Christology and Eschatology in Colossians 1:15–20
(avg. read time: 13–26 mins.)
Colossians 1 is home to one of the densest theological statements in the NT in vv. 15–20. Because of its density, and more importantly because of its structure, it has often been thought of in NT scholarship as some sort of proto-creed. Some have even characterized it as a or as based on a hymn that was incorporated into the text of Colossians. As far as I am concerned, that is neither here nor there, and I am not interested in adjudicating the matter here. What I am interested in is what this text tells us about Christology and eschatology, as well as how it lays the foundation for theological ethics.
The lead-up to this great christological text speaks of giving thanks to the Father. After all, it is the Father who qualifies us for the share of the inheritance of the saints. He is the Holy One who makes us holy. As he is the one who has made established the promised inheritance, he is the one who makes people worthy of it by his saving action. This inheritance is said to be “in the light” (1:12) as a contrast to the authority of darkness that he delivered us from (1:13). This delivering action also has the effect of transferring us to “the kingdom of his beloved Son” (1:13). This language of inheritance and deliverance along with the transferal across kingdoms, as well as the contrast of light and darkness, present what God has done in Christ in new exodus and return from exile terms. Paul further reinforces these resonances by saying that it is in the Son that we have redemption, namely, the forgiveness of sins (1:14). The salvific work attributed to God is now specifically linked with his Son, and the kingdom is even said to be the kingdom of his Son when it had typically been referred to as the kingdom of “God.” Already, we have statements of Christology that speak of Christ in union with God the Father, of Christ being in an exalted position reserved for God alone, and of the work of God in Christ by which he has been revealed to the world is also described in eschatological terms. These are theological indicatives laying the groundwork for the ethical imperatives unfolded later in the letter. And this framework continues in 1:15–20, where Paul summarizes who Christ is.
The summary of vv. 15–20 encompasses creation and the reconciliation of creation (i.e., new creation). There is a tendency across the Bible, which I have noted in my dissertation as well as this series, to correlate protology and eschatology, creation and eschaton. This correlation exists because the same God who is the Creator is the God who is the Judge at the coming judgment, the Savior who enacts the promises of salvation, and the Lord who is King over the hoped-for kingdom. The same logic applies here, as Paul declares that our Lord and Savior, who has brought eschatological promises to pass and will yet fulfill more of them, is the same one who is the Creator.
The Image of the Invisible God (1:15a)
He first says of him that he is the image of the invisible God. The juxtaposition of “image” and “invisible” here indicates that the Son is in some sense the visual representation of the invisible God. This is most obviously so in his incarnation, but this is something Paul states upfront before referring to Christ’s work even in creation. As such, while it is perhaps most vividly instantiated in the Son’s incarnation, it refers more generally to his work as the revealer of God. When God has revealed himself, he has done so through the Son. The incarnation was the culmination of how God had revealed himself previously. As the rest of this text will stress how the Son is the one through whom the Father created and the one through whom God has enacted salvation, the sum of these declarations is that the Son is the creative, revelatory, and salvific power of God enacting his will. This fits with how we have summarized Wisdom theology in relation to John’s Prologue.
The “image” language more specifically resonates with a description of personified Wisdom. In Wisdom of Solomon 7:26 the same word (εἰκών) is used to refer to Wisdom as the “image of his goodness.” This is part of a larger point with similar imagery as the author calls Wisdom the breath of the power of God, a pure emanation of glory (meaning as well that she is utterly holy), a radiance/reflection (depending on the translation) of eternal light, and a spotless mirror of the work of God (7:25–26). Beyond the “image” language there are no clear terminological links between these texts, but as many of these points are expositing similar ideas to Wisdom being the image of God’s goodness, the conceptual links remain. And as I noted in my examination of Wisdom, although this was a matter of difference among works of wisdom literature, this text describes Wisdom in personified terms, but it does not portray her as altogether separate from God. She is a personified attribute and thus description of her is an indirect way of speaking of an attribute of God. Such language as we see in Wisdom of Solomon was thus a useful (albeit not completely equivalent) precedent for teachers like Paul who explained Jesus in terms that made him more than a personified attribute but still made him someone who was not a separate god from God.
Moreover, these theological statements had ethical significance. After all, the author describes Wisdom as a teacher who has characteristics that are proper for humans to embody as well, being the image-bearers of God (7:21–23; cf. 2:21–24). In learning from her and imitating her, humans are formed to be image-bearers of the image. In a roundabout way, to know her is to become more fully human as God created us to be. In the same way, the fact that Christ is the image of God has theological-ethical significance. Paul writes elsewhere that it is to his image that we are conformed (Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18), meaning that we become image-bearers of the image, and by knowing Christ we become more fully human as God created us to be. Indeed, as we have seen in analyses of these other texts, there is also an eschatological point to these teachings, as our being conformed to his image is an eschatological purpose of the Holy Spirit’s work and it will only be completed at the resurrection. Paul writers similarly in this same letter in 3:10 with the teaching that we must be clothed in the new self that is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of its Creator (the eschatological purpose to this conforming work is indicated in the introduction to that section in 3:4).
Of course, Jesus was also human, and so he literally embodied what it meant to be human as the image-bearer of the invisible God in continuity with who he is from all eternity as the very image of God. Thus, the “image” language also resonates with God’s creation of man and woman in Gen 1:26–27. And this fits with what we have seen elsewhere in terms of Paul describing Christ as the Last Adam. As God Incarnate and as the one who has enacted God’s will in creation itself, it is only fitting that he would be the one to fulfill God’s purpose for humanity and, again by virtue of who he is and what he has done to communicate his life to others, to make others able to fulfill that purpose.
Firstborn over All Creation (1:15b)
Probably the most controversial portion of this text is Paul’s reference to Jesus as “firstborn” (πρωτότοκος). It is one of those texts that has been seized upon to be employed for the argument that Jesus was not identified with God in the NT (or at least parts of the NT). It was particularly popular among Arius, his followers, and his sympathizers. In this view, the genitive relationship of the “firstborn” to “all creation” is that he is part of creation, being the first created being.
This is an intuitive way of reading this clause, provided that one only reads it and not the surrounding context. There are multiple contextual factors that indicate “firstborn” signifies his primacy and preeminence and not his being the first created one. One, the term is repeated in v. 18 to describe him as being the “firstborn from out of the dead.” As this whole section of text is driven by the correlation of protology and eschatology, this parallel use of the term contributes to the same end. Its use is at least partially driven by this point of making a parallel apparent. In v. 18, this “firstborn” quality is indeed explicitly tied to his preeminence and to his being the one through whom God acts in redemption as in creation. Here, as elsewhere in the NT, with the exception of Luke 2:7 in which the context is clearly that of being born, the emphasis is not as much on the “born” element as on the “first.” (One could also mention Heb 11:28, but that is a reference to the “firstborn” in the context of the exodus story.) The “born” element is retained to stress the relation of him to the Father, as he has already been identified as “Son,” and to appeal to the typical prominence of the firstborn in family settings. It is more akin to texts such as Exod 4:22; Ps 89:27; and Jer 31:9. In some cases, it is used to stress a family relation, as in Rom 8:29 and Heb 12:23 (as well as, I will suggest, Rev 1:5). But even in those cases, the description stresses Jesus’s prominence in the family of faith, since he is the one through whom God has made the family. Likewise, Heb 1:6 nowhere indicates Jesus being the first one created, and the reference to the “firstborn” comes immediately after references to Ps 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14, both of which stress the exalted status and not being the first one born.
Two, the notion that the genitive form of “all creation” (a phrase similar to Rom 8:22 and Col 1:23) is a partitive and makes Jesus part of the creation in question runs counter to the immediately succeeding clause, which functions in an explanatory fashion: “because by him all things were created.” “All things” is a parallel to “all creation,” and thus to say all things were created by him is to exclude him from the scope of “all things.” He is thus not part of creation by being the first part. Likewise, this is reinforced by the end of v. 16, where it says that “all things were created through him and for him.” Once again, he is excluded from the scope of “all things” (and Paul does not say “all other things”), as it was through him that all things exist, and they were created specifically “for” him. On the one hand, this stresses that he is on the Creator side of the Creator/creature distinction, and thus occupies the place in the cosmic schema exclusively occupied by God. On the other hand, the fact that these things were created “for” him once again stresses the relation of the Father to the Son, as this description implies something like inheritance, the scope of which is “all things,” as in 1 Cor 15:24–28. As in that text, the point is the subordination of creation to him, and thus of stressing that he is “over” all creation. In this case, “firstborn” is akin to “heir.”
Three, to put a finer point on this teaching, Paul says Christ is “before” all things and all things hold together “in” him. Since “all things” is the scope of all creation, this puts Christ before the scope of all creation, and not as part of it. Likewise, to say all things hold together in him is to say that he is the one who encompasses all things in sustaining them. Thus, it is fitting to say that Christ is the firstborn “over” creation.
Four, v. 19 tells us that “all the fullness” (πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα) was pleased to dwell in him. In context, this is referring to the fullness of “God” as is seen in the following verse in which the subject acts “through him” to reconcile all things “for him.” The use of the noun in the parallel of 2:9 further demonstrates that it is the fullness of “God” in question here (cf. Eph 1:23; 3:19). This puts him on the Creator side of the Creator/creature distinction and thus stresses his supremacy over creation as the Creator.
All Things Created by Him and for Him (1:16)
The beginning and end of v. 16 refer to Christ as the mediator of creation and the heir of it, as we have noted already. In between, the listing of things created reiterates that point. As in Gen 1:1 and as we have noted in Matthew, the heavens and the earth functions as a merism defining the scope of creation. “Visible” and “invisible” function in the same way, with “visible” generally corresponding to what “on the earth” and “invisible” generally corresponding to what is “in the heavens.” The list of “thrones, dominions, powers, or authorities” tracks with what we have noted in Ephesians (here, here, and here) and further stresses his exalted status over all of these powers to say that he is above them because he is the one through whom they were created. He is on the Creator side of the Creator/creature distinction, and they are not. Moreover, the fact that he was over them from their very beginning lays the groundwork for his exaltation and triumph over them through the major gospel events in 2:10 and 2:15.
All Things Hold Together in Him (1:17b)
While the notes sounded about Christ to this point have emphasized his primacy that derives from his work in creation, as also noted in my aforementioned series, the second clause of v. 17 adds that he is also the sustainer. The expression is that all things “hold together” in him. This reflects what appears many times in the OT in how the orderliness and regularity of creation, despite the disorder wrought by sin, testifies to the faithfulness of the Creator. That is why the fact that God is Creator is often linked with his faithfulness to his covenants, for creation shows his power, his wisdom, and his faithfulness. Creation is not such a thing that, as in the old deist portrayal, God could wind it up and just let it go to operate according to functions he built into it. Rather, creation requires God to sustain it at every moment of its existence and at every moment of the existence of the creatures within it. As Christ is on the Creator/creature side of the distinction, he is also on the Sustainer/sustained side of the distinction.
Furthermore, we have another connection with Wisdom theology here. As I noted in my post on Wisdom theology, one of the most frequently noted actions of Wisdom is her work in creation as God created with wisdom. But she is also noted as the sustainer. In a synonymous expression, the Wisdom of Solomon refers to the spirit of Wisdom as the one who holds all things together (1:6–7). She does this because of her immanence, as she pervades, penetrates, and guides all things (7:27; 8:1). Sirach 43:26 says this also of God’s word, which is frequently synonymous with Wisdom (Wis 1:4; 9:1–2, 4; 18:14–16; Sir 24:3; Philo, Leg. 1.63–65; Her. 191, 205–206; Fug. 97; Somn. 2.242, 245). Of course, both Wisdom and Word are ultimately ways of speaking about God and not another (Wis 1:13–14; 11:24–12:1). In this way also, Christ is identified with the Sustainer and his everyday faithfulness shown in this way, along with his demonstrated faithfulness to his grand promises, reminds us that he is trustworthy and that his faithfulness ought to call forth our faithfulness, trust, and loyalty.
He Is the Head of the Body, the Church (1:18a)
In v. 18 Paul shifts to talking about what has been established more recently. This signifies that he is the unifier of the Church as a whole and that we are in union with him as a body is to its head. He will make just this point in 2:19 when he refers again to Christ as the head and the Church as the body. He also makes this point in 3:15 in reference to the peace of Christ that is apropos to being in one body. That last text shows what Paul has talked about elsewhere in Ephesians (here and here) and 1 Corinthians (esp. ch. 12) that being part of the body of Christ is an identification with ethical implications in terms of what upholds unity and promotes the flourishing of the community in faithfulness to Christ.
One other reference to the Church as the body presents an ethical implication in terms of embodying the gospel. I have commented on 1:24 elsewhere, and I so I will quote those comments here:
But what most intriguingly frames these statements is his declaration in 1:24 that has often given readers pause: “Now I rejoice the sufferings for your sake and fill up what is lacking of Christ’s afflictions in my flesh for the sake of his body, which is the church.” One will see a variety of translations, often in terms of word order, to attempt to come to terms with what is said here, though my translation follows the word order closely (with the exception of genitives being moved before what they modify in Greek, whereas they typically appear afterwards in the Greek). This statement strikes as problematic because it seems to imply that Paul is making up for a lack of Christ’s suffering on the cross, and there is nothing else like such an idea in Paul’s writing or elsewhere in the NT. Rather, we should see this as similar to what we have previously seen in Phil 3 and elsewhere. What Paul is filling up is what is envisioned in that proverbial “last full measure.” As in Phil 3, he is filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions in himself by becoming more fully conformed to Christ’s gospel story by knowing the participation in his afflictions, that is, of the suffering inflicted on him, even to the point of sharing in his death. He is doing this for the sake of the Church because his perseverance in faithful obedience through suffering is for the practical spiritual benefit of the Church, not its salvific benefit. It is part of his apostolic commission, as articulated most vividly in 2 Corinthians, to proclaim the gospel message and to embody it in his suffering for the sake of its proclamation with a view to sharing in the vindication of Christ’s resurrection.
Paul’s point here is also related to why he notes in this context that Christ is the head of the body, the Church. On the one hand, as Paul will go on to articulate, it is through the gospel story that this union is established. As the exodus was the defining event for the covenant community in the OT, the gospel story is the defining event for the new covenant community, as the community is defined in relation to Christ and what he has done. On the other hand, this union has as its purpose our redemption and transformation. As noted already, the eschatological purpose of this union is to make us more like Christ, eventually culminating in our conformity to his resurrection to everlasting life. This is the outcome of God’s work in making the gospel story our story.
Who Is the Beginning (1:18b)
Here, I quote a relevant portion of my exposition on a similar description of Jesus in Rev 3:14:
Scholars have translated the word ἀρχή variously as “beginning,” “source,” “principle,” or “ruler.” Although there are distinctions in the first three possible meanings, they all relate theologically to Christ’s role in the origination and possibly sustainment of creation. Generally, the decision is thus between this kind of meaning and the political/royal meaning. Unfortunately, it may not be possible to convey both senses in a smooth English translation, despite the likely presence of a double entendre here (“first” or “foremost” may be sufficiently ambiguous, but such options are not sufficiently communicative and can lead to confusion). One piece of evidence that makes it probable that there is a double entendre here is the traditional link between God’s action as Creator and God’s action as Lord [see the aforementioned series] … Just as God’s action as Creator serves as the foundation for God’s action as Lord and Savior, God’s action and character as Lord is the link that binds together protology and eschatology. Likewise, on the basis of parallels with Rev 1:5–6 and Col 1:18, it is likely that the inauguration of the new creation and the inauguration of Christ’s rule are two aspects of the same results of Jesus’s death, resurrection, and exaltation.
The same issues arise in this text. There is no fully satisfactory way of translating the term here, but “beginning” may serve well enough if one thinks of it as a parallel to “Alpha” in the description of him as “Alpha and Omega.” It signifies both his priority and his prominence.
The Firstborn out of the Dead Who Has First Place in Everything (1:18c–d)
We have already discussed the “firstborn” description. As I noted, the parallel terminology establishes a correlation between protology and eschatology, as does the preceding description of Jesus as “the beginning.” He is “the beginning” in relation to creation in his act of creation and he is “the beginning” in relation to the Church in his act of redemption, as he thereby established the Church. The first clause in question here is specifically related to his resurrection “from the dead.” And given how the eschatological resurrection is related to new creation (as noted elsewhere), as well as given Paul’s teaching on Jesus as the first fruits of the eschatological resurrection, he is also the “firstborn” in the sense of others being made like him in resurrection, and he is the beginning and firstborn of the new creation, being the prototype thereof in his resurrection.
The point of him being “firstborn” in this sense, in addition to the preeminence it establishes that is upheld by the parallel in v. 15 and the context of referring to his exalted status here, is conveyed by referring to him as the firstborn “out of the dead” (ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν). This description of resurrection refers specifically to resurrection that separates one from the rest of the dead. A similar phrase appears in Acts 26:23, wherein Paul describes Jesus as the “first out of the resurrection of the dead” (πρῶτος ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν). Luke 20:35 uses the phrase τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν to specify that Jesus is referring not to how everyone will be at the general resurrection, but how the righteous will be, since they are the ones who partake of “the resurrection that is out of the dead.” This same sense of separation appears again in the summary of the Sadducees’ problem with the apostolic proclamation, which is that it proclaims in Jesus “the resurrection (ἀνάστασις) that is out of the dead” (Acts 4:2). That is, the resurrection of the righteous specifically is tied to Jesus’s own resurrection, which has this same description attached to it (Acts 3:15). In his own letters, Paul uses such a phrase to refer to what he hopes to attain: “the resurrection [ἐξανάστασιν] that is out of the dead” (Phil 3:11). As with compound verbs, the compound noun here combined with the preposition creates redundancy, in this case for the sake of accentuating the link with Jesus and his resurrection that distinguished him from the rest of the dead in that it is resurrection to everlasting life. Such a sense would fit a context in which Paul talks about knowing the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his suffering, as well as being conformed to his death (3:10–11), meaning that he also hopes to be conformed to his resurrection out of the dead. Finally, the construction also appears in 1 Pet 1:3 as a description of Jesus’s resurrection. The eschatological hope behind this description is of being conformed to the image of Jesus by being conformed to his resurrection to everlasting life. And in light of what we have seen in the theological-ethical force of making the gospel story our story, this eschatological purpose is linked specifically to those who are made like Christ and can thus receive a resurrection like his.
Moreover, in terms of articulating the gospel narrative, which will then be matched with our being made like him according to this pattern in 3:1–4, Paul also notes his exaltation. As we have noted in posts on 1 Cor 15:20–28 and Phil 3, Jesus’s resurrection is inherently connected to his exaltation. This is not only because the resurrection is his vindication and the exaltation is connected with vindicating who he is, though that is part of it. This is also the case because Jesus’s resurrection is connected with the establishment of the kingdom and with his reign over the same. Indeed, Jesus’s resurrection enables and ensures all of his action that brings about the future salvation, not least because his resurrection is connected to his exaltation to ruling over the world. The future is in his hands. The believers simply must persevere in faithfulness to inherit that future. That future is their inheritance because of their participatory, identifying, and incorporative union by faith with the one who was crucified, resurrected, and exalted for us.
In Him All the Fullness (of God) Was Pleased to Dwell (1:19)
We have briefly discussed this text already in the discussion of v. 15b. We also noted the parallel statement in 2:9 that helps to make clear that the “fullness” in question is the fullness of God. This description of Jesus is related to his exaltation, but it is not a result of his exaltation. That much has been made clear from the rest of the text to this point. Indeed, grammatically, since v. 19 is a causal/explanatory clause, this text is logically prior to the exaltation. It is the fact that he is fully God, particularly in that the fullness of God was pleased to dwell in him in his incarnation, that was vindicated in his resurrection. As his crucifixion, on the level of human decision, was a matter of his identity claims, the resurrection vindicated his identity claims, thereby confirming that he was indeed God Incarnate and the anointed executor of God’s will. Likewise, the exaltation is confirmation of who he already was.
By His Blood We are Reconciled (1:20)
In the three-stage gospel narrative Paul has referenced Jesus’s resurrection and exaltation, and thus it is fitting that he should also reference Jesus’s death here. After all, it was God’s will through him to reconcile all things for him, specifically “by making peace through the blood of his cross, whether the things on earth or the things in the heavens.” That is, God’s reconciling work has cosmic scope in Christ even as his creative work obviously had cosmic scope in Christ. Here we find quite possibly the largest-scale statement about what God accomplished through Jesus’s crucifixion. The cross is not only key to human salvation and reconciliation; it is key to new creation as well. The power behind creation is the same power behind new creation. The one who holds all things together is the one who offers universal reconciliation and restoration of God’s creative purpose. It was the painful climax to the birthing process, eventually giving way to the beginning of new creation: the resurrected Jesus. It was the reparation needed for the broken relations in order to create a renewed relations between God and his creation. Of course, while the work is universal in scope, reconciliation entails that forgiveness meets repentance, and so the point is that reconciliation is opened to all, but it will come to fruition for those who meet God’s universal offer of forgiveness with personal repentance. And repentance is both a way to life and a way of life, meaning that it is a life-orienting response.
As in the earlier parts of this text, we once again find some resonance with Wisdom theology. One of her most commonly cited roles is God’s “coworker” or medium in creation (Prov 3:19–20; 8:22–31; Wis 7:22; 8:5–6; 9:1–4; Sir 24:8; Hel. Syn. Pr. 3:16, 19; 4:7, 38; 12:36; Philo, Leg. 2.49; Det. 54; Ebr. 31; Fug. 97, 108–109). In turn, this role provides the grounding of her redemptive power and her ability to give her seeker cosmological and ethical wisdom. She is thus the source of inextinguishable light and unconquerable life for whoever seeks her (Prov 3:16–18; 8:35–36; 9:5–6; Wis 6:17–20; 7:10, 26–30; 8:13, 17; Sir 4:12; 15:3, 6; 24:19–21, 27, 32; Bar 3:14; 4:1–2; Philo, Det. 115–117; Fug. 97, 108–109). She is often the one who comes down into the world to seek whoever will listen to her, but she sometimes experiences rejection (Prov 1:20–33; 8; 9:1–6; Wis 6:12–20; 9:9–18; Sir 24:3–12, 19–22; Bar 3:20–21; 4:1–2; 1 En. 42). Because of her association with God and her redemptive power, she is able to make seekers friends of God (Wis 6:18–20; 7:14, 27–30; 9:17–18; Sir 1:11–13, 19; 4:13–14; cf. Philo, Post. 136–38).
But, of course, where this text goes beyond such a potential precedent is that there was no expectation that Wisdom would be enfleshed, much less that Wisdom would be crucified. This is consistent with the theme of the rejection of Wisdom, but there is obviously more to it. The act of “making peace” through the blood of his cross also resonates with “peace” (or shalom) being an eschatological condition (Isa 2:4; 9:6; 11:6–9; 32:17–18; 33:20; 52:7; 60:17; 65:25; 66:12; Jer 23:6; 30:10; 33:6, 15–16; 37:18–23; 39:26; Mic 4:3–4; 5:4; Zech 8:12; 9:10). This hope also fits with the ultimate reaffirmation of what was first declared in Exod 6:7 of the formula “You will be my people and I will be your God” (Exod 29:45–46; Lev 26:12; Deut 26:18–19; Jer 11:4; 24:7; 30:22; 31:1, 33; 32:38; Ezek 11:20; 14:11; 34:30; 36:28; 37:23, 27; Hos 1:9; 2:23, 25; Zech 8:8; 13:9).
Reconciliation is also a programmatic reality. To be reconciled implies a new way of life apropos to the restored, renewed, and transformed relationship. This is all the more applicable when the one we are reconciled with is our Creator and Lord. As such, what Paul tells us about who Christ is and what God has done in Christ lays the foundation for all consequent ethical instruction.