Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Colossians 1:15-20 is one of the most significant texts in the whole New Testament,
describing the divinity of Jesus Christ with great precision and fullness. The rise of
spirituality in the post-modern society, the challenges provided by liberal theologians, as well
task of clearly presenting the doctrine of the person of Christ as well as contending for it very
much relevant.
The thesis I will be arguing in this paper is this: the statement of Paul in Colossians
1:15-20, enhanced by rhetorical devises, affirms that Jesus Christ is God, exalted above the
entire universe, and Saviour of the human kind. This Christological hymn leaves no room for
believing in “other” gods, and teaching “other” ways for salvation and spiritual growth.
the passage. He [Christ] is the image of invisible God, the firstborn over all creation for by
Him all things were created, [both] in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible,
whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through Him
and for Him. And He Himself is before all things and in Him all things hold together.
Moreover, He is the head of the Body, the Church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the
dead, so that in everything he might have supremacy, for in Him all the fullness [of God] was
pleased to dwell, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, whether things on earth
or things in heaven, having made peace through His blood [shed] on the cross. (Colossians
1:15-20)
2
Most of the scholars agree that the certain rhythmical lilt, expressed through
positioning of words in such a way that lines and strophes may be arranged, and the use of
chiasmus, inclusio as well as some unusual terms found in the passage lead to regard
Colossians 1:15-20 as a hymn. We will not go into the detailed discussion as to its
authorship, i.e. whether the hymn had been a pre-Pauline and was inserted later, or whether it
was written by Paul himself. I will point out my personal view on this matter a little bit later;
at this point, it is suffice to note that the rhetorical devices make the passage to stand out
from the rest of the text of Colossians. However, the application of various stylistic criteria
has not led scholars to any consensus about the original structure of the hymn.
The first issue regarding the passage I would like to address is its background. Most
of the commentators agree that the occasion for Paul writing this letter to the church at
Colossae was the visit of his co-worker Epaphras, to the place of Paul’s imprisonment.
Epaphras, who most probably founded not only the church in Colossae (Col 1,7-8; 4:12-13),
but also the ones in Laodicea and Hierapolis, all situated in Lycus valley, sought the advice
from the apostle Paul as to how to deal with the false teaching that apparently had been
encroaching on the congregation. Generally, the epistle to Colossians is Paul’s reaction to the
news heard from Epaphras. Again, I will not go into the detail discussion on whether the
“Colossian Heresy” was in fact being inculcated at Colossae or whether Paul was warning
Colossians against certain false teachings in general. It is important to note, though, that it
was for some reason that Paul chose to portray and/or to defend the supremacy of Christ in
both creation and redemption when writing to Colossians. The text of Colossians 1:15-20 in
There have been three major approaches explaining the background to these verses.
The first one views the passage as a pre-Christian Gnostic text, which was taken over in
Christian usage and cited by the author of Colossians in order to refute the Gnostic counter-
movement. This view, as O’Brien rightly points out, is not plausible because the notion of the
Redeemer who comes to earth and unites God and man is uniquely Christian.1 The phrase
background was a pre-Christian hymn. Another approach tries to understand the passage
many similarities between the text and the Old Testament passages, namely Gen 1:1 and
Prov 8:22. The primarily challenge for this approach, though, has been the fact that the
church at Colossae was predominantly Gentile and would not be strongly affected by the
rabbinic methods of interpretation. The last view considers that the background to Colossians
1:15-20 is to be sought in Hellenistic Judaism. It suggests that the hymn individually as well
Hellenistic-Jewish speculation in which the essential place was given to the Wisdom of God.
Contrary to the Rabbinic Judaism theory, this view takes seriously the fact that the Colossian
church was predominantly Gentile. However, the assumption that the author of Colossians
used a hymn created by the earlier Christians and substantially corrected it is not very
convincing. Together with O’Brien and Helyer I would hold that “the theology of the hymnic
portion is thoroughly Pauline and stands in a continuity with pre-Pauline tradition going back
1
Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon (Waco: Word Books, 1982), 38.
4
to the Palestinian Church.”2 Some arguments that uphold this view will become more evident
upon the exegesis of the main terms that describe the divinity of Christ in the passage.
The first of them is (“image”). Lightfoot points out that beyond the obvious
notion of likeness, this word involves two other ideas, namely representation and
manifestation.3 The underlying idea of the latter is the manifestation of the hidden. For this
reason, Westcott gives the following gloss of verse 15, “Who is the Visible Likeness of God
Invisible.”4 Unwrapping the nuance of representation Lightfoot writes, “In this respect it is
In the resemblance may be accidental, as one egg is like another; but implies
(1 Cor 11:7). On the other hand, non-biblical writers have also used the term.
Plato called cosmos the visible image of God.6 Philo of Alexandria denominated his
the of the Eternal.7 Evidently, for him, it was invisible. However, the idea of
representation already had been there. Therefore, both those who attempt to understand the
meaning of the word against an exclusively Hellenistic background, and those who prefer the
Hellenistic-Jewish background have some grounds to build on. Yet, in my judgment Paul, as
well as other writers of the New Testament (John 1:4; Heb 1:3), who described Christ as the
image of God, simply employed the perceptions that had already been articulated in both the
2
Larry R. Helyer, “Colossians 1:15-20: Pre-Pauline or Pauline?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 26 (1983): 179.
3
J. B. Lightfoot, Saint’s Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, repr. from 1879 ed., MacMillan and Co.), 145.
4
Frederic B. Westcott, Colossians: A Letter to Asia, (Minneapolis: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, Inc.,
1981), 46.
5
J. B. Lightfoot, 145.
6
O’Brien, 43.
7
Westcott, 45.
5
Old Testament and Jewish literature. In spite of different interpretations of the term’s
background, the lexical meaning of the word is most significant. It states that the very nature
and character of God have been perfectly represented and manifested in the beloved Son,
Jesus Christ.
(“the firstborn of all creation”) designates his relationship to the creation.8 Although
the phrase vividly describes the supremacy of Christ over all creation, from the time of Arius
the rendering of it has been a point of disagreement and error. Arius thought that this phrase
along with Prov 8:22 (“The Lord created me at the beginning of his ways”) proves that “there
was time when he [Christ] was not.”9 The fallacy of Arius can be refuted purely on
theological grounds – numerous passages of Scripture clearly state the divinity of Christ.
However, it could be done exegetically also. Careful exegesis of this passage leaves no room
for Arian interpretation. The lexical meaning of the term depends very much on the correct
It was of course in a partitive sense that the Arians interpreted the phrase, thus
reducing Christ to the status of a created being. However, the incorrectness of this view is
8
O’Brien, 45.
9
Millard J Ericson, Christian Theology, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001), 712.
10
Larry R. Helyer, “Arius Revisited: The Firstborn Over All Creation (Col 1:15),” Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 31 (1988): 63.
6
immediately seen when the clause of verse 16 is taken into account. It would make no
sense to say that Christ had been the first creature because in him/by him all other creatures
were created. Lightfoot brilliantly points out that the apostle did not write but
himself belonged to the As we have seen there are other syntactical options that make
against all creation, emphasizes his preeminent position, and expresses Christ’s dignity and
Lordship. Still, there are other possibilities. Helyer opts for an objective genitive, stating that
the rule and sovereignty implicit in is exercised over all creation.12 In this case,
meaning of the phrase becomes brilliantly clear: all creation is subordinated under the
dominion of Christ.
It is well beyond the limitations of this paper to explore all the nuances of lexical
meaning of which occurs twice in this passage In summary it could be said that
the word involves two major ideas, namely priority to all creation, and sovereignty over all
creation. The former conveys the idea of temporal priority of Christ to all creation, the latter
the primacy of his status. The NEB provides us with the two main possible renderings: “his is
the primacy over all created things,” and in the margin it gives “born before all created
things.” In my opinion, the context of the passage evidently favors the first rendering. Verse
11
Lightfoot, 147.
12
Helyer, “Arius Revisited”: 64.
13
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 105.
7
16 says “all things were created by him and for him;” and verse 17 adds “in him all things
hold together.” It is impossible not to notice the redundant use of It occurs 8 times in the
passage. Evidently, the apostle Paul wanted to emphasize the supremacy of Christ over all
created things. Most probably by doing this, he was hitting at the core of Colossian heresy,
which somehow tried to minimize the position of Christ. I absolutely agree with Lohse’s
comment: “The point is not a temporal advantage but rather the superiority which is due to
him as the agent of creation who is before all creation. As the firstborn he stands over against
again in verse 18: Christ is “firstborn” not only in creation, but also in resurrection. In both
The latter idea is enhanced yet again by another predication about Christ:
scholars assume that by the body the entire cosmos is meant. It was the notion of Plato that
the cosmos is a body directed by the divine soul.15 Likewise, Philo referred to the world of
the heavens as a uniform body over which the Logos was set as head. As the body of man
needs the direction and guidance given by the head, so too the “body” of universe needs the
eternal Logos, which is its head to direct it.16 Thus, it is not a surprise that those scholars,
who look for stoic or rabbinic antecedents in Hellenistic and/or Jewish literature, are
convinced that verse 18 again speaks about Christ as the head of universe. According to them
this rendering fits better the structure of the hymn; the words were added later
14
Eduard Lohse, A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1971), 49.
15
O’Brien, 48.
16
Ibid., 49.
8
by Paul or the final redactor.17 There are, however, difficulties with this view. First, Paul
speaking about the body nowhere has in mind the universe. Yet the term is used no less
than ninety-nine times in the Pauline corpus. Secondly, as I have already mentioned, there
has been no consensus about the structure of the hymn. With the same certainty, we can
assert that with the mention of Christ as the head of the church, the hymn progresses from a
cosmological perspective to a soteriological one. I think, Lightfoot rightly gets the gist of the
And not only does He hold this position of absolute priority and sovereignty over the
Universe – the natural creation. He stands also in the same relation to the Church –
the new spiritual creation. He is its head, and it is His body. This is His prerogative,
because He is the source and the beginning of its life, being the First-born from the
dead. Thus in all things – in the spiritual order as in the natural – in the Church as in
the World – He is found to have the pre-eminence.18
The last word I would like to pay attention to in this paper is This
predication about Christ sums up all that has already been said about him. In clause the
reason for Christ’s supremacy is given: “in him all the fullness [of God] was pleased to
dwell.” Two major issues, one grammatical and another lexical, arise in relation to verse 19.
The first question is concerning the subject of the sentence. Is it God, Christ or
(“all the fullness”)? Some exegetes, for example Moule, consider that God has to be
supplied as the subject of the sentence.19 In fact, most of the English translations do that
(NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT). In my judgment, however, there is no such need. As Burtness
rightly points out, “Pleroma is not used here in a passage the chief intent of which is to relate
Christ to God. It is rather a word which Paul uses to bolster his claim that Jesus Christ is in
17
Ibid., 48.
18
Lightfoot, 156.
19
C. F .D. Moule, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon, (Cambridge: University
Press, 5 ed., 1977), 70.
9
fact the one without whom nothing in all creation would even exist. He wants the Christians
in Colossae to know that the scope of the significance of Christ is absolutely unlimited.”20
O’Brien prefers the same view and clarifies that the subsequent masculines in verse 20,
and which make verse 20 to sound ambiguously when “all the fullness”
Lightfoot asserts that was a technical term of Gnostic teachers and Paul
intentionally used it in order to refute their arguments.22 The Gnostics distributed the divine
powers among various aeons. Paul gathers them all up in Christ, and makes direct statement
about the deity of Christ. On the other hand, this view is disputed. Overfield in his
between the so-called technical or gnostic use of the word as it is found in the
second-century Christian heretical sects and the use of the word in the New Testament.”23 A
good number of scholars assert that there is no need to look beyond the Old Testament in
order to find out what Paul meant by the term . Merklinger, for example,
convincingly points out, “Paul had no need to appropriate the word from those who
were disturbing the faith of his addressees. Student of the Scripture that he was Paul found
the roots and basic content of in the Old Testament.”24 The term is found
13 times in LXX. Usually, it is used to describe contents that fill something, for example the
20
James H. Burtness, “All the Fullness,” Dialog 3 (1964): 259.
21
O’Brien, 51.
22
Lightfoot, 102.
23
P. D. Overfield, “Pleroma: A Study in Content and Context,” New Testament Studies 25 (1979): 384.
24
Harold A. Merklinger, “Pleroma and Christology,” Concordia Theological Monthly 36 (1965): 739-43.
10
earth (Ps 23:1), the sea (1 Chr 16:32), the whole world (Ps 50:12). However, sometimes, as
O’Brien notices, in language akin to the Old Testament recognizes that God
himself fills the whole universe (Jer 23:34; Ps 72:19).25 Another noticeable detail is that two
Septuagint to indicate God’s dwelling place (Ps 67:17; 131:13-14; Is 8:18). It should be not
surprising to find Paul using in this sense. Now Christ as a sphere, not Zion, is the
“place” where all God’s fullness dwells. This is exactly what Paul states later in the epistle,
“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Col 2:9). Although the
meaning of takes a different nuances, when viewed against Gnostic background and
that of the Old Testament, its basic meaning retains the idea of preeminence. In both cases,
the supremacy of Christ is affirmed. In my view, the usage of the word in very similar
contexts in the Old Testament provides a more convincing background for Paul’s choice in
addressing Colossians.
Christ. By applying them to Christ, the apostle Paul shuts the door for any erroneous
influence, whether Gnostic or Hellenistic-Jewish, that was belittling Christ. The passage
affirms that Christ has manifested the very nature and character of God. He is supreme over
all creation; even the cosmic principalities and powers are all subject to him. Not only all
things have been created by him, but also he holds all creation together, and even more, he is
the ultimate purpose of everything. Moreover, Christ is the head of the Church. All those
25
O’Brien, 52.
11
who believe in his name can fully depend on him in both this life and the one to come
because Christ is the firstborn from among the dead. Christ is the one in whom all the
fullness was pleased to dwell. He is Lord and as such, must be glorified and worshiped.
12
Selected Bibliography
Bruce, F. F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1984.
Burtness, James H. “All the Fullness,” Dialog 3 (1964): 257-63.
Ericson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. 2001.
Feinberg, John S. No One Like Him. Wheaton: Crossway Books. 2001.
Harris, Murray J. Colossians & Philemon. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co.. 1991.
Helyer, Larry R. “Arius Revisited: The Firstborn Over All Creation (Col 1:15),” Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society 31 (1988): 59-67.
________. “Colossians 1:15-20: Pre-Pauline or Pauline?” Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 26 (1983): 167-79
________. “Cosmic Christology and Col 1:15-20,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 37 (1994): 235-46.
________. “Recent Research on Col 1:15-20 (1980-1990),” Grace Theological Journal 12
(1992): 51-67.
Lightfoot, J. B. Saint’s Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, repr. from 1879 ed.. MacMillan and Co.
Lohse, Eduard A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1971.
McCord, Hugo “Becor and Prototokos,” Restoration Quartely 10 (1967): 40-5.
Merklinger, Harold A. “Pleroma and Christology,” Concordia Theological Monthly 36
(1965): 739-43.
Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2nd ed.. New York:
American Bible Society, 1994.
Moule, C. F . D. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon. 5 ed.
Cambridge: University Press. 1977.
O’Brien, Peter T. Colossians, Philemon in Word Biblical Commentary. Waco: Word Books.
1982.
Overfield, P.D. “Pleroma: A Study in Content and Context,” New Testament Studies 25
(1979): 384-96.
Reese, James M. “Christ as Wisdom Incarnate: Wiser than Solomon, Loftier than Lady
Wisdom,” A Journal of Bible and Theology 11 (1981): 44-7.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1996.
13
Westcott, Frederic B. Colossians: A Letter to Asia. Minneapolis: Klock & Klock Christian
Publishers Inc.. 1981.