Colossians 3

Colossians 3:18-4

VI ON Colossians 3:18-4:18. In this chapter we take up the practical application of this letter. From Colossians 3:18-4:1 the exhortations relate to the family or home and are based on reciprocal relations. From relation arises obligation. These relations are husband and wife, parent and child, master and servant. The first two relations are natural, the third artificial.

God himself created the relation between husband and wife. He made them one in the beginning, himself performing the marriage ceremony. Adam was first made. Eve was derived from his body and soul. Hence the name, “woman,” meaning derived from man. This marriage relation is the basis of the home, the family.

It was intended to be indissoluble. The New Testament permits only one ground for divorce. The sanctity of the bond cannot be maintained without regard to the reciprocal duties. There can be but one head to a family. The husband is that head. This involves subjection on the part of the wife.

She must honor and obey, but it is not a slavish obedience. Her realm is the home. She lives in her husband and children. The husband must love his wife and be not bitter toward her. This thought is elaborated and illustrated in the accompanying letter to the Ephesians. As Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, so must husbands love their wives.

Where this great love is extended by the husband it is easy for the wife to honor and obey, and the children born of the marriage will be a heritage of the Lord.

Children, too, are in subjection. They must honor and obey; that is the first commandment with a promise. This honor and obedience must be in letter, spirit, and form. A look or a gesture may disobey. Dr. Adam Clarke, the great Methodist commentator, says that his mother was a Scotch Presbyterian, famous for teaching and enforcing family discipline – that on one occasion when commanded by her to do an unpleasant service, he obeyed, but looked disobedient.

His mother caught the meaning of disrespect in his eye, and, shaking her finger in his face, quoted the proverb: “The eye that mocketh at his father and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out and the young eagles shall eat it.” Her solemn denunciation impressed him much. Her words rang in his ears. Walking out alone in the woods, he was startled by the cry of a raven overhead, “Caw! Caw! Caw!” His mother’s words burned in his mind like fire, and, placing his hands over his face, he ran back home, crying out: “Oh, my eyes, my eyes, let not the ravens pick out my eyes!” But the law binds not the child alone. The parent must not provoke the child.

Many a child has become discouraged in honoring and obeying parents by their provocations.

These exhortations on the sanctity of family ties were very pertinent to the matter in hand. The false philosophy prevalent at Colosse discountenanced marriage and the raising of children, as tending to sin. Their selfish delusion was that the escape from sin was to be found in abstinence from marriage and retreat from social claims to the solitude of a cave. While a few free lovers have denounced what they call the bondage of marriage, and while the trend of modern society is to multiply causes for divorce, yet, on the whole, the common sense of mankind honors both the sacred institution of marriage and the mutual laws governing marriage and children. They respect the New Testament declaration that “He that provideth not for his own hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.”

But some over pious people have taken great offense at the gospel because it does not peremptorily inculcate the abolition of slavery, and incite to servile insurrection. They greatly mistake the purpose of the gospel. It did not undertake to be a political and revolutionary force. It came to serve religious ends. It would have perished in the beginning if it had pronounced on forms of political government or the legality of social conditions. Whenever its legislation touched a social or political evil, it was to ameliorate its harshness, but it relied mainly on the leavening power of its great principles.

Slavery abounded everywhere. It taught the slave God’s care for him and led him into spiritual freedom. It taught him to be honest, industrious, conscientious, as living unto his Lord. It revealed to him that God, unlike man, is no respecter of persons, and held out for his patient hope the heritage of the world to come. It laid a restraining hand upon the Christian master, curbing his passions, enjoying justice and mercy in the treatment of the slave, and called upon him to remember, first, that he was Christ’s bondman, and, second, that in Christ there were no distinctions between the bond and the free. Thus indirectly, by the leavening power of its principles, it is reforming all evils of government and society, and will ultimately purge the earth of all wickedness of whatever kind.

The exhortations pass from these social relations to inculcate the habit of thankful prayer, suggesting as a special object of petition his own case. But he solicits on his behalf no selfish gain, only “that God may open to him a door for the word” and that when it is open he may unveil the mystery of the gospel “as he ought to speak.” These two objects of prayer, repeated in the letter to the Ephesians, are very suggestive. He conceives of prayer as able to influence the workings of Providence, and to influence the Spirit’s power on his own heart. In view of them, let us take heed that we fall into no infidel attitude concerning prayer, nor raise in our minds the doubt, “What profits shall we have if we Pray unto him?” They also suggest that if an inspired apostle deeply felt the need and longed for the power of the prayers of his brethren, how foolish in us to discount so valuable a service.

From devotions we pass to outward walk and speech. “Walk in wisdom before them that are without.” How little are Christians sensible of the fact that they all, as well as the apostles, are “a spectacle to the angels,” to demons, and to men. What a text for preachers! “Them that are without.” Note the frequency of the phrase and its several contexts, for example, Mark 4:11; 1 Corinthians 5:13; 1 Timothy 3:7. Indeed it is a qualification of the preacher that “he have a good report of them that are without.” Apart from the exact form of the phrase are many passages embodying the thought in other words. Moreover, as words count as much as conduct with “them that are without,” “let your speech be always with grace seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer each one.” The outside world bristles with interrogation points toward Christians and Christianity. How often we injure the cause by injudicious answers. How closely Peter follows Paul’s lead in this exhortation: “Ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).

Concerning these exhortations on family duties, devotions, outward walk and speech, observe, first, how close the connection between Colossians and Ephesians, and, second, how uniform the teaching by all the New Testament writers and speakers on all these grave matters. Compare, for example, on husbands and wives, Paul’s teaching in these prison letters (Colossians 3:18-19; Ephesians 5:22-23) with Peter’s (1 Peter 3:7) writing later to the same people in part. The letter refers them to its bearers, Tychicus and Onesimus, for detailed information of his state and work.

In the salutation he distinguished between his Jewish and Gentile companions in labor. Aristarchus, Mark, and Justus are Jewish Christians, while Luke, Demas, and Epaphras are Gentiles. It is gratifying to note that he takes pleasure in the association and cooperation of Mark. Evidently in some way his mind toward Mark is changed since his refusal to let him be a companion on his second missionary tour (Acts 15:37-40). We have no evidence of the ground of the reconciliation, and so cannot say whether Paul revised his original judgment, or Mark evinced repentance for his former abandonment.

In the first letter from Peter, written a few years later from Babylon to these same Colossians, he reports that both Silas and Mark, with others, are with him. In the separation Barnabas took Mark and Paul took Silas. Peter has fallen heir to both of the companions on that divided second missionary tour. We learn in these salutations that Luke was a physician, which many terms of his writings indicate, and that Epaphras was an evangelist who probably planted the three churches of the Lycus valley – Colosse, Hierapolis, and Laodicea.

In his second imprisonment at Rome we find Paul complaining that the Demas he here commends had forsaken him, having loved this present world (2 Timothy 4:10). And what a difference in his own salutation when 2 Timothy is written! Only Luke is with him. He urges Timothy to come and bring Mark. Tychicus had been sent to Ephesus.

In his directions we find a household church in Hierapolis as well as in Colosse. We find more than one of these churches in Rome. Doubtless these churches in private homes came about from the fact that they had no public meetinghouse for all the churches in a city, and services were held in the home of some leading brother or sister who could afford the most room.

The number of these churches in one city is a disproof of the now current theory that in apostolic times all Christians of a metropolis were in one church organization, presided over by a leading bishop, with subordinate bishops supplying the various sub-congregations, assembling in different parts of the city.

As bearing upon this point Rev. W. T. Whitley, in delivering the “Gay Lectures” before the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on the topic, “The Story of Missions in Five Continents,” special topic, “Expansion in America and Australia,” has this to say, as reported in The Review and Expositor, January, Colossians 1908: Look next at church organization. To these shores were transplanted from Britain three patterns, monarchical, aristocratic, democratic. Already a Methodist Episcopal has been produced an ingenious crossing of two of these. Always in Tasmania the Baptist leaders examined their Bibles to see if Baptist traditions were absolutely in harmony with New Testament principle; whether a few baptized believers who build a house for prayer and praise, paying a few men and women to conduct it, with one pastor at the head, form a “church” on divine right, on a necessary pattern. They decide not, and all the Baptists in the island form really one community, with the ministers the ministers of the whole body. Church extension and matters of general interest are decided by the whole, and selfish isolation is discouraged.

The same question occurs to a minister in this town, and he asked whether New Testament precedent did not point to a single church of Louisville, like the church of Ephesus or Corinth. American conservatism frowned down the heretic, and he sought refuge at Rome. But the same question has again been raised in Britain, the president of the Baptist Union stating as his New Year’s message that our usual plan is at best of human origin, and not ordered in scripture, while many of its developments are absolutely anti-scriptural. For the next few years English Baptists are likely to inquire diligently whether the congregational system blindly adopted by Robert Browne is the last word in organization, or whether the New Testament does not show us all the baptized believers in a town forming one church, with a plurality of elders both to teach and to administer business, and probably many houses for worship. Indeed, in one great town this system is just being tried, and the question has been ventilated by papers at our last session of the Baptist Union. As further illustration of the dangerous trend, I cite a letter from The Argus. The title of the letter is: “The Baptist Outlook in Great Britain,” by J. H. Shakespeare. Under the head of “Ministerial Recognition” the writer gives as news: The regular door into the Baptist ministry is through one of our recognized theological colleges. Hitherto as soon as a student left college and became the pastor of a church, his name was placed on the list of “accredited ministers” in The Baptist Handbook. This recognition, as it was called, carried with it the right to share in the Annuity Fund, and other privileges of membership with the Baptist Union. The pastors who entered the ministry without first passing through one of the recognized colleges were required to pass two examinations before being placed upon the accredited list of the Baptist Union. At our last spring assembly, however, a new scheme of ministerial recognition was all but unanimously adopted, and our pastors are henceforth to be divided into two sections, probationers and recognized ministers. Collegiates who receive satisfactory certificates from their college principals will be at once placed upon the probationers’ list, and noncollegiates will have the same privilege on passing one examination.

All ministers on the probationers’ list, whether collegiate or noncollegiate, will be required to pass a Baptist Union examination, and to submit satisfactory proof as to their pastoral efficiency before their names can be transferred to the accredited list, and they then become recognized ministers. It is hoped that these new regulations will, to some extent, guard the portals to the ministry, and make it more possible to infer that if a man is a Baptist minister he shall not only be spiritually qualified, but also be an educated person. These two extracts indicate a most dangerous trend. The first surrenders the old-time definition of a church, not only advocating the metropolitan idea but the provincial idea of a church. The second goes to a greater extreme. An association of purely human origin assumes to “guard the portals of the ministry” – to divide them into classes of probationers and accredited – into collegiates and noncollegiates, usurps the church prerogative of subjecting to its examination, and seeks to limit the ministry to “educated persons.”

The stupendous folly of the whole business, its suicidal unscripturalness, becomes apparent by applying the rule to New Testament apostles, evangelists, and pastors, and to past Baptist history. God forbid that we should follow the English Baptists!

The direction about exchange of letters between Colosse and Laodicea (Colossians 4:16) throws light on two points: (1) That m all probability the letter from Laodicea was the letter which we call Ephesians. (2) We learn how New Testament manuscripts were passed around before there was a collection of them into one book or library. And how some lists, after collections were formed, and even some earlier versions, did not have all the New Testament books. We note also in the directions that Archippus, son of Philemon, was a minister, and one, too that need to be stirred up somewhat in the line of duty. The reader will note the usual attestation of Paul’s letters by his autograph signature, a habit adopted since he wrote his first letter, caused by report of forged letters in his name.

1. Where does the practical part of this letter commence, and what reciprocal relations expressed in Colossians 3:18-4:1?

2. What is the character of these relations, and what arises from them?

3. Who is the author of the relation between husband and wife, what the history and nature of this relation?

4. How may the sanctity of the marriage relation be maintained, and what does this involve?

5. Where do we find the subject of the marriage relation elaborated and illustrated, and what the essential points in the discussion there?

6. What injunction here for children, and what, in detail, the striking illustration given?

7. What is the special application of the exhortations on the sanctity of family ties to the Colossians?

8. What are the gospel’s attitude toward the institution of slavery, and what special precepts here touching this subject?

9. What are the lessons here on prayer?

10. What are the lessons on outward walk and speech?

11. How does this teaching harmonize with other New Testament teaching on the same subject, and what the proof?

12. Who were the bearers of this letter, and what trust did Paul commit to them besides this letter?

13. What distinction does Paul here make in his salutation, what gratifying bit of information here relative to Mark, and what the probable ground of this reconciliation?

14. What information touching these brethren from Peter, and what information about Luke and Epaphras found in this closing salutation?

15. What is here said of Demas, what is said of him in a later letter, and what the lesson?

16. What are some modern ideas of the church, and what the bearing of the household churches referred to here and in Romans on such ideas?

17. What is Rev. W. T. Whitley’s position on this and kindred questions J. H. Shakespeare’s idea of the ministry?

18. What is the fault with each of these positions, respectively?

19. What light here on important matters from Colossians 4:16-18?