Titus part three

The last post only covered verse six of chapter one. Now we move on to verse seven. This verse uses the word overseer in the NIV, but it is still talking about the elder. Now, instead of the character of the elder's wife and children, Paul addresses the elder's character. He must not be overbearing, quick-tempered, a drunk, a violent person, or a crook. "He must be hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firmly on to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it." Let's pause.

The elder is not to deviate from the message he was taught. If this letter is not a fake, the message is none other than Paul's message. There were no Christian scriptures at the time. The message came by word of mouth. There doesn't appear to be any epistle to the Cretans. It is considered trustworthy by Paul if it originated from him. His doctrine is the only sound doctrine. Since Paul addresses those who would oppose it, it is certain that there were already persons opposing it.

Paul died before the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, probably in the 60's. So, in the thirty years between Jesus's death and Paul's, minus fourteen years in the wilderness. Paul probably travelled and preached his message approximately 15 years. In that time, he came to expect his teachings about Jesus to be the standard. The "gospels" of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, most likely came later. It is possible Mark was produced during Paul's lifetime, but there is no indication Paul heard of it or read it. If he did, he may have even regarded it as a false gospel.

Who would oppose Paul's gospel of salvation and spiritual equality for the gentiles? Obviously Jews. I imagine Yahweh believing gentiles would have  been his easiest targets. Those who profited by the pagan traditions would also have been offended. Verse 10 goes on to say "There are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially among the circumcision group." AKA Jews. Yep. Verse 11: "They must be silenced (???), because they are ruining whole households by teaching what they ought not to teach-- for the sake of dishonest gain." The dishonest gain is not elaborated on. Perhaps local Jews charged fees for the circumcision of converting gentiles? Who knows.

Verse 12-13 says, "Even one of their own prophets has said, 'Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.' This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and pay no attention to Jewish myths (???) or to the commands of those who reject the truth." (Did Paul completely reject the whole Jewish mythos now contained in the Old Testament?) Read about the Cretan Epimenides and his statement about Cretans here. The statement is often considered a paradox because Epimenides was a Cretan himself, which would make him a liar. However, the statement originally occurred in the context of a poem:

"They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.

I wonder if Paul knew he was quoting a poem about the immortality of Zeus? The fourth line of this poem also occurs in Acts 17:28. There, Paul tells the Athenians it was from one of their  own poets, He appears to be either referring to Yahweh, or equating Yahweh with Zeus. That would be interesting.

 At any rate, the phrase as it appears in Titus is downright insulting of the Cretans, the very people whom Paul wants to be good little Paulites, um, Christians. 

Titus part two

After telling Titus to appoint elders in every town in Crete, he proceeds to explain the qualifications of an elder. These qualifications are still referred to today, when appointing elders, especially in fundamentalist churches. However, the methods for appointing the elders often differ greatly. In churches of christ, elders are often chosen and voted for by the members of the congregation, under the oversight of the current elders. Depending on the strictness of the congregation, the voters may consist of only males, deacons, or current elders. The congregations I have attended generally open the process to every baptized member of the congregation.

Chapter 1, verse 6, tells us "an elder must be blameless, the husband of only one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Let's talk about the wife first. Even though this passage does not say the wife must be a believer, churches of christ require it. I don't know much about what other protestant churches require of their elders, but I imagine there are a lot of similarities. The elder is often chosen with great consideration put on the reputation of his wife. Also, the elder's wife often finds herself in a position of unspoken authority by virtue of her husband's standing in the community. She has her husband's ear, so she is often told things that might not reach him otherwise. She is looked up to by the other women of the congregation. She is also expected to be "blameless", a good example of wifehood and motherhood, and a kind of leader among the women of the congregation. She often finds herself required, or expected, to teach and organise other women. She is called upon to lead public prayers when women meet together. These are things not found in the scriptures, but they occur nevertheless.

The "husband of one wife" requirement means that congregations reject the appointment of a single man. Also, Churches of christ, and other protestant churches, do not usually accept divorcees or widowers as elders, even when remarried. There are a few exceptions. Some say one is one and no more. Others say one at a time is acceptable, depending on the individual circumstances.

As a reminder, I speak from over forty years experience in fundamentalist protestant christianity, specifically mainstream church of Christ. My husband was nominated to be an elder, two years ago. I told him to turn it down. His response was, "Are you telling me or asking me?" I said I was telling him. I refused to be an elder's wife. Without my cooperation, he could not be an elder. Plus, he was not qualified by their standards anyway, because I am an atheist.

The believing children requirement has been a tricky one, even harder for christians to distinctly define. How much belief? Just unqualified assent, or public confession of belief and baptism? Is this just for minor children residing in the home, or does it include adult children? Does it mean all the children of the candidate? Is one believing child enough, or must there be more than one because of the word children?

Then there is the requirement that an elder's children cannot be open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Again, is this about minor children, or all children? How wild? How disobedient? Disobedient to whom? This seems to be a regulation that naturally finds itself broken regularly. When children find themselves in the spotlight of scrutinization, they rarely measure up to anything close to perfection. It's too much to expect, and rebellion often occurs. In my experience, most church of christ elders' children are a mixed bag. An elder may have three children, one devout, one halfhearted, and one living a lifestyle totally unacceptable by church of christ standards. This doesn't seem to matter in today's church. When I was a teenager, churches of christ were generally more strict. I think conditions have relaxed somewhat out of necessity. Else, who would be qualified to lead?

Introduction to Titus.

Titus is is right next to Philemon in the bible. It looks relatively short and easy. Let's try it next. You can read about Paul's letter to Titus here. The letter to Titus is a so-called pastoral letter, because it addresses the structure and function of leadership in the early churches. Many modern scholars believe the pastoral letters of Paul to be pseudopigraphical, or fakes.

Titus is mentioned in Galatians and 2 Corinthians, but not in Acts. In Galatians 2:1-3, Titus is one of Paul's companions in a Journey to Jerusalem after a fourteen year absence. Paul describes him as an uncircumcised Greek.

In 2 Corintians 2:13, Paul says he couldn't find Titus in Troas. In spite of the lord "opening a door" for him to preach the gospel, Paul had no peace of mind. (Tut, tut) He left there to go to Macedonia, where he found a happy Titus who had been treated well by the Corinthians.(7:13-15) Titus appears to be instrumental in collecting some kind of benevolence from the Macedonians for the Corinthians. In 8:16-23, Paul says that he is sending Titus to the Corinthians, along with another "brother" who appears to be a kind of treasurer or safeguard for the money that was collected. Paul calls Titus his partner and fellow worker. Strangely, 2 Corinthians 12:18 speaks of Titus as though he and the other brother have already been to Corinth, in contrast to chapter eight where Paul is in the process of sending him.

The letter begins with a lengthy, almost boastful introduction from Paul. It is to Titus, whom Paul calls "my true son in our common faith." Titus appears to be in Crete, having been left there by Paul. This journey is not mentioned in the book of Acts. Titus's job was to "straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town. I find it interesting, and kind of unbelievable, that there were churches in every town in Crete, an island with an area of over 3,000 sq. miles. Not to mention, Would the people of every town in Crete  have actually let Titus decide for them who their elders would be? Did Titus have help?

More to come.

Philemon part 2 And wrap up.

We continue in verse 12, where Paul gets down to the point. He is sending Onesimus back to his master Philemon. He says that he would have liked to keep Onesimus with him. Onesimus could have taken Philemon's place, helping Paul while he was imprisoned. Here Paul is guilt tripping Philemon again. He is reminding Philemon of the fact that he is not there helping Paul, but Onesimus is. Then Paul says he wouldn't want to do anything (like keep Onesimus with him)  without Philemon's consent, because he wants any favors that Philemon does for him to be "spontaneous and not forced." Hint, hint.

In verse 15, Paul suggests there was a higher purpose for Onesims's defection from Philemon. That purpose might be so that Philemon could have Onesimus back "as no longer a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother." It is unclear if Paul is actually suggesting that Philemon give Onesimus his freedom. He could just be asking him to treat Onesimus well.

From verse 17-21, Paul lays on the guilt and obligation with a trowel. He tells Philemon, "If you consider me a partner (guilt trip #1), welcome him as you would welcome me (gt #2). If he has done anything wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me (gt#3). I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand (ooooh). I will pay it back to you----not to mention that you owe me your very self (Major Guilt Trip). I do wish brother that I may have some benefit from you in the lord (gt#5). Confident of your obedience (gt#6), I write to you, knowing that you will do Even More than I ask. (Ouch).

As if Paul has not got Philemon's attention yet, he adds, "One more thing, prepare a guest room for me, I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers." In other words, Paul is letting Philemon know he intends to check up on him, eventually. I wonder if Philemon actually was praying for Paul's release from prison.

The letter ends with greetings from many of the same people mentioned in the letter to the Colossians.

To wrap up: Paul never claims this letter is scripture or the words of God or Jesus. He only mentions god and Jesus in the greeting and closing of the letter. This letter does not contain any actual theological teachings, content from the old testament, or content from Jesus's life and teachings. It does not mention heaven, hell, angels, demons, Satan, or miracles. It is purely personal, using their relationship as "brothers in christ" for leverage in Philemon's relationship to, and treatment of, Onesimus.

I'm okay with Paul trying to guarantee Onesimus is not abused. However, I think it would have been much more impressive if Paul had said slavery is wrong and god abhors it. But he couldn't do that, because Paul considers himself a slave to god. Paul preaches obedience of slaves to masters. Instead, Paul kind of pulls rank on Onesimus, making him feel obligated to him.

What shall we look at next?

Introduction to Philemon

Read about Paul's private letter to Philemon here. Philemon was a Colossian. If the letter is authentic, it must have been sent at the same time as the public letter to the Colossians. This suggests that the letter carried a message intended to give the Colossian audience Paul's views on the slave/master relationship in order to put a little social pressure on Philemon regarding his slave Onesimus. I don't understand why it does not immediately follow Colossians in the text of the New Testament. That would make much more sense than its current place, after the letter to Titus.

The letter begins with a greeting from Paul and Timothy, to Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus. It is speculated that Apphia was Philemon's wife and Archippus his son. Verses 4-7 are the common "thanks, praise, and prayers"  that Paul includes in his letters. After praising Philemon's love, Paul gets to the purpose of the letter.

He says he is not going to be bold and order Philemon to do what he ought. He appeals to him on the basis of love, Paul's advanced age, and his prisoner status. In other words, he is giving Philemon cause to feel guilty for not doing what Paul is asking him to do. Paul is making an appeal on behalf of Onesimus, who is like a son to him, another reason to give Philemon pause to think. Paul admits Onesimus was useless to Philemon, but he has made himself useful to Paul. I'm not surprised. Psychologically, there is a big difference between doing something obligatory, as a slave for a master, and something voluntary, as a friend for a friend.

I don't think Paul fully understood the nuances of the slave/master relationship. Apparently, he was never a slave or a master. Historically, a slave was property. They were owned like possessions. The slave was under compulsion to be obedient to the master in anything and everything. In the Old Testament, the master was only obligated not to kill the slave quickly. Yes, there was a whole range of good and bad masters throughout history. There was a large variation in duties and living conditions among slaves.  That did not erase the fact that a slave was not his own master. He was under obligation to his master in every single aspect of his life, if the master so chose it. The slave had no freedom that the master did not grant him.

I am sure that kind and generous masters were often loved by their slaves. However, I personally think that if they actually loved their slaves as equals or friends, they would have given them their freedom and allowed them to choose whether or not to remain employed under them. Why have slaves to begin with? Why not hire someone at fair wages to do the jobs you need done? 1. The master has a position of power over the slave and he may not be the kind of person any one is willing to work for. 2. The slave cannot quit and go work for someone else. 3. The master only has to pay and provide for the slave as much as he is willing or able. I imagine that was less than the going rate for a free person with the same skills.

 Also, in an authoritarian society, under a monarchy, everyone was a kind of slave to the king who was supposed to be god's representative power, if not actually a god himself, as in many cultures. Freedom was a privilege, not a right. Philemon and Paul were privileged by circumstance of birth. Paul and the people he writes to have lived in this kind of world their whole lives, they have known no other. That is  one reason Paul's claims to heavenly knowledge cannot be taken seriously. He is not radical enough. If slavery is wrong now, it was wrong then. Paul was already a prisoner and willing to die for his faith. He also asked others to sacrifice themselves for christ's sake. What difference would the truth about the evil of slavery have made to his earthly position? The truth is Paul did not consider slavery wrong at all. To him, it was another metaphor for the heavenly reality. Everyone is a slave to the master in heaven.

Colossians part 9 and wrap up.

We are in chapter 4 verse 10 and nearing the end of the letter. Paul sends greetings from various persons: Aristarchus, Mark  the cousin of Barnabas, Jesus who is called Justus, Epaphrus who is also a Colossian, Luke the Doctor, and Demas. The first three are the only Jews with Paul. All of them, except Jesus/Justus are mentioned at the end of The letter to Philemon. All of them except Jesus/Justus and Demas are mentioned in the book of Acts. There are people named Justus in Acts, but this seems not to be either one. One was a gentile, not a Jew. Demas is mentioned in 2 Timothy as having deserted Paul. Mark is supposedly the writer of the Gospel of Mark.

Paul asks for his greetings to be given to the church in Laodicea and to Nympha, whose house is where the church meets. He requests that this letter be also read in Laodicea and the letter to the Laodiceans be read in Colossi. You would think the letter to the Laodiceans would be important to Christians,  having been written by Paul. However, it is lost to history.

Finally, there is a personal exhortation for Archippus, who is also mentioned in Philemon. Paul says he writes  his final greeting himself, which means someone else probably wrote the body of the letter for him, by his dictation.

Now for the wrap up. This letter may very well be authentic. However, it does not claim to be the word of god, and Paul never uses words that would indicate he is transmitting a message directly from god or Jesus. In fact, Paul never quotes Jesus anywhere. This letter does not say anything about Jesus's birth, childhood, and life. He says nothing about Jesus's teachings or miracles. He only mentions Jesus's suffering, death on the cross, and resurrection from the dead. Paul mentions none of the disciples/apostles or events from Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.

In Fact, Paul does not mention a single person or event from the old testament. He does mention generic religious festivals, circumcision, and written codes. There are no specific Old Testament laws mentioned. He does not even mention Abraham or Moses. There is no mention of angels, demons, Satan, or hell, just the "dominion of darkness." Paul does mention heaven.

As far as theology goes, Paul tells the Colossians that Jesus is the image (icon) of god. His death on the cross reconciled all people to god. The mystery of christ in everyone has been revealed, that's Paul's purpose in life. Paul tells the Corinthians there is no need for circumcision or following other religious traditions and regulations. Those were nailed to the cross. People are metaphorically circumcised by putting off the sinful nature in baptism, which is also characterized as a kind of death, burial, and resurrection.

According to Paul, there are no distinctions of race, background, and cultural differences, in Christ. Since they have "died" to sin, they should be living a new, virtuous life, bound together in unity by love. They should be doing everything in the name of Jesus. Wives should submit to their husbands. Husbands should love their wives. Children should obey their parents. Slaves should obey their masters. Masters should be fair. Why? Because every believer is a slave/servant to the master Jesus, including Paul and his cohorts.

Next we look at the letter to Philemon, because it has a close connection with this letter. Plus, it is short.

Edited for grammar.

Colossians part 8

We are in verse 20 of chapter three. There, children are told to obey their parents in everything, for this pleases the lord. I'm sure it pleases the parents too. It's a very convenient verse to use when a child is being obstinate, providing the child believes that the bible is an authority. But what if the child is an adult? Do they still have to obey? What if a parent asks them to do something harmful or immoral? It does say "in everything."

Next, fathers are told not to embitter their children. What that specifically means is anybody's guess. there are no specifics. A child could use that to his advantage, if he had the nerve.

Next, slaves are told to obey their earthly masters, and not only when they are being watched. They must do it sincerely, with all their heart, as if they were working for Jesus. Paul says it is actually Jesus they are serving and they will be rewarded with an inheritance. Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong. There is no favoritism. Masters must also provide for their slaves, what is just and fair, because they have a master in heaven.

Let's unpack that. Paul obviously does not find slavery objectionable. He does not condemn it. Instead he uses it to compare the relationship of slaves and masters to that of Jesus/god and his believers. Christians are to be like slaves/servants of Jesus/god. So, why would slavery be wrong to Paul? If slavery was fundamentally wrong, then being a slave/servant to a god would be wrong also. It would even be wrong for that god to expect his followers to be his slaves/servants. Paul would be out of a job. His main occupation was trying to find willing slaves for Jesus.

No, slavery in bible times was not different from slavery in the early American colonies. Both slaves had no personal autonomy or rights. Their purpose in life was to do the master's bidding. Carry that as a metaphor into christianity. In fact, the greek word for master in this passage is practically the same word that is also translated as lord. If it it was to be translated literally "the lord" would be "the master."

Chapter 4, verses 2-6, are general admonitions for the Colossians to pray for Paul and his cohorts as they proclaim the "mystery of christ," which we have previously been told just means that christ is in everyone. The Colossians are also told to behave themselves in word and deed. Verse 7 says Tychicus, who probably delivered the letter, will give them news about Paul and company. Tychicus is called a fellow servant in the lord. Translated literally, this would say something like Tychicus is a a fellow slave of the master.

Verse 9 tells about Onesimus, who was apparently a Colossian travelling with Tychicus. We will hear more about Onesimus when we read the book of Philemon next. He was apparently a slave, returning to his master. The parts about slavery in this letter may have been indirectly intended for Philemon.

Again, it seems important to remember that everything Paul writes here is his own thoughts and words. He does not claim they are the commands of Jesus or God. In fact, Jesus says no such things in the so called gospel books.

Colossians part 7

We are at chapter 3, verse 16, which says, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to god." I already talked about the word of Christ. The teaching and admonishing is curious also. What should be the content of that teaching? What are the actual teachings of Christ, not Paul? Remember the church probably had no access yet to the books of the bible that we call the gospels. Paul has said the gospel is simply the revelation of the hitherto unknown fact that Christ is in everyone, even the gentiles.

The part about singing is a key verse used in churches of Christ. The legalists among them say that since only Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are mentioned, those are the only kind of songs that Christians can sing. Also, there is an absence of musical instruments of a mechanical nature mentioned. Therefore, they conclude that it would be going beyond biblical authority to use musical instruments in a worship service and, by extension, in a church building. However, this passage says nothing about worship services or church buildings.

The next verse says that whatever they do, the Colossians should do it in the name of Jesus while giving thanks to God through Jesus. I suppose that could even include playing a musical instrument. How easy is it to actually implement this command? Should I brush my teeth in the name of Jesus? Should I comb my hair in the name of Jesus? What does that mean any way? How does doing something in the name of Jesus change what you are doing in any way? Do you have to say I do " whatever it is" in the name of Jesus? I am getting out of bed in the name of Jesus. I am crossing the floor in the name of Jesus. I am getting a vitamin and a glass of water in the name of Jesus. Jesus, that would be a pain.

Now we come to the really controversial stuff. Verse 18 says, "Wives submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the lord." According to Google dictionary, submission is "accepting or yielding  to a superior force or the will or authority of another person." Paul does not tell the Colossians' wives that Jesus says they are to submit. In fact, nowhere in scripture does Jesus tell wives what to do. This is Paul speaking. Paul, a man who never had a wife, telling wives what to do. He is implicitly expecting them to submit to his authority on this matter, and he's not even their husband. What if their husbands told them to ignore Paul? Hmm? I'm not going to get into why this is bad advice and how it has caused so much misery in the lives of women over the centuries, even today.

Verse 19 says, "Husbands love your wives and do not be harsh with them." This verse is used far less often, but it is usually used to justify the previous verse. If a husband is following this command (of Paul's), the wife should have no trouble with submitting, right? Wellll...it turns out that practically every man has a different definition of "love" and "harsh." Plus, their definitions are often different than the wives' definitions. I suggest you read up on Christian patriarchy and complementarianism. They are really both the same thing. The latter is just a modern spin on it. It boils down to "the person with male genitalia has the final word in the marriage relationship, and maybe in everything else as well.

The churches of christ generally practice a soft complementarianism. No women have any leadership role, or even any public speaking role, in most congregations. They are relegated to the spheres of child care, cleaning, food prep, and women's studies. They do not preach, lead prayer in mixed company, lead singing in mixed company, teach with adult males present, or serve communion in mixed company. In more legalistic congregations, women do not even participate in bible discussions in mixed company. However, home life is not necessarily that restricted, depending on the individuals. A wide range of freedom and oppression occurs, with lip service still given to the man's authority. The previous passage is not the only one in the New Testament used to support the practice of patriarchy.

Colossians part 6

We are in chapter three, verse 9. Paul tells the Colossians not to lie to each other because they have taken off their old self and put on a new self. (More metaphors) I don't know if that is a convincing reason not to lie. Wouldn't it be more practical to lay out possible real life consequences of lying, such as destruction of trust?

In verse 11, Paul says, "Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all and is in all. This list shows the promotion of equality among cultures and races. It says Christ is in everyone! Was Paul a universalist? That's doubtful. I think he means Christ is in all believers, regardless of background. I did notice that does not say "no male, no female" in this passage. It is in Galatians 3:28 though.

Paul calls the believers "god's chosen people" (It's no longer just the Jews.) and tells them that means they must practice compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience." There is nothing wrong at all with those things, but are they practiced among all Christians today?

 The believers are also told to forgive each other as the lord forgave them. What did the lord forgive them of exactly? And should they forgive everything, even heinous or criminal acts? Forgiveness is a strange concept if you think about it. It is just a mental mindset borne out in actions. However, I can act like I've forgiven you without the mental mindset. I can also say I've forgiven you but not act like it. Our mental mindset does affect us physically. Forgiveness seems to hinge on putting the past behind you and resuming a relationship. One can put the past behind them, yet not resume a relationship. No one should be forced to be in the company of those they wish to avoid.

Next, the Colossians are told to put love above all other virtues. I don't know if that's actually possible. Christians like to say love is not a feeling but an action. I disagree. It carries a connotation of affection. I can do all kinds of things for people I don't feel affection for and without love. That does not negate the good consequences of my actions. Sympathy, empathy, and compassion, don't need love to provide a motivation to act. It could be that I just recognize our common humanity and want to ease a burden, because I can. To me love is something else. It is a deeper regard and higher favor for someone with whom we are connected in some way. I think it would be worse to live without compassion than without love. Paul says that all the previously mentioned virtues are bound together in love.  Do you agree?

Verse 15 tells the Colossians to let the peace of Christ rule in their hearts. What is the peace of Christ? Verse 16 tells them to let the word of Christ dwell in them richly. You know what's rich? Paul never says what the word of Christ is in this letter. Paul rarely talks about anything that Jesus was supposed to have said or taught. As far as I know, he never says,"Thus saith the lord." All the words in this letter are from Paul.

Colossians part 5

Previously, in verse 15, Jesus has " disarmed the powers and authorities." Back in chapter one, verse 16, the powers and authorities were created by him and for him. In chapter two verse 8, The colossians are to reject philosophy which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world.  In verse 10, Jesus is the head over every power and authority, and the Colossians are in Jesus. In verse 14, Jesus cancelled the written code with its regulations.

This is quite subversive stuff. Paul is laying the ground for the Colossians to disregard all "earthly" laws, authorities, and traditions, Jewish and gentile. How do you think that went over with the general public and the powers that be of that time and place? Of course there would be backlash and consequences.

Paul goes on in verse 16 to imply that observing religious festivals is unnecessary because they are just shadows of the reality in Jesus (metaphors?). In verse 18, people who claim to have had angelic visions, are puffed up and unspiritual.

In verses 20-21, Paul implies that they no longer need to follow any rules or regulations concerning what they can touch or eat. Dietary laws and strict personal restrictions based on religious regulations are said to promote false humility while not actually tempering lusts. He's got a point there. It is seen even today, where there are strict religious regulations, there is often great secret harm happening. Generally, the more strict, the more harm. Look at Catholic priests, fundamentalist muslims, fundamentalist Jews, fundamentalist Christians, and religious cults. However, even if there is no real "spiritual" value to religious regulations, lines  often have to be drawn somewhere, for public health and safety. There are legitimate reasons why you might not want to touch a dead body or eat diseased animals, just not because it will damage your heavenly standing.

In chapter three, Paul continues by telling them earthly things no longer matter, only things above, whatever they are. After all, they "died." Now the life they have is with Christ. Does Christ ever have to go to the bathroom? Scratch an itch? Earthly things matter to human beings. There is no way to get around it. Paul gets specific. He says earthly things are "sexual immorality, impurity (what is that?), lust, evil desires,  and greed, which is idolatry."

First of all, most of these sound like thought crimes, specific actions haven't been defined. No examples are given, so Christians feel free to give them their own definitions, which often end up causing just as much harm as the rules and regulations that Paul is trying to do away with. Second Paul has created a false equivocation of greed and idolatry that still plagues us to this day. Idolatry is the act of worshiping idols that represent divine beings. No one actually worships the things they are greedy for. Christians will say that anything replacing god in a person's heart is an idol that they are worshipping. I say baloney. Sure, greed can be hurtful and destructive, but it is not idolatry.

Paul goes on in verse 8 of chapter three, saying the Colossians must rid themselves of all anger, malice, rage, slander, and filthy language. This sounds admirable, but to what extent? Malice, rage, and slander are usually detrimental, but is all anger bad? What did filthy language mean to the Colossians? Is it as bad as slander? What will happen if someone slips up?

Paul is trying to create new standards to replace the ones he wants to do away with. He can't see into the future when those standards become just as legalistic for Christians as the old law was for the Jews.

More to come.