Liveblogging the Bible: Colossians

1:1 One can't help but wonder what exactly Timothy's role was in the composition of this letter.  Was he simply an amanuensis? An editor?  A co-contributor?  Or simply a comrade who wished to add his greetings to Paul's? 

1:3 The use of the plural here seems to suggest that Timothy's role was more substantial than one might think, which raises theological questions.  Paul has yet to indicate that this letter is directly inspired (as he does elsewhere), an omission which does not stop some from taking this as the literal, word-for-word transmission of a divine message.  If one chooses to take it thus, is Timothy also inspired of God?

1:7 Was Epaphras, therefore, the originator of the congregation in Colossae, if it was from him that they first heard the message?

1:9-14 Paul's wishes here are interesting, more for what is not included than for what is.  He wishes them to have gifts of wisdom/knowledge/understanding, and strength/endurance patience.  His mention of forgiveness and good works are results of these other two elements, not independent of them.

1:15 Appositive referent problem.  Is "the firstborn of all creation" meant to refer to Christ, or God?

1:20 In what way are those things in heaven in need of Christ's redemption?

1:23 This is a quid pro quo that is incompatible with common understandings of salvation.  The audience here is saved "provided that [they] continue securely established and steadfast . . ."  And if they don't, what becomes of that salvation?  Some would argue that those who do not continue were never saved, but that would render Paul's argument invalid.

1:24 And what could possibly have been lacking in Christ's afflictions, such that Paul has to suffer them for him.  Seems like a bit of poetic license, rather than a point of doctrine.

2:1 This confirms the suspicion in 1:7

2:3,4 Again this focus on knowledge.  Paul is far to canny and conscious of his audience to have done this offhandedly.  He is clearly writing for the purpose of purifying their doctrine, and specifically to root out some unknown "plausible arguments" that are not in sync with the party line.

2:6 One could try to infer then, what exactly he is trying to correct about their doctrine, by seeing what gets the bulk of his time.  In this case, it seems to be the idea of the ransom, and of Christ's headship of the congregation.

2:11-15 This is Pauline rhetoric at its very best.  He appeals to the Colossians on multiple emotional fronts, all while giving his case a sound logical underpinning.

2:18 and this confirms that Paul's goal is primarily to focus their attention on Christ, and deter them from developing a sort of pantheon, or an independent order that subscribes to harsher standards as an expression of piety.  Both of these are things that Catholics are guilty of in abundance, naturally.

3:5 This is a lovely job of wrapping worship of lesser deities and self-abasement in the same cloth as fornication and wrath, in that all of them are of earthly concern.  A nice taxonomy, that brooks no argument, especially as nice as Paul has set it up in the preceding chapters.

3:17 And if he stopped right here, I would have no argument with him . . .

3:18-25 But he didn't. After all of the beautiful and sound rhetoric of the preceding chapters, he loses his way here.  He has just convinced his audience to focus only on spiritual things, that everything physical has no real meaning.  Yet here he brings it back to the physical realm again, and loses some of his credibility.

4:1 And of course, I see no way to justify this by Paul's own logic.  It has no place in a treatise on distancing oneself from the physical realm.  Not to mention the fact that it is morally repulsive.

4:12 Evidently their own founder, Epaphras, was with him at the time of the writing, no doubt mentioned tactically.

4:16 And is this letter to the Laodiceans less inspired, such that it has been lost?

4:18 Well, that lets Timothy off the hook as an amanuensis.  And he could scarcely have been mentioned just as a way to tender his regards, insofar as somehow Timothy's contribution to this letter deserved greater mention than these others named here.  Which leaves the other two possibilities . . . I can't help but wonder if that section that seems so out of place with the rest bears his mark somehow.