Category: Colossians (Page 4 of 9)

“Children, be obedient to your parents in all things, for this is well-pleasing to the Lord.” (Colossians 3:20)

With the introduction of “Children” the Apostle begins a new couplet.  He singles out “Fathers” (v.21) to be paired with “Children,” but makes no mention of mothers and their role.  In beginning with the “Children” he again (cf. vv.18-19, 3:22-4:1) initiates the pair by mention of the deferential one in the relationship.  The noun translated “Children” refers to offspring without regard to their sex, but simply designates them according to their origin.  There is no hint here of the age of the one under consideration though it would seem that it is children still under the protection and provision of their parents that are in view.

The duty laid upon the children is to “be obedient.” The word means simply “to obey,” “to follow” and “to be subject to.”[1] The present imperative demands this become an ongoing disposition of life (cf. Eph. 6:1).  The same imperative will be laid upon slaves in verse 22.  With regard to children the command is limited in its application: “to your parents.” Paul only uses this noun five times in his writings, but two of those describe disobedience to parents as characteristic of the last days (Rom. 1:30; 2 Tim. 3:2).  While only the father is instructed in verse 21, both parents are under consideration here.  This clearly implies that both mother and father are expected to be giving directives to the children.

The extent of the child’s obligation to obedience is cast in the broadest possible terms: “in all things.” The preposition translated “in” is used here to denote relationship to something and should be rendered as “with respect to” or “in relation to.”  Thus here with the neuter plural adjective (“all things”) it has the connotation of “in all respects.”[2] In a day and age when abuse is so prevalent wisdom urges us to clarify that this does not remove all limitations.  A child is not being obligated to carrying out a parent’s sinful wishes.  But, having said that, it should be noted that the first place a child learns to relate to authority is in the home.  If the parents fail to teach the lessons of submission to and appreciation of legitimate authorities, the society as a whole will never be able to right the ship.  Such a child will meet with difficulty at every turn.

The reason for such obedience is “for this is well-pleasing to the Lord.” The justification for the child’s obedience is cast similarly to that of the wife’s submission to her husband (“as is fitting in the Lord,” v.18).  The use of the conjunction (“for”) signals the foundational rationale for the directive just given.  By “this” Paul means the broad ranging obedience just called for.  The adjective translated “well-pleasing” is used by Paul eight of its nine times in the NT (Rom. 12:1, 2; 14:18; 2 Cor. 5:9; Eph. 5:10; Phil. 4:18; Col. 3:20; Titus 2:9; Heb. 13:21).  The word describes that which is acceptable or pleasing and always in reference to God (except perhaps Tit. 2:9).  Here that divine orientation is signaled by the expression “to the Lord.”  The use of the preposition with the dative form of the noun indicates “a close personal relationship with Christ.[3] The believer’s union with Christ, so richly spoken of in this chapter and throughout this book, is the foundation upon which the actions are seen to rest and thus “the expression is equivalent in meaning to by virtue of spiritual fellowship or union with Christ.”[4]

What are we to make of the fact that the Apostle grounds the motive for the obedience of children to their parents in the intimacy of their relationship to Christ and their longing to please him rather than the intimacy of their relationship to their father or mother and the innate desire to please them?  At least this much: a child’s feelings of love may vary from moment to moment and their desire to please their parents may flee when a difficult directive is given, but their love for Christ should remain a steady constant in their hearts at all times.  Then also it is a sad fact that some parents are never pleased, no matter how well the child performs.  A parent’s affirmation may be an unattainable goal, while the Lord’s is not.  Even if a parent is not pleased with a child, God may be.  The authority of a parent is a delegated authority, handed down in measured form by God Himself.  It is a good and wonderful thing when a parent is pleased with their child’s obedience and affirms them in it.  But that is a secondary standard.  The primary standard lies with God Himself from whom the authority to exercise parental authority arose in the first place.

[2] Ibid., 407.

[3] Ibid., 260.

[4] Thayer, 211.

What would I do if I was not afraid?

What would I do if I was not proud?

What would I do if I was not insecure?

What would I do if I was not over-sensitive?

Must I be … afraid, proud, insecure, over-sensitive?

No.

“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.” (Colossians 2:9-10)

I am, therefore, free in Christ to discover the answer to my what if’s!

“Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them.” (Colossians 3:19)

Having addressed “wives” (v.18), Paul now turns to the “Husbands.” He lays two requirements upon them.

The first is to “love your wives.” The present imperative demands action that is habitual and regular.  The word group connected with the verb “love” has been infused by the writers of the New Testament with significant Christian meaning.  It should not pass without notice that the only other place the verb is used here in Colossians is in a description of God’s love toward us (3:12).  In light of this divine love set upon us we are to “put on love” (v.14) toward one another.[1] That this “love” has uniquely Christian content is seen in the parallel passage where Christ’s love for the church is the standard of measure for this command for the husband to love his wife (Eph. 5:25).  This “love” now is made specific to the relationship of husbands toward “your wives.”  Paul just used the same verb in a participial form in verse 12 to insist that every believer is “beloved” of God through His electing (“chosen of God”) grace.  Paul went on to demonstrate that in this grace God not only loves the sinner, but sets him apart to Himself as “holy.”  From the secure base of God’s enduring, covenant love, Paul issued moral imperatives (vv.12-13).  That same foundation of God’s love to the husband is what frees him to selflessly love his wife in a singular, unique relationship.

The second command is “do not be embittered against them.” The verb is used only here by Paul and elsewhere in the New Testament only in Revelation (8:11; 10:9, 10).  In Revelation it is used literally of something that goes into the stomach and brings bitterness and a violent response.  It speaks of that which is “sharp, harsh, and bitter.”[2] Here it is used metaphorically and points toward anger, resentment and bitterness of spirit.[3] The present imperative with the negation (“not”) “forbids a habitual action.”[4] In the passive, as here, it means to “become bitter” or to have become “embittered.”[5] This must not happen “against them.”  The preposition (“against”) speaks “of the goal or limit toward which a movement is directed.”[6]

What exactly is forbidden here?  Is the husband forbidden to become bitter toward his wife (KJV, NASB, NET)?  Or is he forbidden to treat her harshly or bitterly (ESV, NIV, NRSV)?  The answer is probably, “yes.”  Paul forbids the husband to develop an inward bitterness toward the wife which will give vent to harsh and bitter words and actions toward her.

What would cause a man to be thus “embittered against” his wife and thus “be harsh with” her (NIV)?  The emotional void left in the absence a secure, singular, covenant love will incite the wife to feel insecure and uncertain.  This insecurity and uncertainty regarding their relationship tends to create in the wife that which produces bitterness in the husband—qualities such as possessiveness, clinginess, complaining and nagging.  The husband, resting in the security and grace of God’s love to him, is to take the lead in covenant love with his wife, creating—by God’s grace—an environment of love, tenderness, understanding and security from which his wife is likely to respond to him with the same.

[2] Rienecker, 582.

[3] Friberg, 312

[4] Ibid.

[5] BAGD, 657.

[6] Thayer, 541.

“Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.” (Colossians 3:18)

Having gathered up his exhortations from 3:12-16 and given one overarching exhortation to close in verse 17, Paul now shifts his thoughts to the various kinds of relationships which make up the church (3:18-4:1).  One should compare Paul’s statements here with their close parallel in Ephesians 5:22-6:9.  We have here three groupings of two pairs of relationships, each one beginning with the subordinate in the relationship (wives, children, slaves) and then addressing the one in authority (husbands, fathers, masters).  In each case Paul makes compliance a matter of Christian duty (“in the Lord,” v.18; “this is well-pleasing to the Lord,” v.20; “fearing the Lord,” v.22; “as for the Lord,” v.23; “from the Lord you will receive the reward,” v.24a; “It is the Lord Christ whom you serve,” v.24b; “you too have a Master in heaven,” 4:1).

He begins with “Wives.” The word can refer to women more generally, but here it seems to mark off “wives” more specifically.  Note the use of the definite article to mark off the wives as a distinct grouping under present consideration.[1]

These are to “be subject.” The verb is a compound arising from “under” and “appoint” or “order.”  It is a word that bespeaks authority and submission.  It was a military word which described the ranks of soldiers arranging themselves under the leadership of their commander.  Here the decision as to whether it is a middle or passive voice is difficult.  If passive it may have a reflexive sense to it and thus in either case it shows that it is a voluntary and personal choice of the wife.[2] The present tense reveals that the wife is to choose this as an abiding attitude, not simply when such feelings may arise. Such submission is to be the on going pattern of a wife’s relationship to her husband.  And of course the imperative mood makes this obligatory.  She is to willingly obey this injunction of God.

A broader look at the New Testament reveals that such submission to authority is required not only of wives, but of all.  All people are subject to the governing authorities (Rom. 13:1-5; Tit. 3:1).  Believers are subject to one another (Eph. 5:21).  Children are subject to their parents (Lk. 2:51).  Slaves are subject to masters (2:9).  The church is subject to Christ (Eph. 5:24).  All things are subject to Christ (1 Cor. 15:27-28; Eph. 1:22; Phil. 3:21).  Indeed, no one is exempt from submission to authority.

In this case the submission is of the wives “to your husbands.” As with the previous noun, this word can be used more generally, in this case to describe males.  Here, however, it is clear that it is “husbands” who are in view.

The imperative of a wife’s submission to her husband is sounded throughout the New Testament (Eph. 5:22-24; Tit. 2:4-5; 1 Pet. 3:1-6).  This is troublesome to many in our contemporary culture with its egalitarian impulses.  Some have sought to alleviate their concerns by looking to the parallel passage in Ephesians 5 and citing verse 21: “. . . be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.”  They contend that this verse, coming immediately before the instructions for a wife to submit to her husband (v.22), truly reveals the apostle’s intent.  He does not, they say, envision a male-led relationship, but a mutually submissive one.  And this is correct, if we allow the rest of Ephesians five to inform what Paul meant by his words in verse 21.  In what sense is submission a responsibility of both husband and wife?  The text seems to make clear the answer.  The husband submits himself to his wife by lovingly, selflessly taking the initiative of putting her needs before his own (Eph. 5:25-32).  This is Christ-like leadership.  But let us be clear—it is leadership.   Robertson quips that while the New Testament pictures the husband as the head of the home, it does so assuming “the husband has a head and a wise one.”[3] The wife subjects herself to her husband by way of submissive respect (Eph. 5:33).  This affirms that both husband and wife submit to one another, but it rightly distinguishes the way in which each does so according to the wise order established by God.

Such subjection by the wife is to take place “as is fitting in the Lord.” The comparative particle (“as”) indicates “the manner in which someth[ing] proceeds” and can be rendered “in such a way.”  The verb describes what is proper or fitting.[4] It is used only three times in the New Testament, all by Paul (Eph. 5:4; Col. 3:18; Philem. 8).  Here the imperfect tense has a present tense meaning to express “necessity, obligation, or duty.”[5] It may express the notion that this is behavior which has been and continues to be “fitting.”[6]

This obligation is not the Apostle’s way of asking believers to simply conform to current cultural customs.  Rather he is reiterating what God had established long before.  Paul elsewhere makes clear that God has established from creation a hierarchical order which is reflected in marriage (1 Cor. 11:3, 7-9) and that He has maintained this in the new order established by Christ (Eph. 5:23-24).[7] Thus Paul can also say here that this necessity and obligation is pressed upon us “in the Lord.”  By “Lord” Paul is referring to the Person of Jesus.  This is in keeping with his Christological focus throughout this letter.  Paul consistently grounds these relational instructions in our relationship to the person of Christ (vv.18, 20, 22, 23, 24).  Our vertical relationship to Christ rules our horizontal relationships within society.  Christ, not current, popular culture defines what is “fitting” and proper in our relationships.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Robertson, 4:506.

[4] BAGD, 66.

[5] Rienecker, 582.

[6] Harris, 179; Moo, 302.

[7] O’Brien, 222.

“Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father.” (Colossians 3:17)

What Paul says now seems to serve a summarizing effect for the whole of verses 12 through 16.  The Apostle now casts a net as broadly as he can, using words to bring everything possible under this closing exhortation.  The English word “Whatever” actually represents four words in the Greek.  The word pan has here the broadly inclusive the sense of “everything (anything) whatsoever.”[1] The words ho ti are the uncompounded form of a relative pronoun which means “whatever.”[2] The combination of these three words is a strengthened effort as saying “whatever”[3] or “whatsoever.”[4] Then the addition of ean achieves and even further heightened indefiniteness.[5] The effect is a clear attempt to make a statement so broadly inclusive as to gather up all possible scenarios.  Clearly God intends that worship should touch all of life and all of life should become worship.

That which is so broadly considered is whatsoever “you do.” The present tense points to whatever the present moment may at any given time find one engaged in.  This includes both what one does “in word or deed.” The first noun is used in its most general sense of “word.”  The second noun means here simply “deed” or “action” in contrast to “word.”[6] The singular forms look to each and every individual act or word and brings them under the microscope.  Anything whatsoever that may fall under the broad categories of something it is possible either to say or to do, whatever word or work you may find yourself occupied with at any given moment – this is the Apostle’s net cast as broadly and as inclusively as possible.

Having thus gathered up all possible endeavors any one of us might at any given time engage in, the Apostle now says we must “do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” The imperative “do” is supplied in English, though it is not present in the Greek text.  Yet clearly some such word is expected to be supplied mentally by the reader.  Reading an imperative such as “do” seems the safest assumption given the previous subjunctive (“do”).  The “all” is shorthand for the fuller earlier attempt at gathering all possible scenarios together.  We are to do “all” the “whatsoever”(s) “in the name of the Lord Jesus.”  The historical person of “Jesus” is “Lord” over all our individual words and works in each an every moment of life.  But just what is meant by “in the name of”?  Given the broad and inclusive nature of the wording of this sentence it probably has the widest sense possible.  To do something “in the name of the Lord Jesus” is then to do it in dependence upon Him, relying upon His strength and power.  It is to do whatever we do or say whatever we say for the furtherance of His established purposes.  It is also to do it for His glory, that He might be the one noticed and remembered in our words and actions.  To be such, each and every thing we say and do must be in conformity with the character of Jesus and with His revealed will and pleasure.  We should so act and speak that it would be as if Jesus Himself were performing the act or speaking the word.  In that sense it would be what Paul described of his own life: “it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me” (Gal. 2:20).

And all of this is to be done, “giving thanks through Him to God the Father.” This is the cognate verb to the adjective just used in verse 15 to speak of thankfulness.  As we have seen thankfulness is a major theme of this letter (1:3, 12; 2:7; 3:15, 16, 17; 4:2).  Here the present tense emphasizes ongoing, regular action.  The participial form modifies the assumed imperative “do” and is used to express attendant circumstances—in the unfolding of our daily lives thanksgiving should ever and always be permeating the atmosphere of all our words and works.  This gratitude is directed “to God the Father.”  Our thanksgiving “to God the Father” is to be offered “through Him,” clearly referring to “the Lord Jesus,” and viewing Him in His role as our mediator at God’s right ha

[2] Hariris, 171.

[3] BAGD, 632.

[4] Thayer, 492.

[5] BAGD, 586; Harris, 171.

[6] BAGD, 307.