ࡱ > _ n bjbj,E,E oz N/ N/ ]~ p @
d h H $ P $ \ G \ " ~ " T T C C C ;D =D =D =D =D =D =D $ I 4L > aD C C C C C aD T T ^G a/ a/ a/ C
T T W? a/ C ;D a/ a/ V 5 @ 5 T .2 * N E5 C? tG 0 G Q5 x rL 9/ ( rL 5 5 rL 8 \ C C a/ C C C C C aD aD a/ C C C G C C C C rL C C C C C C C C C
:
Exegesis of Colossians 1:1520
Jared C. Hood
Presbyterian Theological College, Melbourne
NT 769
Colossians
May 2009
The portion of text under discussion (Col. 1:1520) commences with a relative clause, describing the Son of his love in v. 13b ( 1 P; w i t h v . 1 4 b e i n g a n a d j e c t i v a l , p r e p o s i t i o n a l c l a u s e a l s o m o d i f y i n g t h e s a m e ) . S i n c e v . 1 3 b s p e a k s o f t h e k i n g d o m o f t h i s S o n i n t o w h i c h t h e C o l o s s i a n s h a v e b e e n d e l i v e r e d b y t h e F a t h e r , i t i s e x p e c t e d t h a t v v . 1 5 f f w i l l s p e a k to the matter of how it is the Sons kingdom, or perhaps even how it is that the Son contributes to the delivering accomplished by the Father.
In the broader context, the reason why Paul has mentioned the transferring into the kingdom is because of his longing that the Colossians would be filled with the knowledge of His will, etc. (1:912). Although Paul has commended them for their faith (1:4), he has presumably found something amiss, so he feels the need to clarify what gnosis is.
The structure of the sec t i o n , v v . 1 5 2 0 , c o u l d b e t a k e n i n a n u m b e r o f w a y s . I t m i g h t b e t h o u g h t t h a t t h e r e a r e t w o m a i n s t a t e m e n t s : t h e S o n a s t h e i c o n ( v . 1 5 , E 0|) a n d t h e h e a d ( v . 1 8 , v P ! t) . V e r s e s 1 9 2 0 w o u l d t h e n s t a n d a s a c a u s a l o r e x p l a n a t o r y s t a t e m e n t o f e i t h e r v v . 1 8 1 9 a l o n e , o r v v . 1 3 b / 1 5 1 9 i n c l u s i v e ( s e e b e l o w ) .
T o p i c a l l y , a n d b y t h e r e p e t i t i o n o f t h e w o r d f i r s t b o r n ( ) , i t s e e m s t h a t t h e t w o m a i n i d e a s a r e n o t i c o n a n d h e a d , s o m u c h a s f i r s t b o r n o v e r c r e a t i o n a n d firstborn from the dead. Both these thoughts could be taken as explanations of what it means that he is the icon. He is the image by virtue of holding the double offices of firstborn, one in relationship to the Creation, and one in relationship to the Church. The two E s t a t e m e n t s c a n b e t a k e n i n a n e x p l a n a t o r y o r c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h e a c h o f t h e t w o m a i n p o i n t s . I n s u m m a r y , t h e m a i n s t a t e m e n t i s i n v . 1 5 a , a n d t h e t w o d e r i v a t i v e s t a t e m e n t s a r e i n v v . 1 5 b 1 7 a n d v v . 1 8 2 0 .
T o i n d i c a t e t h e w a y i n w h i c h t h e m a j o r s y n t a c t i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f t h e t e x t a r e u n d e r s t o o d , t h e f o l l o w i n g d i a g r a m m e i s o f f e r e d ( w i t h a f o c u s o n d e m o n s t r a t i n g g e n i t i v a l , a d v e r b i a l a n d c o n j u n c t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , r a t h e r t h a n i n d i c a t i n g s u b j e c t - v e r b - o b j e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s ) .
1 5 E 0|
,
,
1 6 E
P
p
P
v v ,
p Ap
v p ,
4
4
4 v
4
p
P
v 0 Px
1 7 v P
x
v p
P
,
1 8 v P ! t
E ,
,
5
Px
,
1 9 E
P
P x
2 0 v
P
p
0 P,
0
p 5
P,
[ P]
4 p
v
4 p
P.
T h e m a i n s t a t e m e n t ( v . 1 5 a )
A t f i r s t , i t l o o k s a s t h o u g h v . 1 5 i s m a k i n g a s t a t e m e n t a b o u t t h e o n t o l o g i c a l e x i s t e n c e o f t h e S o n . H e i s t h e i m a g e o f t h e i n v i s i b l e G o d ( E 0| ) .
T h e w o r d , 0|, i s u s ed by Paul in a number ways, including of the images or statues of false gods (Rom. 1:23), and of the image of God in man (being deliberately gender-specific according to the argument of 1 Cor. 11:7. Romans 8:29 speaks of the predestined being conformed to the image of his Son, presumably referring to the moral transformation of the Christian. The Romans passage also speaks of Christ as the firstborn, as does the Colossians passage, so these are ideas that Paul has twice linked.
The reference in Colossians 1:15 need not be, then, an ascription of deity, unless something in the context so indicates. The question needs to be asked, in what way is the Son the image of the invisible God?
First, the adjective, invisible means just that: not seen. It can be used of unseen spiritual powers (1:16). The other two uses of the word in the Pauline corpus (traditionally reckoned) are significant, both being used of God. First, Romans 1:20 equates the invisible things of him with his everlasting power and deity. Secondly, 1 Timothy 1:17 uses the word of God in conjunction with immortal and only.
It is unlikely, then, that in Colossians it is being said that the Son is the image of the Father in a moral sense. The Son is related to the Father in terms of the latters deity.
Secondly, it would be natural to conclude that image is indicating that the Son makes visible or gives representation to those invisible properties of the divine Father. The Son is as an idol, but not merely representative of divine qualities, but in some way emulating those qualities. The properties of deity are found in the Son, then. Man may be in the image of the Son is a moral way, but the Son is the image of the Father in a different, and far more profound, way. Regardless of whether the background to the list of attributes in Romans and 1 Timothy is to be found in Greek or Jewish thought, the statement is one of ontology. This is supported by the very nature of the sentence, who is ( E ) . I t i s n o t a b o u t w h a t H e d o e s , b u t w h o H e i s .
T h i r d l y , h o w e v e r , t h a t i s n o t t h e e n d o f t h e d i s c u s s i o n . T h e i c o n s t a t e m e n t i s p a r a l l e l e d w i t h t h e s t a t e m e n t , t h e f i r s t b o r n o v e r a l l c r e a t i o n , i n v . 1 5 b , w h i c h i s a l i g n e d w i t h t h e h e a d a n d s u b s e quent firstborn statement of v. 18. This is to be taken as a statement of position (see below). It is reasonable to conclude that not only is the image language not solely about ontology but position, but also that in some way the idea of the firstborn intersects with the idea of icon.
The Son, then, has the position of image (and stressing the present tense, , t h i s s t i l l i s t h e c a s e ) . J u s t a s E p a p h r a s i s h e w h o i s a f a i t h f u l m i n i s t e r o f C h r i s t o n y o u r b e h a l f ( 1 : 7 , E x Qr Q ) , s o t o o d o e s C h r i s t h o l d t h e o f f i c e o f i m a g e . I t b e g i n s t o b e c o m e c l e a r w h y i m a g e a n d f i r s tborn can be equated. It would have been difficult to understand a relationship between the divine ontology of the Son and him being the firstborn. It makes sense, though, that as he holds the offices of firstborn in relationship to the Creation and the Church, so too does he hold the office of image, again in relationship to the Creation and the Church. The image language has the most exalted ontological implications, but it is still primarily a statement about what the Son is to the world. He holds the office of making the Father known to the world. It is not about the Son in se, but about him, pro nobis, to borrow a classical distinction. ADDIN EN.CITE Helyer198811117Helyer, Larry R.Arius revisited : the firstborn over all creation (Col 1:15)Journal of the Evangelical Theological SocietyJournal of the Evangelical Theological Society59-67311Bible. Colossians--TheologyArianismGreek language--Terms--Protokos pases ktiseosPeer reviewed19880360-8808http://search.atlaonline.com/pls/eli/ashow?aid=ATLA0000803531http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000803531&site=ehost-live
The Sons relationship to the Creation (vv. 15b17)
(a) The statement (v. 15b)
Verse 15 continues, . A s n o t e d , t h i s i s p a r a l l e l t o t h e s t a t e m e n t , t h e i m a g e o f t h e i n v i s i b l e G o d .
T h e r e a r e n i n e u s e s o f t h e w o r d , f i r s t b o r n , i n t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t . T h e w o r d i s u s e d t h r e e t i m e s o f o n e w h o i s l i t e r a l l y t h e f i r s t s o n t o b e b o r n t o his parents (Matt. 1:25, Luke 2:7; describing Jesus of Mary; Heb. 11:28, of the firstborn liable to be destroyed in Egypt). Paul uses the word only once outside of Colossians 1:15, 18, in Romans 8:29, where the idea seems to be that of Jesus being the older brother of all those who are conformed to his image. He has a nature held in common with these ones (all are brothers), but also over these (he is the model to whom there must be conformity, and he is the leader in the group), and is chronologically born before these ones (since it probably relates to the idea found in Col. 1:18 and Rev. 1:5, that he is the firstborn from the dead: the first to be raised).
How does this relate to firstborn over all creation? Would it mean that he has a nature in common with all Creation, and yet was born before Creation? It has to be admitted that looking at this statement alone, the interpretation of Arianism is a real possibility. The case of c o u l d b e e m p h a s i s e d , s o t h a t t h e t r a n s l a t i o n i s f i r s t b o r n o f a l l c r e a t i o n , w i t h a n o b j e c t i v e g e n i t i v e e m p h a s i s i n g t h a t t h e S o n i s a p r o d u c t o f C r e a t i o n .
H o w e v e r , t h e p r e c e d i n g i m a g e s t a t e m e n t a n d t h e e n s u i n g i n s i s t e n c e t h a t h e c r e a t e d a ll (and a prior theological commitment arising from the interpretation of other texts, in conformity with the position advocated by the dominant voice of the early Church) make it more likely that there is discontinuity between the two firstborn statements. The Son is not of the Creation in the same way that he arises from out of the dead (and it is unlikely that Paul is thinking of the Son in his enfleshed state, either, since he speaks of the Son as the Creator).
That leaves the element of being over. He is the firstborn of Creation in the sense that he has a position of authority over it, just as an older son has such authority. The genitive relationship allows for the sense of over, but the point does not really depend upon the translation of the genitive, but on the possibilities of the word, firstborn. He still belongs to Creation, but belongs to it as its leader. The firstborn belongs to the Creation in the sense that the Creation belongs to the firstborn.
Background to this idea of firstborn can be found in the Septuagint. Psalm 89:27 (v. 28, LXX) says, And I will make him the first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth. (RSV) This is said of David (v. 20). The idea includes that of favour and affection, but it is primarily presented as being about status and authority: the highest of the kings of the earth. It is this position of authority that Paul says the Son has, not by virtue of being the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom. 1:3), but even prior to and apart from incar n a t i o n .
( b ) T h e e x p l a n a t i o n ( v v . 1 6 1 8 ) .
V e r s e s 1 6 1 8 g i v e f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e p o s i t i o n h e l d b y t h e S o n . T h e i n t r o d u c t o r y E c o u l d m a r k a n e x p l a n a t i o n o r a c a u s a l s t a t e m e n t . I s P a u l e x p l a i n i n g t h e w a y i n w h i c h t h e S o n e x e r c i s e s h i s o f f i c e o f f i rstborn (so that by him...), or explaining why he is the firstborn (since/because by him...)? Perhaps the latter is more likely, only because logically the world has to be created before the Son can become the firstborn of it (not a very sound grammatical argument, though). Being Creator constitutes him the firstborn, rather than being firstborn constituting him the Creator.
The explanation itself consists of two parts.
i. First, there is the statement, E P p . . . , w i t h t h e s u n d r y e x p l a n a t i o n s t h r o u g h o u t v . 1 6 a . H e i s t h e f i r s t b o r n , b e c a u s e h e c r e a t e d ( u s i n g t h e c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y n o n - s p e c i f i c a o r i s t o f w h a t i s c e r t a i n l y a p a s t a n d c o m p l e t e d e v e n t ) . T h e r e i s n o h e s i t a t i o n i n P a u l i n a c k n owledging this. He is not negatively impacted by a Greek view of matter, but his mind is moving in the Judaic framework, in which case an astonishing claim is being made for the Son.
It is the Son that did this creating, for the adverbial phrase says, in him (clearly emphatic). The English proposition, in, could leave room for doubt as to precisely whether he actually did the creating, so some versions (i.e. KJV) opt for by him. In may arguably be the better translation, though, in light of the ensu i n g t h r o u g h h i m s t a t e m e n t ( P, w h i c h i t s e l f d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y m e a n t h r o u g h a s o p p o s e d t o b y H e b . 2 : 1 0 , u s e d o f t h e F a t h e r s w o r k i n c r e a t i o n b u t t h e u s e i n C o l . 1 : 2 0 m a k e s t h e t h o u g h t c l e a r ) , a n d a l s o b e c a u s e P a u l s i m p l y r e f r a i n s f r o m h a v i ng the Son as the subject of an active verb (unless Paul has decided for stylistic or other reasons to make all things the subject and to use a passive verb). He may be the Creator, but he does not take the primacy in that. He is the image of the Father in his work of creating.
That which is created is , a l l t h i n g s . T h i s i s e x p l a i n e d b y t w o , p a r a l l e l , a d j e c t i v a l p h r a s e s , P v v . T h i s i s e v e r y t h i n g .
I f t h a t w e r e i n d o u b t , a l l i s f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d b y a s t r i n g o f e p e x e g e t i c a l s t a t e m e n t s :
p Ap
v p ,
4
4
4 v
4
T h e f i r s t t w o i t e m s a r e a m a t c h i n g , r h y m i n g p a i r : p Ap v p b e l o n g t o g e t h e r . I t i s n o t t h a t t h e v i s i b l e t h i n g s a r e o n e a r t h a n d t h e i n v i s i b l e i n h e a v e n . T h e s e , a n d t h e e n s u i n g t e r m s , a r e t h i n g s that exist in heaven and earth.
The ensuing four terms are probably explanatory of the visible and the invisible, and are words that can be used of angelic powers and of human kings. There is no way to decide definitively between those two possibilities, and there is every reason to think that Paul is referring to both, since he has said visible and invisible. To the extent that he refers to spiritual powers, he has not posited a fanciful order of angels, as was the practice in some Jewish apocalypti c w o r k s ( o r i n p r o t o - G n o s t i c t h o u g h t , w i t h a s u c c e s s i o n o f a e o n s a n d d e m i u r g e s ) . T h e f o u r w o r d s , , , v a n d a r e l a r g e l y s y n o n y m o u s , w i t h t h e e x p l i c a t i o n d e s i g n e d t o h a v e t h e r h e t o r i c a l e f f e c t o f g i v i n g a s e n s e o f f u l l n e s s : t h e .
i i . S e c o n d l y , t h e r e i s i n v . 1 6 b a r e c a p i t u l a t i o n o f t h e a l l p P v 0 Px w h i c h i s f o l l o w e d , w i t h i n t h e o n e s e n t e n c e , b y a p a r a l l e l q u a l i f i c a t i o n i n v . 1 7 v P x v p P . A s h i f t o f t h o u g h t c o m e s a t t h e e n d o f v . 1 7 , e v e n t h o u g h P a u l i s s t i l l m i d - s e n t e n c e ( a s h a s b e e n t h e c a s e t h r o u g h o u t i t i s a n e m o t i o n a l l y e l a t e d d o x o l o g y t h a t r u s h e s f r o m o n e t h o u g h t t o t h e n e x t ) .
V e r s e 1 6 b 1 7 i s n o m e r e r e c a p i t u l a t i o n , h o w e v e r . T h e c l a u s e i s r e p e t i t i v e , b u t c r e a t e s a f a s c i n a t i n g e c h o i n J o h n 1 : 3 ( P ) . J o h n e x p a n d s t h a t t o s a y , v v P Pr . S o m e t h i n g o f t h a t s e n t i m e n t i s c o n t a i n e d w i t h C o l o s s i a n s , s e e n i n t h e f a c t t h a t P a u l i s b e i n g s o r e p e t i t i v e on the point of all. Although the modern interpreter is aware of the influence of later Christological debates, might it be the case that what Paul and John are driving at is that the Son was not created? There never was a time when the Son was not.
All things were also created to/for him ( 0 Px) . T h i s a d v a n c e s t h e a r g u m e n t . C r e a t i o n e x i s t s f o r t h e s a k e o f t h e S o n . C r e a t i o n i s S o n - w a r d . H e w i l l b e g l o r i f i e d b y h i s c r e a t i o n . I t w o u l d b e w r o n g t o g i v e p r a i s e t o a n y c r e a t e d t h i n g , t h e n , w h e t h e r p r i n c i p a l i t i e s o r p o w e r s , o r t h r o n e s o r d o m i n i o n s . T h e C o l o s s i a n s a r e n o t t o e n t a n g l e t h e m s e l v e s w i t h C h r i s t l e s s J e w i s h o b s e r v a n c e s o r w i t h a n g e l i c s p e c u l a t i o n s .
F u r t h e r m o r e , H e i s b e f o r e a l l t h i n g s , a n d i n h i m a l l t h i n g s h o l d t o g e t h e r v P x v p P ( v . 1 7).
Before all things perhaps indicates:
that he is not part of all things, but something different. There is no univocity of being; and
he chronologically precedes the existence of all things. This makes sense, considering that Paul has said that the Son is the image of the invisible God, who elsewhere is said to be immortal and eternal. This would be a Jewish way of expressing pre-temporal existence, or existence in what might be poorly termed eternity past (so that we today express the concept in a w a y m o r e c l u m s y t h a n P a u l ) .
A l t e r n a t i v e l y , x m i g h t b e i n d i c a t i n g s t a t u s : a b o v e a l l . T h i s h a s t h e a d v a n t a g e o f c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e o t h e r t w o u s e s o f t h e e x p r e s s i o n i n t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t ( J a m e s 5 : 1 2 , B u t a b o v e a l l , m y b r e t h r e n , d o n o t s w e a r . . . ; 1 P e t e r 4 : 8 , A b o v e a l l h o l d u n f a i l i n g . . . ) , a n d a l s o o f m a k i n g b e t t e r s e n s e o f t h e p r e s e n t t e n s e , . H e s t i l l i s a b o v e a l l t h i n g s . I t w o u l d b e a w k w a r d t o s a y t h a t h e s t i l l i s c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y b e f o r e a l l t h i n g s . V e r s e 1 6 b h a s u s e d a p e r f e c t t e n s e o f t h e c reation of all things, which creation is a past action, but a continuing state in terms of its through him and for him nature. However, v. 17a insists upon the present tense, looking at what is true now, without looking back to the time of creation.
With the use of the present tense, it is realized that the interpretation of the E i n v . 1 6 a s c a u s a l d o e s n o t w o r k f o r t h e e n t i r e s e c t i o n . H i m b e i n g t h e f i r s t b o r n o f c r e a t i o n i s a s y n o n y m o u s i d e a t o h i m b e i n g a b o v e a l l t h i n g s . T h a t i s p r e c i s e l y w h a t f i r s t b o r n m e a n s h e r e .
I n h i m a l l t h i n g s h o l d t o g e t h e r . P a u l r e v e r t s t o a p e r f e ct tense. This is the state of things, as it were. Hold together, apart from one use by Luke and one by Peter, is a Pauline word in the New Testament, and usually means commend or approve. The basic idea does seem to be present in the two parts of the verb, to stand with. The Son makes all things stand or continue to exist by standing or being present with it. Are sustained, supported, upheld would be a helpful English translation.
Verses 1618 thus predominantly explain why it is that the Son is the firstborn of creation, which itself is an explanation of what it means that the Son is the image of the invisible God. By being the Creator, or the one through whom the Father created, he has the station of firstborn over the world. In holding that office, he stands as the representative of the invisible God himself, exercising the function of deity and receiving the praise due to the deity. The Son is exalted over creation on behalf of the one who not only is invisible in his being, but whose work in creation in Colossians 1:1517 has also gone unstated and unseen.
The Sons relationship to the Church (vv. 1820)
(a) The statement (v. 18)
Pauls thought shifts to another way in which Christ is the image of the invisible God.
And he is the head. That the idea of headship emerges here confirms what was said about the significance of the metaphor, firstborn. It is primarily about office and honour. Elsewhere in Colossians, this idea of head will be applied to all principalities and powers (2:10) and to the Church (2:19). Here in chapter 1, it has been applied explicitly to the Church, but in its synonymical relationship with firstborn, it is effectively applied to both spheres.
That of which he is the head is the body, not the body of his flesh (1:22), but the Church (cf. 1:24). The body is not an institution called the Church, but a living organism, nourished from its Head (2:19). It is identifiable in the world, not as a building, but as a group of people assembled with common purpose, parti c u l a r l y f o r w o r s h i p ( 4 : 1 5 1 6 ) .
P a u l c o n t i n u e s i n v . 1 8 w i t h a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e , e x p a n d i n g u p o n P, h i m . I t i s h e w h o i s t h e b e g i n n i n g . T h i s i s t h e s a m e w o r d t h a t a p p e a r s t h r e e t i m e s i n t h e f e m i n i n e p l u r a l i n C o l o s s i a n s , a n d i s u s u a l l y t r a n s l a t e d p r i n c i p a l i t i e s . I n v . 1 8 , t h e n , i t i s a b o u t p r i o r i t y i n o f f i c e a n d d i g n i t y : t h e l e a d e r , t h e c h i e f r u l e r . I t p a r a l l e l s h e a d .
T h i s i s f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d i n t h e t e r m , t h e . T h i s p a r a l l e l s t h e e x p r e s s i o n , t h e f i r s t b o r n o f a l l c r e a t i o n , e x c e p t t h a t h e r e , t h e p r e p o s i t i o n , , i s s p e c i f i c a l l y i n c l u d e d . W h e r e a s h e i s t h e f i r s t b o r n o v e r a l l c r e a t i o n , h e i s t h e f i r s t b o r n f r o m o u t o f t h e d e a d . D o e s t h i s s i g n i f y t h a t h e i s t h e f i r s t b o r n o f t h o s e w h o h a v e c o m e o u t o f t h e d e a d ( i . e . r e s u r r e c t e d ones), or is it rather that he is the firstborn by virtue of having himself been raised? The statement does seem to be elliptical. It seems best to take of the dead as another designation for the body, the Church, and so he is the firstborn of those who have been raised from the dead. It is not necessarily saying, although it may well be implied, that he himself has been raised from the dead, just as firstborn of all creation does not necessarily mean that he himself is of the creation.
The purpose for h i m b e i n g t h e h e a d , l e a d e r a n d f i r s t b o r n o f t h e b o d y , t h e C h u r c h a n d r a i s e d o n e s , i s 5 Px ( 5 w i t h t h e s u b j u n c t i v e i n d i c a t e s p u r p o s e ) . T h i s i s a l i t t l e s u r p r i s i n g , c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t v v . 1 5 1 7 h a v e a l r e a d y i n s i s t e d t h a t h e i s the creator of all. How could he have anything but pre-eminence in the Church, if all things are through him and for him? Is the Church not part of all creation? Apparently, though, the Church is not a subset of creation. Is the thought that the Church is a distinct entitya new creation, just as the man who was created ( ) a c c o r d i n g t o C o l o s s i a n s 3 : 1 0 h a s b e c o m e a n e w m a n ( x ) , b e i n g t h e o n e w h o h a s b e e n r e n e w e d ( x ) ? I t e m e r g e s f r o m t h e o l d c r e a t i o n , b u t i s m o r e p e r m a n e n t , a n d w i l l e v e n t u a l l y a n d e n t i r e l y r e p l a c e t h e o l d .
( b ) T h e e x p l a n a t i o n ( v v . 1 9 2 0 )
A s w i t h t h e f i r s t s e c t i o n ( v v . 1 5 b 1 7 ) , t h e r e i s a n e x p l a n a t i o n o f h o w t h e S o n c a m e t o b e t h e f i r s t b o r n ( v . 1 6 a n d v . 1 9 b o t h c o m m e n c e w i t h a n e x p l a n a t o r y E) . W i t h a n e m p h a t i c , P, i t i s s a i d , P P x .
T h e F a t h e r w a s p l e a s e d t o h a v e a l l t h e f u l l n e s s d w e l l i n h i m . P l e a s e d e m p h a s i s e s t h a t t h i s w a s a f r e e d e c i s i o n o f G o d , n o t a c t i n g u n d e r c o m p u l s i o n , a n d w a s s o m e t h i n g t h a t h e t o o k d e l i g h t i n . T h e R S V a n d N R S V t r a n s l a t e i t t h u s : F o r i n h i m a l l t h e f u llness of God was pleased to dwell. This would be the only reference out of 21 uses of the verb in the New Testament in which the subject was not directly a person. Nevertheless, grammatically fullness is in the nominative, and should be taken as the subject of the sentence, as it is in 2:9 (the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily).
Understanding this helps to solve the difficult question of what the fullness is. Some have argued that whereas 2:9 is about the fullness of the deity, 1:19 is about the f u l l n e s s o f s u f f e r i n g , s i n c e 1 : 2 0 m e n t i o n s t h e c r o s s . C l e a r l y , h o w e v e r , f u l l n e s s i s b e i n g p e r s o n i f i e d i n 1 : 1 9 , a n d c a n o n l y r e f e r e i t h e r t o t h e F a t h e r o r t o t h e D e i t y ( a s i n x i n 2 : 9 ) . T h i s u s a g e o f i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t i n E phesians 1:23, 3:19 and 4:13, but it does look peculiar in Colossians 1:20 as a bald metonym for God. The reason for this would be the proto-Gnostic leanings of the recipients. Approximately a century and half later, Irenaeus would need to write his Against Heresies, countering those who held to a view of a succession of aeons and demiurges, all constituting the pleroma of deities. Pauls point is that the Deity is all that He needs to be in Himself. He needs no other derived gods to be in counsel with Him. T h i s i s n o t j u s t t h e f u l l n e s s , e i t h e r , b u t a l l ( ) t h e f u l l n e s s .
T h i s f u l l n e s s , t h a t i s , t h e D e i t y , w a s p l e a s e d t o d w e l l i n h i m , t h a t i s , i n t h e S o n . D w e l l i s n o t a f a v o u r i t e P a u l i n e w o r d . H e u s e s i t e l s e w h e r e o n l y i n C o l o s s i a n s 2 : 9 , o f t h e s a m e concept, and in Ephesians 3:17, of Christ dwelling in the Ephesians hearts by faith. Looking at Colossians 1:19 with Ephesians 3:17, Paul could mean that the Son was indwelt by the Holy Spirit in the same way that the believer is. Perhaps this is a form of adoptionism (Paul does use the word, well pleased. Perhaps he is thinking of the descent of the Spirit at Jesus baptism.). That something different to that is intended is evidenced in Colossians 2:9, in which Paul uses the adverb, bodily ( ) , p r e s u m a b l y q u a l i f y i n g t h e v e r b , d w e l l s ( a n d a l s o n o t i n g t h e u s e o f t h e p r e s e n t t e n s e r a t h e r t h a n t h e n o n - d e s c r i p t a o r i s t o f 1 : 1 9 , s o t h i s i s a c o n t i n u i n g s i t u a t i o n f o r t h e S o n ) . T h e D e i t y h a s b e e n s o m a t i k i z e d , a s i t w e r e , o r a s i t i s m o r e u s u a l l y p u t , i n c a r n a t e d . T h e i c o n o f G o d n o w a p p e a r s i n t h e f l e s h . T h i s i s t h e f i r s t s t e p i n t h e p a t h t o t h e S o n b e c o m i n g t h e h e a d o f t h e C h u r c h .
C o - o r d i n a t e w i t h d w e l l i n g , v . 2 0 e x p r e s s e s w h a t e l s e a l l t h e f u l l n e s s w a s p l e a s e d t o d o . v P p 0 P. . . A n d t h r o u g h h i m t o r e c o n c i l e a l l t o h i m . T h r o u g h h i m p a r a l l e l s t h e s i t u a t i o n a s i t p e r t a i n e d t o C r e a t i o n . T h e f u l l n e s s t h u s w o r k s t h r o u g h t h e S o n i n r e d e m p t i o n , a n d i n C r e a t i o n . T o h i m r e f e r s a l s o t o t h e S o n , p a r a l l e l i n g t he through him and to him statement of v. 16.
That which the fullness does is to reconcile. This is once again a word the Paul uses only for the more mystically-inclined readers of Ephesus and Colossae (Why would the Corinthians be omitted? The shorter word, , i s u s e d f o u r t i m e s i n t h e e x t a n t C o r i n t h i a n c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , a n d o n c e i n R o m a n s , w h e n P a u l w a s w r i t i n g f r o m C e n c h r e a . ) . T h e i m p o r t o f t h e w o r d e m e r g e s i n t h e n e x t t w o v e r s e s , s a y i n g t h a t t h e C o l o s s i a n s h a v e m o v e d f r o m b e i n g e n e m i e s o f G o d t o b e i n g i r r e p r o a c h a b l e b e f o r e h i m . I t i s t h u s a b o u t b r i n g i n g p e a c e , b o t h i n t e r m s o f s t a t u s a n d p e r s o n a l a t t i t u d e , w h e r e o n c e t h e r e h a d b e e n h o s t i l i t y .
W h a t i s s a i d t o b e r e c o n c i l e d ? A l l t h i n g s , i s t h e a n s w e r ( p ) . U n l e s s t h e r e a r e o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s, this would naturally refer to the all things created through the Son. If taken strictly, this says so much more than just universal salvation, since universal is usually understood to mean all human beings. The last line of v. 20 directly relates back v. 16, by explaining that all things means things whether on earth or in heaven. Is there any significance in the change of order? Verse 16 had heaven mentioned before earth, whereas v. 20 prioritizes earth. What are all things, anyway? From v. 16, the focus is not on inanimate objects, but upon spiritual and worldly authorities. Is Paul saying that angels and/or demons are reconciled through the Son? This would be an uncharacteristic Pauline doctrine, to put it mildly. Is Paul then merely waxing eloquent (again, something uncharacteristic for Paul), speaking of the reconciliation in Christ as though it had even heavenly ramifications? Is he thinking of the Church, both earthly and heavenly? Given that the section is about the Church, not all creation, and given that v. 21 will proceed to speak about the reconciliation of the Colossian believers, the latter is the most likely solution to a difficult text.
In the middle of v. 20, an aorist, participial clause clarifies something about the reconciliation: having made peace through the blood of his cross ( 0 p 5 P) . O n e m i g h t t h i n k t h a t t h e a o r i s t p a r t i c i p l e i n d i c a t e s a c t i o n p r i o r t h e m a i n v e r b , a n d t h u s t h e p e a c e p r e c e d e s t h e r e c o n c i l i a t i o n . T h e p e a c e w o u l d b e a n o b j e c t i v e p e a c e , l o o k i n g t o t h e i m m e d i a t e e f f e c t o f t he death of the Son. The reconciliation would be subjective, being about the actual relationship formed between God and believers.
Nevertheless, given that v. 22 speaks of the reconciliation made in his body of flesh by his death, thus paralleling the expression, having made peace through his blood..., it is unlikely that Paul is drawing a distinction between reconciliation and peace. Rather, the aorist participle seems to be restating and then expanding upon the verb, to make reconciliation, and might even be causal. It pleased the Father...to make reconciliation, making that reconciliation or peace through His Son.
This reconciliation or peace comes, then, through the blood of His cross. This is the only mention of blood in Colossians (excluding the variant reading of 1:14), and one of only a few such references in the extant Pauline corpus. Cross is one of ten uses by Paul (twice as many as blood), although he only uses his cross in Colossians (twice). In other words, the expression the b l o o d o f h i s c r o s s , t u r n s o u t t o b e a u n i q u e c o m b i n a t i o n o f w o r d s i n P a u l . B l o o d i s a p o i g n a n t w a y o f s p e a k i n g o f t h e d e a t h o f C h r i s t a s a s a c r i f i c e , a n d s o e m p h a t i c a l l y r e c a l l s t h a t i n t h e S o n w e h a v e a r a n s o m ( 1 : 1 4 , ) . H i s c r o s s i s o n e of the stranger aspects of the entire section under discussion, which avoids the use of Christ. Is this done for rhetorical-theological effect, making him the ethereal Son, or is it even possible that Paul is drawing on language that was being used in the Christian community (an early Christian hymn)?
Overall, vv. 1520 form the core of the primary theological message of the letter to the Colossians. The Colossians need to focus on the headship of Christ over Creation and the Church, that is, on Christ the Creator and ruler over all authorities, and on Christ the reconciler, incarnate, crucified and raised, and so recreating the world. Salvation for all is found in having this knowledge, and submitting to him, producing the obedience spoken of throughout the letter.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADDIN EN.REFLIST Behr, John. "Colossians 1:13-20 : A Chiastic Reading." St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 40, no. 4 (1996): 247-64.
Bruce, F. F. "Colossian Problems, Pt 2 : The "Christ Hymn" Of Colossians 1:15-20." Bibliotheca sacra 141, no. 562 (1984): 99-111.
. "Colossian Problems, Pt 4 : Christ as Conqueror and Reconciler." Bibliotheca sacra 141, no. 564 (1984): 291-302.
Carr, A. Wesley. Angels and Principalities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Dunn, James D.G. Christology in the Making. London: S.C.M., 1980.
Garland, David E. Colossians and Philemon, NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.
Hayes, Holly Diane. "Colossians 2:6-19." Interpretation 49, no. 3 (1995): 285-88.
Helyer, Larry R. "Arius Revisited : The Firstborn over All Creation (Col 1:15)." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 31, no. 1 (1988): 59-67.
. "Cosmic Christology and Col 1:15-20." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37, no. 2 (1994): 235-46.
Hughes, R. Kent. Colossians and Philemon: The Supremacy of Christ, Preaching the Word. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1989.
Johnson, David H. "The Image of God in Colossians." Didaskalia (Otterburne, Man.) 3, no. 2 (1992): 9-15.
Lamp, Jeffrey S. "Wisdom in Col 1:15-20 : Contribution and Significance." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41, no. 1 (1998): 45-53.
Lenski, Richard C.H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1937 [repr. 1961].
O'Brien, P.T. Colossians, Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, 1982.
Okure, Teresa. ""In Him All Things Hold Together": A Missiological Reading of Colossians 1:15-20." International Review of Mission 91, no. 360 (2002): 62-72.
Robinson, J. M. "A Formal Analysis of Colossians 1.15-20." Journal of Biblical Literature 79 (1957): 270-87.
Roth, Robert Paul. "Christ and the Powers of Darkness : Lessons from Colossians." Word & World 6, no. 3 (1986): 336-44.
Schweizer, Eduard. "Colossians 1:15-20." Review & Expositor 87, no. 1 (1990): 97-104.
Smith, Ian Keith. Heavenly Perspective: A Study of the Apostle Paul's Response to a Jewish Mystical Movement at Colossae. London: T. & T. Clark, 2006.
Thompson, Marianne Meye. Colossians and Philemon. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Van Broekhoven, Harold. "The Social Profiles in the Colossian Debate." Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 66 (1997): 73-90.
Wink, Walter. Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
Wright, N. T. The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary. Leicester: IVP, 1986.
This is the structure adopted by ADDIN EN.CITE Robinson195726262617Robinson, J. M.A Formal Analysis of Colossians 1.15-20Journal of Biblical LiteratureJournal of Biblical Literature270-287791957J. M. Robinson, "A Formal Analysis of Colossians 1.15-20," Journal of Biblical Literature 79 (1957). 270287; ADDIN EN.CITE Dunn19802727276Dunn, James D.G.Christology in the makingChristology in the makingIncarnation - Biblical teaching1980LondonS.C.M.10830RR46 DUNJames D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (London: S.C.M., 1980). 188; although this structure has been criticised by some, such as ADDIN EN.CITE Smith20062828286Smith, Ian KeithHeavenly perspective: a study of the Apostle Paul's response to a Jewish Mystical Movement at ColossaeHeavenly perspectiveBible. N.T. Colossians2006LondonT. & T. Clark56703107120675FP10 SMIIan Keith Smith, Heavenly Perspective: A Study of the Apostle Paul's Response to a Jewish Mystical Movement at Colossae (London: T. & T. Clark, 2006). 157, who struggles to see where vv. 1718a belong.
For a review of the many inconsistent and inconclusive views on the structure and origin of this hymn, see ADDIN EN.CITE Lamp199877717Lamp, Jeffrey S.Wisdom in Col 1:15-20 : Contribution and significanceJournal of the Evangelical Theological SocietyJournal of the Evangelical Theological Society45-53411Bible. ColossiansHymns, Greek (Biblical)Wisdom--Biblical teachingPeer reviewed19980360-8808http://search.atlaonline.com/pls/eli/ashow?aid=ATLA0001001086http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001001086&site=ehost-liveJeffrey S. Lamp, "Wisdom in Col 1:15-20 : Contribution and Significance," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41, no. 1 (1998). 4547.
ADDIN EN.CITE Johnson199222217Johnson, David H.The image of God in ColossiansDidaskalia (Otterburne, Man.)Didaskalia (Otterburne, Man.)9-1532Jesus Christ--ExampleBible. Colossians--Theology19920847-1266http://search.atlaonline.com/pls/eli/ashow?aid=ATLA0000850377http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000850377&site=ehost-liveDavid H. Johnson, "The Image of God in Colossians," Didaskalia (Otterburne, Man.) 3, no. 2 (1992). 11, is right also to draw on the context of Genesis 1, so that the Son being the image is about his rule over the world as the second Adam.
For a fuller discussion of the possibilities of the genitive, in the context of discussing Ariuss use of the text, see ADDIN EN.CITE Helyer198811117Helyer, Larry R.Arius revisited : the firstborn over all creation (Col 1:15)Journal of the Evangelical Theological SocietyJournal of the Evangelical Theological Society59-67311Bible. Colossians--TheologyArianismGreek language--Terms--Protokos pases ktiseosPeer reviewed19880360-8808http://search.atlaonline.com/pls/eli/ashow?aid=ATLA0000803531http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000803531&site=ehost-liveLarry R. Helyer, "Arius Revisited : The Firstborn over All Creation (Col 1:15)," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 31, no. 1 (1988).63.
The so-called divine passive is used, was created. ADDIN EN.CITE O'Brien19825766557665576656O'Brien, P.T.Colossians, PhilemonWord biblical commentaryColossians, PhilemonBible. N.T. Colossians - Commentaries Bible. N.T. Philemon - Commentaries1982DallasWord84990243615541FP18 O'BRP.T. O'Brien, Colossians, Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1982). 45.
ADDIN EN.CITE Carr19812929296Carr, A. WesleyAngels and principalitiesAngels and principalities...Paul, the Apostle, Saint Angels - History of doctrines Demonology1981CambridgeCambridge University Press2821FX68 CARA. Wesley Carr, Angels and Principalities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981). 52, argues that they are angelic beings, and not necessarily evil ones. ADDIN EN.CITE Hughes19893333336Hughes, R. KentColossians and Philemon: the supremacy of ChristPreaching the wordColossians and Philemon : the supremacy of ChristBible. N.T. Colossians - Commentaries Bible. N.T. Philemon - Commentaries Bible. N.T. - Homiletical use1989Westchester, Ill.Crossway Books89107488015646FP18 HUGR. Kent Hughes, Colossians and Philemon: The Supremacy of Christ, Preaching the Word (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1989). 31, has them as classes of angels.
ADDIN EN.CITE Wink19843030306Wink, WalterNaming the Powers: the language of power in the New Testament1984PhiladelphiaFortress PressWalter Wink, Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). 66.
ADDIN EN.CITE Thompson20053434346Thompson, Marianne MeyeColossians and Philemon1-3 JohnBible. N.T. Epistles of John - Commentaries2005Grand RapidsEerdmans8308181973069FQ58 THOMarianne Meye Thompson, Colossians and Philemon (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005). 3639, in her excursus on the subject, is inclined to think of these things as evil, angelic powers, but ultimately setting on them simply being opposing powers of any kind, including individual, corporate and cosmic forces of tradition, consumerism, illness, sin, etc.
ADDIN EN.CITE Hayes199514141417Hayes, Holly DianeColossians 2:6-19InterpretationInterpretation285-288493Bible. ColossiansChristian life--Biblical teachingPeer reviewed19950020-9643http://search.atlaonline.com/pls/eli/ashow?aid=ATLA0000897891http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000897891&site=ehost-liveHolly Diane Hayes, "Colossians 2:6-19," Interpretation 49, no. 3 (1995). 285, suggests that Paul prioritizes the assertion of the supremacy of Christ (1:1520), since the Colossians were seeking to find reconciliation with God other than through Christ, which would then be from things which arise from within the created order established through him.
ADDIN EN.CITE Lenski1937 [repr. 1961]3535356Lenski, Richard C.H.The interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to PhilemonThe interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians ...Bible. N.T. Colossians - Commentaries Bible. N.T. Thessalonians - Commentaries Bible. N.T. Philemon - Commentaries Bible. N.T. Pastoral Epistles - Commentaries1937 [repr. 1961]MinneapolisAugsburg14866FP18 LENRichard C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1937 [repr. 1961]). 59, wants to apply this to both the divine and human natures of Christ. Eternity is communicated to the human nature just as all the other divine attributes are. Inconceivable? Most assuredly! Lutherans may well have a unique approach to the communicatio idiomatum, proclaiming the ubiquity of the body of Christ, but for the Lutheran, Lenksi, to claim the pre-existence of that body goes well beyond Luther.
In Hellenistic texts, including Philo...the world is seen as the divine or great body governed by its head, Heaven or Zeus (the highest God) or his Logos... ADDIN EN.CITE Schweizer199099917Schweizer, EduardColossians 1:15-20Review & ExpositorReview & Expositor97-104871Bible. Colossians19900034-6373http://search.atlaonline.com/pls/eli/ashow?aid=ATLA0000825335http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000825335&site=ehost-liveEduard Schweizer, "Colossians 1:15-20," Review & Expositor ! " $ ( 6 : e f g i j m n o y z { ˽|qcUqcqcUqcUqcqc hxRa hV 5CJ \aJ h, hV 5CJ \aJ hV 5CJ \aJ "h, hV 5CJ OJ QJ \aJ h, hV 5CJ$ aJ$ mH sH h, hV 5CJ aJ mH sH h, hV CJ aJ mH sH h&>F hV 5CJ( \aJ( hV hV 5CJ( \aJ( hV 5CJ( \aJ( h, hV 5CJ( \aJ( hxRa hV 5CJ( \aJ( " # $ % & ' ( 6 7 8 9 : f g n o z { $$d d d @&