Colossians 3:12

Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;


Another strange passage. The first three clauses highlight part of what I mean - it appears from the syntax here that we are the "elect of God" and we are "holy and beloved" even before we "put on" all these nice attributes like kindness. Okay, I understand the "elect" part easily enough. God is merciful and takes us into his service before we have reached perfection. He takes us as is. Fair enough. In this way, we may have a lot to "put on" when we walk in through the door. This is called Grace, and it is called Mercy.

I even understand the word "beloved" based on this same idea. He loves us without regard to our circumstances. After all, we are his creation and his re-creation. Of course, we're beloved.

But then, how can we be called "holy" before we begin to act in holy ways? What could that word even mean for a person who has not yet put on the qualities Paul is talking about? A person without Kindness for instance? Can you imagine pointing to an unkind person and saying "yep, in my religion, that man is holy"? Well, I think I can explain that as well.

For good or for bad (and in understanding this verse, I think it's bad) the word Holy when applied to people has come to mean someone who has attained a certain type of behavior - a level of goodness, a nearness to God and godliness. That's one meaning of the word. But step back from that a moment and take a look at the word as it might be applied to an inanimate object, for instance, when God told Moses he was on holy ground. Clearly, the word in that sense says nothing about behavior. One expects that holy ground didn't look or act any differently from unholy ground. What does the word mean then?

I think the word must mean something like touched by God. Now sometimes God's touch kills you, so let us not go thinking that this touch is always a good thing. The word then, for our purposes, means something like "Separated by God for God" with the addition that since we've be chosen, elected, we should start to act that way. Being separated out for God's use doesn't make us holy in the other sense of the word. That may be a long process which we BEGIN at the time of the separation/election. Understandint hings this way means that we have much work to do even though we are already holy.

I'll talk about the list of qualities another day, but I'm glad we got that cleared up...

Colossians 3:13a

Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any...

In Col. 3:8 we're asked to put away anger, rage, and malice. Not easy things to do (and they are three different things I think, scroll down for my explanation of that). How would we make it through the day without at least one of these? What are we to do when someone cuts us off on the highway? Still, we are presented here with an alternative.

Forbearing and forgiving are not the same thing. With forbearance, you show tolerance for the short comings of others. Forgiving is, I think, the easier of the two. At the very least, when you forgive someone for an offense, you get a chance to point out the problem AND you get a chance to be magnanimous. "You acted poorly, but I'm big enough to forgive..." Don't get me wrong. Forgiving is a necessary thing. So is pointing out faults. People can't improve unless they know what they're doing wrong. Also, the wrong doer may be overwhelmed with guilt if they don't get the three little words: "I forgive you." We've all been there, I think.

But with forbearance, we don't point out problems, so we don't get a chance to publically forgive. Of course, we can forgive in our hearts. But no one (except God, important, that) will know how good we've been. Instead, we get to tolerate. Grin and bear it. And not with one of those false grins, either.

And something to remember about this section of the verse...it's not about those completely made-up grievances we sometimes feel against someone who has just rubbed us the wrong way. if any man have a quarrel against any suggests to me that there is a real reason for the anger we're supposed to be replacing with forbearance and forgiveness. We are told that we're to do this even as Christ forgave you. This copmarison might help with the explanation of what we're supposed to do with our fellow man. Count up the number of things you've been forgiven. Might want to take off your socks for this one. Then, here comes the kicker. Just imagine the number of things that Christ has tolerated from you, the things he forbore. Put your forbearing and forgiving in that context and you see what a small thing it is that we're asked to do. And, it's good for us, too. This is the alternative to all the anger, malice, etc that we're asked to put aside in Col. 3:8.

Psalm 34:4

I sought the Lord, and he heard me, and delivered me from all my fears.

There is, I think, a bit of a tug of war going on in this verse. On the one hand, I have the feeling that one should try to deliver oneself from some of one's own fears. It is the word "all" that bothers me here. Shouldn't the Christian "work out their salvation in fear and trembling"? That is, (though I'm aware of twisting the just quoted verse a bit) shouldn't there be some part of the walk with God that requires effort from us? Not that our efforts will save us, no. But that there is something, I'm not sure what, healthy in the struggles we may make.

But then, it does appear that God handles our fears only after we have taken a step toward him. We have to seek him out first, then he delivers us. That is the other point of friction, no? After all, assume our fears are well founded, there are dangers all around us. Not so hard to imagine in today's world, I think. Then why would God wait to rescue us? Atheists ask this - why do you need to pray if God knows everything and cares? There are good answers to that which I'll go into later (I'm writing a book, in fact) but something may be illuminated by examining the last part of that quote again, the part where we're delivered from fears.

Being delivered from fears doesn't mean that the fears are vanquished. It says nothing about whether the fears were based on real or imagined circumstances. Most likely, in fact, they will have been imagined circumstances. I'll say more on that in a bit. Either way, being delivered from those fears means, I think, being calmed. It's like being rescued from the open ocean. When the Coast Guard helicopter drops you a line and plucks you out, your condition changes, but the ocean remains fierce as ever.

Whether or not you're being delivered from the things that make you afraid or just from the sense of fear is a point of debate here. Or is it both? No telling how many people have been afraid of some threat long after the threat itself is gone. This leads me to the "imagined circumstances." I say it may well have been imagined because the same word "Fear" is used only a few verses down and, in this case, it is considered a good thing - "fear of the Lord". (That's not a quote, but a paraphrase.) This is lauded. Jesus will say much the same thing later whenthe suggestion is made that we shouldn't fear the Devil since he can't condemn us. Fear the Lord. It seems then, that the only thing worth fear in the Universe is God himself. Or rather, or perhaps, displeasing God. In comparison, all other fears we may harbor are of imagined dangers. The true danger is in sin.

A hard psalm. Lots of great lines. Maybe it deserves a closer look and a more closely argued opinion and commentary.