What God Has Joined

I've had a long interest in really understanding Biblical teaching about divorce. I had a dear friend in an abusive relationship and I had to counsel her, and have always read up on other views to see if my advice was right. Christianity Today has a really good article on the subject.

Movie Review: The Passion of the Christ

[I found this unsent email from a couple of years ago and thought I would post it.]

I have finally seen The Passion of the Christ. It is a truly powerful film. As a believer, I can't say there is anything truly new here. It's a story we all know pretty well. To me it's more about how Gibson tells the story than in the familiar details. I think this is a highly personal film.

Some have questioned why he would make a film only about Good Friday's events, with a quick reference to Easter. I found it very effective. Any Jesus story that focusses on His whole life, most of the time will be spent on Jesus' teachings, for example the Sermon on the Mount. The danger there is that we end up making those events the focus of the story. Isn't that what so many so-called "liberal" Christians do: focus on Jesus' teachings of love and forgiveness, and forget all that annoying sin stuff, including His tragic death. Gibson's film is focussed squarely on the suffering and death of Jesus. When he flashes back to, say, the Sermon on the Mount, it is still framed in the context of the crucifixion. We never lose our focus on Good Friday, which is where I think our focus should be (and Jesus' was during His life).

Two things really touched me as I watched the film. The whole sequence of Simon carrying the cross with Jesus reminded me of the classic poem Footprints, but with a totally new spin. As they progress on the road to Calvary, we see the sinner and the savior walking side by side, two sets of footprints. But at Calvary, where God's judgement will be meted out, the sinner walks away free and the savior climbs on His cross, one set of footprints during the most difficult time.

The other is Jesus' strength. I don't mean physical strength. My pastor likes to say that meekness is not weakness, it is strength under control. This is what we see played out in the events of the film. Early on, there are displays of quiet defiance by Jesus. In the garden, being tempted by Satan, he crushes the snake and looks at Satan with an eye of defiance. The first wave of scourging has the Roman guards beating Jesus to a pulp with canes and gloating about their accomplishment. Without a word, Jesus simply stands up. Later, as His physical strength fades under the unrelenting brutality, defiance gives way to resolve. When He falls carrying the cross, He stumbles back to His feet to pick it up again. Look at His face. The one eye that is still open is unwavering, focussed straight ahead to Calvary. Calvary is His goal. It is what He came for, and no amount of pain will stand in His way. At the end, after He has collapsed in total physical exhaustion, every fiber of His body screaming out in agony, He can no longer walk. But He isn't quite there yet. A few more feet to His cross. Unable to walk, he struggles to His knees and crawls the last steps.

That is meekness! That is strength under control. This is not a Jesus beaten beyond the point of lucidity, quiet and unprotesting simply because He is unable to form a coherent thought. This is a man with a strong and powerful heart who is quiet and unprotesting by choice, who will endure all to achieve His goal. Many reviewers have described the film's Jesus as super-human in his ability to withstand pain. I think that misses the point. What we see is not simple endurance of pain. It is a total commitment by Jesus to fulfill His mission.

As a film buff, let me say that I think this film is a masterful work. It's perhaps the only time since the silent movie era where a filmmaker of Mel Gibson's talent has taken on the life of Jesus, or some part of it, with reverence for the Scriptural accounts. (Scorcese made a Jesus film too, but rejected the Scriptural accounts and turned out a work of blasphemy.) The film opens with a breathtaking shot of the Garden engulfed in fog. Visually, the whole film is breathtaking. The acting is superb by everyone. In a fair world, where art was judged purely on its merits, not on politics, this film would be an early front-runner for Oscar nominations, with Gibson being a favorite for Best Director. In the real world, this is doubtful.

I appreciated the human-ness of Jesus as portrayed in the film. One of my biggest complaints about all the Jesus films I've seen--including the only one I actually like, Jesus of Nazereth--is that Jesus comes off as this stereotypical holy man, staring off into some other world and only partially here. Gibson's Jesus smiles, laughs, horses around with His mother, and even stumbles and skins His knee as a child.

When I first heard about the film, I heard that it was done in Latin and Aramaic without subtitles. My first reaction was, "what a stupid idea." (I also felt this was historically inaccurate. Greek should have been used rather than Latin.) Having seen the film, I understand it. Much of the dialog is actually still without subtitles (for example, Jesus' prayers in the garden at the beginning of the film), and personally I didn't feel they were needed there.

Complaints

I have to say I have a few complaints about the film. Given all the controversy surrounding the film, I was fairly sensitive to how Pilate would be portrayed. I don't find the Biblical account to present a Pilate at odds with the Pilate found in secular history. I think Gibson goes beyond the Biblical account and his Pilate does seem at odds. I thought the actor did a wonderful job, but the script paints what I see as an erroneous picture of the man. The historical figure was a brutal tyrant who executed thousands without blinking an eye. Innocence or guilt was irrelevant. If they were trouble makers, they were executed. I don't see the Biblical account being inconsistent with this. But the film's Pilate truly wants to free Jesus and is clearly bothered by the Jewish leadership's insistence that Jesus be executed.

This is an incredibly brutal film. It is so brutal that I think unnecessary brutality should have been kept out. Did we really need to see the taunting thief's eye pecked out by a bird? This is the kind of thing that should have been left out as a sign of mercy to the audience.

Anti-Semitism

The big one. This is what all the fuss has been about all along. Having seen the film, I have to ask how many hoops does Mel have to jump through to make it clear what's going on? Gibson includes flashbacks at crucial moments to Jesus declaring that no one takes His life, but that He lays it down freely. He has Jesus repeatedly forgive those who are executing Him. And, just to make sure no one missed the point, he has the good thief tell the High Priest that Jesus is asking forgiveness for him. The very first image of the film is a quotation from Isaiah 53 showing that it is our sin that put Jesus on the cross.

Don't misunderstand me. I fully understand the historical background to the Jewish complaints and concerns. There's no question that Christians over the centuries have used the events of the Passion as fodder for violent anti-Semitism. But I think Gibson has made it abundantly and unambiguously clear in his film what he is trying to say. Artistically he made his point by being the actor playing the hand who held the nail as it was driven into Jesus' hand. I read somewhere that people allow the past to cloud the present. Because things have been misused in the past, they are bad today. To me, this is like what we saw in the former Yugoslavia where ethnic hatreds spilled over into brutal war because of events well in the past.

As to the idea that the film, while not the intention, might inspire anti-Semitism anyway, well I imagine there were plenty of neo-Nazi's around the world who viewed Schindler's List as an inspiration, a view of what could be accomplished with enough will power. That was clearly not the intention of Steven Spielberg, but nonetheless a likely consequence. Should we therefore ban Spielberg's masterpiece because somebody somewhere might have taken it the wrong way?

Newsweek & The Passion of the Christ

[Another old article, about the Passion of the Christ controversy. That's really what got me started blogging, I guess. Again, spelling and other minor errors corrected from the original.]

As I have previously written, Mel Gibson's new film The Passion of the Christ is the most controversial new film to come along in quite some time. It has been hailed by evangelical Christians as a masterpiece, and vilified by Jewish groups as anti-Semitic. Newsweek magazine recently ran an article by Jon Meacham examining the film. I think Newsweek makes some good points, but in the end misses the boat.

One of the first points the article makes is that the phrase "the Jews" used in the gospel accounts does not "mean all Jewish people then alive, much less those then unborn." No kidding. When historians talk about the Second World War and say that the Germans did something, they are not referring to all Germans, past, present, and future. They are talking about a general group of Germans whose precise identity is understood from context. To say "the Germans invaded France" is a reference to the German army and the soldiers therein. To say "the Germans moved the Jews onto trains" is a reference to the German police and soldiers who did the moving (and a reference to the Jews who were moved; Jews who lived hundreds of years ago are understood to not be included among those who were moved). So a reference to the generic "Jews" in a context referencing Jewish religious leaders should be taken as a reference to the Jewish leadership only. This is simple linguistics, not exactly earth-shattering.

The crux of the article analyzes the relationship between the Jewish religious leadership and the Roman governor Pilate. Pilate was a ruthless and brutal historical figure, yet he is often portrayed in crucifixion stories as being hesitant and uncertain, unwilling to execute an innocent man. Newsweek's article repeatedly dismisses such a portrayal as inconsistent with the historical figure. Perhaps some or many portrayals are, but are the two views really inconsistent? I don't think so. Even ruthless dictators are subject to the mob, something key to the fictional story of the film Gladiator. We see this fact in history as well. In the late 1930's, Hitler's regime began a program of forced euthanasia on mentally ill Germans. This program evoked widespread objection and opposition, which ultimately forced Hitler to back down and end the program, at least publicly. So we see from history that brutal, bloodthirsty dictators like Pilate can be pressured into doing things they do not particularly want to do. There is no inconsistency there.

Then why would he hesitate to execute Jesus? Because there are two mobs in this story. There is the mob we see on what we now call Good Friday, the mob calling for Jesus' execution. But there is also the mob from a few days prior, who hailed Jesus on His arrival in Jerusalem. We cannot forget about that mob. According to the article, there is a scene in the film between Pilate and his wife where Pilate laments his position, caught between the two mobs. This is a scene of fiction, not included in the gospels, and one may freely question Gibson for including it. But it does present the sticky situation Pilate was in. There were two passionate crowds with contradictory points of view, and Pilate was forced to try to find a way to assuage both. For this reason, he may come across as uncertain and hesitant.

Now, Meacham says that "Caiaphas was in no position to start a rebellion over Jesus". True enough. Caiaphas had nothing to gain from a rebellion. But the issue is not Caiaphas. Rather it is the crowd. As I pointed out elsewhere, the most divisive element of Jesus' ministry was He claims to divinity. From a Jewish point of view, this was a very high crime, and, left unpunished, could lead to God's wrath being poured out on them. In their minds, they had an obligation to put Jesus down for such blasphemy. Would Roman authority standing in the way of their service to God represent a motivation for rebellion and resistance? Absolutely. Isn't this one of major the causes of unrest in occupied Iraq, the perception that the US forces are getting between the Muslims and Allah? So, we would expect a very agitated and passionate crowd screaming for Jesus' death, which is what the gospel accounts and Gibson's film give us.

The article also points out that Jesus was executed by the Romans, for sedition. Again, no kidding. Jesus had large following who were hailing Him as the king of the Jews, a claim that would undermine Roman authority. The contemporary expectation was that Messiah would be a warrior leader like David who would throw off the Roman oppression, and Jesus claimed to be Messiah. Therefore, He could have been seen as a revolutionary by the civil (Roman) authorities, whether He wanted to be a revolutionary or not. So, we readily understand that the Romans (not a reference to all men and women from Rome who have ever or will ever live) ultimately executed Him for this reason.

Meacham appears to believe this is a contradiction to the idea that the Jewish leaders wanted Him dead. Jesus was a threat to both the Jewish and Roman authorities. To the Romans, he was a potential claimant to the Davidic throne and a leader who could martial mass support to rebel against Rome. To the Jews (a reference restricted in scope to the Jewish religious leadership at the time), He was a teacher who undermined their authority and their teachings, a man who accused exceedingly religious men of being vipers and of not being in God's good graces, something on which their very personal identities were based. So both groups had an interest in seeing Jesus executed. That the Romans had the actual authority to carry it out is obvious and in accord with Scriptural accounts. So why is this a big issue and how are is the Biblical account so wrong?

Meacham asks the question, "So why was the Gospel story--the story Gibson has drawn on--told in a way that makes 'the Jews' look worse than the Romans?". It is a good question. Meacham's answer is that the writers, who were Jewish, wanted to make their story as broadly accessible as possible, so the world conquerors are portrayed better. I think this answer misses the whole point of the Biblical accounts. The writers were Jewish themselves, and the church to which their gospels were originally written was predominantly Jewish at the time, as acknowledged in the article. So, a desire to make the Romans look better does not appear to follow. To the writers, the whole sequence of events was a matter, not of politics, but of religion. Religious elements take center stage throughout the gospels. Therefore, it is logical that the religious dimension of the betrayal and crucifixion would be the paramount concern for the writers, not the political dimension. From this point of view, the Romans, who knew little about the Jewish faith and the Jewish God, would not be expected to understand the magnitude of what they were doing. But the Jewish leaders were rejecting the very Messiah they claimed to be longing for. From a Christian point of view, they were rejecting God Himself, the very God they claimed to love and worship. From this religious point of view, then, the crime of the Jewish leadership was far greater than the crime of the Roman leadership who acted in ignorance. For this reason, Jesus says in John 19:11 that the Jewish leadership has the greater sin. The purpose of this is not "to take a gibe at the Temple elite", at least not for public relations purposes. It is to accentuate the magnitude of what the Jewish leaders were done.

Now, does any of this have any bearing on anti-Semitism. No. Jesus made it clear throughout the gospels that the purpose of His life was to die. He knew what was happening and willingly took it on Himself. Before Pilate, just before saying that His betrayers had a greater sin, He tells Pilate that the only reason He has authority to execute Jesus is because God has given it to him. To worry about who is responsible is to completely miss the point of what was happening. Jesus was executed because He wanted to be. He chose that path. He chose it out of love for you and I, to pay for our sins. Why was He on that cross? Because of the political ambitions of the Jewish and Roman leadership? They may have been the instruments by which God's plan was carried out, but Jesus was on that cross because of you and because of me.

The Historical Jesus

[This was originally published in March, 2004. But I like it, and I think it makes an important point about so-called scholarly research into Jesus' life. So I will reproduce it on this blog, with some spelling corrections.]

With the recent blockbuster release of and controversy surrounding Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ, there has been a renewed interest in examining the gospel accounts of Jesus' life and searching for the "historical" Jesus. As a result of the film, both Newsweek and US News & World Report have recently published articles describing the "real" Jesus and addressing problems presented in the gospel accounts. While these articles are interesting and insightful, I have realized there is a basic flaw in the reasoning at least in regards their analysis of the events of the Passion. The authors essentially ignore parts of the gospel account then find confusion in understanding the events surrounding the death of Jesus, confusion which is taken to indicate errors in the gospel accounts. I believe the problem is the rejection of certain parts of the text. Taken in its entirety, I suggest the gospel accounts present a reasonable, understandable version of events.

The Scholarly View

Let us start by summarizing what the scholars in both articles are telling us. (Both articles present similar stories, and for the purposes of this analysis can be treated identically.)

Jesus was a Jew who claimed to be Messiah. Such a claim is not blasphemous, or really anything to get really worked up over. Therefore, we would not expect the Jewish religious establishment to have a big problem with Jesus. In fact, Jesus is recorded as agreeing with the Pharisees on multiple issues. They may not believe in Jesus, but there is nothing to get excited about. Without such confrontation, there would be no reason for the Pharisees to actively seek Jesus' death. The gospel writers exaggerated the Jewish role in the Passion for political reasons.

The Romans, on the other hand, had much to fear from Jesus. He was building a following who hailed him as King of the Jews, a Messiah around whom the Jews could rally against Roman occupation. They had every reason in the world to desire Jesus' death. Pilate, his actions as presented in the gospel narratives being one of the major sticking points for the historical view, was a brutal man even by Roman standards. He executes thousands of Jews, with little regard to guilt or innocence, without hesitation, so he would not have hesitated to have Jesus killed as a political statement and assertion of Roman authority.

So the picture that emerges is of a Jesus that is no real threat to the Jewish establishment, but a significant threat to the Roman government of Judea. The Jewish leadership played little or no role in Jesus' execution; it was a purely Roman affair. Pilate ordered the execution with no reservations or hesitation. The gospel narratives diverge from this history because of political reasons by the authors who wanted to distinguish themselves from the Jews (in light of the Jewish revolt around 70 AD, according to the US News article) and/or to diminish the Roman role in the process as a means of making the message more presentable to a Roman audience (Newsweek article).

The Full Context

If one accepts the context, the view presented above makes some sense. The actions of the Jewish religious leadership indeed do not make sense, nor does the Pilate presented by the texts appear to agree with the figure we know from history. The problem is, however, the context the scholars are basing their analysis on is not the context given in the narrative. The problem is in the first two sentences of my summary: "Jesus was a Jew who claimed to be Messiah. Such a claim is not blasphemous, or really anything to get really worked up over."

Jesus indeed claimed to be Messiah. It may well be true that such a claim is not blasphemy. But it is highly incendiary in that environment. The Jewish religion had developed an extensive set of expectations of what Messiah would mean, what his arrival would bring about. They expected a warrior king in the line of David who would throw off the Roman occupation, reestablish Israel as an independent kingdom, strong and secure. Jesus preached no such thing. He, on occasion, consorted with Romans. He preached submission to Roman authority. He talked about sin, not about the evils of Rome. He was a very different Messiah than the Jewish religious leaders had led them to expect. Therefore, for Jesus to be Messiah is to say that the religious beliefs of the Jews were wrong, that they didn't understand God. This is quite inflammatory, and would enrage many people.

But Jesus went beyond claiming to be Messiah. He frequently confronted the Jewish religious leaders and accused them of standing in God's way, of deceiving the misleading the Jewish people. These were men who lived lives of status, influence, power, comfort, and possibly wealth. All of that came from the perception that they were learned in the Scriptures, that they understood the ways of God and could lead them. Jesus was undermining all that by repeatedly telling them they did not understand God. He was basically challenging their social and political standing. It is little different that what the Catholic Church faced during the Protestant Reformation. The church leadership had great standing in society, political influence and power, all stemming from their supposed holiness and righteousness. When Martin Luther and later Reformers challenged the doctrines of the Church, he was challenging the foundation of their place in society. If the church was wrong, then they weren't so holy, so they would not be worthy of the exalted position and power they enjoyed. People in positions of power do not usually stand for having that position challenged or undermined.

Finally Jesus' claim to be Messiah was not his only claim. He was also claiming to be God incarnate. This is blasphemous (unless, of course, it was true). For those who rejected Jesus, this is the ultimate blasphemy, and the religious among them would have demanded his death for such blasphemy. For those who accepted Jesus, this would increase their enthusiasm for Jesus. The end result would be a highly divided population, with some enthusiastically embracing Jesus and others enthusiastically rejecting Jesus and calling for his death. For the religious Jews, there could be little middle ground.

Furthermore, a claim to be God would accentuate even more the confrontational elements of Jesus' ministry described above. It is one thing for a man to tell you that your religious beliefs are wrong and misguided. It is something much more when God tells you this.

In making the scholarly analysis above, these elements of Jesus' ministry have been edited out. Jesus has been transformed from the man presented in the gospel narratives to an inoffensive teacher of love and brotherhood. This may our modern perception of Jesus, that he was a good man who taught us to love one another and who asked, in the words of Rodney King, "can't we all just get along?" It is not, however, the Jesus described in the gospel texts.

The Gospel View

Now that we have a more comprehensive context to work from, let us consider how things might have gone.

Jesus' highly divisive ministry reaches Jerusalem on Palm Sunday where he is hailed by large, enthusiastic crowds as Messiah. The Jewish leadership sees this crowd and recognizes they are losing their grip on the people. If Jesus continues to grow in popularity, they stand to lose their elite status in society. Also keep in mind that the Romans have put these men into positions of leadership because of the supposed respect they command from the people, respect that is now eroding because of Jesus.

The more religious among them (and among the people) also see in Jesus' popularity a growing acceptance of blasphemy that risks God's wrath on the Jews as had happened previously in Jewish history. Because of this, the Jewish leadership decides Jesus must go.

The Romans see the crowd and, understanding the Jewish concept of Messiah, recognize the threat to peace that Jesus represents, and arrive at the same conclusion. But there is a problem. Jesus already has a large following. Previously, they have executed scores of insignificant men with small followings. Executing them was not risky and served a political purpose. Now they have a man with a large following who believe he is God incarnate, or at least a prophet of God. To execute him is risky because those followers would not take too kindly to having their God executed. All the Romans cared about was peace, and these followers in their anger could rise up against Rome.

Events proceed as described in the gospel narrative. The Jewish leaders have Jesus arrested and he is brought in for a show trial which concludes he should be executed for blasphemy. Not being able to legally carry out the execution themselves, they turn Jesus over to the Romans to do it for them. While this is happening, Jesus' opponents in the regular population have congregated and begin to call for his death.

Now we get back to Pilate and the indecision indicated in the gospel texts. We can now understand the indecision. It is not contradictory to his brutal nature. After all, in the end, he declares Jesus innocent and then indifferently hands him over to the soldiers for beating and execution anyway. (Many critics of the gospel account, and Gibson's film, say that Pilate is portrayed as a benign, benevolent soul. A ruler who has a man he himself has declared innocent brutally beaten and then sadistically executed is benign? This is gibberish. Do these writers actually think about what they are writing, or do they simply parrot what someone else has said?) His brutality is not in question. As we have already seen, Jesus' ministry sharply divided the Jewish population, some enthusiastically embracing Jesus as God, others vehemently rejecting him as a blasphemer, with little room in the middle. Pilate, whose overriding concern as we have seen is keeping the peace, is caught in a position between these two crowds of people. Execute Jesus and he enrages his followers who might rise up. Free Jesus and his opponents might rise up out of fear of God's wrath for allowing such a blasphemer to go unpunished. (For the Jewish opponents to take matters in their own hand and kill Jesus themselves would be murder; his death must come legally.) Pilate, being a politician (and politicians have not changed too much over the millennia), tries to find a middle ground. On the one hand, he declares Jesus innocent and distances himself and his government from the execution by washing his hands. Then he turns Jesus over to be executed to appease that crowd. Again, this is not a contradiction of the brutal tyrant we see in history. Pilate's behavior is actually consistent with the historical picture. It is just that he is caught in a unique situation and hesitates while he tries to find a way out of it.

Conclusion

This is, of course, the version of events presented in the gospel texts. I believe there is no contradiction here. The actions of all the principal actors (Jewish leaders, Jewish crowd, Roman governor) all appear understandable if we accept the full teaching of Jesus as revealed in the gospel text as the backdrop against which they occur. Inconsistencies and perplexing actions only arise if we edit Jesus' ministry to something the texts tell us it was not. The scholars who have presented the scholarly view described in the first section have skewed their analysis of the history by editing the context as they have. It verges on intellectual dishonesty to not acknowledge at the outset that they are making such assumptions which will so cloud their conclusions.

The Eagle and Child: Narnia under assault

Russell Smith writes a very good Christian response to Polly Toynbee's criticism of the new Narnia movie. I haven't seen the movie, and I am, I must say, skeptical of it as I don't see the book translating well to film, especially if it gets the Lord of the Rings treatment. (I still want to see it, though.) But Smith's comments on the theology and imagery of the story is right on the money.

Be Careful Who You Follow

Jay Sekulow has become quite a figure in evangelical circles as the head of the legal organization American Center for Law & Justice, which is "dedicated to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms." Yet Mr. Sekulow may not be all he appears. Legal Times reports

But there is another side to Jay Sekulow, one that, until now, has been obscured from the public. It is the Jay Sekulow who, through the ACLJ and a string of interconnected nonprofit and for-profit entities, has built a financial empire that generates millions of dollars a year and supports a lavish lifestyle — complete with multiple homes, chauffeur-driven cars, and a private jet that he once used to ferry Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

That less-known side of Sekulow was revealed in several interviews with former associates of his and in hundreds of pages of court and tax documents reviewed by Legal Times. Critics say Sekulow’s lifestyle is at odds with his role as the head of a charitable organization that solicits small donations for legal work in God’s name.

Using donations from Christians, nominally to fight legal battles, to buy multi-million dollar homes? Using the organizations supported by these donations as a piggy bank for family members? Be discerning in who you give money to and who you follow.

Notes on Colossians 2:1-7

I will lead a study tonight on Colossians 2:1-7 and thought I would share my notes on the passage.

Verses 1-3
V1 Paul reminds his readers of how much he struggles on behalf of the churches in the area.

The word "struggle", agonia, refers to an assembly of people to see the games, or the place where the games take place. (Strong) It is the word from which we get the word agony.

Henry: "He was in a sort of agony, and had a constant fear respecting what would become of them."

Paul reminds his readers that these churches for which he struggles are churches he has never seen, and whose people have never seen him.

V2 Paul reminds the reader of his struggles to form a bond with those whom he has never met. He wants the reader to find encouragement in this.

The word "comfort", parakaleo, is a similar word to that used in reference to the Holy Spirit at times when he is called the Comforter, parakletos (John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7). One is verb, the other noun? The word, it seems to me, evokes the idea of standing side by side (para prefix).
Attaining to wealth: the theme again of growing into mature faith (cf 1:6,9).

The result of this knitting together and Christian maturity is true knowledge of God. Knowledge is one of the keys to the letter since he is combating the heresy of gnosticism.

V3 In God is hidden all the treasures. Reference this back to V2 where Paul talks about attaining the wealth that comes from understanding.

Hidden treasures: Gnosticism held to the idea that hidden knowledge is what leads to salvation. Paul says God and His plan for salvation is not hidden, it is the true wisdom that comes for the saved. So it is not hidden knowledge that leads to salvation, but salvation that leads to hidden knowledge.

Gnosticism:

1. Man's body is matter is evil. God is spirit so He is good.
2. Salvation is the escape from the body. It is not achieved by faith in Christ, but by special knowledge. Combating this point is the primary motivation for this letter.
3. Christ's humanity is denied. He only seemed to have a body, or the God part joined the man part at Jesus' baptism and left just before Jesus' death. One of the primary purposes of 1 John is to address this.
4. Since the body is evil, it is to be treated harshly.
5. Since the body is evil, it is to be submitted to much sin and to licentiousness.

Verses 4-7
V4 Paul's purpose in pointing out his "agony" for the church is to gain their respect so they will listen to him and not be led astray by someone else's argument. Paul's actions and commitment to the church should outweigh the intellectual arguments put forth by the Gnostics who suffer nothing for their cause. It also reinforces his authority to teach and admonish his listeners.

Paul's opponents are trying to lead the church astray by way of convincing, intellectual arguments. They use fancy, enticing words to draw the listener away from the truth. KJV expresses it "enticing words." Enticing evokes the image of a seductress coyly tempting the innocent into her lair. That is what the deceivers in the Colossian church are like.

Persuasive argument: Rom 16:17-18: "Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting."

From Gospelcom:

In our day, as in the ancient world, people often measure the value of what others say by how well they say it. Even within the church we put great stress on a person's academic credentials, as if a Ph.D. granted one a corner on heavenly wisdom. The result is that we learn to value elegant systems of church dogma that are held together by sophisticated and learned arguments. In the life of many congregations, faith has become so intellectualized that its relational, experiential dimension has been bleached out. Certainly it is important to think through carefully what one believes and why. Yet many of my students come to university with strongly held convictions about Christ but without the experience of a vital relationship with him. Knowing what to believe has replaced knowing whom to believe.

Cf Acts 17:11, 1 John 4:1.

Now begins the main part of the letter, the teaching.

V5 "Absent in body..." is similar to what Paul said in 1 Cor 5:3. In that context, Paul is asserting his authority over the Corinthian church to exercise discipline, even from a distance. Here, he is asserting his authority to teach the Colossian church, even at a distance.

V6 To begin his teaching, Paul turns their attention and focus to Christ. The union of Jesus and the believer is repeated often throughout the letter (2:7, 2:10-13, 1:2, 1:27-28, 3:1,3).

V7 Paul invokes the theme of growing from baby Christian ("having been firmly rooted") to mature Christian ("and now being built up and established in your faith"). (cf 1:6,9)

Paul exhorts the reader to live and develop their faith "just as [they] were instructed" by Epaphras. In other words, turn away from the fancy words of the Gnostics and return to the teachings of those who founded the church and indeed of the Bible. The Bible is the answer to and the defense against deception. Cf 2 Tim 3:16.

Faith and Politics

Cal Thomas writes

Too many Christians think if they shout loud enough and gain political strength the world will be improved. That is a false doctrine. I have never seen anyone 'converted' to a Christian's point of view (and those views are not uniform) through political power. I have frequently seen someone's views changed after they have experienced true conversion and then live by different standards and live for goals beyond which political party controls the government.

Absolutely right. The world will not be changed by Christians gaining political power. The world will be changed by Christians preaching the gospel and people coming to a saving faith in Jesus Christ.