Pastor's Giedrius Saulytis pages

 Welcome | My Testimony | Academic Works | My Church | e-mail me

Divinity of Christ in Colossians 1:15-20

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 as a seeming growth of quasi-Christian movements, such as Jehovah's witnesses, makes the 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.

Before I will go into some exegetical considerations let me propose my translation of 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)

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 particular is concerned with the issue.

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. The phrase prwtotokoj ek twn nekrwn creates a serious challenge for the supposition that the background was a pre-Christian hymn. Another approach tries to understand the passage against the background of Rabbinic Judaism. It is commendable because it draws attention to 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 as the whole Christology of the New Testament collectively is indebted to a type of 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 to the Palestinian Church.” 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 eikwn (“image”). Lightfoot points out that beyond the obvious notion of likeness, this word involves two other ideas, namely representation and manifestation. 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.” Unwrapping the nuance of representation Lightfoot writes, “In this respect it is allied to carakthr (“exact likeness, full expression”)(and differs from omoiwma (“likeness”)) In omoiwma the resemblance may be accidental, as one egg is like another; but eikwn implies an archetype of what it is a copy.” Thus man is said to be the image of God, eikwn kai doxa qeou uparcwn (1 Cor 11:7). On the other hand, non-biblical writers have also used the term. Plato called cosmos the visible image of God. Philo of Alexandria denominated his logoj the eikwn of the Eternal. 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 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.

If the eikwn emphasizes Christ's relation to God, the second term, prwtotokoj pashj ktisewj (“the firstborn of all creation”) designates his relationship to the creation. 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.” 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 syntactical understanding. Therefore, it is crucial to understand what kind of genitive is pashj ktisewj? According to Helyer there are at least four possibilities:

(1) It could be a partitive genitive, so that prwtotokoj would be included in some way in the class of creatures; (2) it could he a genitive of comparison, which would exclude the prwto,tokoj from the same; (3) it could be a genitive of place, defining the sphere of the firstborn's authority; (4) it could be an objective genitive, in which case the action implied in prwtotokoj terminates on all creation.

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 immediately seen when the o[ti 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 prwtoktistoj( but prwtotokoj) Moreover, the genitive case does not necessarily imply that prwtotokoj himself belonged to the ktisij) As we have seen there are other syntactical options that make good sense. Pashj ktisewj could be viewed as the comparative genitive. It sets Christ 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 prwtotokoj is exercised over all creation. In this case, creation becomes an object of Christ's rule. Personally, I am inclined to adopt Wallace's view because it is even more specific. He holds pashj ktisewj to be the genitive of subordination, which he names as a subset of the objective genitive. In my judgment, the 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 prwtotokoj( 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 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 paj) 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 creation as Lord.” Christ's preeminence is described even further, when prwtotokoj is used again in verse 18: Christ is “firstborn” not only in creation, but also in resurrection. In both new creation and old the first place belongs to him!

The latter idea is enhanced yet again by another predication about Christ: kai. autoj estin kefalh tou swmatoj thj ekklhsiaj (“He is the head of the Body, the Church”)) Some 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. 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. 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 thj ekklhsiaj were added later by Paul or the final redactor. There are, however, difficulties with this view. First, Paul speaking about the body nowhere has in mind the universe. Yet the term swma 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 passage, commenting on verse 18:

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.

The last word I would like to pay attention to in this paper is plhrwma) This predication about Christ sums up all that has already been said about him. In o[ti 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 pan to. plhrwma (“all the fullness”)? Some exegetes, for example Moule, consider that God has to be supplied as the subject of the sentence. 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 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.” O'Brien prefers the same view and clarifies that the subsequent masculines in verse 20, eij auton and eirhnopoihsa( which make verse 20 to sound ambiguously when “all the fullness” is the subject in verse 19, may be explained as a construction according to sense.

Another concern revolves around the semantic background of the term plhrwma) Lightfoot asserts that plhrwma was a technical term of Gnostic teachers and Paul intentionally used it in order to refute their arguments. 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 comprehensive study on the meaning of plhrwma states, “there is no integral relationship between the so-called technical or gnostic use of the word plhrwma as it is found in the second-century Christian heretical sects and the use of the word in the New Testament.” 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 plhrwma. Merklinger, for example, convincingly points out, “Paul had no need to appropriate the word plhrwma 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 plhrwma in the Old Testament.” The term plhrwma is found 13 times in LXX. Usually, it is used to describe contents that fill something, for example the 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 plhrwma the Old Testament recognizes that God himself fills the whole universe (Jer 23:34; Ps 72:19). Another noticeable detail is that two words, eudokew and katoikeo, that enfold plhrwma in verse 19 are repeatedly used in 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 plhrwma 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 plhrwma 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.

In conclusion, the text of Colossians 1:15-20 is a magnificent hymn in praise of Jesus Christ, as the Lord in creation and redemption. Four terms (eikwn, prwtotokoj, kefalh, plhrwma) as four gospels complement each other in describing divinity and supremacy of 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 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.

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.

Westcott, Frederic B. Colossians: A Letter to Asia. Minneapolis: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers Inc.. 1981.