In our prayers for you we always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, ⁴for we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love that you have for all the saints, ⁵because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. You have heard of this hope before in the word of the truth, the gospel ⁶that has come to you. Just as it is bearing fruit and growing in the whole world, so it has been bearing fruit among yourselves from the day you heard it and truly comprehended the grace of God. ⁷This you learned from Epaphras, our beloved fellow-servant.^* He is a faithful minister of Christ on your^* behalf, ⁸and he has made known to us your love in the Spirit (Colossians 1:3-8)

After introducing himself as Paul, the apostle enters into a short thanksgiving/prayer emphasizing the hope of the present (”bearing fruit and growing in the world” 1:6) and not yet (”hope laid up for you in heaven” in 1:5) aspects of “the gospel.”  For a side-note on the Pauline term gospel, please see my article here.

In this introduction, there is a three-tiered structure of the familiar Christian motifs: faith, hope, and love.  The first two, faith and love, seem to form one seamless pair in Paul’s mind.  One must have faith in Christ and love for the saints.  The term “saints” here refers to “fellow-believers” (see F.F. Bruce, 41).  The two idea of faith and hope stem from the hope “laid up for them in heaven.”

Again, the future hope is rooted in the present “word of truth.”  Words must be spoken in a particular place, with a particular people, and into a particular context. This is extremely true here when the word of truth broke through into a particular context, and as it broke through (as a tree’s roots break through the ground) we see the gospel “bearing fruit” among them.

There are two things about fruit that we must understand (and perhaps agricultural workers in the Lycus Valley may have understood better than us).  First, trees take time to grow.  The roots that one takes in the “word of truth” may, at many times and in many places, be cut off or destroyed (a la the parable of the sower).  Second, trees need the faith and love spoken of in the triad above.  One might think of the analogy of trees needing both sun and water.  We need both our faith in Christ and the love for our fellow members in our community to see the gospel bear fruit in our communities.

Finally, what does it look like for the gospel to bear fruit?  Paul does not address this specifically, but I think it has a lot to do with what I talk about in my post on the Pauline conception of Gospel.  When we see the gospel in action it breaks down the walls between “us” and “them,” the “clean” and the “unclean,” or whatever blocks us out from others.  There is no line between “rich” and “poor” (in fact, it might be good for us to stop thinking in terms of serving the poor, as Claudio Oliver has done).

These dropping of lines can seem dangerous and even heretical at times.  What would the church look like without lines?  What would the church look like without the usual boundaries of the four walls?  What would the church look like if it truly loved?

Resources for Studying Colossians
1. Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire:
2. Colossians (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries): by N.T. Wright

“Paul, a servant^* of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, ²which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, ³the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh ⁴and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit^* of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, ⁵through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name, ⁶including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ…” (Romans 1:1-6)

First, the gospel is a story of “descension” and “ascension.”  Jesus “descended” from the line of David making him an undoubtedly human (flesh-and-bone) person also declared to be the “Son of God” after his ascension from death (and later his ascension to heaven).  The paradox that Jesus both descended and ascended is one that is not easily understood.

He has descended in the sense that he has taken on humanity.  He has “emptied himself” (Philippians 2:7) to become a very real and very fleshly human being.  He has ascended in the above passage when, paradoxically, he is also “declared to be the son of God with power according to the spirit of Holiness.”  The gospel is about living out this paradox.  We are to live as Christ lived in the flesh to be a kind of true flesh to those around us, as Christ is the true flesh, and yet we are to live a life empowered by the spirit “from above.”

The paradox might best be understood in the sense that the Spirit’s power “from above” plays out in the world of flesh and bone.  They are not separate “worlds,” rather, then interact constantly with one another in paradoxical fashion.

The gospel then is the message that this human being, in his flesh and blood, as comes with power from on high to show us the power of resurrection.  As Christ rose from the dead, so we too will rise (and, paradoxically, have already rose) and live as Christ truly lives.

The taking of that message in the technical Pauline sense is to the gentiles (as noted above) “…bring about the obedience of faith to all the gentiles.”  In this sense, the message of the gospel is also about the breaking down of the walls between the Jew and the Gentile “for the sake of his name.”  Christ’s gospel is meant to break down the barriers and dividing walls between the classical Jewish understanding of “clean” and “unclean.”  There is no longer any wall.

And in that tradition, followers of Christ are called to follow Paul’s examples of breaking down barriers.  We are to take this message of Christ to all the world.  This is by no means an exhaustive study, but will help us to understand the nature of the gospel when Paul speaks of it in the book of Colossians.

2.  Mark talks about using IM as a professor.  I applaud anyone in higher eduction who is using technology to help their students.

3.  What would you think of adding an Hindu Snowman in a Nativity scene?

4.  Tim Keller on the one gospel.

5.  I think that Americans need to think before they act:

6.  James McGrath’s review on The Religious Case Against Belief.

7.  Was it a Silent Night?

8.  What do you think of Caroline Kennedy going for the Senate Seat (what is her platform)?

9.  Brandon talking about the Christian response to shoe throwing.

10.  If you are in the area, you should think about going to Common Root 2009.  I can’t make it because of school and the distance.

11.  A good post on Sex and Money.

12.  Obama talks about how to judge his success.

And Remember:

In real listening we don’t necessarily learn so much that is new. Actually we simply recognize much of what we already know. The catch is that we all have highly-developed systems of sorting, judging and eliminating information that either doesn’t fit or makes us uncomfortable. We train ourselves to do that. By listening more deeply to outbursts, to body language and the choice of words we get hints that can move peacemaking along because we know where to get started with warnings, activism and interpretation. In real listening my impatience, prejudice, and need to analyse is overcome. I let the messenger’s total communication affect me.

2. Over at Vox Nova there is a discussion about increased gun sales in California.  Donald commented over there saying that it probably because NRAites probably think Obama is going to pass a ban on assault weapons. This is apparently driving up the cost of guns.

3. I mentioned briefly the other day the imperial cult of Rome, but over at Ways of Resistance, we are remind that there is also a cult of imperial consumerism.

4. Good quotes from McCabe on forgiveness on Alan Creech’s Blog.

5. Peter Rollins talks about ironic faith.  Here is a brief quote:

“Revelation became this idea of almost God saying something to you, whispering in your ear, and you could hear the message of the Gospel without heeding it. You could know the truth of the faith without it actually transforming your radical subjectivity. … I’m trying to de-center the idea that we can somehow have the answers without it transforming us radically.”

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy6GlDS2_RI&hl=en&fs=1]

6. Wes talks about Socialist America.

7. Look here for an Irish interpretation of Obama.

8. Michael Spencer talks about the danger of using fear in Christianity to make people believe you.

9. Pray for Haiti.

10. The US is buying even more loans for students in spite of economic hard times.

Within this fourth point, my pastor suggested there are three important reasons for the importance of the resurrection:

• It placed God’s stamp of approval on the truth of the word of Jesus.
• It placed God’s stamp of approval on the person of Jesus.
• It placed God’s stamp of approval on the work of Jesus.

I have trouble agreeing  for one main reason: God already placed his stamp of approval of Jesus’ words, person and work at the Baptism in the synoptic gospels. In that pivotal moment of Jesus’ life, God the Father says, “This is my son, whom I love; with whom I am well pleased” (Matt 3:17). First he suggests that he approves of the ministry of Jesus by calling him—in the fashion of Biblical history—part of his (God’s) family. Second, he approves of the person by calling him “son.” Third, we can tell that God approves Jesus’ work because he is “well pleased” with him and “loves” him. Thus the resurrection is, in some sense, a reiteration of the things said at the baptism—a kind of theological bookend—but it also must function on its own merit. The resurrection is more than just God giving “approval” to Jesus’ movement and kingdom.

The reason that some churches have a weak theology on resurrection is their dependence on the substitutionary atonement model of the cross. In this model everything is finished on the cross, and not much room is left for wide theological significance on the resurrection of Christ. We receive most of substitutionary atonement models from Medieval theologians like Anselm who were studying the Pauline corpus to understand justification. Resultantly, I want to look at Paul’s passage on Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 starting in verse 12:

Paul begins by asking, “If it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” In other words, Christ’s resurrection is not the primary issue at stake, but the issue of a general “resurrection of the dead” is at stake. One particularly helpful book on this matter is Robert Wilken’s book called Christians as the Romans Saw Them. In it Wilken’s shows how the Roman church viewed Christianity from the first three centuries of Christianity. One particularly heavy critic of the idea of behind the resurrection was Celsus the philosopher. Wilkens says:

“[Celsus'] most serious criticism, however, is directed against the idea that God could reverse the natural process of the disintegration of the human body or that a body that had rotted could be restored again. ‘For what sort of body, after being entirely corrupted, could return to its original nature and that same condition which it had before it was dissolved? As they have nothing to say in reply, they escape to a more outrageous refuge by saying that ‘anything is possible with God.’ But, indeed neither can God do what is shame nor does He desire what is contrary to nature’ (c. Cels. 5.14).”

The main problem with simply glossing over the resurrection as “unbelievable” in the eyes of the Romans, one must view the phenomena as entirely impossible, implausible, and “contrary to nature.” It is not a matter of belief, but a matter of science. For instance, God cannot both heal and kill someone at the same time—this, according to the laws of nature, is impossible. This is because, by definition, a man cannot be healed if he is killed because a healed man implies some sort of life still flowing through the man’s veins. This is the view the Greeks seemed to have taken towards resurrection. Such a popularizing of resurrection was not even really apparent in Judaism through a reading of the scripture and popular literature until the second and first centuries before Christ. So here Paul is not just dealing with a matter of faith, but a matter of science, reality, and is severely stretching the imaginations of his counterparts in the letter.

Paul goes in the letter to say that, “If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised” (1 Cor 15:13-15). Paul argues that if we do not believe in the general resurrection of the dead, then we cannot logically believe in the resurrection of Christ. When Paul talks about the “resurrection of the dead” he is probably referring to the parousia (the coming of Christ to usher in the new age), and thus he is arguing about the future resurrection of all the saints when they are reunited to Christ. But if Christ has not been raised, the teachings of Paul are useless because he centers on the idea that Jesus is not in the grave.

As Paul continues he says, “For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him” (1 Cor 15:16-23). Paul clearly articulates the central aspect of his theology about resurrection when he says “if only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.” Paul is writing to mostly lower-class, poor, and oppressed people. At this time, most of the world had not embraced Christianity. To embrace it at this time meant scorn. If this life is all they have-a life of scorn, a life of contempt, and a life where they are continually oppressed by the Roman Empire-then they really are to be pitied.

The place where Paul lives is not in this present struggle, but in a future eschatological hope where Christ is “the firstfruit” and we are going to follow in his resurrection. The central controlling metaphor of the resurrection is the undoing of the original curse that came through Adam. Death no longer has any power over the followers of Christ because we too will be raised like cross in a triumphal victory over the serpent and his kingdom. Paul and his community are waiting for this parousia to come in all its power. In the next few verses, Paul takes the time to explain how the parousia is going to come:

“Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he ‘has put everything under his feet.’ Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all” (1 Co 15:24-29).

…more on this to come hopefully in the days to come…

The text quoted here was that “no one can come to the Father” but through Jesus.  Reading this in context of the rest of John 14 we find that Jesus is emphasizing the community of the Trinity.  That is, that the Father lives in the Son and the Son lives in the Father.  In this sense, we find that Jesus is using this passage to let his readers know that Jesus and God are connected, united by a love that w do not yet understand.

Jesus later explicity states that what he wants them to “believe on” is that he is in the Father and the Father is in him.  This is to say that the entirety of God was incarnated in human form to the world today through Jesus and yet, he was fully indwelling and living within the reality of the father.  I is in this reality that we are called to live.  We are called to be sons and daughers of God living fully in a reality that says God totally and fully indwells himself in me, empowering me to be the type of person that Christ wants me to be, fully dwelling in the kingdom of God with Christ sitting on the throne of David.

The passage goes on to explain the centrality of Jesus’ teachings: obey my commands!  From what I can tell, Ghandhi obeyed Jesus’ commands to turn the other cheek, to provide oppressed people with a way out and to find ways to bring “heaven to earth.”  I don’t know how Jesus is going to “judge” but I think that Ghandhi provides a good template for those who want to live as Kingdom people