Colossians part 2

Before we continue, take a look at this chapter called "The Idea of Salvation in Greece and Italy" from an old book. It does an interesting job of discussing the ways in which Roman and Greek ideas of salvation and punishment after death were eventually synchronized  with those of Christianity, even though they were very different to begin with.

Now we turn to verse 15 of Colossians chapter one. This starts a theological description of the person Jesus Christ. "He is the image of the invisible god." What exactly does that mean? The Greek word for image here is the same word from which we get the modern word icon. It is a representation or likeness. A statue or painting of a god would be the god's icon. In ancient times the priests treated the icons (idols)  as if they actually were the god the represented. Does that mean Jesus was as much god as an ancient statue of a god was that god?

Next we are told Jesus was "the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.......all things were created for him and by him." Being the firstborn in Jewish society means he is the favorite and the heir. This creation bit seems quite blasphemous if you are Jewish. The god of the Hebrews was supposed to be the creator. Why didn't he previously mention any first born by which he created everything? God supposedly had a couple thousand years to tell them, yet he never mentioned it. And how exactly did an invisible god have a son, plus use the son to create stuff?

Verse 18 tells us "He is the head of the body, the church..." This body symbolism is prevalent in Christianity. The church (universal) is often called the body of Christ. Christ being the head obviously means he is above the body, the one in charge and in control. Except what exactly does he do? People tend to control their own lives, for the most part, unless they are under a visible authority. Invisible authorities can't do much on their own, so they need visible ones to enforce the rules. There are plenty of people eager to assume authority in order to "help" the invisible god. It sounds like Paul was one.

Next Paul says Jesus is "the beginning and the first born from among the the dead, so that in everything he might have supremacy." So, Jesus is first at everything, even at being raised from the dead. But what about Lazarus or Jairus's daughter or the widow's son? Paul's letters were most likely written before the gospel accounts were ever penned. Beside that, he prided himself on getting his info about Jesus directly from revelation, not from people. His work shows that he knew next to nothing about the actual activities and teachings of Jesus, as represented in Matthew Mark, Luke, and John. Perhaps Paul meant first  at being made into a heavenly being after being resurrected. Those people Jesus raised had to live out the rest of their lives and die again. There was no guarantee that they would be resurrected after their second death.

Verse 19 says "god was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him." So, if all god's fullness dwelt in Jesus then was god still omnipresent? How is it possible to be everywhere yet have all of your being in a single container? I say it's not. If god dwelt in Jesus, was Jesus just a god container, not the god himself? We end up back in icon territory. Is the physical representation of a god a god itself? This would explain why ancient gods were territorial. They only existed for the people where there were icons made specifically for those gods. Yahweh of the old testament did not allow his people to create an icon of himself. He lived where he chose to live, in a cloud, a pillar of fire, a burning bush, a temple, but he was still not omnipresent. He belonged to the nation of Israel alone.

More to come.

3 John part two

Today we are going to backtrack a little. Let's talk about Gaius. The name is probably of Latin origin, which may mean Gaius was Roman. There are three other mentions of the name Gaius in the new Testament. In Acts 19:29, Gaius was Paul's travelling companion from Macedonia (Greece). Just a few verses later, in Acts 20:4, a Gaius with Paul is from Derbe, which is in Turkey. Paul mentions a Gaius in Romans 16:23, and 1 Corinthians 1:14. From those letters, it seems that Gaius was an hospitable Corinthian, and a disciple of Paul. There is no way to know if the Gaius in 3 John is any of those or none.

Let's address some of the wording in 3 John that might make modern day English readers think this is written to Christians. We must remember that christianity came out of Judaism. Much of its vocabulary and practice was borrowed from Jewish concepts 1. The word elder. Jews had elders. 2. The word brother. People in the same religious community, even Jews, called themselves brothers. 3. The word for church (ekklesia) This was a generic term for a religious assembly or congregation, connected to a synagogue, that was later co-opted by Christians. Jews had those too. 4. The word pagans. This was actually a word that meant gentiles/ gentile nations, or ethnically non-Jews. The only other place it is used in the bible is in Matthew, where is is clearly referring to ethnically non-Jews. There were no Christians in the time period Matthew was writing about. So, it couldn't have been referring to non-christians. Christianity is not an ethnicity or nationality.

Let's now continue on to verse nine. It says, "I wrote to the church, but Diotrophes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us." This is kind of confusing. What church is he talking about? Is it the same church that the brothers reported to about Gaius? That wouldn't make any sense. And who is "us?" I could almost believe this letter was written by Paul to his Corinthian friend/disciple Gaius. This Gaius is hospitable and is a disciple of the letter's author, just like Paul's Gaius. Imagine Paul and his associates going from synagogue to synagogue, trying to teach in the assemblies about his Jesus visions/revelations and what he thought they meant. I imagine there were many Jewish synagogue leaders who would want nothing to do with Paul, his teachings, and his followers.

Verse ten says, "So, if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us." We have only one side of the story here. Diotrophes cannot defend himself. From what I have read of Paul's letters, this seems typical Pauline whining against the opposition. Can you even blame the opposition from trying to curtail what would be considered a  heresy to practicing Jews? Whether or not, this was Paul, I'm sure many synagogue leaders were wary of the new christian sect, or any sect.

Verse ten  continues, "Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church." Diotrophes does not intend to let anyone from this group (whatever group it is)  get a foothold in his congregation.

Verse eleven says, "Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God." The clear implication is that Diotrophes is evil.

It has occurred to me that another possibility is that this letter is about an established christian church rejecting an even newer controversial christian sect and teaching, after the Pauline era. Who knows? The author gives us no specifics.

Edited for major errors in verse numeration.

Ephesians chapter 5, part 2

*We start at verse 21: "Submit to one another out of reverence to christ." What does that mean exactly? Constant submission to others is not  healthy. It opens the avenue for abuse by those who are willing to use the command to submit to manipulate those around them. Paul is going to get specific.

*Verse 22: "Wives submit to your husbands as to the lord." In other words, pretend your husband is your personal savior. If you don't think that is what it means, just wait. Why should you act like your husband is your savior? "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is The Savior." Told you. Paul is going to continue in this vein with the analogy of the husband being like christ, the wife being like the church, christ being like the groom, the church being like the bride. It's kind of wierd, with sexual undertones in the relationship of christ to the church.

*I find it interesting to note that there are no Old Testament scriptures that are addressed to women about how they should submit to their spouses. There are many scriptures in some of the books of prophecy that equate the relationship of god to Israel as one of husband and wife, but I don't recall submission being an issue, just adultery. That analogy was used to describe Israel's supposed unfaithfulness to Yahweh when it followed after other gods. Not that a command for submission was necessary.  What options did a wife have, when she was literally owned by her husband? I wonder if first century women in the Roman empire had more freedom? Perhaps that was why Paul felt the necessity to say "Now as the church submits to christ, so also should wives submit to their husbands in everything." (Verse 24) In Everything. That doesn't leave any wiggle room, does it?

*I have looked up this section in the Greek interlinear version and "submission" in these verses of Ephesians clearly means to obey or be subject to, as a person would be subject to a ruler or deity.

*Verse 25: Husbands are not told to submit to their wives, but to love them as christ loved the church.  It is christ's loving self sacrifice that made the church holy, so he could give himself a radiant, unwrinkled, and unblemished church. By inference wives are also made holy by a husband's love. What were they before they were wives, before their husbands "loved" them? Unholy? Verse 28: "In this way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies, feeding and caring for them, as christ does the church."  This appears to be an oblique reference to the story of Adam and Eve, where Eve is created from Adam's rib and he calls her " bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh." However, the man is the head, the part with all the brains and all the control over the body.

*The body analogy is carried further to say that not only is the wife part of the husband's body, the church is part of the christ's body. Now we have proof the author was thinking of Genesis and the creation story when he quotes "For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh." (Gen. 2:24) Not only are male and female one body because of the way women were supposedly created, but they are also united in sexual union as husband and wife. How does this apply to the church? Paul says that is a profound mystery. (He doesn't know.) Then he says this whole analogy was a an object lesson about Christ and the church, but all husbands should still love their wives as they love themselves,  and women should respect their husbands. (Verse 33)

*See that word "respect" in that last verse? A quick look up of that word in the greek shows that its root is phobeo- a verb that mean to frighten or terrify. It is from where we get our word phobia. Almost every verse in the new testament that has a word with that root is translated as some form of fear or fright, except this one. Here the translators decided "respect"  would be a better fit. Why do you suppose that is?