Scot,
I agree on with you on W/K’s application of “violent language” or “abusive language” in this chapter. What did you think of their use of the poem, and their assertion that Paul would approve of such language?
I can only think of Phil. 3.8 in this light, but I wonder…

I realize there is more than one possible application and that W-K are only presenting one possible reading of the passage. However, one might get the impression that their reading is perhaps too much between the lines. The sins named here don’t call for much dynamic equivalence. Lust, evil desires, greed are sins of the heart and exist in all human beings. From the heart, these sins result in actions. Actions by individuals result in actions by a community or a nation. I am concerned that to point these verses at the actions of the empire is to blunt their edge against the heart of individual believers. I do realize that some are so focused upon the hearts of individual believers that they ignore the actions of the community.
Economic brutality leads to sexual brutality and that leads to image-denying brutality.
I am certain that we should stand for justice to the marginalized and stand against exploitation. But I question this progression. I think that hearts separated from God lead to sexual brutality. If we could rid the world of economic brutality, sexual brutality would yet remain. Perhaps I am missing their point here?

i’m thinking now that this book isn’t really a commentary.
I happen to think its still a very good book — but in a different category than commentary. Like Wink’s trilogy on the powers, probably this needs to extend, and cover more ground…
I think they do make the main point about decoupling from empire, and i think they can do it all from Paul…
but probably not all from just Colossians…?
grace,

I think MatthewS comment above is an excellent analysis of this. I have to wonder what they define as “economic brutality”? The term seems really vague.