where Mark and Luke were able to exchange information for their gospels. I make no claims to knowledge on this subject, but it makes sense. Also present and probably reading and commenting on what Paul and Timothy had written were Aristarchus and Demas. We don’t know much about who these men were, but Paul considered them important enough to mention in the close of this letter. Demas would later desert Paul's ministry to return to a carnal lifestyle, or so Paul reports in a later letter.

I’m not sure why Paul felt it necessary to tell Philemon that he was imprisoned. It seems from most of his prison epistles that it was well known among the churches that Paul had been imprisoned. Perhaps he was showing that in many ways he was in the same circumstance as Onesimus. He had little control of his external circumstances, but a range of freedom was allowed to him by his Roman captors. This might lend a poignancy to his request, strengthening it.

Paul wrote to Philemon and Apphia personally and to Archippus and the church meeting in Philemon’s house collectively. Paul clearly had high regard for Philemon, whom he considered to be a co-worker in ministry. It is assumed by most scholars that Apphia was Philemon’s wife, which would mean that she was a party to Onesimus’ offense and probably in need of exercising as much reconciliation and forgiveness as Philemon. Archippus was apparently a minister in the church at Colossae, a friend and perhaps co-pastor. Paul might have considered him someone who could counsel Philemon toward Christian discipline, which might be the reason Paul calls him a “fellow soldier”. Note also that, while this is a personal letter, it is also addressed to the church at Colossae. Paul wanted to make sure that Philemon was surrounded by Christian community as he worked out what he would do about Onesimus. One commentator I read fantasized that Philemon had a well-known bad temper and Paul was setting up levels of protection of Onesimus. I think this commentator had a good imagination. We don’t know much about Philemon except that he Paul’s friend, pastor of a church and a slave owner with a disobedient runaway slave. It seems Paul had a high regard for his hospitality toward other Christians. It does no good to speculate or fictionalize this account. Paul perhaps wrote to the others listed here to protect Onesimus or perhaps he wrote so that the principles he was laying out would become part of their doctrine. He might have had another reason we simply do not recognize. Good question to ask Paul in heaven, but nothing to hang a church doctrine upon.

Paul usually greeted his readers with a wish that grace be afforded to them and peace from God, Whom he always identified as Father and Jesus (take that those who insist Jesus is some sort of separate god; Paul did not agree). In other of Paul’s writings, he indicated that the Holy Spirit is an aspect of God Who works in the hearts of Christians, so the Holy Spirit is unnamed, but assumed in this salutation. In this simple way, we know that Paul is addressing Christians. This would be a very different letter if Paul were addressing unbelievers – although we have no evidence that he ever did so in writing.

“I always thank my God when I mention you in my prayers, because I hear of your love and faith toward the Lord Jesus and for all the saints. I pray that your participation in the faith may become effective through knowing every good thing that is in us the glory of Christ. For I have great joy and encouragement from your love, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you, brother.” Philemon 1:4-7

After assuring that Philemon knew that the letter was meant for his counselors and the whole church as well as himself, Paul expressed singular affection for his friend. He thanked God for Philemon whenever he prayed for him, because Philemon was known for his faith toward Jesus and his love of all Christians. Paul was perhaps reminding Philemon of who he was in the Lord. This actually makes sense. When we’re tempted as human beings to act in ways that are not Christ-like, it is sometimes good to be reminded of who we are in the Lord. Paul desired for Philemon to continue to allow God to transform him into a more Christ-like person. Paul thrilled to know that Philemon was a refreshing sort of minister.

Note that Paul acknowledges subtly that Philemon’s good report is the result of the Lord’s work in his own life. Philemon was not born perfect and he probably had not achieved perfection at the writing of this letter, but he was being made better by his relationship with Jesus. Throughout the Bible, the folks who were after God’s own heart were always those who recognized that God was the source of any goodness within them. If we desire to have such affection from God today, we should also recognize that there is nothing good in us, but what Jesus has put there.

We should also note that Paul is reminding Philemon of his love for Christians. He is about to meet a new brother in the Lord with whom he has human cause to be angry. There is again that subtle reminder that Philemon has a Christian reputation to uphold.

“For this reason, although I have great boldness in Christ to command you to do what is right, I appeal, instead, on the basis of love. I, Paul, as an elderly man [or an ambassador] and now also as a prisoner of Christ Jesus, appeal to you for my child, whom I fathered in Christ; see 1 Co 4:15 while in chains—Onesimus.”  Philemon 1:8-10

Paul would have been in his 50s by this time. Most scholars believe he was born a decade after Jesus, Who would have been approximately 64 at the writing of this letter. Paul was nearing the usual end of a man’s life in that day and age. I have to admit that I found this use of his age manipulative, but allowed that Paul really cared for Onesimus as his “child” in the Lord and he really didn’t want Philemon to act upon his legal right to beat or kill Onesimus for his actions. Then, I learned that the Greek word could mean "ambassador" and that opened a whole new thought process for me.  The term used for what Paul did was "apostle" which was essentially an merchant's ambassador. Paul's use of the term makes more sense to me than a reference to his age. As an ambassador of Christ, Paul had authority that he could wield in this situation. It is interesting that he only refers to it, but doesn't exercise it.

Paul reminded Philemon that he had plenty of authority in Christ that he could use, but he was making a personal appeal on the basis of love. Wow! So often in this world today we think we need an ecclesiastical control structure to bring out the morality in people, but Paul didn’t see it that way. Philemon was known for his love of fellow Christians. Onesimus was a Christian now. Bring the two together and Philemon was expected to do the right thing just because the Holy Spirit was working in his heart to want to do the right thing. No edicts from on high should be needed.

“Once he was useless to you, but now he is useful to both you and me. I am sending him—a part of myself [lit, my inward parts] —back to you. I wanted to keep him with me, so that in my imprisonment for the gospel he might serve me in your place. But I didn’t want to do anything without your consent, so that your good deed might not be out of obligation, but of your own free will.” Philemon 1:11-14

Paul was imprisoned in Rome (most probably, though there are some who think he was imprisoned in Ephesus when he wrote this letter and this actually makes sense since Onesimus was from Colossae, which was in the same region as Ephesus). Paul admitted that Onesimus wasn’t a very good slave, but now he had the makings of a fine minister or ministry assistant. Paul played the “spiritual son” card. He often spoke of Timothy in this regard, so it was likely well-known that Paul highly favored those he had brought to the Lord personally. Onesimus was like a part of himself, yet he was sending him back to Philemon. Paul recognized that Onesimus was Philemon’s property. Yes, he was useful to Paul and could minister to Paul in Philemon’s stead (this wasn’t uncommon practice in that society, for a slave to serve in his master’s stead), but Paul wasn’t going to act until he had Philemon’s permission. He didn’t want Philemon to feel pressured by Paul’s authority to do what was right. He wanted Philemon to accept Onesimus as a brother in the Lord in his own free will.

“For perhaps this is why he was separated from you for a brief time, so that you might get him back permanently, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave—as a dearly loved brother. This is especially so to me, but even more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. [Both physically and spiritually]  So if you consider me a partner, accept him as you would me.” Philemon 1:15-17

A friend who is a New Testament scholar pointed out that Onesimus did not become a Christian even though he lived in a home that was used as a church. I don’t know if it would be harder to accept Christ if one’s owner was the one witnessing. I do know a few business owners who have shared Christ with employees with varying results. Maybe Philemon, who was reportedly a fine pastor, was inept at witnessing to his “property” or perhaps he was neglectful. Either way, it seems he needed to be separated from Philemon for a while in order to encounter Paul and become a Christian. He was being returned to Philemon not as a slave, but as a dearly loved brother. Philemon was meant to rejoice at this and to accept Onesimus back as if it were Paul, freed from captivity, dropping in for a visit.

Some scholars believe that Onesimus stole something when he ran and I’m not denying that he might have. Certainly he owed Philemon for whatever portion of his purchase price had not been paid off by his labor. As I showed in the study of slavery in the Old Testament there was a way to calculate “buying out the contract”, but know that in Greek territory, there was no legal binding on Philemon to allow Onesimus or Paul to buy Onesimus from slavery as was the Jewish custom of the kinsman-redeemer. Roman slaves often bought their own freedom, but the rules were less clear than in Jewish society. As a matter of practicality, Paul offered to pay for his redemption, although I think we can understand that Philemon would be urged by the church simply to release Onesimus. Paul even reminded Philemon that he owed Paul a great deal. Paul assured Philemon of his confidence in Philemon’s agape love. Philemon would do right by Paul and Onesimus.

“But meanwhile, also prepare a guest room for me, for I hope that through your prayers I will be restored to you.” Philemon 1:22

Again, some commentators believe that Paul was threatening Philemon with a visit to assure Onesimus was well-treated. On the other hand, Philemon and Paul were friends. It is entirely likely that Paul simply was hoping to be able to visit him.

I would note that this letter, while dealing with a personal issue involving slavery, also speaks loudly about salvation. Philemon and Onesimus are both Christians represented in the world. Philemon is the good righteous Christian who accepted Christ when he was four. Onesimus is the reprobate who accepted Christ at some point after he’d rolled around in the world’s slop for a while. Paul represents the Savior in this. Paul had brought both to the Lord. He wanted them to become fellow workers in Christ. Philemon could think of himself as better than Onesimus, but that would not be Christlike. Paul requested that Philemon accept Onesimus as a Christian brother, not as a reprobate. The “savior” was willing to pay any debt to smooth the way, but he reminded Philemon that he owed a large debt himself. As Christ died for our sins as well as the sins of Christians we might hold in lower regard, we are no different than those we do not esteem highly. We all owe a great debt of gratitude for what Jesus was willing to do for us. Just because my fellow Christian isn’t perfect doesn’t mean he isn’t just as loved as I am.

“Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, greets you, and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my co-workers. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.” Philemon 1:23-25

Paul added names to those who were with him in imprisonment. It seems he had quite a few people who were able to come and go around him, especially when he was in Rome. He ended with a typical Pauline signature – wishing the favor of Jesus to work in their spirits. They would need the Holy Spirit’s ministry to set aside their societal view of slavery that allowed Philemon to beat Onesimus to death for his disobedience. Paul trusted that God was more than able to cool the anger that might be directed at Onesimus provided that Philemon let the Lord continue to work in him.

That Onesimus is mentioned in another letter written not much later indicates that Philemon accepted Paul’s advice, though we cannot be completely certain that he was released from slavery.

Slavery was a fact of life in the 1^st Century world, as it is a fact of life in much of the 21^st Century world. My personal belief is that it is an immoral practice and not one that God ever condoned. Seeing that humans were going to do it anyway, God provided guidelines to prevent abuse. With the coming of Jesus and the work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of Christians, slavery became a difficult practice to countenance. Yes, slaves were money and their labor often meant the different between being a well-off man and being a rich man. But increasingly, as the Christian era progressed, Christians voluntarily stopped holding slaves and there developed throughout Europe the flawed system of pseudo-freedom called serfdom. It was only as the Roman Catholic church moved away from Biblical teaching and made it a crime of blasphemy to read the Scriptures in anything but Latin that slavery reappeared on the European landscape. It was when the Scriptures became available once more through the innovation of the printing press that literate people were able to turn to sound Biblical practice that led to the Reformation. From the Reformation grew the abolition movement and from the abolition movement came the outlawing of slavery in the Western World. Many would like to credit this to Enlightenment thought or some such other philosophy, but the writings of men like John Newton and William Wilberforce make it clear that their abolitionist tendencies came from a deep and abiding faith in God and knowledge of the Scriptures.

If Philemon was expected to greet his runaway property as a dearly loved Christian brother, how could any man in good conscience hold slaves? They couldn’t and eventually Christians realized that you can’t separate what you believe from what you practice nor say that there is some difference between those who are slaves and those who own slaves.

In Christ, we are all the same!

As I explained before, about 1 in 3 people in Rome were slaves. Obviously slaves were the grease that lubed the wheels of Roman industry. Outside of Italy, about one in five persons was a slave. It’s estimated this was somewhat less (maybe 1 in 7) in Israel, but again, that’s a lot of people doing a lot of work. Israel had rules for how you might treat a slave and sanctions for the master who treated one badly. Rome had no such laws. It was perfectly legal to kill a slave for even a minor infraction. They were property more or less like cattle.

Jesus came into this world to redeem it, but He spent surprising little time discussing actual codes of conduct. From our 21^st Century perspective, He should have just declared slavery horrible and suspended it, but you would have to look hard to find such behavior to be a part of Jesus’ plan for the world. He did issue commands. No one comes to God except through me, for example. But He didn’t dictate to people personally. They were free to follow Him or not. If they chose not, that was to their peril. It is the way that Jesus deals with us today. He offers us salvation. We can accept it, or not. Our reaction will determine our final destination, but He doesn’t force us to choose the way He would like us to go.

God knows the future and He knew that some slaves would accept Christ just as freedmen and citizens would. Using Paul and Peter to write to the Christians of the 1^st Century, He never advocates the abolition of slavery. Again, to our 21^st Century minds this seems cruel and uncaring, even condoning of slavery, but we must remember that Jesus didn’t come to save men’s bodies, but to save their souls. He warned His disciples that they would suffer in this world for following Him. Paul had recently written to the Philippians about being content with what he had. Perhaps Onesimus was already with Paul when he wrote some of the prison letters, so that his mind was on the subject of slavery.

Nowhere does the Bible say that slavery is right or wrong; it just was a part of life in those days. Christianity is not a societal religion. It’s an individual relationship with the Savior that can have a dramatic effect upon society. There is a distinct difference. Paul was not speaking to slaves and slave masters, per se; he’s speaking to Christians in diverse circumstances. Paul urged Christian slaves to obey their human masters sincerely, as if that master were Jesus Christ. They were to do their jobs even when they weren’t being watched because Jesus can see us at all times. They were to have a good attitude, because God, if not their human masters, would reward their good service. Christians who owned slaves were to treat them with kindness, not threatening them, and recognizing that they both were answerable to Jesus and that He didn’t see slave or master, but Christians.

“Slaves, obey your human masters in everything; don’t work only while being watched, in order to please men, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, do it enthusiastically, [Lit do it from the soul] as something done for the Lord and not for men, knowing that you will receive the reward of an inheritance from the Lord—you serve the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for whatever wrong he has done, and there is no favoritism.”  Colossians 3:21-25

This is the same advice to another church. It might be noted that Onesimus was a messenger on this trip. Paul took no authority over any man, let alone a non-Christian slave owner, but he indicated here that wrongdoers (whether the slave or the master) would be answerable to Jesus and, again, Jesus doesn’t see slave or master, but Christian only.

In Paul’s first letter to Timothy, he explains some of his reasoning for his advice. Christians are representatives of Jesus and we don’t want to be bad advertising. If the master is a non-Christian, perhaps he will be persuaded to become a Christian based upon the exemplary behavior of his Christian slave. If the master is a Christian, the slave must remember to treat him with due respect. Yes, they are brothers in the Lord, but this should not lead to poor service, but improved, because the slave is ministering to a dear friend.

“Household slaves, submit yourselves to your masters[47] Eph 6:5; Col 3:22; Ti 2:9 with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel [Lit crooked or unscrupulous].  For it brings favor with God if, because of conscience toward God, someone endures grief from suffering unjustly.[1 Pt 3:14,17; 4:14]  For what credit is there if you endure when you sin and are beaten? But when you do good and suffer, if you endure, it brings favor with God.”  1Peter 2:18-20

Sometimes there were slave owners who were not good people. Wow, are we really surprised that human beings might not act nicely toward those they consider to be their property? An alternative reader of the Greek suggests that some slave masters, just like some employers, might be unscrupulous in their business practices. According to the HBO series "Rome", it was pretty common in Roman society to use slaves for sexual gratification. Yet, Peter encouraged Christian slaves to remain respectful even to the cruel master because if they showed a lack of respect, they would deserve mistreatment in the eyes of their master and this would be poor advertising for the gospel. If the slave was exemplary and the master was cruel, God would reward the slave and, it’s hinted by context, that the master would see the gospel acted out in the slave’s willingness to submit even to a cruel master.

“Each person should remain in the life situation in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? It should not be a concern to you. But if you can become free, by all means take the opportunity. [Or But even though you can become free, make the most of your position as a slave.]
For he who is called by the Lord as a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called as a free man is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brothers, each person should remain with God in whatever situation he was called.”  1Corinthians 7:20-23

In our world today, it’s really hard for us to understand why a person wouldn’t rage against enslavement, a bad job, etc., but it’s really a Christian ideal to be accepting of our circumstances. Paul was in prison when he wrote many of his letters. Yet, he saw it as the Lord’s work that his imprisonment was accomplishing. The outside circumstances were merely the setting for ministry and sometimes only someone willing to remain in unfriendly circumstances could minister in those circumstances. What was going on with the body was of less importance than what was going on with the soul. This is true now as it was then.

Christian slaves were to remain and be content in the ministry field in which God had placed them, but Christian masters were also to be fair, treating their slaves as they would like Jesus to treat them.

"We know that the law is not meant for a righteous person, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral and homosexuals, for kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching based on the glorious gospel of the blessed God that was entrusted to me.”  1Timothy 1:9-11

Although it might seem as though Paul and Peter condoned slavery, even encouraged it, there are many Biblical principles that operate in conjunction with the principles governing slavery. The law isn’t meant for good people. If we humans were all born righteous, we wouldn’t need the law to tell us that things like slavery are cruel and demeaning. Unfortunately, human beings are not right with God from the get-go and we need Bible passages like 1Timothy 1:9-11 to teach us correctly. Whatever is contrary to sound teaching is wrong. A Christian slave and a Christian slave-owner are brothers in Christ. Few of us would be cruel to our natural brothers and fewer still would enslave our own siblings. Christians with the strong emphasis to “love your brother in Christ” must consider that it is hard to say you love your brother in Christ when you are his owner.

“There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”  Galatians 3:26

I don’t think that can be any clearer. Galatians says there’s no distinction between Christians. Yet, if my Christian brother is my property, … hmm, my conscience is pricked.

It is frequently cited that because the Bible deals with slavery and doesn’t explicitly says that it’s wrong, that it is a pro-slavery book. No! It deals with sexual immorality and the churches’ response to it without condoning sexual immorality. The Biblical treatment of slavery is somewhat similar to the Biblical treatment of divorce. It is acknowledged, it is condemned, it is given strict rules for those times when it is necessary. Slavery was an accepted practice in Biblical times. It ran counter to Christian principles, but it’s very hard to tell someone that they need to lower the standard of living they worked hard to attain because they’ve become a Christian. Paul’s letters showed that he believed people were best taught Christian doctrine and the reason behind Christian behavior rather than be dictated to about their lifestyles. Lifestyles change through the reformation of the inward self, not the other way around. We shall turn our attention toward the Onesimus affair to consider its effect upon 1^st Century Christians who owned slaves.

Slavery was a fact of life in the ancient world. The Israelites had been slaves in Egypt. One might wonder why a race descended from slaves would own slaves themselves, but I think you’d have to go back and talk to people dead by a few millennia to honestly understand their reasoning. Slave labor was considered essential in most societies of the ancient world. Israel, like its neighbors, practiced it. It should be noted however, that unlike its neighbors, Israel codified actual laws protecting the rights of its slaves and in many cases restricting the rights of their owners. This was almost unknown in the surrounding countries. The Romans, for example, valued their slaves, but their law allowed them to pretty much treat them however they wanted, up to and including killing them for minor offenses.

That the Hebrew law deals with slavery does not necessarily mean that God condoned slavery. It was a reality that required a response. God provided the response. It is unlikely that had He commanded the Israelites not to take slaves that they would have complied. Better to accept the reality and regulate it than to ignore the possibility and allow abuse.

 “When you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for six years; then in the seventh he is to leave as a free man^[1] Lit to go forth without paying anything.
If he arrives alone, he is to leave alone; if he arrives with^[2] Lit he is the husband of a wife, his wife is to leave with him.
 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children belong to her master, and the man must leave alone.
“But if the slave declares: ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I do not want to leave as a free man,’
his master is to bring him to the judges^[3] Or to God; that is, to His sanctuary or court and then bring him to the door or doorpost. His master must pierce his ear with an awl, and he will serve his master for life.

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave,^[4] Or concubine she is not to leave as the male slaves do.
If she is displeasing to her master, who chose her for himself, then he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners because he has acted treacherously toward her.
Or if he chooses her for his son, he must deal with her according to the customary treatment of daughters.
If he takes an additional wife, he must not reduce the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife.
And if he does not do these three things for her, she may leave free of charge, without any exchange of money.^[5]”   Without paying a redemption price for her  Exodus 21:2-11

It was a fact that sometimes Hebrews would get themselves into debt and find themselves without options. In other societies, a man could sell himself or his children to a slave master and those so sold could become slaves forever. The Hebrew law did not allow that. It put safeguards on slavery to prevent it from becoming abusive.

The Exodus law was much more basic than the Levitical law, so here you find more detail.

“If your brother among you becomes destitute and sells himself to you,[18] 2 Kg 4:1; Neh 5:5; Isa 50:1; Mt 18:25 you must not force him to do slave labor.
Let him stay with you as a hired hand or temporary resident; he may work for you until the Year of Jubilee.[19] Ex 21:2; Dt 15:12
Then he and his children are to be released from you, and he may return to his clan and his ancestral property.[20] Ex 21:3–6
They are not to be sold as slaves,[21] Lit sold with a sale of a slave because they are My slaves I brought out of the land of Egypt.
 You are not to rule over them harshly[22] Ex 1:13–14 but fear your God.” Leviticus 25:39-43

Basically, you could make a debtor into an indentured servant and own his labor for a period of time, but you had to treat them nicely and release them during the 50^th year celebration when debts were forgiven and land was returned to the original owners.  A joyful shout or clangor of trumpets, Jubilee was also the name of the great semi-centennial festival of the Hebrews. It lasted for a year. During this year the land was to be fallow; the Israelites were only permitted to gather the spontaneous produce of the fields (Lev 25:11, 12). All landed property during that year reverted to its original owner (Lev 13-34; Lev 27:16-24), and all who were slaves were set free (Lev 25:39-54), and all debts were remitted.  The return of the jubilee year was proclaimed by a blast of trumpets which sounded throughout the land. There is no record in Scripture of the actual observance of this festival, but there are numerous allusions (Isa 5:7, 8, 9, 10; Isa 61:1, 2; Ezek 7:12, 13; Neh 5:1-19; 2Ch 36:21) which strongly indicate it was observed.

The advantages of this institution were manifold. It would prevent the accumulation of land on the part of a few to the detriment of the community at large. It would render it impossible for any one to be born to absolute poverty since every one had his hereditary land. It would preclude those inequalities which are produced by extremes of riches and poverty and which allow one man dominate over others. It would utterly do away with slavery. It would afford a fresh opportunity to those who were reduced by adverse circumstances to begin again. It would periodically rectify the disorders which crept into the state in the course of time, preclude the division of the people into nobles and plebeians, and preserve the theocracy (remember that Israel was a theocracy from Moses through the time of the Judges until Saul was made king).

Here we find more protections for the rights of Hebrew slaves, but also dealing with foreign slaves. It should be noted that Israel did not at this time control all of Israel and so there were a lot of “foreigners.”  Foreign slaves were given the right to become Hebrews through circumcision. It was possible for their children to buy their own freedom, in practice, if not by law, and some Biblical historians believe these children of foreign slaves and even the foreign slaves who had become Hebrews were often released in the Year of Jubilee. This is assuming, of course, that someone born to a class of slaves as many non-Hebrews were wanted their freedom. It may also be noted that among the Hebrews the kinsman-redeemer ordinances were quite strong and a relative who could afford it would feel great pressure to redeem his cousin from slavery if sold to a foreigner. Even if he didn’t, the foreigners were subject to the Jubilee regulation and the Israelites were bound by solemn vow to enforce it if the foreigner tried to ignore it.

This is just more of the same. Often times, when Scripture returns to the same subject repeatedly it is because God wants to assure that His people keep the law in mind. Such appears to be the case here. Permanent slavery was always a voluntary act. It should also be noted that when people fell into debt or destitution in those days, often starvation was the only other option. They didn’t have the safety nets we have today nor even the Christian Church to get them back on their feet. Slavery as a humane institution made far more sense in dealing with the destitute than letting them starve.

Slavery was a part of the ancient world – a fact of life sort of like the need in our world for sanitation workers. It’s an unpleasant job, but somebody has to do it, so we pay them as well as we can so they’re willing to do this job the rest of us don’t want to do. Would it have been better if the ancient Israelites had remembered their slavery in Egypt and refused to own slaves themselves? Yeah, I think so. But I don’t live three thousand years ago and I can’t know all the conditions in that society that made slavery attractive not only to the owners, but apparently to the slaves. Being purely analytical about it – the owner was required to feed and house you. If you weren’t a very good money-manager – as apparently many Hebrew slaves were not – you were at least assured a roof and three hots from your master who at least was a good enough money manager to afford to own people to do some of his work for him.

We try to reflect back on to 1500 BC with our 21^st Century worldview and say “This is evil, this is wrong.” I will agree that it wasn’t optimal. And, yes, God was aware that someday in the future there would be societies that would outlaw slavery. Why did He not choose to step into human events and demand the abolition of slavery? I don’t altogether know except that it would have caused widespread disruption in society and that usually isn’t how God dealt with the Israelites.

Moreover, I would note – are we really any freer in the 21^st Century? I know a fair number of people who are deeply in debt to their credit cards and some of them are working two and three jobs to make the payments. They are not free to live their lives as if they were not in debt. Eventually, some of them will fail and be forced into bankruptcy. Many landlords in my town won’t rent to you if you’ve declared bankruptcy. Many employers won’t hire you. What will happen to these people? Well, there are government safety nets in our world today. In Israel 3000 years ago, the safety net was a benign sort of slavery. It wasn’t a perfect system, but perhaps God sees it as better than allowing foolish people to starve in the streets.

One can avoid a subject only so long and it seems to me that God has decided I should have to face this one. Paul wrote about four of his letters around AD 61 when he was in Roman captivity. One of the letters we now call the Epistle of Philemon. There’s no getting away from the subject of slavery in the Bible when one looks at this letter. The Biblical treatment of slavery is very different from what modern-American Christians would like it to be. However, we should not be embarrassed or avoiding the subject because there is a lot of things to agree about concerning it when you read the Bible.

So, since this is an extremely short letter, I’m primarily going to deal with the larger issue of the Bible’s treatment of slavery, but always bringing it back to the subject at hand.

Philemon (fi leh’ muhn) was a personal name meaning “affectionate.” During Paul’s extended ministry in Ephesus (Acts 19:10) Paul apparently met Philemon and shared the gospel with him. Although there is no evidence that Paul ever visited Colossae where Philemon lived, they became close friends and the epistle of Philemon is the only private, personal letter Paul wrote that is included in the New Testament. The letter concerns a runaway slave, Onesimus, who robbed Philemon and escaped to Rome where he encountered the imprisoned Paul. Paul wrote to Philemon concerning Onesimus and then sent the letter with Onesimus back to Colossae.

Onesimus (oh nehss’ ih muhss) means “profitable”, but I’m not sure Philemon would have agreed. Onesimus had stolen from him and escaped.  Upon meeting Paul, he became a Christian and was most helpful to the apostle. Paul found him so helpful that he was tempted to keep him. Onesimus was Philemon’s property, however and thus Paul would be guilty of a crime and of sin by keeping him. Paul therefore sent Onesimus back to his master. There was a risk involved. Philemon had a legal right to severely punish or even kill Onesimus, but Paul’s short letter challenged Philemon to apply Christian love in dealing with Onesimus. Paul’s approach eventually caused an end of slavery in most Christian countries, though it would take many centuries.

There are some traditions surrounding Onesimus that indicate that he was freed to do the work of the Lord, but these are not strongly supported. Onesimus did accompany Thychius in bearing Paul’s letter to the church at Colossae, so it’s clear he survived his meeting with Philemon and was permitted some freedom in the future. More than that cannot be historically established.

Slavery, whereby a person is totally responsible to and dependent upon another person, was a prevalent and widely accepted practice in the ancient world. The economies of Egypt, Greece and Rome were based on slave labor. In the first century, one in three persons in Italy and one in five elsewhere was a slave. Huge gangs toiled in fields, mines and on building projects. There were many domestic and civil servants who would be considered slaves by our definitions. Some were temple slaves and others craftsmen. Most gladiators were slaves. Some were highly intelligent and held positions of responsibility. Legally, a slave outside of Hebrew circles had no rights; but most were treated humanely and were better off than many free persons. Domestics were considered part of the family and some were greatly loved by their masters. In the eastern Mediterranean slaves were less common because free labor was inexpensive, but the institution of slavery was unquestioned. A few isolated groups opposed slavery, but most merely had rules or laws protecting slaves in various ways. Christian preachers called upon masters to be kind.

A person could become a slave through capture in war, default on a debt, inability to support and “voluntarily” selling oneself, being sold as a child by destitute parents, birth to slave parents, conviction of a crime, or kidnapping and piracy. Slavery cut across races and nationalities.

Manumission or freeing of slaves was possible and common in Roman times. Masters often freed their slaves in their wills and sometimes during their lifetimes. Industrious slaves could earn and save money and purchase their own freedom. By the first century, a large class of freedmen had developed; there was even a synagogue of the Freedmen in Jerusalem (Acts 6:9).

Slavery laws appear in Exodus 21:1-11; Leviticus 25:39-55; and Deuteronomy 15:12-18. Most of these concern humane treatment and manumission. A Hebrew sold to another Hebrew or a resident alien because of insolvency was to be released after six years of service and given provisions to start over. If he had come with a wife, she and any children were also released. If the master had given him a wife, she and the children were to remain. If, however, the slave wanted to stay with his wife and children rather than be free, he could enroll himself as a slave for life. A Hebrew who sold himself to another Hebrew or resident alien was to be released during the Jubilee Year. A slave could be redeemed at any time by a relative, including the freed spouse.  A Hebrew girl sold by her father to another Hebrew to become his wife was to be released if that man or his son did not marry her. A slave permanently maimed by his or her master was to be freed (Ex. 21:26-27). A fugitive slave—presumably one who had escaped from a foreign owner—was not to be extradited (Deut. 23:15-16). Foreigners could be enslaved permanently, but they had the right to circumcision (Ex. 12:44-48), Sabbath rest (Ex. 20:10), and holidays (Deut. 16:11,14). One was to be punished for beating a slave to death (Ex. 21:20-21).

Paul and Peter insisted that Christian slaves be obedient to their masters (Eph. 6:5-8; Col. 3:22-25; 1 Tim. 6:1-2; 1 Pet. 2:18-21) and not seek freedom just because they’d become Christians (1 Cor. 7:20-22). Masters were urged to be kind (Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1). Slave trading was condemned (1 Tim. 1:10). Paul claimed that in Christ human status was unimportant (Gal. 3:28).

Neither Jesus nor the apostles condemned slavery. Why? Slavery was so much a part of their society that to call for abolition would have resulted in violence and bloodshed. Calls for violence and bloodshed were not and are not the Christian way! Instead, Jesus and the apostles set forth principles of human dignity and equality which eventually led to the abolition of slavery. Note that during the early Christian era, slavery among Christians gradually disappeared and the Catholic Church in conjunction with secular authorities who were often their own family members developed the serf system as an alternative to slavery. It was really not until the Muslims reintroduced the practice into Europe that you find it once more practiced by those who called themselves Christian. African tribes, who freely practiced slavery, also contributed to the reintroduction in Europe. Slavery was initially practiced among the colonists of the New World because of the lack of agricultural workers. This resulted in slaves actually being used in European households and industry. In British American colonies, most slaves were initially treated as indentured servants and it was common for slaves to buy their freedom, but as particularly Southern plantation owners came to rely on their guaranteed labor, laws were changed to make slavery a permanent state. However, for a great deal of American history, slaves did retain some rights and many societally recognized privileges.

Although many of our Founding Fathers were themselves slave owners, some of those same men (George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton) regarded slavery as evil and inconsistent with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. The Society of Friends (Quakers) uniformly opposed slavery and agitated against it. The Presbyterian church made several formal declarations against it between 1787 and 1836. The Methodist Episcopal church always cherished strong antislavery views, but in 1844 split when one of its bishops refused to free slaves inherited from his wife. Antislavery views grew steadily; but many who personally held strong antislavery opinions hesitated to actively join in abolitionist agitation, unwilling to dispute what many US citizens considered as their right. Although the US was later than England and the rest of Europe in abolishing slavery, the US institution of slavery was finally abolished after the Civil War with the ratification of the 13^th Amendment in 1865. It remains a reality throughout much of the rest of the world, however.

In most ancient societies, few things were more despicable than to be a slave. In Israel, however, the idea emerged that it was a great privilege to be a servant or slave of God . Many of the heroes of the Old Testament are called the slave/servant of God (Ex. 32:13; Deut. 34:5; 2 Sam. 7:5; 2 Kings 21:10). Very significant are the Servant Songs of Isaiah 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; and 52:13–53:12, which originally referred to Israel but were reinterpreted by the early church to refer to Jesus.  Jesus adopted a servant’s role (John 13:4-5; Mark 10:45; compare Phil. 2:7) and indicated that His disciples should also (Matt. 6:24; 10:24; 24:45-46; Luke 17:10; John 13:12-16). Paul referred to himself as a slave or servant of Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:1; Gal. 1:10; Phil. 1:1), as did James (1:1), Peter (2 Pet. 1:1), and Jude (1).

There are three other metaphorical uses of slavery in the New Testament. A life of sin is spoken of as slavery (John 8:34; Rom. 6:6,16-20; Heb. 2:15). Legalism is a kind of slavery (Gal. 4:24-25; 5:1). Paradoxically, however, there is also a blessed slavery to righteousness (Rom. 6:16-22).

It is my intention to do a review of slavery in the Bible because I think this is a greatly misunderstood subject. The epistle to Philemon will finish the study because I hope to show that Paul’s application of Christian love to the institution of slavery made the practice incompatible with Christian ideals and therefore caused the eventual abolition of slavery in Europe and the US. It should be noted that slavery still exists in many places in the world, mostly in countries with little or no Christian presence or history.

This teaching experience of Jesus reminds me a great deal of the words Paul wrote in Philippians. “I have Jesus. I am well supplied.” As I said, the gospels are a big subject, so I will sprinkle studies in as I am so moved.

Jesus’ miracles had begun to make Him quite popular with crowds and quite unpopular with the local establishment. In Mark 8, we find Him preaching to a large crowd of people (approximately 5000). The day wore on and the afternoon waned and Jesus’ disciples worried about letting them depart without having first eaten something. Jesus took a young boy’s lunch (freely offered, it would appear) of fish and bread, divided it up and fed all 5000 people with food to spare.  This should have been sign enough for even skeptics to agree this was no ordinary man, but Jesus’ detractors were extremely skeptical.

The Pharisees constituted the most important political group in first century Israel. Paul claimed he was a Pharisee before becoming a Christian. They were the most numerous of the several political groups. Although Josephus claimed the numbered only about 6000, some scholars believe they were actually about one-first of the male population of Israel. They controlled the synagogues and exercised great social control over the general population.

The name “Pharisee” meant “the separated ones.” It may mean they had separated themselves from the masses or that they separated themselves to the study and interpretation of the Law. It is usually assumed they were the spiritual descendants of the Hasidim, the religion freedom fighters of the Maccabean era. They appear to be responsible for the transformation of Judaism from a religion of sacrifice to one of law. They were the developers of the oral tradition, the teachers of the two-fold law – written and oral. They saw the way to God as being through obedience to the law. They were the progressives of their day, willing to adopt new ideas and adapt the law to new situations.

The Pharisees were strongly monotheistic. They accepted all the Old Testament as authoritative. They affirmed the reality of angels and demons and had a firm belief in life beyond the grave and a resurrection of the body. They were missionary, seeking the conversion of Gentiles (Matt. 23:15). They saw God as concerned with the life of a person without denying that the individual was responsible for how he or she lived. They had little interest in politics. The Pharisees opposed Jesus because He refused to accept the teachings of the oral law.

It should be noted that Jesus referred to the written law on many occasions.

“The Pharisees came out and began to argue with Him, demanding of Him a sign from heaven to test Him. But sighing deeply in His spirit, He said, “Why does this generation demand a sign? • I assure you: No sign will be given to this generation!” Mark 8:11-12

Jesus refused to gratify the Pharisees with their request for a sign from heaven. He’d already given them several signs. There’d been signs at His baptism, which had been public. You have to wonder that His turning water into wine at a wedding hadn’t somehow gotten round. The crowds were following Him because of His healing miracles. He’d just fed 5000 people with a child’s lunch. If no Pharisees had been at the potluck, that was their error. They could ask the people who had been there. Jesus, knowing the hearts of men, recognized they didn’t come to get questions answered, but to cross-examine Him and in someway ensnare Him, by challenging Him to give them a sign from heaven. Whatever He did, they'd say it was somehow done by demon power.  They came forth on purpose to question with him; not to propose questions to Him that they might learn from Him, but to cross-examine Him, that they might ensnare Him.

Jesus denied their demand, apparently grieved by their hard hearts and their unwillingness to accept what He had already shown. The rabbinic tradition of that time expected Messiah to arrive any day (a fact noted in modern scholarship as well). Yet when confronted with the Messiah, the Pharisees tried to expose Him for a fraud. So while Jesus gave many signs to those who were willing to accept them, the Pharisees would receive no signs. They were welcome to follow Him and they certainly saw many miracles, but they never acknowledged these as signs from heaven.

What is that they often say about denial?

Jesus opposed the Pharisees’ for their acceptance of oral tradition over and above the written law. In Jesus’ generation there was, of course, the written law we have today, but the Pharisees had also added to that law in an attempt to interpret it and make it clearer. For example, one could not light a lamp on the Sabbath because that was kindling a fire. One did not move a chair on the Sabbath because it might make a furrow in the dirt floor of most houses and that would be considered plowing. There was a great deal of oral tradition layered over the written law and it lead to an extremely legalistic society.

Thus, Jesus warns His disciples to beware the yeast of the Pharisees and Herod. At least, that’s the way Mark wrote it, probably because that’s the way Peter remembered it. Matthew, however, recorded to beware of the yeast of the Sadducees.

The Sadducees were the aristocrats of the time, the party of the rich and the high priestly families. They were in charge of the Temple and its services, claiming to be descendants of Zadok, high priest in the time of Solomon. This has never been proven to scholarly satisfaction. In all existing literature, they stand in opposition to the Pharisees. They sought to conserve the beliefs and practices of the past. They opposed the oral law, accepting the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament, as the ultimate authority. The Sadducees were materialistic in their outlook. They did not believe in life after death or any reward or punishment beyond this life. They denied the existence of angels and demons and did not believe that God was concerned with what people did. Rather people were totally free to live life as they chose. They were politically-oriented, supporters of ruling powers, whether Seleucids or Romans. They wanted nothing to threaten their position and wealth, so they strongly opposed Jesus.

Jesus lumped them together. Herod was very likely of the Sadducee party as He clearly believed in living life in whatever manner you chose. Yeast was always a metaphor for sin in Jewish society and literature. Thus, the disciples should readily have understood that Jesus was telling them to beware of the sin of the Pharisees and the Sadduccess, both of whom could be accused of insisting that God come to them on their terms rather than on His.  Instead, they decided to think with their stomachs.

They reasoned that Jesus was angry with them for launching across the lake without bread enough for several days.  The Pharisees had recently rebuked them for eating with unclean hands, and they suddenly realized it might be hard to get bread on the other side of the lake. In many ways, their resultant conversation indicates they disbelieved in Him in a manner similar to the Pharisees.

They’d been there for his miracles. When He’d fed 5000 people with five loaves of bread, there’d been 12 baskets of leftovers. When He’d fed 4000 people with seven loaves there’d been seven baskets left over. They were riding with the guy who could create manna from heaven. Yet here they were worrying that they only had one loaf for 13 people! Amazing!

Don’t we get it?

This teaching experience of Jesus reminds me a great deal of the words Paul wrote in Philippians. “I have Jesus. I am well supplied.” As I said, the gospels are a big subject, so I will sprinkle studies in as I am so moved.

Jesus’ miracles had begun to make Him quite popular with crowds and quite unpopular with the local establishment. In Mark 8, we find Him preaching to a large crowd of people (approximately 5000). The day wore on and the afternoon waned and Jesus’ disciples worried about letting them depart without having first eaten something. Jesus took a young boy’s lunch (freely offered, it would appear) of fish and bread, divided it up and fed all 5000 people with food to spare.  This should have been sign enough for even skeptics to agree this was no ordinary man, but Jesus’ detractors were extremely skeptical.

The Pharisees constituted the most important political group in first century Israel. Paul claimed he was a Pharisee before becoming a Christian. They were the most numerous of the several political groups. Although Josephus claimed the numbered only about 6000, some scholars believe they were actually about one-first of the male population of Israel. They controlled the synagogues and exercised great social control over the general population.

The name “Pharisee” meant “the separated ones.” It may mean they had separated themselves from the masses or that they separated themselves to the study and interpretation of the Law. It is usually assumed they were the spiritual descendants of the Hasidim, the religion freedom fighters of the Maccabean era. They appear to be responsible for the transformation of Judaism from a religion of sacrifice to one of law. They were the developers of the oral tradition, the teachers of the two-fold law – written and oral. They saw the way to God as being through obedience to the law. They were the progressives of their day, willing to adopt new ideas and adapt the law to new situations.

The Pharisees were strongly monotheistic. They accepted all the Old Testament as authoritative. They affirmed the reality of angels and demons and had a firm belief in life beyond the grave and a resurrection of the body. They were missionary, seeking the conversion of Gentiles (Matt. 23:15). They saw God as concerned with the life of a person without denying that the individual was responsible for how he or she lived. They had little interest in politics. The Pharisees opposed Jesus because He refused to accept the teachings of the oral law.

It should be noted that Jesus referred to the written law on many occasions.

“The Pharisees came out and began to argue with Him, demanding of Him a sign from heaven to test Him. But sighing deeply in His spirit, He said, “Why does this generation demand a sign? • I assure you: No sign will be given to this generation!” Mark 8:11-12

Jesus refused to gratify the Pharisees with their request for a sign from heaven. He’d already given them several signs. There’d been signs at His baptism, which had been public. You have to wonder that His turning water into wine at a wedding hadn’t somehow gotten round. The crowds were following Him because of His healing miracles. He’d just fed 5000 people with a child’s lunch. If no Pharisees had been at the potluck, that was their error. They could ask the people who had been there. Jesus, knowing the hearts of men, recognized they didn’t come to get questions answered, but to cross-examine Him and in someway ensnare Him, by challenging Him to give them a sign from heaven. Whatever He did, they'd say it was somehow done by demon power.  They came forth on purpose to question with him; not to propose questions to Him that they might learn from Him, but to cross-examine Him, that they might ensnare Him.

Jesus denied their demand, apparently grieved by their hard hearts and their unwillingness to accept what He had already shown. The rabbinic tradition of that time expected Messiah to arrive any day (a fact noted in modern scholarship as well). Yet when confronted with the Messiah, the Pharisees tried to expose Him for a fraud. So while Jesus gave many signs to those who were willing to accept them, the Pharisees would receive no signs. They were welcome to follow Him and they certainly saw many miracles, but they never acknowledged these as signs from heaven.

What is that they often say about denial?

Jesus opposed the Pharisees’ for their acceptance of oral tradition over and above the written law. In Jesus’ generation there was, of course, the written law we have today, but the Pharisees had also added to that law in an attempt to interpret it and make it clearer. For example, one could not light a lamp on the Sabbath because that was kindling a fire. One did not move a chair on the Sabbath because it might make a furrow in the dirt floor of most houses and that would be considered plowing. There was a great deal of oral tradition layered over the written law and it lead to an extremely legalistic society.

Thus, Jesus warns His disciples to beware the yeast of the Pharisees and Herod. At least, that’s the way Mark wrote it, probably because that’s the way Peter remembered it. Matthew, however, recorded to beware of the yeast of the Sadducees.

The Sadducees were the aristocrats of the time, the party of the rich and the high priestly families. They were in charge of the Temple and its services, claiming to be descendants of Zadok, high priest in the time of Solomon. This has never been proven to scholarly satisfaction. In all existing literature, they stand in opposition to the Pharisees. They sought to conserve the beliefs and practices of the past. They opposed the oral law, accepting the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament, as the ultimate authority. The Sadducees were materialistic in their outlook. They did not believe in life after death or any reward or punishment beyond this life. They denied the existence of angels and demons and did not believe that God was concerned with what people did. Rather people were totally free to live life as they chose. They were politically-oriented, supporters of ruling powers, whether Seleucids or Romans. They wanted nothing to threaten their position and wealth, so they strongly opposed Jesus.

Jesus lumped them together. Herod was very likely of the Sadducee party as He clearly believed in living life in whatever manner you chose. Yeast was always a metaphor for sin in Jewish society and literature. Thus, the disciples should readily have understood that Jesus was telling them to beware of the sin of the Pharisees and the Sadduccess, both of whom could be accused of insisting that God come to them on their terms rather than on His.  Instead, they decided to think with their stomachs.

They reasoned that Jesus was angry with them for launching across the lake without bread enough for several days.  The Pharisees had recently rebuked them for eating with unclean hands, and they suddenly realized it might be hard to get bread on the other side of the lake. In many ways, their resultant conversation indicates they disbelieved in Him in a manner similar to the Pharisees.

They’d been there for his miracles. When He’d fed 5000 people with five loaves of bread, there’d been 12 baskets of leftovers. When He’d fed 4000 people with seven loaves there’d been seven baskets left over. They were riding with the guy who could create manna from heaven. Yet here they were worrying that they only had one loaf for 13 people! Amazing!

Don’t we get it?

Ana (an honorific title meaning “Grandmother” or “Elder”) Lucy was an ancient Eskimo woman whose husband had died a few years before. She lived on the banks of the Chena River, in the cabin that her husband had built many years before. She’d outlived her children and most of her grandchildren had succumbed to alcoholism, the scourge of Alaskan Native people. She was known for being one of the church widows. She had a small income enough to support her in her simple lifestyle and she owned her own house, enough that she didn’t require aid from those around her in a financial sense, so she helped in Vacation Bible Schools and church potlucks and she prayed for folks who needed prayer; sometimes Ana Lucy was the only one God told they needed prayer.

In August of 1967, Ana Lucy was plucked from the roof of her house as the flood-swollen waters of the normally placid Chena River undercut the foundation of her cabin. The weather report had erroneously assured the entire town that the rain-swollen river would crest well below flood stage and Lucy, like everyone else, had gone to bed not expecting disaster to strike. Wet, with not even a change of clothes, she was brought to the church where she spent many of her waking hours – the church I now attend. The church had become a refugee center for people in the neighborhood as the electricity and water somehow remained on throughout the entire 10-days of flooding. At some point, when church members with a boat came to report that Ana Lucy’s cabin was gone with all of her possessions, someone asked her what she was going to do now “that you’ve lost everything”. In her 80s, frail and bowed, she smiled sweetly and said “Oh, I haven’t lost anything. I’ve still got my Jesus and that’s more than enough.”

Ana Lucy was right. The community at large, Native and white, turned from drying out their basements, to rebuild her cabin and the Native ladies at the church worked many hours to recreate her beadwork and other articles of familiarity that had washed down the river. She died in 1982 at the age of (approximately) 108 in a comfortable bed with many friends surrounding her. I was one of them.

Ana Lucy was an example of being content in all circumstances, just as Paul was.

In Paul’s day, all Christians were considered ministers of Christ. This is the heart we should all have for the work of the Lord today. I am on a mission field in my work place, as are you. My daughter is on a mission field in her high school. This is a heart for the Lord’s work that is often neglected in our modern times, to the detriment of the gospel. The mission field surrounds us! Let’s get to work!

The Philippians loved Paul, who had brought the gospel to them. They had supported him many times, financially and in prayer. They now supported him once more.

“I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at last you have renewed your care for me. You were, in fact, concerned about me, but lacked the opportunity to show itThe bracketed text has been added for clarity. .” Philippians 4:10

I read a commentary on this passage that made it sound like Paul was almost, but not quite, upbraiding the Philippians for not sending him aid earlier. I totally disagreed with this assertion, which convinces me that commentaries are helpful at times, but its best to remember that they are not Scripture. The man writing the commentary is welcome to his opinion, but I read here no real rebuke or even a veiled one. Paul knew that the Philippians had wanted to support him before this, but hadn’t been able to do so. The circumstances are not known and are not needed. Paul was comfortable with what they were able to do when they were able to do it. Paul understood that giving really wasn’t about him receiving, but about the givers giving.

 
“I don’t say this out of need, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. I know both how to have a little, and I know how to have a lot. In any and all circumstances I have learned the secret of being content The bracketed text has been added for clarity. —whether well-fed or hungry, whether in abundance or in need. I am able to do all things through Christ who strengthens me.”  Philippians 4:11-13

Paul assured the Philippians that he wasn’t in need. He was content with whatever circumstances came his way. His Roman captors were no doubt feeding him, so that he (a Roman citizen) might appear healthy before Caesar, but it didn’t matter to Paul. He was sustained by his relationship with Jesus Christ. The Philippian gift was greatly appreciated, but Paul’s appreciation was more for its evidence of growth in the Philippians rather than for what it provided him materially.

This passage is often used to teach Christians how they should feel about their material circumstances. A friend of mine with a somewhat charismatic bent will often, in the midst of crisis or consternation, proclaim “It’s all going to burn!” That’s his way of reminding himself that what seems so important to us humans really isn’t that big of a deal. We serve a mighty God Who strengthens us and enables us to do far more than we could ever do on our own. So why do we worry so much if our curtains exactly match our couch or if we have the latest car in just the right color? Be content, Paul said from his prison cell. You’ve got Jesus, what more do you need?

“Still, you did well by sharing with me in my hardship. And you, Philippians, know that in the early days of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving except you alone. For even in Thessalonica you sent gifts for my need several times. Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that is increasing to your account.” Philippians 4:14-17

Paul remembered their past help fondly. They had supported him while he was in Philippi, but they had also sent him aid while he was in central Greece, in Thessalonica.  Paul assured them that he didn’t need more aid, but that he enjoyed seeing how much they’d grown in the Lord, an evidence of which was their generosity.

“But I have received everything in full, and I have an abundance. I am fully supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you provided—a fragrant offering, a welcome sacrifice, pleasing to God.” Philippians 4:18

Paul assured the Philippians that he was well. He didn’t need more aid at this point in time. As always, though, Paul’s mind was set on things eternal rather than physical. “Thanks for the gift – I am sufficiently supplied -- and this reminds me that God will supply all your needs as well, according to the incredible treasure that is Jesus Christ.” Remember that we’re not citizens of this planet, but await transport to the next realm. Give glory to God for what He has supplied to us so abundantly – salvation and reconciliation with God. Any material stuff is subject to rot and decay. Put your hope in what will last forever.

“And my God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus. Now to our God and Father be glory forever and ever. Amen.”  Philippians 4:19-20

This is a prayer voiced by Paul on behalf of the Philippians. He didn’t know if he would ever see them again, so he had to trust that God would have their backs in the future. Jesus had already supplied them salvation and a rich and giving spirit. In the future, God would provide them with whatever was required to advance the gospel. Of this, Paul was certain. Still, he prayed, for as he had counseled them to pray continually, so did he.

“Greet every saint in Christ Jesus. Those brothers who are with me greet you. All the saints greet you, but especially those from Caesar’s household. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.  Philippians 4:21-23

Unlike Romans, where Paul spent considerable space noting individual members of the congregation, Paul sent general greetings here. Say hello to all the Christians in Philippi. Those who are with me send their hellos. Oh, by the way, some of them are members of Caeser’s household. Paul had converted some of his guards. How very Chinese Christian of him!

A final note on that – why is it that Western Christians so often feel the need to prickle at every insult from non-Christians? Yes, we should always have an answer for the questions and arguments they throw in our paths. Yet, Paul advocated a gentle and gracious spirit for Christians. Why is it that so many modern Western Christians feel that an insult of our beliefs, or even of our Savior, demands a vitriol defense that goes even beyond the sting of our opponent’s thrust? Paul was surrounded by enemies of the cause of Christ, yet his guards were converting to Christianity. Do we honestly think he did this by being combative? Anyone reading Paul’s letters or the Acts knows that Paul was not a submissive man. Between submission and combativeness lies the field of debate and discussion, where issues can be properly examined and given fair airing.

Christians have truth – The Truth – on our side. We needn’t worry overmuch that God can’t take care of His own image. In time, He will reveal Himself to the world and the world will stop its carping to pick their collective chins up off the ground. In the meantime, we should be about the business of advancing the gospel. Few listen to the guy screaming into the megaphone. The Christians won many more converts as they walked into the arenas to face death by lion. Paul reasoned with his captors. Make friends, let them know your beliefs and walk a walk that makes them wonder what they’re missing. This is how we are to bring the world to Christ. One friend at a time as we let the grace of God through Jesus’ gospel message of salvation flow through our lives and mouths to the people around us.

Amen!

Paul had just finished discussing the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the hoped-for resurrection of the Christians. The resurrection of Jesus was not a mystery to Paul. He had met Jesus in resurrected form on the road to Damascus. Paul was absolutely certain that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead. The Christians in Philippi, like us today, had to take that on faith. They knew a man who was willing to suffer Roman imprisonment and execution for the gospel message that Jesus had been resurrected. They had to trust that Paul was telling them the truth. They had to exercise faith that those after whom they patterned themselves were men and women of good character. Thomas the Doubter had been told by Jesus that he was blessed to have believed in Jesus’ resurrection after he’d seen the proof of it himself, but that there were those coming who would be even more blessed by believing in Jesus based upon faith.  The Philippians were such people, as are Christians today.

“So then, in this way, my dearly loved brothers, my joy and crown, stand firm in the Lord, dear friends.” Philippians 4:1

For Paul, sitting in a Roman imprisonment awaiting trial before Caesar and potential execution, the hope of his own future resurrection sustained him. The hope that the Philippians would be joining him gave him much joy. He urged them to stand firm in what they knew by faith to be true. Trust that Paul had told them the truth and cling to it with all their might. This was Paul’s greatest hope for his dear friends.

Not that the church in Philippi was perfect. The church at Philippi was no different from my church or millions of other churches throughout history or existing today. It was comprised of people and whenever people congregate, whether in church or at the village well or around the water cooler in a modern high-rise, you will find personalities and conflicts.

“I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to agree in the Lord. Yes, I also ask you, true partner, [Or true Syzygus, possibly a person’s name] to help these women who have contended for the gospel at my side, along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers whose names are in the book of life.” Philippians 4:2-3

Euodia and Syntyche apparently weren’t getting along. We don’t know why, but I think we can understand the root of their conflict. They were human. A scholar friend of mine suggested this may be the reason Epaphoditus was sent to Paul in the first place, to ask his counsel concerning this disagreement. Note that Paul doesn’t settle the dispute. He urges them to agree in the Lord. Frequently, Christians will disagree on matters small and large. Sometimes there is no right or wrong answer in a disagreement. For example, does prophesy have a place in the 21^st Century Church? Well, it certainly existed in the 1^st Century churches and this leads many to conclude that modern churches should be replete with spiritual gifts. Some would say that a verse in 1 Corinthians 13 indicates spiritual gifts have left the scene. I am not certain. I take a middle road on the subject, having seen prophesy work effectively and without extra-Biblical influences in some congregations, but also having seen churches led astray by “prophets”. My solution is to “agree in the Lord” with both sides, with the emphasis being “in the Lord.” I think God will show sincere Christians the Biblical form of worship that He requires and I think when churches stray from the clear instructions of the Bible it is because their own egos have gotten in the way of their relationship with Jesus. Paul urged Euodia and Syntyche to set aside their own egos and find commonality in their respective relationships with Jesus. A lot of disagreement in Jesus’ Church is due to ego and not anything incredibly substantive. We can disagree on some minor point of doctrine and yet agree wholeheartedly in the Lord.

Note also that Paul exhorted some member of the church to provide these women support in seeking unity. We don’t know who this person was. Since Epaphroditus was delivering the letter, it seems to me unlikely this passage was addressed to him, as some scholars suggest. More than likely, it is addressed to whomever it was who sent the original question to Paul. Who ever any of these people were, they were Paul’s fellow laborers in the gospel and he cared deeply for them, not only physically, but emotionally and spiritually. Dare I ask: how much care we take toward our fellow laborers in Christ?

Remember that this was a letter and not a series of passages just strung together. Paul continued with his practical counsel regarding Euodia and Syntyche. Rather than order them to submit to counseling or to take a vacation together, he actually gave advice that seems odd to our psychologically-minded modern minds.  He exhorted them to delight in God. In the midst of conflict, Paul suggested joy rather than conflict resolution.

It’s a hard concept to wrap one’s mind around: the anecdote for conflict is joy. Yet thinking back on past Bible studies (James, for example) all joy comes from God and all our rejoicing should be directed toward God. Paul indicated that this is a continually process. We should always rejoice in God, in all times, in all conditions, even when we suffer for Him. There is enough in God to furnish us with joy in the worst circumstances on earth. God gives us the joy we desire and if we don’t have enough it is because we do not claim it.

Joy is very different from happiness. Happiness relies upon external circumstances. Joy comes from within. Happiness says “I’m standing in a mud pit and I hate it and I’m going to curse God now because I’m not happy.” Joy says “I’m standing in a mud pit and I hate it, but I know that God is here in the mud pit with me, so I will rejoice.” Joy is a choice that can be made even in horrible times.

For Euodia and Syntyche joy would mean focusing on Jesus and taking their eyes off their own egos and disagreements. In the joy of the Lord they would find that which they shared in common before the Lord and then be able to set aside their differences for the greater good of the gospels. They wouldn’t necessarily agree on their point of conflict, but they would, through the practice of joy, find worth in each other’s company once more.

Paul further urged the Philippians to be gracious. The word in the Greek translates as moderate or gentle. Be kind and even tempered, basically. Good counsel for Euodia and Syntyche to be sure, but also for us. How many non-Christians view Christians as being obnoxious and overbearing? Generally, this is the work of a few crass souls, but it can take 20 Christians who are gracious and gentle to wipe away the negative impression of one obnoxious person of God. A gentle word turns away wrath. Christians should be gracious toward those around them and we should do this recognizing that God may be just around the corner.

Paul continued to urge them not to worry, alluding to Jesus’ words in Matthew 6:25. Take no though for your life; don’t be anxious about wants and needs. God’s going to take care of that. Certainly Christians are called to be diligent and Paul’s advice to the Thessalonians indicates we should be working to support ourselves. He was not advocating laziness. He was advocating calm.

To these ends – living constantly in joy, gracious toward friend and foe alike, not worrying overmuch about our lives – Paul advocated constant prayer. Many of us attempt to set up “devotional time” in the morning or evening in which we spend scheduled time with God, but in reality we should always be praying. Whenever anything burdens our spirits, whenever our lives become hectic and perplexing, we should ease our minds through prayer. Prayer is an offering of our desires to God, making them known to Him. Not that He doesn’t already know them – as God He knows everything. We are not so much informing Him of them as we are giving those desires to Him. In this we show our regard and dependence upon Him. We are agreeing to allow Him to guide and direct us in pursuing those desires.

The product of such a constant state of awareness of God will be peace – the comfortable sense of our reconciliation to God and our enjoyment of a relationship with Him. This is not something that can easily be described by human words. It is such a great good that there is no way to sufficiently value it. This peace will keep our hearts and minds through Christ Jesus, preventing us from sinning under our present troubles, keeping us sedate and enveloping us in inward satisfaction.

Note that Paul did not give instruction in worship. He gave instruction in thinking. Sometimes a church member of another denomination will say, well, the way we worship was given to us by the apostles. I always want to ask for a Bible verse or three to prove that statement. I find nonesuch. More often than not the apostles gave instruction in thinking rather than in ceremony.

I’ve had several challenges from non-Christians recently regarding Christians making truth claims. They consider it very rude and note that we cannot know for certain that what we believe is the truth so we shouldn’t speak with certainty of these things. I would note that Paul was certain the Philippians possessed and understood the truth. They were not with him on the Damascus road to meet Jesus, but he wrote as if they knew the truth. He commanded them to think hard about truth. If he was not certain that he possessed the truth and that he had imparted it to the Philippians, why would he tell them to think deeply about the truth? Be honest, he commanded! Honesty means telling the truth, which entails the act of discerning the truth. 

Focus on justice, he told his readers. Christian justice is another hard concept, I think, for us to understand in the United States. We tend to think that our adversarial system of trials somehow arrives at “the truth”, but I’ve been involved in a few trials as a spectator/juror and I think it is often whichever side is lying less that we acquit. And, yes, the prosecution is often lying as much or more than the defense. They make their living, after all, incarcerating people and their job is to make the defendant look guilty even if they aren’t. Christian justice has a different slant. It is focused upon the truth, a truth that can be apprehended only through a relationship with Jesus Christ and the gift of discernment that He offers. What is fair? What is merciful? Only God can answer these questions and He answers them to the human race through His Son Jesus Christ and the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and minds of His people, Christians.

Consider beauty and those attributes that cause people to speak well of one another and incorporate those into your lives. If there is any virtue, anything worthy of praise, Paul wanted the Philippians to learn from it. This might easily include those things we can learn from non-Christians. All good things come from God, so it is reasonable to assume that the good in non-Christians is also a product of God’s action within this world. We can learn from that within the bounds of Christian discernment.

Paul had spent time with the Philippians. He had taught them about Jesus and been their first “pastor”. They knew his character and knew his lifestyle. He recommended they remember what they had seen, heard and learned and that they pattern themselves after that. By following the example of the apostles, we who live many centuries later can have peace with God. We should walk in all the virtues we can manage, learning and practicing doctrine from the founders rather than from the denominational creeds with which many of us have grown up. When we walk according to the instructions God has given through His apostles, we can have peace with Him. This is our duty, to always keep our eyes upon Jesus and to follow Him in all that we do.

I’m a quilter and belong to a group of quilters from my church. I enjoy the creativity of taking bits of cloth and turning them into something that has order and pattern. Unlike some of the ladies of my quilting group, I don’t have the ability to create unified quilts from my imagination. I truly need patterns after which to model my quilts.

Paul had already established himself as an example of what a Christian should be. I repeat his statement to the Philippians because it is a bridge statement to the next section.

Just as Paul was reaching toward the goal of answering God’s call to heaven, he urged the Philippians to do the same.  How would they do that? Paul had an answer for them.

“In any case, we should live up to whatever truth The bracketed text has been added for clarity. we have attained.
Join in imitating me, brothers, and observe those who live according to the example you have in us.”  Philippians 3:16-17

Paul was not alone in the early Christian community. There were others who could be examples for the Philippians. They would need them in the coming years. First, be likeminded with Paul, whose heart was set upon Jesus. Christians might differ with regard to political party or opinions on how best to do ministry, but we should all be agreed that God is calling us to heaven and we should have our minds set upon that goal rather more than on any other.  Having made Jesus our primary focus, we should live as if He is our primary focus. Paul called the Philippians to live as he had lived – pursuing the gospel’s advance even unto death. They might also observe those who set a like example – men like Timothy and Epaphoditus.

“For I have often told you, and now say again with tears, that many live as enemies of the cross of Christ.
Their end is destruction; their god is their stomach; their glory is in their shame. They are focused on earthly things,
but our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. He will transform the body of our humble condition into the likeness of His glorious body, by the power that enables Him to subject everything to Himself.”  Philippians 3:18-21

Paul warned the Philippians against following the examples of seductive evil teachers. There were apparently many who were enemies of the cross of Jesus Christ. This grieved Paul greatly and I can understand his frustration.  There are many today called Christians who are truly enemies of Christ.  The way they conduct their lives is clearer evidence of their salvation status than their profession. As Matthew 7:20 says “by their fruits you will know them.”

I would note that Paul wasn’t reticent about “judging” others. When he felt someone’s character deserved an inventory, he wrote it out cleanly. These evil teachers, enemies of Christ, did not actually worship God. Their God was their belly. Now this could be taken several ways and scholars have handled it thus. These “belly worshippers” might have minded nothing but their sensual appetites. Gluttons, drunkards and hedonists might be said to worship such. In the same way, in our world today, there are many who worship themselves – their own intellect, their own sense of “spirituality” – to the point that Jesus could appear to them on their own Damascus Road and they’d not pay any attention. Paul had dealt with such before “They don’t serve the Lord Jesus Christ, but their own bellies,” Romans 16:18.  These evil teachers gloried in their shame. They not only had sinned, but they boasted of it.  Jesus Christ died on the cross to reconcile the world to Himself and yet these evil teachers, then and now, relish in earthly things. Perhaps they set their hearts upon wealth or knowledge, the embrasure of science or human philosophy. Whatever their fault, they are proud of their error and that pride will lead to their destruction (see also Romans 6:21).  It is dangerous to follow someone who is headed 90 mph toward an abrupt drop-off.

Christians, even while we are here on earth, should have our minds set on heaven. Our citizenship is in heaven, not on earth, and that this world is not our home should be reflected in how we live our lives. Paul had pressed the Philippians to pattern their lives after him and other ministers of Christ. There were those who might say “Why, you’re a band of poor, despised, persecuted people who pretend to no advantages in the world; who would follow you?” I imagine that Paul would sigh and say “Ah, but our citizenship is in heaven where we have a great inheritance and so we are really kings of the Most High God.”

Paul understood that when Jesus returns He was change the human race. The greatest shall become least; the servant shall become the master. First Century Christians struggled in poverty, on the whip of persecution (as do Christians in many countries today), but when Jesus comes back, all that changes and Christians will be the servants of Almighty God. Not that we might use that as occasion to exact revenge for past insults, for that is not nor has it ever been God’s way, but that we might know that what meanness we’ve suffered on this planet for His sake was merely preparation for accepting a glorious reward in heaven.

Jesus’ own resurrected body was given as a sign that this would happen. Someone asked recently why Jesus couldn’t just have gone to heaven to live and skipped the cross.  Being no theologian, I had to study and think on it for a while. In Matthew 17:2, Jesus experienced the transfiguration when he was in the presence of God. This was a promise of what He would experience when He went to heaven, but it and His resurrection were also promises to us. Jesus went to heaven clothed with a body that He might take possession of the inheritance in our nature. He was not only the first-born from the dead, but the first born of the children of the resurrection. Romans 8:29 says we will be conformed to the image of God’s Son, that He may be the first-born among many brethren. By the incredible power of God, Jesus was transformed from a human body to something other. I think we lack the intellectual capacity to truly understand what it is that God did that day and what it is He will do on Resurrection Day. By some means we cannot wield, Jesus will subdue all things to Himself and that is the power that wrought the resurrection. By that power, all enemies of God’s salvation kingdom will be completely conquered. Even death itself will be swallowed up in victory (1 Corinthians 15:26)

Practically, what this means for us in the 21^st Century, is that Jesus will return someday and the world on which we live will be utterly transformed. Paul didn’t tell us when that would be. Like Jesus, he seems not have known. And, pragmatically, that makes sense. If we knew when God would be paying us a visit, we’d probably live like we wanted right up to the day before He was due and then do a major house-cleaning to make ourselves presentable. Because we don’t know when He will come, we should always be ready for Him to arrive.

Christians have many ways in which to do this, but the best way is to pattern oneself after those who have done it well in the past (themselves having patterned their lives upon older mature Christians in the past). There are, of course, biographies of great Christian leaders and it is worthwhile to learn how they lived their lives. Yet the lifestyle that a saint of 300 years ago lived is likely at odds with the lifestyle of the 21^st Century. I try to pattern myself after people whom I know, whose characters I have observed and whose children I know. My friend RV and his wife Patricia have four adult children and now grandchildren. I can see their proven character as I interact with them, but I can also see how their children turned out. Their eldest was a starter child and had some rough spots, but all are doing well and walking with the Lord today. This is a fine pattern to follow.

The proof of the quality of a quilt pattern comes when all the pieces are together and you begin quilting. As my quilt moves under the sewing machine needle, parts of the pattern emerge and seem to pop from the overall mosaic of color and shape. It is then that I truly know I have done the pattern properly. I might have a sense before, but now I begin to see the finished product.

In a similar way, I think my life will thusly reveal itself. It will emerge as parts of the pattern are finished and I will be able to say “Well, I did that part right.”

Being a work of folk art and not a manufactured piece, quilts usually have mistakes in them. A corner doesn’t quite meet up or my quilting line went a bit eschew. This drives some quilters mad. I embrace them because it’s what makes the quilt mine. In this same way, I know that my life will never completely match the pattern of the great mature saints I hope to emulate. I will make errors. I will find fault with myself. Yet this is not a horrible thing. This is a mark of personality, an individual streak that makes your life your own. If one was patterned one’s life after a good pattern, then those idiosyncrasies are not blots, but beauty marks. The trick here is to start with a good pattern.

Sometimes non-Christians get angry that Christians make truth claims. Truth is, to them, relative. I submit that to God truth is absolute. He is truth. He is THE truth. Non-Christians want to know what qualifies Christians to make such claims. Nothing. I am no smarter than anyone else. I have just found THE source of truth and all I’m doing is sharing His words with those who don’t know them. God is the One qualified to make the truth claims. To have found those claims and to believe them takes no greater intelligence than to reject truth. I accidently stumbled upon it and that doesn’t make me any better than anyone else. It does, however, mean that I have found a treasure of incomparable value and it is incumbent upon me, at the behest of the Owner of that treasure, to tell the world what it is, where it is and how to find it. You can continue wandering around in the wilderness looking for it your own way, but I think it’s a lot easier to find it if you follow the directions provided by the Owner of the treasure. 

Our clergy are human beings just like the rest of us. When considering your pastor, his wife and family, recognize that they are as subject to human weakness as the rest of us. They get tired, they get busy, they fall ill. They are not always prepared for you to show up at their door. Cut them a little slack! Life goes on even if there are cookie crumbs on the couch.