Colossians Chapter 1
MSB Notes on the Book:
Written to the church that bears its name. Also to be read in Laodicea.
Paul is the author, affirmed also by those very early church fathers: Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius. Also, the book has close parallels with the book of Philemon, which is "universally accepted as having been written by Paul". Perhaps that is why we read both the same day in the chronological 1 year Bible plan. The books were written about 60-62 AD while Paul was a prisoner in Rome. Another reason for its location in the chronology. Safe to assume that all the rest of Paul's books yet to be covered were written from Rome, while he was captive there.
"Colosse was located in Phrygia, in the Roman province of Asia (part of modern Turkey), about 100 miles E of Ephesus..." Colosse was a thriving city in the 5th century BC, noted for black wool and dyes made from chalk deposits nearby. Main N/S and E/W trade routes went through it. By Paul's time, however, the trade routes had relocated to the nearby cities of Laodicea and Hieropolis, and the city was in decline. The population of the city was mostly Gentile but there was a strong Jewish presence also. The heresies that plagued Colosse were a mixture of Jewish legalism and pagan mysticism (NOTE: This is all from MSB - not my research, not my words.)
Paul had never been to Colosse. The church was possibly founded by Epaphrus, who was saved in Ephesus. There is a long explanation of the heresy(s) threatening this church. A threat that so bothered Epaphrus as to make him go all the way to Rome to talk to Paul about it. This from the MSB is a bit long, but I think a very helpful background to the book:
"It contained elements of what later became known as Gnosticism: that God is good, but matter is evil, that Jesus Christ was merely one of a series of emanations descending from God and being less than God (a belief that led them to deny His true divinity), and that a secret, higher knowledge above Scripture was necessary for enlightenment and salvation. The Colossian heresy also embraced aspects of Jewish legalism, e.g., the necessity of circumcision for salvation, observance of the ceremonial rituals of the OT law (dietary laws, festivals, Sabbaths), and rigid asceticism. It also called for the worship of angels and mystical experience."
Hmm...here is some good historical background, also from MSB. Colossians is a so-called "prison epistle", because it was written while Paul was a prisoner in Rome. So were Ephesians, Philippians, and Philemon. It may have been composed about the same time - contemporaneously - with Ephesians, and Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon may all have been carried to their destinations by Tychicus (Eph 6:21,22 and Col 4:7,8). Onesimus, the runaway slave who is the subject of Philemon, accompanied Tychicus on this mail run. Philemon was a member of the Colossian church (4:7-9). Epaphrus remained behind in Rome, possibly to get further instruction from Paul.
MSB says that Colossians includes these theological themes: The deity of Christ, reconciliation, redemption, election, forgiveness, and the nature of the church. It also addresses the specific heresy flourishing in the church at Colosse.
MSB also mentions these "Interpretive Challenges", which I would call "Controversial" or "Disputed Meanings":
Some use 1:15 as proof that Christ is not deity.
1:22, 23, which has an "if" is used against perseverance of the saints.
1:24, used by some to argue for the existence of purgatory.
2:12 used to support the concept of baptismal regeneration.
And now, chapter 1:
Pretty standard Pauline opening. Paul, and apostle...so we see who the letter is from. Then he tells them about thanking God for them in his prayers, and he does in so many other letters. Note that it is from Paul AND Timothy. So at this time at least, Timothy is still with Paul, and is in Rome also. Timothy, as I recall, was from Ephesus.
2022 - This verse:
4 since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love that you have for all the saints, [Col 1:4 ESV]. A strong indication that Paul has never been to Colosse. Otherwise he would mention his remembrance of the time he spent there, as he does in other epistles. So what we have is this guy Paul writing a letter more or less of rebuttal to correct false teaching that has arisen in this church. They likely know his reputation, they know who he is, they know where all he has started churches, but they have never met him. So his authority is likely to be met with even more skepticism at this church than at those where he could at least remind them of his teaching when he was there, and challenge them to find some reason to doubt him based on their first hand knowledge of him. Those arguments are not available to Paul here.
He summarizes with these verses:
12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. 13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. [Col 1:12-14 ESV]
Three things God has done for us. Qualified us, delivered us, transferred us. Elected us, saved us, moved us from death to life, from the flesh to the spirit. How can there possibly be an "undoing" of these three? Note also the implied dualism of darkness and light, since he has moved us from darkness into his kingdom. Note also the persistent position of the saved "in Christ" at the beginning of vs 14. This theme of our being "in Christ" shows up over and over and over. John's gospel particularly hits on it...but this letter to the Colossians was written 20 or more years before John's gospel.
2021-2, There is a lot of information on the whole concept of "in Christ" included in one of the Judgment notes. I think it is in the verse by verse part. I traced down all the times "in Christ" shows up, and determined that those "in Christ" are those indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit came at Pentecost. So those who are in Christ are those who were alive and saved on the day of Pentecost, and all those who have been saved since then. One would be pretty close saying "the Church" is made of those "in Christ". For more detail, go "Key Scriptures in Final Judgments". It is under question Sixth.
Then Paul moves to a section titled "The Preeminence of Christ", likely addressing the Gnostic teaching that Christ was far removed from the absolute perfection of God. The opening verse of this section is the source of one of the controversies:
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. [Col 1:15 ESV]
"He" is referring back to vs 13, to His beloved son, perhaps invoking the synoptic gospels account of Jesus' baptism. An image of what is invisible. So...we cannot see God, the original, but we can see His incarnation in the flesh. His image - is it okay to call Jesus the projection of God into physical space? I think we must agree here that Jesus is not precisely the same as God, yet is what our eyes can see of God. MSB note says the Greek word for image is where we get our word icon. The point is that Jesus is "the perfect image - the exact likeness - of God and is in the very form of God", per MSB. MSB continues with "...and has been so from all eternity. By describing Jesus in this manner, Paul emphasizes that He is both the representation and manifestation of God. Thus, He is fully God in every way." Jesus is fully God and fully man. This is a difficult thing to get one's head around, and we see that in these very verses that Paul is using to make that point. One who is fully man is NOT invisible. But God is, as Paul has just stated. We are into the theology of the Trinity here. Jesus is different because we can see him. Yet he is the same. Not going to spend all morning on this. It is a matter of faith, in my opinion, and beyond human understanding. So. I agree that Paul is saying Christ is God AND man.
2021-2, Back then, did firstborn mean something beyond "the first child born to her/him", or "the first calf born from this cow"? I would think there were some implications as to inheritance associated with the word - but that still ties it only to physical birth. Doesn't firstborn "of" creation sort of reverse the process? Creation was born (created by) Christ, not the other way around. A number of translations word it that he was "the firstborn over all creation". Making use of the idea of the heir of God, and so the one with authority over all that is. NKJV, NIV, NLT, CSB - all these translations that translate "meaning" rather than word for word. The point Paul is making is that Jesus is not "less than" God. How does this make that point? The heir steps up to the top spot. The heir becomes what his father was in all aspects of position and authority. The heir is not , is NEVER LESS than the father. Even when the father is alive, the heir acts on his behalf, and those who submit to the father's authority also respect and respond to the sons - as if they are the same in every way. I think that's the point he's making. This is what vss 15-17 establish. They go on to say that all creation is by him and for him. I think this means that as the heir of God, Jesus created everything in the distant past. This is saying that with the authority and position that he has as Son and heir, Jesus created everything. The success of the estate owes to the action of the heir. He is the active one, he is the initiator and completer. All that is done is done according to Jesus - with full authority and approval from the Father. This might be thought of as defining the role of the second person of the Trinity. Here is where it is spelled out. So firstborn is not about "having babies", but about position with respect to the estate.
2022 - Where did Paul get this idea that it was Jesus who created all things, and not the Father? I don't read it that way in Genesis. I don't if anywhere prior to this book we have seen that idea. What is its source? Does it come only from direct revelation to Paul? He talks about it as if it is common knowledge in the church. I have never see it discussed or challenged. But that might be because it is spelled out so clearly right here in vs 16. There are many attributes of Christ here.
2022 - Later same day. Looked this up in Grudem. It takes up less than a page. Here are the scriptures given:
3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. [Jhn 1:3 ESV]
6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. [1Co 8:6 ESV]
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. [Heb 1:2 ESV]
See the "Jesus as Creator" tag. But this is where I first asked the question.
That's it. He does not even mention the one in Colossians - the one that made me ask the question in the first place. That he did not mention it is more than a little disappointing, as was the absence of the name Melchizedek anywhere in his book, including the one about Christ's title of High Priest:
16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. [Col 1:16 ESV]
So. Nothing in the OT is listed, meaning that it isn't there even at a stretch. In the NT, Paul says it, John says it in his gospel, 50+ years after Jesus was gone, and it is mentioned in Hebrews. This is possibly three different sources saying it, which gives it a good amount of credibility. I am certainly not prepared to doubt Paul, John, and probably Apollos. Note also how common creation was "through" him. It is only that verse in Colossians, that Grudem left out, that leaves no doubt that it was Jesus who did ALL the creative work of God. Creation was the Father's plan and Jesus carried that out. Redemption was God's plan, and Jesus carried it out, as God had planned it. Is it Jesus, in Revelation that "creates" the new heaven and the new earth? Here are those verses:
5 And he who was seated on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." Also he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true." 6 And he said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. [Rev 21:5-6 ESV]
8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." [Rev 1:8 ESV]. Kyrios ho theos, not kyrios Iesous christos. And yet...
12 "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." [Rev 22:12-13 ESV]. This sure makes it look like Jesus will be on "a" throne, and that it is indeed Jesus in 21:5 who remakes all things. That, to me, certainly hammers home that Christ as creative agent is beyond question. But at this point, that information would have to have come by direct revelation, not from some obscure verse in the OT.
And "born" rather than co-existent would be my guess as to how heretics interpret this one verse, pulled out of context and made to stand alone. (2021-2, That is, they were saying that if Jesus was "born", as all knew that he was, to Mary and Joseph, then he descended from the Father because he came later in time, rather than being always there with the Father, from the very beginning. This was the basis of the heresy.) Because most certainly the bulk of Scripture teaches God and the Son as One. MSB emphasizes that Jesus is "firstborn" in the sense of position, of rank, of preeminence, and NOT first in order of creation. Something that is created cannot be the creator of ALL that is. If Christ is "first-begotten" he is not also "only begotten". If we interpret this otherwise, then we have made Paul agree with the heresy he is trying to refute. (2021-2, yeah, I no longer understand what I was driving at with the two sentences about first- and only-begotten.)
2022 - It is pretty easy to see how those in Colosse took now take Paul's own words and say "See, God first, then the Son his first creation, and the Son created everything else. It is almost as if Paul gave them the sequence they were falsely teaching! But what Paul meant, I think, was that the Son pre-existed all those things. That he existed with God when there was only God - as Father, Son, and Spirit - but nothing else existed in that time. But when you thrown in "by him all things were created", it is like you leave the door ajar.
2022 - And I am out of time. Need to get the kids up for church in 20 and still have two chapters of Isaiah to read. Haven't done tomorrow's post yet either. I need more time on this. I need to read the commentaries on 15-20, especially 16.
2021-2, Paul then lists some additional "first in authority" roles of Jesus. He is head of the church. None has more authority in the church than Christ. He is the first to be resurrected from the dead into a new and perfect body. The first "born" from the dead, and so with authority over any subsequently resurrected - which means authority over all who are saved. So in EVERYTHING, Christ is pre-eminent, highest in authority.
The rest of the paragraph completes the argument that Christ is above all things, and through Christ, God reconciled all creation - not just people but all things polluted by sin at the fall - to Himself. Paul seems to be showing that God could not use one of these Gnostic "emanations" - by definition imperfect - to "perfect" all that is. That makes no sense at all. Jesus must be perfect, un-created, and preexisting with God else He would not qualify for the perfecting of everything else.
This verse:
19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, [Col 1:19 ESV]
This seems to be a direct attack on the heresy in this church that Jesus was "less perfect" than God because Jesus was born with a physical body. Paul's argument that God is perfect - and they ALL agreed on this part. But what is perfect - God - would never dwell inside the imperfect. Taking that on out, Jesus must have therefore been perfect also, and every bit AS perfect as God. He is not "less" than God, though he was born in the flesh. What is perfect, the only thing that is perfect, is God. So God dwelt in God, the perfect in the perfect. God, a spirit, within a human body.
2021-2, I think Paul is going beyond saying that are separate but equal, and is saying that they are the "same" but different. If perfect would only be "in" perfect, and we know from the gospels that Jesus says repeatedly that He and the Father are one, that He is in the Father, and the Father is in Him, then the Father is God and the Son is God. I had not quite seen the rationale here before. That is what Paul is saying. Both are one God. Yet there are two. But Paul, never one to stop just because he's presented two irrefutable arguments, goes on to make a third. How can there be a perfect sacrifice for reconciliation of all things to God if the sacrifice is not itself perfect? So Jesus could not be our sacrifice if he was several "emanations" less than God. Only God is perfect, only God could be our sacrifice. Jesus was that sacrifice, so Jesus is perfect, and if perfect, then Jesus is also God. Three beautiful, tied up tight with a bow on them, arguments as to the perfection of Jesus Christ, and to his position as the second person of the Trinity. So awesome.
It continues with this:
20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. [Col 1:20 ESV]
God, through Christ - through His perfect image, and IN WHOM all the fullness of God was present. God was in Christ when Christ died on the Cross, therefore God reconciled us to himself.
Vs 23 is another controversy:
23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. [Col 1:23 ESV]
That seems a big "if". Again, if you pull this verse out and make it stand alone, rather than compare and contrast to the rest of Scripture, then you can make it say what you want. (MSB refers us to Mt. 24:13 for a note on Perseverance of the Saints.). The"if", in my opinion, means "if" you are truly saved, rather than deluded by the promises of Gnosticism and the false doctrine of the legalists. A "new creature" will always continue in the faith and seek always to follow God's will and look only to the Scriptures for guidance - NOT to those masquerading as spiritually elite, placing themselves and their knowledge between God and man. If you have true faith, you will not be diverted from the gospel that saved you. He wants the Colossians who have fallen for the heresies to examine themselves and see if they still have the characteristics of those who are saved.
2021 -2, Or, Paul is not addressing individuals here, but is addressing the continuation of the church in Colosse. If this church will stick with the gospel as Paul presented it, and will be firm in who the object of the gospel is and not try to reduce him to something less, something inadequate, IF you stick with the original version, then your church will continue and grow and be blessed. BUT, if you allow these "gnostics" to tell you that Jesus is less in order to make themselves the keepers of the "real deal", and that only they are enlightened enough to comprehend, and that you should follow them first and Christ second - because after all, Jesus wasn't all that special according to them - then your church will stumble and fall and fade away. I think that's what this "if" is about. It is about the church, not about individual salvation.
2021 - One "deceit" that comes from the idea that flesh is bad and spirit is good - which seems to have been the widely accepted philosophy of the time - was seen in Corinth, where false teachers were pushing the church to indulge in all things hedonistic and worldly, because those things can only affect the flesh anyway, and the flesh is never going to be part of the good things awaiting a "pure spirit" after death. Here in Colossi, we see that same philosophy being used to "separate" God and Jesus, to make Jesus less than God and consequently not quite as perfect as God. It is almost as if this Greek dualism as to spirit and body was invented just to undermine the early church! I wonder who actually postulated this first, and I wonder what kind of life that person lived?
And yet another controversy...hopefully they are all in Chapter 1!
24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, [Col 1:24 ESV]
The controversial part is underlined. Some see "purgatory" in this verse. We have a certain amount of "suffering" required, perhaps as penance for the things done in the body, that must be "paid" before we can be glorified in heaven. This one verse - again - cannot be interpreted in a vacuum. Poor exegesis. So what does Paul really mean? I have no clue. Here is the MSB note in full:
"Paul was experiencing the persecution intended for Christ. In spite of His death on the cross, Christ's enemies had not gotten their fill of inflicting injury on Him. So they turned their hatred on those who preached the gospel (cf. Jn 15:18,24; 16:1-3). It was in that sense that Paul filled up what was lacking in Christ's afflictions (see notes on 2CO 1:5; Gal 6:17). To me, this is still not 100% satisfactory as an explanation...but it is far better than "inventing" purgatory to explain this one verse.
2021-2, As Christ was afflicted physically because all the anger and animosity of the Jewish establishment was "focused" on Him, now Paul is often the focus of the animosity of the world against "The Way", or maybe the church. I think that's what this means.