Tag: Christology

Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 26)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 26: The FLesh (Part 6)

In the previous studies (Parts 3, 4, 5), we examined Paul’s use of sa/rc (and the flesh-concept) in Galatians and Romans. Now, we shall turn to the remaining letters of the Pauline corpus in which the term sa/rc plays an important role—namely, Philippians, Colossians, and Ephesians—along with a brief note on its occurrence in the ‘Christ-hymn’ of 1 Tim 3:16.

Philippians and Colossians

There are four occurrences of sa/rc in Paul’s letter to the Philippians, occurring in two places—1:22ff and 3:3-4. In the first instance (1:22, 24), the expression [e)n th=|] sarki/ (“in [the] flesh”) refers to the earthly life and existence of a human being. This is very much in keeping with Paul’s use of the prespositional/dative expression elsewhere in his letters, as we have seen. It is worth outlining again the three principal sa/rc-expressions that Paul utilizes:

    • pa=sa sa/rc (“all flesh”)—humanity, the common human condition
    • [e)n] sarki/ (“in [the] flesh”)—the physical being of a person
    • kata\ sa/rka (“according to [the] flesh”)—the creaturely limitations of a human being (esp. weakness and morality, but also sin), in contrast to God (and His Spirit).

Though [e)n th=|] sarki/ (“in the flesh”) is typically used in this neutral sense (e.g., Gal 2:20), it still carries for Paul an allusion to the negative sense (of sa/rc) that we find throughout Galatians and Romans (and also 1-2 Corinthians); this negative sense is defined in terms of a contrast with the Spirit (cf. Gal 3:3, etc.). The contrast is expressed at two levels: (i) “the flesh” as the human being’s life without the Spirit, and (ii) “the flesh” acting in opposition to the Spirit. The first of these simply represents an extension of the normal/neutral sense of sarki/ (“in the flesh”); the second goes a step further, as the human being is prone to the sinful impulse(s) that reside in “the flesh”, and, at worst, influenced and/or governed by the evil forces of “the world” and the Devil.

Here, in 1:22, 24, Paul uses the expression just as he does in Gal 2:20; he personalizes the expression, referring to his own earthly life as a created human being. Even when he has been united with Christ, as a believer, through the presence of the Spirit—and thus has become a “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15)—he still lives as a created human being in the world (in this present Age): “the (life) which I now live in (the) flesh [e)n sarki/]” (Gal 2:20). For the believer, there is a ‘realized’ eschatology. That is to say, we experience the New Age, the new creation, even as we continue to life within the Present Age (of the old creation). The New Age and new creation is realized entirely through the presence of the Spirit; Paul expresses this in Gal 2:20 in terms of our union with Christ:

“Indeed, (it is) no longer I (who) live, but (rather, the) Anointed lives in me; and, the (life) which I now life in (the) flesh I live in the trust of the Son of God, the (one hav)ing loved me and (hav)ing given himself along over me [i.e., for my sake].”

The point being emphasized in Phil 1:22, 24, is the continuation of Paul’s missionary work—drawing upon the early Christian theme of “the world” (i.e., the inhabited world of human beings) as a mission field for the proclamation of the Gospel. As much as Paul would like to leave this earthly life and dwell entirely with Christ, he knows how important it is for him to persevere and continue this mission work as long as he is able (1:24): “yet, to remain on in the flesh is more needed, for your sake” (to\ de\ e)pime/nein [e)n] th=| sarki\ a)nagkaio/teron di’ u(ma=$).

In 3:3-4, the expression carries the qualified negative sense (i) noted above—that is, the life and existence of a physical/created human being without the Spirit. This is part of the familiar Pauline contrast between the Spirit (pneu=ma) and “the flesh”. In the old order of things, the covenant between God and His people was defined by the Torah regulations and requirements—most notably, circumcision, which was made physically “in the flesh”. However, in the new order of things (viz., the new covenant), the mark of one’s religious identity is no longer physical and fleshly, but spiritual (i.e., of the Spirit). Much as in Rom 2:28-29, Paul applies the elements of the Israelite/Jewish religious identity (according to the old covenant)—and especially circumcision—to believers in Christ:

“For we are the circumcision, the (one)s giving service in (the) Spirit of God, and boasting in (the) Anointed Yeshua, and not having found persuasion in (the) flesh” (3:3)

The expression “in (the) flesh” (e)n sarki/) is clearly being contrasted here with “in (the) Spirit of God” (pneu/mati qeou=) as well as “in (the) Anointed Yeshua”. As a believer, Paul no longer finds persuasion (vb pei/qw, i.e., trusts, has confidence) in the things of “the flesh” —viz., the things that characterized his human life and existence prior to (and apart from) his trust in Christ and the Spirit—no matter how fine and noble such things may have been. This includes his Israelite/Jewish religious-cultural identity and his devotion to (and fulfillment of) the Torah requirements of the old covenant (vv. 4ff). Paul was thoroughly devout and faithful in this regard, as he describes, and he might well have chosen to rely on this identity and his thoroughness in fulfilling the terms of the old covenant: “…I am holding (reason for) persuasion [i.e., having confidence] in (the) flesh [e)n sarki/]. If any other (person) thinks to have found (reason for) persuasion [i.e., confidence] in (the) flesh, I (have) more”. And, yet, Paul counts all such things as a detriment, rather than a source of profit/gain, in light of the new covenant (of the Spirit) in Christ (vv. 7-8).

In Colossians, the principal sa/rc-references are found in the two central sections of the letter, 1:24-2:5 and 2:6-23. They continue some of the thematic associations we have already mentioned, particularly: (a) Paul’s physical being on earth (as a Christian missionary) “in the flesh”, and (b) the elements of the old creation (viz., the old covenant and order of the things) designated as “flesh”. The seven sa/rc references in 1:24-2:23 are introduced by the Christological reference in 1:22; and, indeed, this climactic Christological reference (see the earlier article on the ‘Christ-hymn’ of vv. 15-20) sets the stage for the references that follow:

“…but now he has made things different (for you) in the body of his flesh, through (his) death, to stand you along (as) holy and without blame, and without (any cause of) accusation, in His sight”

Jesus Christ “made things different” (vb a)pokatalla/ssw) for believers through his death as a physical (flesh and blood) human being. Here, the expression “in the body of his flesh” (e)n tw=| sw/mati th=$ sarko\$ au)tou=) is comparable to the use of sa/rc in Rom 8:3 (discussed in the previous study):

“For the law (being) without power, in that it was without strength through the flesh, God, (hav)ing sent His own Son in (the) likeness of flesh of sin, and concerning sin, brought down judgment against sin in the flesh”

The three instances of sa/rc in Rom 8:3 each highlight a significant aspect of Paul’s theology:

    • “through the flesh” (dia\ th=$ sarko/$)—alludes to the condition of humankind (and the world) in the old order of things, being in bondage to the power of sin; the law (viz., the Torah regulations, etc.) was part of this old order, and, as such, was powerless to free humankind from bondage.
    • “in (the) likeness of flesh of sin” (e)n o(moiw/mati sarko\$ a(marti/a$)—a carefully worded expression that refers to the incarnate Son’s existence as a created human being, participating in the human condition, viz., in bondage under the power of sin (though Christ himself did not sin nor yield to the human impulse toward sin).
    • “in the flesh” (e)n th=| sarki/)—through the sacrificial death of the incarnate Son, God brought judgment against sin, thus freeing humankind from bondage to sin’s power; this took place “in the flesh” and is realized for believers, who, even though they must contend with an impulse toward sin in the flesh, are no longer in bondage to sin.

This same theological matrix is summarized in Col 1:21-23, the conclusion of the initial Christological section of the letter (1:9-23).

In the following verse 24, at the opening of the next section, Paul applies the Christological sa/rc-reference of v. 22 to his own person, as a minister of the Gospel (viz., a servant of Christ who continues Christ’s own mission on earth). Beyond his fundamental identification with Christ’s death (as a believer), Paul further identifies with it in terms of his sufferings as an apostolic missionary:

“Now I take joy in the sufferings over you and (that) I fill up in place the (thing)s lacking of the distresses of the Anointed in my (own) flesh, over his body…”

Note the Body-of-Christ motif here—how Paul moves from the physical body of the incarnate Son (in its death) to the spiritual body that consists of all believers who are united with him. Moreover, just as Jesus suffered and died over (u(pe/r, i.e., for the sake of, on behalf of) believers, so Paul also suffers over them. Paul, along with all other Christian missionaries and ministers (and, indeed, all other believers), completes the sufferings experienced by Christ—since believers represent his very body. In 2:1 and 5, Paul emphasizes again his physical presence (as a minister) by the expression [e)n th=|] sarki/, just as in Phil 1:22, 24 (see above).

In 2:11 and 13, Paul utilizes the circumcision-motif in connection with the term sa/rc, just as he does in Phil 3:3f (see above). Believers who are “in Christ” possess a circumcision (viz., a mark of religious identity as God’s people), but it is not physical or fleshly—instead, it is spiritual, having been performed “without hands” (a)xeiropoih/to$, cf. 2 Cor 5:1, also Mk 14:58). Insofar as our “flesh” relates to this circumcision, the image of a skin-covering being removed (from the genitals) is applied (ethically and spiritually) to the idea that we, as believers, must “sink out from” (i.e., put off, remove) the sinful tendencies that remain in our human bodies (“flesh”). The same expression “the body of flesh” from 1:22 is used here in 2:11, emphasizing the union of believers with the body of Christ (and its death). In verse 13, the sinfulness of the “flesh” is identified more clearly with the foreskin (that is removed in the rite of circumcision) by the expression “the extreme [i.e., outer] covering [a)krobusti/a] of our flesh” —the noun a)krobusti/a being the regular Greek term for the genital foreskin.

In verses 16-19, a range of religious and cultural practices, both Jewish and non-Jewish, are described as being part of the old order of things (and the old covenant), designated by the term “flesh”. They are but a shadow of things to come, the things realized for believers, spiritually, in Christ (v. 17). The person who is governed and dominated by such things, concerned about them constantly, and taking pride in them, is characterized as being “under the mind of his flesh” (u(po\ tou= noo\$ th=$ sarko\$ au)tou=), v. 18. By contrast to what believers experience through the Spirit, in Christ, the person who relies on religious practices, etc., belonging to the old order of things, are powerless to be freed from the sinful impulses in “the flesh” (cf. on Rom 8:3, above). Indeed, while such practices may hold some measure of wisdom, valuing and promoting virtues of humility and austerity, they are “not with any value” (i.e., of no value) for actually addressing (and curbing) the natural human tendency toward fulfilling the desires of “the flesh” (v. 23).

Ephesians

As previously noted, many commentators regard Ephesians as a pseudonymous work, and a fair number hold the same view regarding Colossians. Though I do not address the issue here, I am inclined (entirely on objective grounds) to accept the stated Pauline authorship of Colossians, while admitting at least the possibility that Ephesians might be pseudonymous (written by a later author in Paul’s name). However, even those scholars who doubt or reject Paul’s actual authorship of Ephesians recognize its Pauline character—viz., that it contains and reflects Paul’s teaching and theology and even a fair measure of his vocabulary and authorial style. For the purposes of this study, no definite distinction in authorship is acknowledged, with the entire critical question (regarding authorship) being tabled for a future study.

There are seven occurrences of the noun sa/rc in Ephesians. On the whole, the Pauline (and traditional Jewish/Christian) usage is followed. In 5:29, sa/rc simply refers to a person’s physical body, and, by extension, to one’s family and relatives, etc.; this follows the customary use both of sa/rc and the corresponding Hebrew rc*B* (see the discussion in Part 1). The husband-wife relationship, in particular, is highlighted in v. 31, with a citation from Gen 2:24. The practical ethical instruction in these verses (22-33) is applied within the spiritual context of believers as the body of Christ; being united with him, we become one with Christ, just as husband and wife in the marriage bond become “one flesh”. Cf. also the use of sa/rc in 6:5, in the context of the master-servant relationship.

This Body-of-Christ theme is central to the message of Ephesians, being established at the close of the introduction (1:23) and summarizing that entire passage. The same focus on the unity (and oneness) of believers in Christ (i.e., one body) runs through chapter 2 as well, along with a stronger theological emphasis and soteriological exposition. In this context, the three occurrences of sa/rc, somewhat like the three occurrences in Rom 8:3 (see above), serve to summarize and epitomize the Pauline message; only here the message includes, as in the letter to the Romans as a whole, an important thematic emphasis on the unity of Jews and non-Jews (Gentiles) as believers in Christ:

    • “…among whom [i.e., sons of disobedience] even we all turned up then, in the impulses of our flesh, doing the wishes of the flesh and th(ose) thoughts throughout, and (so) we were (the) offspring by nature of (God’s) anger, (just) as also the remainder (of people were)” (v. 3)
      —the human condition in the old creation, and under the old covenant, being in bondage to the power of sin and the impulse to sin that resides in “the flesh”
    • “remember that then you were the nations in (the) flesh, the (one)s being counted (as the) foreskin [a)krobusti/a] by th(at) counting itself (the) circumcision [peritomh/] made by hands in (the) flesh” (v. 11)
      —the religious identity of the old covenant, defined particularly by the rite of circumcision (performed physically in the flesh), which served to distinguish (and separate) Israelite/Jews from non-Jews (Gentiles); cf. Phil 3:3f and Col 2:11ff (above), with the use of the same “made with hands” (xeiropoihto$ vs. a)xeiropoihto$ [“made without hands”]) idiom.
    • “For he is our peace, the (one hav)ing made the both (of them to be) one, and (hav)ing dissolved the middle wall of the fence, the hostility, in his flesh” (v. 14)
      —Jesus Christ, through his sacrificial death, freed humankind from bondage to sin, and also from the binding power of the law (viz., the Torah regulations of the old covenant, v. 15); in freeing us from the latter, he removed the barriers (of religious and cultural identity) that separated Jew and non-Jew, and as a result we (as believers) have been united together with a new religious identity (and a new covenant) in Christ.

The final sa/rc reference occurs in 6:12, part of the famous “armor of God” passage, which effectively serves as the closing section of the letter. Here the traditional pairing ai!ma kai\ sa/rc (“blood and flesh”, i.e., “flesh and blood”) is used to designated humankind (and created beings) generally. Paul (or the author of Ephesians) makes clear that the conflict that believers face (and must fight) is not physical but spiritual—the opponents are not other human beings, but rather are the forces of evil (led by the Satan/Devil, “the Evil [one]”, v. 16) that dominate “the world” during this current Age (v. 13). These forces are spiritual (pneumatiko/$), with the expression ta\ pneutmatika\ th=$ ponhri/a$ (“the spiritual [force]s of evil”) presumably referring to active evil spirits, envisioned as operating in a ‘heavenly’ sphere (or hemisphere) that surrounds the inhabited earth.

Even though these forces have had their power broken by Christ, they have not yet been removed from their active presence as long as the current Age remains; and, thus, believers still have to contend with their hostile and malevolent attacks. As believers, we are protected from them (by Christ) through the Spirit (cf. 1 Jn 5:18) and, insofar as we trust and rely upon that power, we are able to resist every attack (1 Pet 5:9, etc.). This dynamic is expressed here in Eph 6:10-20 by the military imagery of armor, weapons, and techniques of warfare; cf. Rom 13:12.

The Pastoral Letters

The most striking point regarding the noun sa/rc in the Pastoral Letters (1-2 Timothy, Titus) is its absence. It occurs just once, in the ‘Christ-hymn’ of 1 Tim 3:16, and nowhere else in the three letters. This lack of the term, in comparison with its frequent use in the other Pauline letters, is notable, and might be cited as evidence for non-Pauline (pseudonymous) authorship of the Pastorals (as is assumed by most critical commentators). On objective grounds, I am inclined to regard 2 Timothy as an authentic letter by Paul, while there are much stronger reasons for doubting the Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy; the status of the shorter letter of Titus is more difficult to judge.
The noun eu)sebei/a (lit., something like “good reverence”, i.e., religious piety) in 1 Tim 3:16 (introducing the Christ-hymn) is part of a (eu)seb-) word-group that occurs with great frequency in the Pastoral letters but hardly at all in the rest of Paul’s letters. This is probably the most notable piece of evidence, based on vocabulary, against Pauline authorship. The discrepancy of usage has yet to be satisfactorily explained if Paul is the author of the Pastorals (and particularly of 1 Timothy).

With regard to the ‘Christ-hymn’ of 1 Tim 3:16, as with the letter of 1 Timothy as a whole, there are a number of words and phrases that are rather atypical of Paul. In the case of the hymn, this could be explained if Paul (or the author of the letter) utilized an existing Christological credal statement; cf. my earlier study (as part of a series on the New Testament ‘Christ-hymns’). The use of sa/rc applies in this regard. The phrase “he was made to shine forth in (the) flesh” (e)fanerw/qh e)n sarki/), with its strong incarnational orientation, is actually much closer to the Johannine theological idiom and manner of expression than to the Pauline. Cf. 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7, and the use of sa/rc in Jn 1:14 (to be discussed); note also the similar Christological (and incarnational) significance of the verb fanero/w (“shine forth”, i.e., be manifest, appear; passive, “be made to shine forth”) in Jn 1:31; 2:11; 7:4; 9:3; 17:6; 1 Jn 1:2; 3:5, 8; 4:9.

We will soon explore this usage of sa/rc in the Johannine Writings (Gospel and Letters). But, before we proceed in that direction, let us first examine briefly (in our next study [Part 7]) the New Testament occurrences of the related adjectives sarkiko/$ and sa/rkino$ (“of the flesh, fleshly”)—terms which occur most frequently in 1-2 Corinthians, and thus provide us with some further insight regarding Paul’s understanding of the sa/rc-concept.

 

April 7: Proverbs 8:31

This is a series of exegetical notes supplemental to the study on Proverbs 8 (cf. Part 1, 2, 3), covering verses 22-31.

Proverbs 8:31

“being cheerful in (the habitable) land of His earth—
(so) even (is) my delight with (the) sons of man!”

As mentioned in the previous note, the four lines of vv. 30b-31 have a chiastic structure, and thus vv. 30-31 represent both a poetic and syntactic unity. The ‘outer’ lines feature the plural noun <yu!v%u&v^ (“delight[s]”), while the ‘inner’ lines are each governed by a participle of the verb qj^c* (“laugh”, Piel “be cheerful, rejoice, celebrate, play”):

    • “and I was (filled with) delight, day (after) day,
      • being cheerful [tq#j#c^m=] before Him at all time(s),
      • being cheerful [tq#j#c^m=] in (the habitable) land of His earth—
    • (so) even (is) my delight with (the) sons of man!

This parallelism juxtaposes Wisdom’s relationship to YHWH (the Creator) with her relationship to the Creation (spec. humankind). And, just as she was (and is) present with God (in Heaven), so she also is present with human beings (on earth). This thematic shift here in v. 31 prepares for the transition to the final section (vv. 32-36) of the hymn.
Dahood (p. 520f) effectively eliminates this juxtaposition by treating <da ynb in the second line not as the common expression <d*a* yn@B= (“sons of man[kind]”) but as a title for YHWH—viz., “Builder [yn@B)] of the land [<d)a*]”. 

The shift is facilitated by the cosmological-geographic distinction between the “(habitable) land” (lb@T@) and the “earth” (Jr#a#). In this context, the former term represents a narrower aspect of the latter. The noun Jr#a#, which has occurred a number of times in vv. 22-31, signifies the entire lower half of the cosmos, but also (more narrowly) the flat surface of the earth (i.e., the land on which human beings dwell). In this regard, lb@T@, which may denote the dry land (i.e., in contrast to the seas), can refer particularly to the habitable land—that is, where human beings dwell, and the regions which may be cultivated by humankind (cf. Psalm 24:1; Isa 14:17, 21; 27:6; 34:1; Nah 1:5). The noun was used earlier (v. 26) in specific connection to the soil of the earth. Here, the earth is designated as belonging to YHWH (the Creator), i.e., “His earth”. We may recall that the verb hn`q*, used in v. 22, has the basic meaning “acquire”, and thus reflects the idea of the cosmos as YHWH’s possession (which he “acquired” by ‘giving birth’ to it, i.e., creating it).

It was suggested (in the previous note) that the use of the noun <yu!v%u&v (plur.) in the phrase “I (was) delight” (i.e., “I was filled with delight”) expresses the idea that Wisdom shares in the delight that YHWH has in His Creation. In particular, she shares in the delight YHWH takes in humankind. The particle ta in the second line should probably be read as a preposition (“with/in”) rather than as the marker for the accusative (direct object). Thus, Wisdom declares that her delight is “with/in (the) sons of man”. It may also mean that she finds delight in being “with” (i.e., present among) human beings, just as she delights in being “before the face” of YHWH Himself. The theme of Wisdom’s presence among humans was established in the preface to the poem (vv. 1-3) and in Wisdom’s opening address (vv. 4ff).
Waltke (p. 391) regards the ta as the marker of the predicate in an otherwise verbless clause (cf. Walte-O’Connor, 10.3b, 10.3.2c [pp. 180, 183]): “(so) even my delight (is the) sons of man”.

A fundamental tenet of chapters 1-9, expressed quite clearly here (as also in the prior Wisdom-poem, 3:13-20), is that the Divine Wisdom that was present with YHWH in the beginning (and by which He created the universe) is also manifested in the practical wisdom a person learns (such as that which is taught to a young man by his father). Cf. Job 28:28 in the cosmological context of the chapter (vv. 12ff, 20ff); cited by Schipper, p. 314.

The LXX makes YHWH the subject of the rejoicing, in both v. 30b and 31a. The sense is that Wisdom shared in the delight YHWH took (vb eu)frai/nw, “have a good [i.e., cheerful/happy] heart/mind”) in His Creation:

“According to (each) day, indeed, I had a good heart in His presence in all time(s), when He was of good heart, (hav)ing completed the inhabited (world), he was (made) good in heart by (the) sons of men.”

Christological Significance

The Johannine Gospel Prologue (1:1-18), like verse 31 here, juxtaposes the Divine Wisdom’s presence with God (vv. 1-3, 18) and its presence with human beings (vv. 10ff, 14ff). Of course, the idea that the Wisdom (Logos) of God dwelt among human being has special theological significance in the Gospel context—since he/it dwelt among them in the person of Jesus Christ. Wisdom took such delight in humankind that, even after being rejected by them (vv. 10-11), he still desired to dwell among them—this time as a flesh-and-blood human being, dwelling in their midst in an even more intimate and tangible way.

      • References marked “Waltke” are to Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 1–15, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans: 2004).
      • References marked “Schipper” are to Bernd U. Schipper, Proverbs 1-15, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2010). See also his monograph on Proverbs 2: Hermeneutik der Tora: Studien zur Traditionsgeschichte von Prov 2 und zur Komposition von Prov 1-9, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 432 (Walter de Gruyter: 2012).
      • Those marked “Dahood” are to Mitchell Dahood, “Proverbs 8,22-31: Translation and Commentary”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly [CBQ] 30 (1968), pp. 512-21.

April 6: Proverbs 8:30

This is a series of exegetical notes supplemental to the study on Proverbs 8 (cf. Part 1, 2, 3), covering verses 22-31.

Proverbs 8:30

“Indeed, I was (at) His side, being firmly (present),
and I was (filled with) delight, day (after) day,
being cheerful before Him at all time(s),”

Verses 27-29 described YHWH’s foundational work as Creator—setting the framework of the ordered universe (heaven and earth) firmly in place. During this work, Wisdom was present (“there I [was]”, v. 27), with the implication that she was present with God. This aspect of Wisdom’s presence, and her role in the Creation, forms the subject of the final verses (30-31)—five lines, the last four of which (vv. 30b-31) have a chiastic structure (governed by the noun uv%u=v^ [plur.] and the verb qj^c*).

Verse 30 has been problematic, its interpretation much discussed and debated by commentators, particularly with regard to the use of the term /oma* in the first line. This word is presumably derived from the verbal root /ma (“be firm”)—which is quite appropriate, given the verbs with similar meaning used throughout vv. 27-29: /WK (27a), Jm^a* (28a), zz~u* (28b). However, it has been popular to identify /wma here rather with Akkadian ummānu (cf. Sumerian ummea), a loanwoard (through Aramaic) with a basic meaning “artisan, craftsman”; it is attested in the Song of Songs (/M*a*, 7:2[1]), translated by the LXX as texnith/$. The Book of Wisdom appears to understand v. 30a in this way, since it refers to Wisdom as an artisan (fem. texni=ti$, 7:21; 8:6) who produced “all things”.

However, the noun /oma* (or /M*a*) is masculine and does not agree with Wisdom here as a feminine subject. Thus, there have been a few commentators (e.g., Dahood, p. 519; Müller, pp. 236-7) who prefer to explain /oma* in v. 30 as referring to YHWH: “Indeed, I was (at) His side, (He the) Craftsman”. The work described in vv. 27-29 is certainly that of a builder (or architect), and thus YHWH might fittingly be called an /M*a* (/oma*).

Another option (e.g., Toy, p. 177; McKane, p. 357; Kayatz, pp. 93ff) is to identify /oma* here with a separate [?] /ma root (II) meaning “look after, support”, in the context of a parent ‘looking after’ (i.e., raising and nurturing) a child. The form /wma could be vocalized as a passive participle /Wma*, but it would seem that a feminine form would be required. Fox (p. 287) prefers to parse /oma* as a Qal infinitive with the meaning “growing up”, but this seems to require a passive (e.g., Niphal stem) form.

If Wisdom is the referent for /oma*, then parsing it as a verbal infinitive does seem to be the best explanation, deriving it (presumably) from /m^a* (I), i.e., “being firm”. This “firmness” can be understood in a number of figurative senses—e.g., being “faithful, reliable, trustworthy”, or in a temporal-durative sense (i.e., “enduring, lasting”). Reading the infinitive here in an adverbial manner, Wisdom could be describing herself as being “faithfully” and or “constantly” at YHWH’s side. An increasing number of modern commentators (e.g., Plöger, p. 95; Waltke, p. 420; Baumann, p. 138; Schipper, p. 313) adopt some variation of this approach, and, on the whole, it does seem to be the best solution. However, I have opted for the more literal (fundamental) meaning of the infinitive in my translation above, glossing it as “being firmly (present)” —i.e., Wisdom is firmly in place at YHWH’s side, present at all times. The parallelism with the temporal phrases in lines 2 and 3— “day (after) day” (<oy <oy) and “at all time(s)” (tu@ lk*B=)—also favors such an adverbial usage (as noted by Waltke [p. 420] and Schipper [p. 313]).

It may still be implied that Wisdom played an instrumental role in YHWH’s creation of the universe, as stated by the parallel in 3:19-20 (and cf. Psalm 104:24). Genesis Rabbah records Rabbinic interpretations that variously describe Wisdom’s role (as /oma*) as that of a builder’s ‘blueprint’ (1:1) or specifically as his tool (wtnmwa ylk, 1:2). The LXX apparently translates /oma* as a verbal noun with a meaning akin to “setting (firmly) in place”, rendering with the participle a(rmo/zousa (“joining together”).

A second point of difficulty involves the plural noun <yu!v%u&v^ (lit., “delights”) in line 2 (also used in v. 31b). The plural form can be understood as a plural of abstraction (i.e., simply “delight”) or as an intensive/comprehensive plural (i.e., “great[est] delight”). It is also not clear whether the reference is to Wisdom as YHWH’s delight, or to Wisdom’s own sense of delight. The similar reference in Ps 119:24 (cf. Isa 5:7; Jer 31:20) suggests the former, while the parallel here in v. 31b indicates the latter. Wisdom, as YHWH’s ‘firstborn’ offspring, would naturally be a source of delight, even as He takes pleasure/delight in all of His Creation (cf. Gen 1:10, etc.; Ps 104:26, 31, 33; Job 38:7). I tend to think, however, that the sense here is that Wisdom, being ever at YHWH’s side (as His faithful/loyal offspring), takes much the same delight in Creation that He Himself does. Waltke (p. 420) cites Psalm 109:4 (“I [am] prayer”) and 120:7 (“I [am] peace”) as parallels to the phrase “I was delight” —the sense thus being that Wisdom was totally taken up (and filled) with delight. This seems a sound explanation, which stands in support of my own interpretation (and translation).

The verb qj^c* (cf. qj^x*) in line 3 (also v. 31a) means “laugh”, and the line literally reads “laughing before His face at all time(s)”. In English parlance, to laugh “before (i.e., in front of) someone’s face” suggests mockery, which certainly is not intended here. In the Piel stem, the verb can have the associative meanings “play, celebrate, rejoice”, especially with the locative-relational expression ynp=!l! (“before [one’s] face”); I have translated the verb in the more general sense of “be cheerful”.

In addition to the commentaries and studies cited above (and see the bibliographic list of the citations below), the following articles give very useful and detailed surveys regarding the numerous textual and interpretive questions surrounding the word /oma* in v. 30:

    • Hans Peter Rüger, “AMON—Pflegekind: Zur Auslegungsgeschichte von Prov 8,30a,” in Übersetzung und Deutung: Studien zu Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt: Alexander Reinard Hülst gewidmet von Freunden und Kollegen, ed. D. Barthélémy et al. (Nijkerk, Callenbach: 1977), pp. 154-63.
    • Cleon L. Rogers III, “The Meaning and Significance of the Hebrew Word /wma in Proverbs 8,30″, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [ZAW] 109 (1997), pp. 208-21.
    • Victor A. Hurowitz, “Nursling, Advisor, Architect? /wma and the Role of Wisdom in Proverbs 8,22-31″, Biblica 80 (1999), pp. 391-400.
    • Stuart Weeks, “The Context and Meaning of Proverbs 8:30a”, Journal of Biblical Literature [JBL] 125 (2006), pp. 433-42. 
Christological Significance

The idea of Wisdom being present with God at the beginning of the Creation, as applied to the pre-existence of Christ, has been discussed in the prior notes. In connection with v. 30, early Christians drew further from this verse the premise that Jesus Christ, as the pre-existent Wisdom, played a central role in God’s work as Creator. In this regard, early Christians followed the line of interpretation evidenced in the Book of Wisdom (7:21-22; 8:4-6, cf. above), referring to Wisdom as an artisan (texnith/$, texni=ti$) who fashioned “all things”. Paul appears to have held a rudimentary form of this Wisdom Tradition as part of his Christology (cf. 1 Cor 8:6; Rom 11:36), though it finds full expression only in the Colossians ‘Christ-Hymn’ (1:15-20 [cf. the recent study]):

“for in him were founded [i.e., created] all (thing)s…
…all (thing)s through him and unto him were founded” (v. 16)

The Johannine Gospel Prologue (1:1ff) states this even more directly:

“All (thing)s came to be through him, and apart from him not even one (thing) came to be.” (v. 3)
“…the world came to be through him” (v. 10)

The same line of Wisdom Christology is present in the preface of Hebrews (1:1-4):

“at (the) last of these days, He (has) spoken to us in/by (His) Son, whom He set (to be) heir of all (thing)s, through whom He also made the Ages” (v. 2)

The Johannine Prologue and Hebrews both evince a Logos Christology—identifying Jesus as the pre-existent Wisdom of God in terms of the Word by which He created the universe (Gen 1:1ff, cf. Heb 11:3). On the Greek lo/go$ concept underlying this Christology, see the article “Philo and the Logos of John 1:1ff”.

      • References above marked “Fox” are to Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1-9, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 18A (Yale University Press: 2000). Those marked “Fox, Textual Commentary” are to idem, Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition 1 (Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Press: 2015). 
      • References marked “Waltke” are to Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 1–15, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans: 2004).
      • References marked “Schipper” are to Bernd U. Schipper, Proverbs 1-15, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2010). See also his monograph on Proverbs 2: Hermeneutik der Tora: Studien zur Traditionsgeschichte von Prov 2 und zur Komposition von Prov 1-9, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 432 (Walter de Gruyter: 2012).
      • Those marked “Meinhold” are to Arndt Meinhold, Die Sprüche, Teil 1: Sprüche Kapitel 1-15, Zürcher Bibelkommentare, AT 16.1 (Theologische Verlag Zürich: 1991).
      • Those marked “Plöger” are to Otto Plöger, Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia), Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament XVII (Neukirchener Verlag: 1984).
      • Those marked “McKane” are to William McKane, Proverbs: A New Approach, The Old Testament Library [OTL] (The Westminster Press: 1970). 
      • Those marked “Toy” are to Crawford Howell Toy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs, International Critical Commentary [ICC] (C. Scribner’s Sons: 1899). 
      • Those marked “Müller” are to Achim Müller, Proverbien 1-9: Der Weisheit neue Kleider, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 291 (Walter de Gruyter: 2000).
      • Those marked “Baumann” are to Gerlinde Baumann, Die Weisheitsgestalt in Proverbien 1-9: Traditionsgeschichtliche und Theologische Studien, Forschungen zum Alten Testament 16 (Mohr Siebeck: 1996).
      • Those marked “Kayatz” are to Christa Kayatz, Studien zu Proverbien 1-9, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament [WMANT] 22 (Neukirchener Verlag: 1966).
      • Those marked “Dahood” are to Mitchell Dahood, “Proverbs 8,22-31: Translation and Commentary”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly [CBQ] 30 (1968), pp. 512-21.

“God Sent Forth His Son…”: John 3:13-17ff (Part 1)

The Incarnation in the Gospel and Letters of John

Having examined all of the principal Pauline passages related to the idea of the incarnation and God’s “sending forth” of His Son (1 Tim 3:16 will be discussed in a supplemental note), we now turn our attention to the Johannine Wrirings (Gospel and Letters).

The Gospel of John

The primary Johannine passage—and the clearest presentation in the New Testament—attesting an incarnational Christology is the Prologue (1:1-18) of the Gospel. In this famous passage, Jesus Christ is identified with the pre-existent Word/Wisdom (Logos) of God (1:1-5, 9-12), much as in the Colossians ‘Christ-Hymn’ (1:15-20) discussed in the previous study. This tacit identification leads to the great declaration in v. 14:

“And the Word [lo/go$] became flesh [sa\rc ege/neto] and set up (his) tent among us; and we looked on his splendor [do/ca]—(the) splendor as of an only (Son) [monogenh/$] alongside (the) Father, full of favor and truth.”

This statement is further expounded in vv. 15-18, applying it more precisely to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ—an application which continues into the introductory episodes (vv. 19-50) of the Gospel narrative proper. In particular, Jesus’ public ministry is positioned in relation to the Son’s incarnation and pre-existence in v. 15 (echoed/repeated in v. 30), representing a uniquely Johannine theological development of a traditional saying by the Baptist (cf. Mark 1:7 par). Then, in vv. 16-18, God’s revelation in the person of Christ (His incarnate Son) is compared/contrasted with His earlier revelation to Moses—i.e., juxtaposing the first/original and new covenants.

I will be discussing 1:14 (and the Johannine Gospel Prologue) at a later point in these studies, in connection with the Johannine Letters (esp. 1 John) and the Christological controversy that appears at the center of those writings. Here, I wish to begin our examination of the Johannine evidence with the Gospel narrative proper, looking at the references mentioning or alluding to the incarnation of the Son. We start with chapter 3 and the Nicodemus Discourse (vv. 1-21).

John 3:13-17ff

All of the Johannine Discourses have an historical-traditional episode as their basis. In this instance, it is the encounter between Jesus and Nicodemus (vv. 1-8ff). However, Nicodemus effectively disappears midway through the discourse and is not mentioned again after verses 9-10. The sayings in verses 13-14f represent the transition point in the discourse, leading to the exposition by Jesus that follows in vv. 16-21. This is significant from the standpoint of the theological framework of the discourse, since it explains how being “born from above” and “born of the Spirit” (the dual-theme in vv. 1-8) are to be understood—viz., in terms of trusting in Jesus as the Son sent from heaven by God the Father (vv. 16-21). This Christological exposition also informs the “son of man” sayings in vv. 13-14 (as is clear from v. 15). The great declarations by Jesus in vv. 16-17 are justly famous, but they are preceded by the “son of man” sayings of vv. 13-14f (discussed in the earlier series “Who Is This Son of Man…?”), which help us to understand in greater detail the statement that God “sent forth His Son”.

Verse 13

“And no one has stepped up [a)nabe/bhken] into heaven, if not the (one hav)ing stepped down [kataba/$] out of heaven, the son of man.”

This statement by Jesus fits somewhat uneasily in the immediate context of vv. 9-12. Indeed, it is not entirely clear how it relates to the preceding vv. 11-12, and it certainly could have existed as a separate saying by Jesus (in some form). In the context of the Discourse, the statement affirms Jesus’ ability (and authority) to speak of “heavenly (thing)s” (e)poura/nia, lit. “[thing]s above the heaven[s]”)—such as the Divine/spiritual teaching in vv. 3-8, along with the exposition that follows in vv. 16-21. Only someone who comes from heaven is able to speak of heavenly things.

Verse 13 begins with the conjunction kai/, which could be translated conjunctively as “and”, or emphatically as “indeed”. In either case, the conjunction connects the saying with the prior vv. 11-12.

The saying itself uses the same verb pair as in 1:51: a)nabai/nw (“step up”, i.e., go/come up) and katabai/nw (“step down”, i.e., go/come down). The statement by Jesus in 1:51 is the first of the Johannine “son of man” sayings, and thus the usage of these verbs, which carry special theological significance in the Gospel of John, is most relevant to their occurrence here (see the summary note below). More to the point, they carry Christological importance. Though the immediate subject of the verbs in 1:51 is the angels (“Messengers of God”), the “son of man” (Jesus) is clearly the focus of that vision; and, indeed, throughout the remainder of the Gospel, these verbs are applied to the person of the Son (Jesus). This Johannine usage makes it absolutely clear, if there were any doubt, that the expression “the son of man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou) refers to Jesus, and is thus used here by Jesus as a self-reference.

There are three component-phrases to the saying here in v. 13, and we shall examine them each in turn.

(a) “no one has stepped up into heaven”

In a strictly literal sense, this would mean that no one (i.e., no human being) has ever gone up (ascended) into heaven. It is possible that the Gospel writer intends us to understand the statement in just this way; however, if so, then the author (and Jesus as the speaker) would be rejecting well-established traditions regarding figures such as Enoch (cf. Gen 5:24), Moses, and Elijah (2 Kings 2:1, 11f). It is, I think, better to view the verb a)nabai/nw here in its special (Johannine) Christological meaning. That is to say, no other person has ever “stepped up” to heaven, being exalted by God in the manner that Jesus was.

In the immediate context of vv. 11-12, the idea of someone ascending to heaven relates to that person’s ability/authority to speak of heavenly things (see above). A human being (such as Elijah) who went up to heaven could presumably speak, in a certain way, about “heavenly things”, but not in the manner of the Son (Jesus); on this point, see below.

(b) “if not the (one hav)ing stepped down out of heaven”

The compound negative particle ei) mh/ (“if not”) is conditional, and usually is meant in an exceptive sense (i.e., “except [for]”)—that is, no one has ever “stepped up” into heaven except for… . The only person who has ever “stepped up” into heaven is the person who has (first) “stepped down” from heaven. This person is designated by the substantive verbal noun (participle) kataba/$ with the definite article—o( kataba/$ (“the [one hav]ing stepped down”). Such use of the articular substantive participle is typical of Johannine style, and there are many examples occurring throughout the Gospel and Letters (too many to cite here). The syntax allows the author/speaker to express an essential or definitive characteristic of a person (or group). The qualifying prepositional expression “out of heaven” (e)k tou= ou)ranou=) fills out the characterizing phrase: “the (one hav)ing stepped down out of heaven”.

This is a vital element of the Johannine Christology—viz., declaring and affirming Jesus’ heavenly origin, and his identity as the Son sent (down) from heaven by God the Father. For more on this, see section (c) below.

A word should be said about the tenses of the two verbs. The verb a)nabai/nw is in the perfect tense, while the participle of katabai/nw is in the aorist tense; in English, both would essentially need to be translated “has stepped up/down”, but note the distinction (indicated by parentheses) in the translation above. If the author (and/or Jesus as the speaker) intends a meaningful distinction here between the two tenses, and it is not simply a stylistic difference, what would this be? The aorist is generally used as the past tense, typically referring to an event which took place at a specific point in the past. In this case, it would refer to the Son (Jesus) “stepping down” out of heaven at some point in the past—specifically, we may assume, from the Gospel standpoint, that this refers to the incarnation described in 1:14ff. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus is identified as the pre-existent Son (or Word [Logos], in the Prologue), who was sent to earth (from heaven) by God the Father. The “stepping down”, then, would refer to Jesus’ appearance on earth as a human being (see below).

The perfect tense of a)nabai/nw is more problematic. A perfect tense is typically used for a past action (or condition) the results/effects of which continue into the present. The sense may be that no one has ever (in the past) “stepped up” into heaven, a fact that continues to be true up to the present moment. This would give greater emphasis to the idea that Jesus (the present speaker) is the only one to do so.

(c) “the son of man”

Some manuscripts and versional (Syriac, Latin) witnesses include the qualifying phrase o( w&n e)n tw=| ou)ranw=| (“the [one] being in heaven”). The expression “the son of man” appears here so abruptly, without further explanation, that it would have been natural for scribes to add an explaining phrase such as this. On the other hand, copyists might just as well have deleted the phrase as being redundant or superfluous. The shorter reading is, I think, much to be preferred, though the matter is far from decisive; however, I would point out that the expression “in heaven” (with the preposition e)n) is not at all typical of Johannine usage, and occurs nowhere else in the Gospel (or Letters).

The expression “the son of man” is apposite to the phrase “the (one hav)ing stepped down out of heaven”, identifying the son of man (i.e., Jesus himself) as this person. That is, Jesus is the one who has “stepped down” out of heaven. In the context of the Johannine Christology, as noted above, the verb katabai/nw refers to Jesus’ heavenly origin, and to his identity as the Son sent (from heaven) by God the Father.

Does this usage imply that “the son of man” should here be understood as the title of a heavenly figure, with whom Jesus is identified? Many scholars believe so (or would assume so), and yet the evidence is highly questionable, when examined in detail. If it is intended as a title, then the heavenly figure called “the son of man” must refer to the one “like a son of man” in Daniel 7:13-14. As we have seen, at least two of the Synoptic sayings (Mark 13:26; 14:62 pars) allude to Dan 7:13f, and it is possible that other eschatological sayings assume the same traditional background. On this, see Part 4 of my earlier article on the “son of man” sayings in “Q”. The question of the influence of Dan 7:13f on the occurrences of the expression is discussed more extensively in a separate article in the series “Who Is This Son of Man…?”

Other commentators would emphasize the incarnation of the Son here, in the use of the expression “the son of man”. Since “son of man”, as a Semitic idiom, denotes a human being, it would be natural that it signify here the incarnation. Indeed, such an interpretation would very much fit the sense of the statement in v. 13: the Son “stepped down” from heaven to earth, and became a human being, viz., Jesus as “th(is) son of man”. Before giving further consideration to this point, let us continue with the second “son of man” saying (v. 14f).

Verses 14-15

“And, even as Moshe lifted high [u&ywsen] the snake in the desolate (land), so it is necessary (for) the son of man to be lifted high [u(ywqh=nai]” (v. 14)

This “son of man” saying follows upon the one in verse 13 (see above). While it is possible that these sayings once circulated separately, they are clearly connected here, being integral—indeed, central—to the Johannine Discourse of Jesus in chap. 3 (3:1-21). In this case, the initial conjunction (kai/), connecting verse 14 with v. 13, would seem to have a coordinating (and explicative) force (i.e., “and so…”).

The bonding motif, uniting the two sayings, is the idea of ascent. In verse 13 (as in 1:51, cf. the note below), the verb used is a)nabai/nw (“step up”), while here in v. 14 it is u(yo/w (“lift/raise high”). Both verbs are important Johannine keywords, used throughout the Gospel, with special theological (and Christological) meaning. In verse 13, the “stepping up” of the son of man (Jesus) is anticipated, and this is expressed with greater clarity in v. 14.

We may isolate two component clauses to the saying, reflecting two distinct lines of tradition:

    • Phrase 1: An illustrative comparison from Scripture, viz., a particular Moses tradition (Numbers 21:4-9, vv. 8-9)
    • Phrase 2: A “son of man” saying rooted in the Gospel Tradition, comparable to the three Passion-prediction sayings by Jesus (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33 pars)

Before turning to the Moses-tradition, let us consider the resemblance of v. 14b to the Synoptic Passion-predictions—all of which utilize the expression “the son of man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou) as a self-reference by Jesus. The first prediction, in particular, bears a close formal resemblance:

    • “it is necessary [dei=] (for) the son of man to suffer many (thing)s…” (Mk 8:31)
    • “it is necessary [dei=] (for) the son of man to be lifted up high” (v. 14b)

In the Synoptic saying, the chain of infinitives covers the full range of Jesus’ Passion—suffering, death, and resurrection. By contrast, here in John, a single infinitive (of the verb u(yo/w) suffices. The parallel suggests that the verb corresponds similarly to the range of Jesus’ Passion (entailing both his death and resurrection), though it is his impending death that would seem to be primarily in view (cf. below).

The illustration of the bronze snake, set up by Moses on a ‘pole’ (Num 21:8f), certainly is suggestive (visually) of Jesus being placed upon a stake. Thus, it would seem that the primary reference is to Jesus’ crucifixion; the other occurrences of the verb u(yo/w (8:28; 12:32, 34) would tend to confirm this (see esp. the comment in 12:33). However, the Hebrew word for the pole or staff, upon which the snake was set, is sn@, which specifically refers to a signal-flag or banner—viz., something placed up high (and waved) so that everyone can see it (and rally to it). This brings out additional associations for the symbolism. In the original Moses tradition, the snake served as signal-flag, so that, whenever a person was bitten by a snake, he/she could look to the elevated bronze snake, and thus be healed (lit. “live”). In verse 8, the verb ha*r* (“see”) is used, but in v. 9 it is the verb fb^n`, which can imply a more intense or careful looking (i.e., gazing at, contemplating).

Given the theological importance of the sight/seeing motif in the Gospel of John, it is no surprise that this aspect of the tradition is particularly brought out by the Gospel writer (and Jesus as the speaker). This becomes clear from the expository application that follows in verse 15:

“…(so) that every(one) trusting in him should hold (the) life of the Ages [i.e. eternal life].”

In the Johannine theological idiom, seeing means trusting in Jesus (as the Son of God)—see, in particular, this correlation in the chapter 9 narrative (esp. vv. 35-41). Thus, everyone “seeing” the raised snake corresponds to everyone “trusting in” Jesus.

What significance, if any, is there to the use of the expression “the son of man” here in v. 14, beyond its use as a self-reference by Jesus? If we limit our analysis to the parallel with the Synoptic Passion-prediction (Mk 8:31 par, see above), then there would seem to be a specific association between the expression and the suffering (and death) of Jesus. This, in turn, represents a natural extension of the poetic use of the expression in the Old Testament Scriptures, in which the limitation and weakness of the human condition—including its mortality—tends to be emphasized. Jesus identifies himself with these aspects of the human condition.

However, if we turn to the prior occurrences of the expression in the Gospel of John (1:51; 3:13) there would seem to be a rather different orientation and point of emphasis. A brief consideration of the “son of man” saying in 1:51 is warranted.

Summary Note on the Saying in 1:51

“Amen, amen, I declare [le/gw] to you, (that) you shall see [o&yesqe] the heaven(s) having opened up, and the Messengers of God stepping up [a)nabai/nonta$] and stepping down [katabai/nonta$] upon [e)pi/] the son of man.”

We can isolate four principal components of the saying in verse 51: (a) the orienting location of heaven, (b) the presence of the Messengers (angels) of God, (c) the ascent/descent motif (using the verbs a)nabai/nw and katabai/nw), and (d) the figure of the “son of man” (including the use of the preposition e)pi/). The first two naturally allude to the Divine/heavenly origin of Jesus—an important Johannine theological point that is made more explicit in 3:13-14ff (as also in the Gospel Prologue, cf. above). The last two components (c-d) are also present here in vv. 13-14f.

In 1:51, the related verbs a)nabai/nw (“step up”) and katabai/nw (“step down”) refer to the activity of the angels (taken from Gen 28:12). It also echoes use of katabai/nw for the descent of the Spirit (“stepping down”) upon Jesus at his baptism (vv. 32-33). However, throughout the remainder of the Gospel, the verbs a)nabai/nw and katabai/nw are applied to Jesus (the Son)—it is he who “stepped down” from heaven, for his mission on earth, and who, once it has been completed, will “step up” again, back to heaven. The activity of the angels thus serves as a type-pattern for the mission of Jesus himself.

The verb katabai/nw (“step down”) is used of the pre-existent Son’s coming down to earth (incarnate, as a human being), to fulfill his mission, the duty (e)ntolh/) which the Father gave him to complete. Conversely, the verb a)nabai/nw (“step up”) refers to the exaltation or “lifting up” of the Son (Jesus)—a process which includes his death, resurrection, and return to the Father. This same language will be discussed further, as it occurs in other “son of man” sayings in John.

This brings us to the specific use of the expression “the son of man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou). Though here the point can only be inferred, it is fair to assume that the expression is being used primarily as a self-reference by Jesus, much as it was used in many (if not all) of the Synoptic sayings (cf. the articles in the series “Who Is This Son of Man…?”). Conceivably, at the historical level, such a saying (without further context) could have been understood by Jesus’ hearers as referring to a figure separate from Jesus himself. To the extent that this might be true, the reference surely would be to the heavenly figure of Daniel 7:13-14 (cf. the article in the aforementioned series), such as it came to be interpreted and applied in an eschatological (and/or Messianic) context (as, e.g., in the Similitudes of Enoch [1 Enoch 37-71]). However, in the immediate context of the Gospel, the expression can only refer to the person of Jesus. Thus, Jesus would be promising his disciples a heavenly vision of himself (“the son of man”).

How should we understand this promise? The closest parallels in the Synoptic Gospels are the eschatological sayings in Mark 8:38 and 13:26 pars. In each of these sayings, the end-time appearance of the “son of man” involves the presence of angels. As he comes from heaven, the angels descend with him; cf. also Matt 13:41; 25:31. Similar as a vision of the son of man in heavenly splendor is Mark 14:62 par, though this particular saying seems to emphasize the exaltation of Jesus (after his death) rather more than his end-time return. Both Mark 13:26 and 14:62 use the verb o)pta/nomai for the seeing (gazing at) of this vision, just as here in verse 51. Thus, if a specific visionary event is intended by the saying, then it most likely refers to the end-time appearance of the son of man (i.e., return/parousia of Jesus), when he comes from heaven with the angels. A less likely interpretation is that it refers to the exalted status of Jesus (in heaven), akin to the vision experienced by Stephen in Acts 7:55-56. The ascent/descent of the angels could indicate activity, connected with the appearance of the son of man, such as we see described in Mk 13:27 par (cf. Matt 13:41ff).

However, I do not believe that a particular eschatological event is foremost in the Gospel writer’s mind. Rather, for the author, the language and imagery of the saying is emblematic of the Gospel portrait of Jesus as a whole. The promised vision encompasses the entire message of the Gospel, declaring Jesus’ identity as the Son who descends from heaven and then ascends back. It is an exalted, heavenly identity, one which is worthy of being described as surrounded by angels. The angel-motif alludes back to the Gen 28:12f tradition, as describing the formative revelation of God to Israel (Jacob). It also looks ahead to the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus (following his death), and to his future return in glory.

For more detail on this verse, see the article in the series “Who Is This Son of Man…?”, as well as in a pair of earlier notes and studies.

Building upon the Saying in 1:51

As we see in the first two “son of man” sayings in John [1:51 and 3:13], there are two key thematic motifs associated with the expression “the son of man”: (1) the heavenly origin of Jesus, and (2) the descent/ascent motif. The principal point in verse 13 is Jesus’ descent to earth from heaven; implicit in the saying is the expectation that, after his descent (stepping down) to earth, he will then ascend (stepping back up) to heaven.

It is in this regard that the verb u(yo/w (“lift up high”) can be understood as signifying something more than Jesus’ death on the cross. Indeed, while the Johannine understanding of Son’s exaltation may begin with his being ‘lifted up’ on the cross, it also includes his resurrection and ultimate return to the Father (in heaven). Jesus’ suffering and death begins a process of exaltation that reaches its climax with his return to heaven. We shall find this same Christological dynamic at work in the remaining “son of man” sayings as well.

Given the parallel between verse 14b and Mark 8:31 par (see above), it would be enough to explain Jesus’ use of the expression “the son of man” here on that basis. However, in light of the proximity to the saying in v. 13, we may fairly assume that the expression in verse 14 carries the same theological import as it does in v. 13 (and 1:51). In other words, Jesus’ identity as the “son of man” must be understood in terms of the distinctive Johannine theology. As we begin to expound this in the context of the descent/ascent motif, we can isolate two principal theological strands:

    • Descent: Jesus’ heavenly origin, and his incarnation on earth as a human being (“son of man”)
    • Ascent: A process of exaltation that begins with his death (i.e., suffering of the “son of man”), and culminates with his return to heaven.

Their significance within the Johannine theology is further expounded by the verses that follow in vv. 16-17ff, which we will examine in Part 2 of this study.

The association with Moses in v. 14

The association with Moses in verse 14 raises an interesting (possible) point of interpretation for verse 13. Indeed, it is possible that the Gospel writer (and Jesus as the speaker) intends a specific comparison, between Jesus and Moses, in v. 13. Central to this theory is the idea of Moses’ ascension, as it is found in Jewish tradition. When Jesus declares that “no one has stepped up into heaven”, he may have the ascension of Moses specifically in mind. For traditions regarding an ascent by Moses, see Meeks, pp. 104ff, 110-111, 192-5, 235-6 (cf. Moloney, p. 56f).

Such a comparison is made more plausible by the thematic relationship, between Jesus and Moses, that runs through much of the Gospel. This begins in the Prologue (1:14-18, esp. vv. 17-18), where the comparative superiority of Jesus is established. These verses draw upon various Moses/Exodus traditions, particularly the theophany (YHWH’s revelation to Moses) in chapters 33-34—and especially the notice in 33:23 (cf. Deut 4:12ff). The wording in v. 18 of the Prologue resembles that of 3:13:

    • “no one has seen God at any time”
    • “no one has stepped up into heaven”

If the phrase in 1:18 alludes to Moses (Exod 33:23), then it is plausible that the similar phrase in 3:13 does so as well (particularly given the reference to Moses in v. 14).

References above marked “Meeks” are to Wayne A. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (Brill: 1967).
Those marked “Moloney” are to Francis J. Moloney SDB, The Johannine Son of Man, Second Edition (Wipf and Stock: 1978/2007).

 

“God Sent Forth His Son…”: Colossians 1:15-20 (Part 4)

Stanza 2: Verses 18b-20, continued

As discussed in Part 3, the second stanza of the Colossians hymn deals with the new creation, even as the first stanza dealt with the first/original creation. The new creation (i.e., the New Age) begins with the resurrection of Christ. This parallelism, particularly as expressed through the use of the noun prwto/toko$ at the beginning of each stanza, helps to explain the otherwise curious inversion of the normal Gospel/Christological sequence—namely, mentioning the Son’s resurrection (v. 18bc) prior to his incarnation and suffering/death.

Verse 19

The incarnation of the Son, as such, is described in verse 19:

o%ti e)n au)tw=| eu)do/khsen pa=n to\ plh/rwma katoikh=sai
“(for it was) that in him He thought it good (for) all the fullness to put down house [i.e., to dwell]”

Verse 19 builds upon the previous statements in v. 18 with an epexegetical (explanatory) o%ti-clause. This clause should be distinguished from the i%na-clause in v. 18c which gives the reason or purpose why Jesus was made the a)rxh/, the “one first brought forth [prwto/toko$] out of the dead”. This reason was stated as:

“(so) that [i%na] he should come to be (the one) being [i.e. who is] first in all (thing)s” (18c)

This “being first” (vb prwteu/w) is clearly tied to the resurrection of Jesus, and, in particular, to his exaltation to heaven alongside (‘at the right hand of’) God the Father. This exalted position is a position of rule over the cosmos (“all things”), over the new creation, which is currently realized only for believers in Christ (cf. the discussion in Part 3).

Now a further explanation (and interpretation) is given in v. 19, beginning with the conjunctive particle o%ti, “(for it was) that…”. The purpose of God in exalting Jesus was expressed in v. 18c by the subjunctive ge/nhtai (“he should come to be”) in combination with the particle i%na: “so that he should come to be…”. Now in v. 19, the Divine wish is expressed by the verb eu)doke/w (“think good of, consider good”). This is something of a Pauline term, as it occurs primarily (11 times) in his letters. Nearly all of the occurrences elsewhere are tied to the Gospel tradition of the Divine voice at Jesus’ baptism (Mark 1:11 par), echoed in the Transfiguration episode (Matt 17:5; 2 Pet 1:17). This early tradition must be considered foundational for the use of the verb here in the Christ hymn, and likely reflects the Servant Song of Isa 42:1ff (LXX), a passage cited prominently in Matt 12:18-21. Cf. my earlier article on the use of Isa 42:1ff in the Gospel Tradition.

It seems likely that the hymn is drawing upon the same well-established tradition here. And, if so, then it has a profound significance on the meaning of the clause. Let us follow the parallel:

    • The Isaian poem:
      • God thought good to favor His Servant (pai=$ in Greek, which can also mean “child, son”) by
        • giving His Spirit upon him
    • The Baptism tradition:
      • The Divine/Heavenly voice announces that He (God) thinks good of Jesus, His Son, and so favors him by
        • the descent of the Spirit on him
    • The Colossians hymn:
      • It is declared that God thought it good for Jesus (His Son) that
        • “all the fullness (was) to dwell” in him (19b)

The implication here is that v. 19b should be interpreted in terms of the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus, and its indwelling presence in him. Before we follow through on this line of interpretation, it is necessary to look more closely at the actual wording in the second part of v. 19. The key phrase is:

pa=n to\ plh/rwma katoikh=sai

This comprised of three terms, each of which must be examined.

pa=n (“all”)—a neuter form of the adjective pa=$, which has been used repeatedly (6 times) throughout the earlier lines of the hymn (vv. 15-19). In the context of the hymn, the adjective has universal, cosmic significance, referring to “all things”, all that is in the universe, all of creation. Here, the adjective modifies the neuter noun plh/rwma and must be understood within that immediate context.

plh/rwma (“filling, fullness”)—a neuter noun derived from plhro/w (“fill”); it can be used in either an active (i.e., the act of filling) or passive sense (i.e., that which is filled). It is more common in the New Testament (17 times) than in the LXX (15 times total) and is something of a distinctive Pauline term—of the 17 NT occurrences, 12 are in the Pauline letters (including 4 in Ephesians). Like the adjective pa=$, Paul uses the word plh/rwma in a general, comprehensive sense, applied to a range of situations. Several of these are particularly notable:

    • The eschatological context of Rom 11:12, 25, with the “fullness” of the people of God (both Israelites/Jews and Gentiles) thus tied to the theme of the central place of believers in the ‘new creation’.
    • The citation of Psalm 24:1 in 1 Cor 10:26, emphasizing that the “fullness” of creation belongs to God (as its Ruler).
    • The Christological-theological reference that follows in Col 2:9 (cf. below).

What of the usage here in the hymn? The point of reference is not specified—the “fullness” of what? There are two possibilities: (1) it refers to the fullness of creation (i.e., all of creation), or (2) it is a reference to the fullness of God (i.e., His presence). The other Pauline occurrences of plh/rwma (outside of Colossians), noted above, along with the repeated use of the comprehensive adjective pa=$ (“all [things]”) here in the hymn, strongly suggests the former view (#1). On the other hand, the use of the verb katoike/w that follows, as well as the other occurrence of plh/rwma in Col 2:9, is an equally strong argument for the latter (#2).

There are two factors which argue rather decisively in favor of view #2. The first of these is the use of the verb katoike/w that follows in v. 19. The verb means “put down house”, i.e., “dwell”, in the sense of a permanent residence, as opposed to the related paroike/w (dwell alongside, in a temporary dwelling). It is a common enough word, especially in (historical) narrative, and occurs more than 680 times in the LXX. It is similarly used quite often in the narratives of the book of Acts, but is relatively rare in the remainder of the New Testament and is never used in the Pauline letters outside of Colossians and Ephesians.

In a number of Old Testament passages (LXX), katoike/w is used in a specialized sense, for the dwelling of God (YHWH) on earth among His people—cf. 2 Sam 7:6; 1 Kings 8:27; Psalm 22 [21]:4; 68 [67]:17; 132 [131]:14; Isa 8:18, etc. From the standpoint of ancient religious tradition, the presence of YHWH, in relation to humankind (His people), was located in the Tabernacle/Temple, both in a symbolic and ritual sense. One of the distinctive developments in early Christianity involved a shift from the Temple to the person of Jesus. This shift goes back to the Gospel tradition and certain key sayings by Jesus himself; it continued, and developed even further, among early Christians as believers were increasingly separated from the Jewish Temple ritual. What this shows is the strong identification by early Christians of Jesus (his person) as the location of God’s presence. And, by extension, God’s presence, as well as the presence of the exalted Jesus himself, dwelt in and among believers through the Spirit. This readily explains Paul’s application of the Temple-motif to believers, who are now defined as the holy dwelling-place of the Spirit of God (i.e., His presence) and Christ (1 Cor 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; cf. also Eph 2:21).

The second piece of evidence to consider is the parallel use of the word plh/rwma, along with the verb katoike/w, in Col 2:9. Even if the hymn originally used these terms in a different sense (which is doubtful), the statement in 2:9 demonstrates how Paul (or the author of the letter) understood their meaning in context. Here is the statement:

“(for it is) that in him all the fullness [plh/rwma] of the qeo/th$ puts down house [katoikei=, i.e. dwells] bodily”

This clause is formally quite similar to that in v. 19 of the hymn, being virtually a quotation of it. And, in this instance, “all the fullness” is qualified as being “of the qeo/th$“. The noun qeo/th$ is a bit difficult to translate in English; fundamentally, it means “God-ness”, i.e., what it means to be God, the presence and power of God, etc. In English, the word is typically rendered “deity”, while the familiar “Godhead” (KJV) is an overloaded term that implies, for many readers, a doctrine of the Trinity that is quite out of place here in a mid-1st century hymn. Also difficult is the adverb swmatikw=$, related to the adjective swmatiko/$; it is derived from the word sw=ma (“body”), and essentially refers to something that is done, or takes place, in a body (i.e., physically). The head-body motif in verse 17 makes clear that sw=ma can be used readily in a figurative sense, and, since the same metaphor occurs again in 2:10, we must be cautious about reading it in a narrow anthropological-biological sense in v. 9.

How, then, should we understand “all the fullness” of God’s presence “putting down house” in Jesus? In an earlier note on this verse, I highlighted four main possibilities:

    • In terms of the eternal pre-existence of the Son of God [#1]
    • Pre-existence, in the specific context of God’s act of creation [#2]
    • The Incarnation—the existence of the pre-existent Son as a human being [#3]
    • The resurrection and exaltation of Jesus [#4]

The last of these (#4) is unquestionably the context of the second stanza (vv. 18-20) of the hymn; however, the use of the adverb swmatikw=$ in 2:9 suggests the idea of incarnation (#3, cp. John 1:14, and the use of plh/rwma in v. 16); while the influence of Wisdom/Logos tradition in the hymn, discussed in Parts 2 & 3 of this study, would argue in favor of #2. It has been popular to read 1:19 and 2:9 according to view #1, but in such cases, readers and commentators have been unduly influenced by post-Nicene orthodoxy and later Christological concerns.

Given all of the factors and relevant parallels, we are justified in extending the sense of Col 2:9 to include the broader concept of the incarnation of the pre-existent Son of God (vv. 15-17). In particular, the emphasis is on the full presence (and power) of God manifest in the person of Jesus, even during his life (and death) on earth. It was this divine power, ultimately, which raised Jesus from the dead and transformed him into the “life-giving Spirit”. In early Christian tradition, the moment where this “filling” of God’s presence took place is clearly the baptism of Jesus, when the Spirit descended upon him. After this point, the Spirit dwelt in/on Jesus during his life, though it is only in the Gospel of Luke that the specific terminology of being “filled” with the Spirit is used (4:1; on the Lukan idiom, cf. also 1:15, 41, 67; Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31; 6:3, etc).

It is significant that there is really no sense here of the “filling” of Jesus by God’s Presence occurring in terms of his physical birth—that is, at the moment of his birth as a human being. As we have seen, based on Paul’s wording in Gal 4:4 and Rom 1:3, he seems have held a rudimentary view of the Son’s incarnation (by birth) in the person of Jesus, and this view perhaps can be inferred in the Philippians hymn as well. However, it would be a bit precarious to read the idea of an incarnate birth into the Colossians hymn at this point, even though it probably represents the basic understanding that Paul had regarding the incarnation of the Son. Based on much of the New Testament evidence, the focus of the incarnation might just as well be located at the moment of Jesus’ Baptism—viz., the pre-existent Son came to indwell the man Jesus (at the Baptism) through the presence of the Spirit. There is some reason to think that certain Christians in the first-century held just such a Christological view; it will be discussed further in the upcoming studies on the Johannine Gospel (and Letters).

In any case, it was the incarnate Son (Jesus) who served as the means through which God produced the New Creation. This work is summarized in the final lines (v. 20) of the hymn, and we should examine them briefly as we bring this study to a close.

Verse 20

“and through him to make all (thing)s different (again), unto him,
(hav)ing made peace through his blood of the stake [i.e. cross],
(all this is) [through him],
whether the (thing)s upon the earth or the (thing)s in the heavens”

This line builds upon v. 19, poetically exhibiting synthetic parallelism—meaning that the statement in the second line is the result (or consequence) of that in the first. In particular, the infinitive a)pokatalla/cai is parallel with katoikh=sai in v. 19. The fullness of God dwelling in Jesus leads to “making all things different”.

The root of the compound verb a)pokatalla/ssw is a)lla/ssw, which means “make different”, or to “transform” —i.e., to “change (one thing) into another [a&llo$]”. It is a relatively common verb, but one which, by its denotation, tends to be used only in certain contexts. It occurs 42 times in the LXX, and 6 times in the New Testament; of these, 4 are by Paul in his letters, including in two notable passages: Rom 1:23 and 1 Cor 15:51-52. These two passages are significant for the context of v. 20 in our hymn. The first implies the corruption of the first creation, while the second references the beginning of the new creation (i.e., the resurrection of believers).

The compound verb katalla/ssw is rather more rare. The prepositional prefix kata/ may simply be an emphatic element, but it is significant that the compound verb often connotes a change in a situation that restores a relationship, e.g., between two people (or parties) that have become estranged or hostile to each other (i.e., being ‘against’ [kata] one another). In the New Testament, it is a distinctly Pauline term, with all 6 occurrences found in just three passages in Paul’s letters—Rom 5:10; 1 Cor 7:11; 2 Cor 5:18-20. In 1 Cor 7:11 it is used in the practical context of maintaining the marriage bond, i.e., reconciling when there may be conflict, and thus avoiding a separation or divorce. The occurrences in Rom 5:10 and 2 Cor 5:18-20 are more significant, theologically (and Christologically), and are directly relevant to the use of the double-compound verb in the hymn:

“…being (one)s (who were) hostile, we are made different (now) to God through the death of His Son, (and) much more—(hav)ing been made different, we will be saved in [i.e. through] his life” (Rom 5:10)

Salvation is defined here in an eschatological sense, related to the end-time resurrection of believers into eternal life. The cosmic aspect of this transformation is emphasized in 2 Cor 5:18ff:

“if any(one is) in the Anointed (One), (he is) a new foundation [kti/si$ i.e., creation]—the old (thing)s have come [i.e. passed] along, (and) see! they have come to be new—and all th(ese thing)s (are) out of [i.e. come from] God, the (One hav)ing made (things) different for us with Himself through (the) Anointed, and (hav)ing given to us the service [i.e. ministry] of making (things) different [katallgh/], even as (it was) that God was in (the) Anointed, making (things) different for (the) world with Himself…”

There are clearly certain key similarities of thought and terminology between this passage and the Colossians hymn, including the parallel of a transformation of humankind (believers) with the transformation of the world (ko/smo$, the created order) itself. In each instance the compound verb kata/llassw is used, capturing the nuance of reconciliation and restoration within the broader idea of “making (things) different”. The relationship involved is between creation (esp. humankind) and God.

The hymn uses the double-compound a)pokatalla/ssw, which occurs only here in Colossians (1:20 and 22), and once in Ephesians (2:16). As far as I am aware, it remains unattested in Greek outside of the New Testament and early Christian writings. The use of the double-prefix a)po + kata/ may be emphatic or stylistic, but likely is meant to emphasize the idea of restoration—back to a situation that existed before. That is certainly the sense of the verb a)pokaqi/sthmi (and related noun a)pokata/stasi$), which involves the same double-prefix (cf. Acts 1:6; 3:21, etc). The parallelism of the stanzas of the hymn, dealing with the theme of creation, would suggest that the new creation represents, in at least some sense, a restoration of the first creation. From the standpoint of Pauline theology, this may refer to entrance of sin and evil into the original created order, corrupting it—cf. especially Romans 5:12ff, in the context of v. 10 (cp. Col 1:21f with Rom 5:1-11). Gentile believers, in particular, prior to coming to trust in Jesus, were separated from God, in the sense that they were outside of the covenant (between God and Israel). All of this changed (and was made different) through the new covenant, which brings about the new creation.

In all other occurrences of a)lla/ssw (or katalla/ssw) cited above, the transformation (and restoration/reconciliation) involves the relation between humankind (believers) and God. Thus, we are said to be reconciled, our situation made different, “with God” or in relation “to God”, typically expressed through the use of the dative case (without a preposition)—[tw=|] qew=|, or with the reflexive pronoun (e(autw=|, “with/to Himself”). This terminology suggests that, in the prepositional expression ei)$ au)to/n (“unto him”) in v. 20a, the pronoun refers to God the Father. However, all other occurrences of the personal pronoun (or relative pronoun) in the hymn refer to Jesus the Son, including a range of similar prepositional phrases (“in him”, “through him”, etc). Moreover, the combination of di’ au)tou= and ei)$ au)to/n here is precisely parallel with the same combination that occurs in v. 16, referring the Son’s role and place in the first creation. Thus, we must view the two expressions in v. 20 similarly—i.e., as referring to the exalted Jesus’ role and place in the new creation.

In this regard, we have to consider the significance of the usage in v. 16:

    • di’ au)tou= (“through him”)—like the divine Wisdom/Logos of Jewish tradition, the Son is the means by which God created the cosmos, and the pattern (or lens) through which it was created.
    • ei)$ au)to/n (“unto/into him”)—the creation corresponds to the image/pattern of God manifest in the Son, who also represents the goal and purpose for which the world was created

I would argue that essentially the same meaning applies to the new creation in the second stanza: the new creation (beginning with believers in Christ) is established by God through Jesus, and finds its purpose and completion unto/into him. What is special about this new creation is its transformational aspect, indicated by the use of the verb –a)lla/ssw. As noted above, the verb, in its double-compound form, specifically emphasizes the idea of restoration. In this regard, the new creation represents a restoration of the first creation, but also a fundamental transformation. This transformational aspect begins with the resurrection of Jesus, and subsequently of believers in Christ, eventually extending to all of creation (“all things”).

But how, precisely, is this transformation effected? Verse 20b gives the answer: by “making peace through his blood.” The means by which things have been “made different” is the death of Jesus (that is, of the incarnate Son), denoted specifically by the traditional motif of blood, which can be used to refer to death (especially when violent or traumatic) even when no actual bloodshed is involved. Jesus’ death can similarly be referenced by the term stau/ro$, referring to his death at the stake (i.e. crucifixion). Paul makes use of both idioms in his letters, with the “cross” of Jesus being more prominent than the “blood” —cf. Rom 6:6; 1 Cor 1:13, 17-18, 23; 2:2, 8; 13:4; Gal 2:20; 3:1; 5:11, 24; 6:12, 14; Phil 2:8; 3:18; Col 2:14. Apart from his citation of the Last Supper tradition in 1 Cor 11:25-27 (also 10:6), Jesus’ blood is only emphasized in Rom 3:25 and 5:9; these two references are instructive for understanding the place of the blood-motif in Paul’s theology.

The hymn utilizes both the “blood” and the “cross” of Jesus, in a compound expression: “the blood of his (death at) the stake,” i.e., “his blood of the cross”. This doubly affirms the significance of Jesus’ death. Paul mentions the stake/cross (stauro/$) again at 2:14, where the language (and the point he is making) is closer to that of Galatians, emphasizing how Jesus’ death has freed believers (esp. Gentile believers) from any binding obligation to observe the Torah regulations. These themes in Colossians (including the hymn) are echoed, and expanded upon, in Ephesians—especially 2:11-18ff. Whether or not Paul was the author of Ephesians, there can be no doubt that the letter represents a development of genuine Pauline thought. There is greater prominence given in Ephesians to the unity of Jewish and Gentile believers—the hostility/estrangement eliminated by Jesus’ death was not only between humankind and God, but between Jew and non-Jew as well.

If the words di’ au)tou= (“through him”) in v. 20c are original, their repetition from 20a must be considered emphatic (but note their place in the outline below). They give special emphasis to the fact that the transformation, even of all things in creation, is brought about by God through Jesus the Son. This cosmic aspect of the hymn is expressed in a number of ways, most notably by the repeated use of the comprehensive adjective pa=$ (“all”)—8 times in the hymn, including five instances of the objective plural ta\ pa/nta (“all [thing]s”). The pre-existent Son of God played a central role in the original creation of “all things” (the subject of the first stanza), and now the exalted Jesus plays a similar role in the new creation (second stanza).

In Romans 5 the parallel is clearly drawn between human sin and the corruption of the created order. The effect of sin is undone (or reversed) by Jesus in his role as a ‘second’ Adam. This focus is soteriological, but it expands to include an eschatological dimension in chapter 8. All of creation, personified as a human being, groans under the bondage (of sin, evil, and death) in the current Age, awaiting its liberation. And, just as believers in Christ have been freed from bondage to the power of sin, so all of the cosmos will one day be liberated.
The sequence is clear: first, Jesus is raised from the dead; second, those who trust in him participate in the same life-giving power (of God’s Spirit); third, at the end of the current Age, this resurrection will be realized when believers are raised from the dead, after the pattern of Jesus; and, finally, all of creation will be ‘reborn’, in the pattern of the resurrection of Jesus the Son (and believers as the sons/children of God). The New Age will involve a “new heaven and a new earth”, just as human beings (believers) are changed in to a “new creation”. The transformation of the cosmos in terms of resurrection is an important theme of 1 Cor 15 as well (vv. 20-28, 42-56).

There is a similar corollary between humankind and the cosmos here in the Christ hymn, and could be used as a reasonably strong argument in favor of Pauline authorship of the hymn. The New Age for believers, in union with Christ, was expressed in the hymn through the head-body (‘body of Christ’) idiom of v. 18a. Then, in the second stanza proper, this central theme is expounded within the same matrix of cosmology-soteriology-eschatology we find in the Pauline passages cited above. Let us see how this may be expressed in terms of the syntax and thematic structure of the stanza:

    • “who is” —Jesus (the Son) is the one who is
      • “the beginning” —that is, of the new creation, defined as
      • “the first (one) brought forth out of the dead” —resurrection
        • “so that” —the purpose of the resurrection/creation is
          • “he should be (the one who is) first in all (thing)s” —the exaltation of Jesus
        • “(for it was) that” —what brings about his resurrection/exaltation is that
          • “in him” —in the person of Jesus the Son
            • “(God) considered it good (for) all the fullness to put down house” —the incarnation, Jesus filled with the Presence/Spirit of God
          • “through him” —through the work of Jesus
            • “(for God) to make all things different (again)” —the power to restore/transform creation
              • “unto him” —according to the pattern and goal of Jesus the Son
            • “making peace” —undoing the effect of sin, restoring the bond with God
          • “through the blood of his cross” —through his death
        • “[through him]” —all of this takes place through the person of and work of Jesus, so that
      • “the things upon and earth and the things in the heavens” —the complete transformation of the new creation

The strands of thought running through the stanza are complex and powerful. In some ways the cosmological aspect is primary—that is, both stanzas deal primarily with creation. The first stanza focuses on the first (original) creation, the second on the new creation. The resurrection of Jesus ‘restores’ him to his exalted place alongside God the Father in heaven (cp. the descent/ascent paradigm in the Philippians hymn), but it also transforms him into the life-giving Spirit (cf. 1 Cor 15:45). Through the exalted Jesus, God gives life to the new creation, even as He did in the original creation. From his exalted position, Jesus is first, ruling over all things in creation.

While these themes are not unique to Paul in early Christianity, it is his writings which gave to them their finest and definitive expression, and the splendid, ever-provocative hymn of Colossians 1:15-20—whether composed by Paul himself, or simply adapted by him—may fairly be said to represent the high point of this expression.

“God Sent Forth His Son…”: Colossians 1:15-20 (Part 3)

Transition: Verses 17-18a

“And he (himself) is before all (thing)s,
and all (thing)s stand together in him;
and he (indeed) is the head of the body,
(all) the (ones) called out.”

As discussed in Part 1, verses 17-18a represent a transitional unit, positioned between the two stanzas (vv. 15-16, 18b-20) and joining them together. The transition is between the Son’s role in the first/original creation (stanza 1) and the new creation (stanza 2). The lines of vv. 17-18a reflect this. The first two lines (v. 17) summarize the pre-existent Son’s relation to the original creation, highlighting two key aspects of the Jewish Wisdom Tradition that underlie the theology of the first stanza (cf. the discussion in Part 2):

    • Wisdom as the ‘firstborn’ —existing prior to the Creation; cf. the use of the noun prwto/toko$ in v. 15, and the ‘birth’ verbiage in Prov 8:22-24f. Here the point is made in temporal terms (with the preposition pro/, “before”); cf. the comparable temporal indicators at the beginning of each line in Prov 8:22b-26a. Note the use of the same pronoun, in a similar Christological context, in John 17:5, 24.
    • The all-pervading presence of Wisdom—its power and intelligence—that binds the universe together (v. 16). Cf. the discussion in Part 2 regarding the close connection (in Hellenistic Jewish thought) between Wisdom and the Logos (lo/go$) of Greek philosophical tradition. Sirach 43:26 (LXX) resembles v. 17b here: “in/by [e)n] His word [lo/go$] all (thing)s [ta\ pa/nta] lie together [vb sugkei=mai]”; note also the phrase in Wis 1:7, “the (one) holding together [vb sune/xw] all (thing)s [ta\ pa/nta]”); and compare the wording by Philo in, e.g., Who Is the Heir of Divine Things 23, 188; On Flight and Finding 112; Life of Moses II.133; Questions in Exodus 2.118 (Dunn, p. 93).

By contrast, in v. 18a, the focus is on the Son’s relation to the new creation. Here, Paul (or the author of Colossians [and/or the hymn]) joins together the two Ages (old and new) through the use of the head/body metaphor: “and he (indeed) is the head of the body”. Again, this echoes established metaphoric descriptions of the Divine Wisdom/Logos in Jewish Tradition—cf. especially Philo’s statement in Questions in Exodus 2.117: “The head of all things is the eternal Logos of the eternal God, under which, as if it were his feet or other limbs, is placed the whole world, over which He passes and firmly stands” (Loeb translation). At the same time, Paul refers a number of times in his letters to believers as the “body” of Christ (1 Cor 10:16-17; chapter 12 [esp. verse 27]; Rom 12:4-5), the basic image almost certainly being connected with the distinctive emphasis on believers’ union with Christ, and their/our participation in his death and resurrection (e.g., Rom 6:6-8ff; 7:4; 1 Cor 12:13; cf. Phil 3:21, and here in Colossians, 1:22).

This Pauline motif of the head/body, as a way of describing the relationship of Christ to believers, appears to become more pronounced (as a theological-Christological concept) in Colossians (1:24; 2:10, 19; 3:15) and Ephesians (1:22; 2:16; 3:6; 4:4, 12, 15-16; 5:23, 30). For scholars who believe these letters (particularly Ephesians) are pseudonymous, this reflects a development (by subsequent ministers and authors) of Paul’s earlier thought. Of course, it is also possible that Paul’s own thinking and manner of expression developed in similar ways.

The Ephesians references are particularly relevant for those commentators who regard the expository words th=$ e)kklhsi/a$ at the close of v. 18a as a secondary addition to the hymn; cf. the discussion by Wilson, pp. 145-6; Dunn, p. 95f; Lohse, p. 52f; Barth-Blanke, p. 206f. The noun e)kklhsi/a, denoting a group of people “called out” to assemble, was used frequently by Paul in his undisputed letters (even as elsewhere in the New Testament), but typically in reference to specific local congregations of believers. Only rarely does a general/generic usage (e.g., 1 Cor 15:9; Phil 3:6) suggest a wider concept—viz., referring to all believers everywhere—cf. 1 Cor 10:32; 12:28 (in the context of the head/body image). However, in Ephesians, e)kklhsi/a occurs numerous times in such a wider ‘cosmic’ sense (1:22; 3:10, 21; 5:23-25, 27, 29, 32). Compared with this expansive usage in Ephesians, there are only two such references in Colossians—here in v. 18a and subsequently in v. 24. If the reference in v. 24 is an authentic part of the letter, then it seems reasonable to assume that the one in v. 18a is as well.

Indeed, there is a certain parallelism between the phrases of v. 17 and 18a; with regard to the first phrase, the formal parallelism is clear:

    • “And he (himself) is before all (thing)s” (v. 17a)
    • “and he (himself) is the head of the body” (v. 18)

One need only note that the Hebrew noun var) (cf. Prov 8:22) can mean both “head” (in a concrete sense) and “first” (in a positional [i.e., “chief”] or temporal [i.e., “beginning”] sense), and the parallelism here plays on a similar conceptual dual-meaning. The parallelism in the second phrase is more oblique:

    • “and all (thing)s stand together in him” (v. 17b)
    • “(all) the (ones) called out [h( e)kklhsi/a]” (v. 18)

The articular noun h( e)kklhsi/a, which is used implicitly to identify “the body” (mentioned in v. 18) with believers in Christ, further serves to draw the parallel between: (i) the original creation (“all [thing]s”) being united together in the Son/Wisdom of God and (ii) the new creation (believers) similarly being united “in him” (viz., the Pauline theological concept of being “in Christ”).

On the other hand, if the words th=$ e)kklhsi/a$ are not considered part of the original hymn, then a tight chiastic structure is produced for vv. 17-18a:

      • “And he (himself) is before all (thing)s,
        • and all (thing)s stand together in him,
      • and he (himself) is the head of the body.”
Stanza 2: Verses 18b-20
Verse 18bc

“who is (the) beginning,
(the one) first brought forth out of the dead,
(so) that he should come to be (the one) being [i.e. who is] first in all (thing)s”

The second stanza begins just as the first stanza did, with a relative pronoun (o%$) followed by the verb of being (e)stin, 3rd person present active indicative). Each stanza thus consists of a complex relative clause, which relates back to “the Son” (“His beloved Son”) in v. 13—i.e., “(the) Son…who is…”. The principal declaration of the first stanza was that the Son “is (the) image of God the unseeable (One)” (v. 15a), further explained by the expressive phrase “(the one) first brought forth [prwto/toko$] of every (thing) founded (by God)”. The opening of the second stanza picks up on this phrase, using the same adjective prwto/toko$ (on the meaning of this term, cf. below and in Part 1).

Let us consider the parallelism of the two stanzas in their opening lines:

    • Stanza 1:
      • “who is (the) image of God…
        • (the one) first brought forth [prwto/toko$] of every (thing) founded (by God)”
    • Stanza 2:
      • “who is (the) beginning [a)rxh/]
        • (the one) first brought forth [prwto/toko$] out of the dead”

Thus the term a)rxh/ (“beginning”) is parallel with e)i)kw\n tou= qeou= (“the image of God”), and so should help us understand its precise meaning in context here. While the noun a)rxh/ is often used in a temporal sense, and, as such, would certainly be appropriate in reference to the beginning of Creation (cf. LXX Gen 1:1; John 1:1ff, etc), it can also be used in a positional-relational sense, such as for a person who holds a leading/ruling position (i.e., the chief person, the one at the top). The use of the “head” motif in v. 18a (cf. above) suggests that the positional-relational, rather than the temporal, aspect is primarily in view here. This also accords with the idea of Jesus (the Son) as the “image of God” in the first stanza, that expression being qualified by the adjective “unseeable”, emphasizing the greatness and glory of Jesus, rather than his temporal priority. Further confirmation for this use of a)rxh/ is found from the occurrence of the plural a)rxai/ in v. 16, referring to those beings (human and heavenly) who exercise positions of rule in the cosmos (i.e., “chief [ruler]s”). The term usually translated as “first fruits” (cf. the discussion below), a)parxh/, literally signifies “(the) beginning [a)rxh/] of (the harvesting) from (the ground)”.

There can be no doubt that the beginnings of creation are also being referenced here, especially with the adjective prwto/toko$, meaning “(the) first (thing or person) brought forth” —in the case of living beings (human or animal), it essentially means “first-born” (cf. again on v. 15b). The use of this adjective in the hymn is complicated, and potentially controversial, in its implications. I have already discussed the fundamental meaning of prwto/toko$, which can be defined simply as “the first [prw=to$] thing (or person) brought forth [to/ko$]”, often in the sense of produce coming forth out of the ground (‘first-fruits’) or a child coming out of the mother’s womb (‘first-born’). While the adjective does not always refer strictly to temporal priority, the temporal aspect is central to the theme of the “firstborn” in Old Testament tradition (Exodus 13:2, 12, etc). Moreover, even in terms of rank and position, the heir or chosen one was typically the eldest (i.e. firstborn) son. There is thus no reason or justification for obscuring or glossing over this basic meaning of prwto/toko$ (cf. Luke 2:7; Heb 11:28), as it is used here in the hymn.

If we wish to isolate the earliest Christological use of the adjective, applying it to the person of Jesus, we need look no further than the expression that occurs here in v. 18b: prwto/toko$ e)k tw=n nekrw=n, “(the one) first brought forth out of the dead”, i.e., “first-born of of the dead”. The same essential expression occurs in Revelation 1:5, and Paul uses prwto/toko$ in much the same context (the resurrection) in Romans 8:29. This strongly suggests that we are dealing with a relatively common early Christian idiom, identifying Jesus, quite literally, as the first person to be raised from the dead (cf. Acts 26:23). The future resurrection of believers will follow the same pattern as Jesus’ own resurrection and can thus be described using similar terminology (cf. Rom 8:11, 29, and cp. 2 Thess 2:13; James 1:18; Heb 12:23; Rev 14:4). There are several reasons why the adjective prwto/toko$ would come to be used in this context of resurrection from the dead:

    • The natural image of resurrection as a “new birth”, with the obvious parallel between the ‘womb of the earth’ and the mother’s womb
    • Similarly, this draws upon the idea of the harvest, and thus the specific concept of the ‘first-fruits’ (cp. 1 Cor 15:20ff); the harvest was a common eschatological motif, with the end of the growing-cycle serving as a symbol for the end of the Age (cf. Matt 3:12 par; Mk 4:29; Matt 13:39ff, 49; Rev 14:14-20, etc)
    • In such an eschatological context, the resurrection was tied to the new creation that would mark the New Age, and ‘new creation’ is close conceptually to a ‘new birth.’

Thus, the context here for the use of prwto/toko$ is the resurrection of Jesus, which provides the basis for the further application in terms of his pre-existence. The Christ-hymn in Colossians displays the same developmental tendency as the Philippians hymn (2:6-11, discussed in the previous study). In each hymn, the imagery and language of the older exaltation Christology is adapted and applied to a developing pre-existence Christology—since, by extension, Jesus (the Son) was understood to have held a similar exalted position alongside God the Father, even prior to his life on earth. The parallelism of thought and thematic structure between the stanzas of the Colossians hymn allows us to conclude that the basic connotation and usage of prwoto/toko$ is consistent. The established Christological tradition allows us to work backward:

    • Verse 18: In accordance with early tradition, the term prwto/toko$ refers to Jesus as the first person to be raised from the dead (in the sense of the final/eschatological resurrection) and given new (eternal) life. In Jewish and early Christian tradition, the resurrection was the primary event marking the beginning of the New Age, which could be understood as a “new creation”; often this entails the idea of genuine re-creation of the universe (‘heaven and earth’, cf. Isa 65:17; 66:22; Rev 21:1; 2 Pet 3:13). As the first resurrected being, Jesus can be considered the “first”, the beginning, of the new creation (Paul expresses this line of thought clearly enough in Rom 8:11ff, 18-25ff).
    • Verse 15: Just as Jesus in his resurrection represents the beginning of the new creation, so also did he, in his pre-existence, represent the beginning of the first creation. In saying that he was the “(one) first brought forth” (prwto/toko$), the implication is that he was the first being (person) to be given life and existence.
      (For more detail on the wider Christological aspects of this language and terminology, see my earlier note on v. 18c)

Let us now consider the adjective prwto/toko$ in light of the verbal adjective prwteu/wn in 18c. The line represents a i%na-clause, which gives the reason, or purpose, why Jesus was made the prwto/toko$ out of the dead (i.e., was the first one raised from the dead) by God. It was so that (i%na)—

“he should come to be [ge/nhtai] (the one) being first [prwteu/wn] in all (thing)s”

The verb gi/nomai, the common Greek verb of becoming, often connotes the idea of birth—i.e., coming to be born, though the related verb genna/w expresses this more precisely. The subjunctive form reinforces the idea that this is something God wishes to be, that it expresses His will and purpose. The emphatic pronoun au)to/$ (“he”, cf. verse 17) makes clear that this applies to Jesus.

It is the verbal adjective (participle) prwteu/wn (“being [the] first”) that is most relevant to the idea of Jesus as prwto/toko$; the terms are clearly used in a parallel sense, both as substantive adjectives describing who Jesus (the Son) is. Interestingly, the verb prwteu/w (“be first”) occurs only here in the New Testament, and thus certainly cannot be considered a distinctive Pauline term. However, the idea of Jesus being first is present and expressed several different ways in the New Testament.

Perhaps the most notable instance is the famous statement, drawing upon early Gospel (Baptist) tradition, in the Johannine Prologue (1:15, also v. 30). Jesus’ position as “first” (prw=to$) relates specifically to his exalted (pre-existent) place alongside God the Father. As the pre-existent Logos, who plays a central role in the creation of the universe (v. 3), Jesus (the Son) functions as the divine Wisdom of Prov 8:22ff. As discussed in Part 2 (and see also above on v. 17), the Colossians hymn almost certainly draws upon this same line of Wisdom/Logos tradition, having a number of points in common with the Christology of the Johannine Prologue. The main difference is that, in the hymn, the idea of Jesus as the “first” is filtered through the traditional emphasis on the resurrection. Jesus comes to be first, and is the first-born of the new creation, through the resurrection. Being raised by the Father, Jesus is exalted to a position similar to that which he (the Son) held in the beginning, prior to the original creation of the universe. Much the same conceptual framework occurs in the Philippians hymn as well (cf. the study on Phil 2:6-11).

The expression e)n pa=sin (“in all [thing]s”) emphasizes again the relationship of the exalted Jesus to all things in creation, repeating the use of the adjective pa=$ from vv. 15-17. Only here, the focus is on the new creation. This new creation begins with the resurrection of Jesus, to be followed by the resurrection of believers at the end of the current Age. Eventually all of creation (“all things”) will be transformed, according to the pattern of the “first-born”, the “first-fruits” —that is, the resurrection of Christ and those who are united with him (believers). Paul may well have in mind here his eschatological discussion in Romans 8. The preposition e)n (“in”) sometimes denotes “among”, and the expression e)n pa=sin can mean “among all (thing)s” or “among all (person)s”, prompting one to think of Paul’s words in Rom 8:29: “unto [i.e. for the purpose of] his [i.e. Jesus’] (com)ing to be (the) first (one) brought forth [prwto/toko$] among [e)n] many brothers”.

It is important to remember that, even though the resurrection of Christ represents the beginning of the New Age (and the new creation), at the present, this is only realized for believers in Christ—that is, only believers, through the Spirit and in union with the Son, are able to experience the new creation.

One curious feature of the Colossians hymn is that the resurrection of Son is mentioned ahead of his incarnation (v. 19) and suffering/death (v. 20). This is presumably because of the parallel usage of the noun prwto/toko$ at the beginning of each stanza, as discussed above. But it inverts the normal sequence, maintained in the Philippians hymn, so that the second stanza climaxes with the sacrificial death of Jesus, rather than his resurrection. These verses will be discussed in Part 4 of this study, with particular attention being given to the way the idea of the incarnation of the Son is described in v. 19.

    • References above marked “Wilson” are to Robert McL. Wilson, , A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Colossians and Philemon, International Critical Commentary [ICC] (T&T Clark International: 2005).
    • Those marked “Dunn” are to James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, The New International Greek Testament Commentary [NIGTC] (Eerdmans / Paternoster Press: 1996).
    • Those marked “Lohse” are to Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, Hermeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 1971). Original German edition: Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Philemon, Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament begründet von Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, 14. Auflage (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1968). Translated by William R. Poehlmann and Robert J. Karris.
    • Those marked “Barthe/Blanke” are to Markus Barth & Helmut Blanke, Colossians, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 34B (1994).

April 4: Proverbs 8:29

This is a series of exegetical notes supplemental to the study on Proverbs 8 (cf. Part 1, 2, 3), covering verses 22-31.

Proverbs 8:29

“in His setting for the sea His inscribed (word)—
and (the) waters shall not cross over His mouth—
in His inscribing (the) foundations of (the) earth.”

Verse 29 continues the description of YHWH’s work of creation, during which Wisdom was present (“I [was] there”). The actions performed by YHWH (as Creator) are described through a common grammatical-poetic format—viz., each line beginning with a suffixed infinitive, prefixed by the preposition B= (as a temporal indicator), “in His {do}ing…” (i.e., “when He {did}…”). The four lines of vv. 27-28 follow this pattern:

    • “in His setting firm…” (onyk!h&B^, vb /WK Hiphil)
    • “in His inscribing…” (oqWjB=, vb qq^j*)
    • “in His making strong…” (oxM=a^B=, vb Jm^a* Piel)
    • “in His strengthening…” ([o]zZ=u^B=, vb zz^u* [Piel])

The pattern continues in v. 29. The verse is technically a tricolon, but the second line is parenthetic and serves to fill out the couplet formed by lines 1 & 3:

    • “in His setting…” (omWcB=, vb <yc!)
    • “in His inscribing…” (oqWjB=, vb qq^j*)

The verbal expressions of v. 29 are precisely parallel to those of v. 27; in turn, these four frame the central expressions (more or less synonymous) of v. 28:

This parallelism argues strongly against the emendation of MT oqWjB= (“in His inscribing”) to oqZ=j^B= (“in His making strong”) here in v. 29c (as suggested by Fox, p. 285, Textual Commentary, p. 159f). The LXX (which lacks v. 29ab) could be cited in support of such an emendation: kai\ i)sxura\ e)poi/ei ta\ qeme/lia th=$ gh=$ (“and He made strong the foundations of the earth”).

Overall, the image is of a builder setting things firmly in place. The related use of the verb qq^j* (“carve, engrave, inscribe”) in v. 27b suggests both the actions of a craftsman/artisan and an architect. The verb can also be used in a royal context—viz., of a ruler ‘inscribing’ (i.e., establishing/enacting) a decree—and that is the sense predominantly in view here in v. 29. The root qqj occurs in both lines of the verse. In the first line, the noun qj) is used with the verb <yc! (“set”), in the sense of a ruler establishing a decree (“inscribed [word]”). The verb qq^j* in line 3 is generally parallel with the usage in v. 27b, but the context of lines 1-2 strongly indicates that the connotative meaning of “inscribe a decree” is present, in additional to the concrete/technical sense. That is to say, in His work as Creator, YHWH is both a craftsman-builder and a king.
Cf. Schipper, p. 311f (citing TDOT 5.139-48 [article by Helmer Ringgren]) on the possible legal aspects of the use of qqj here in v. 29. The noun qj) certainly can be used in the ethical-religious sense of a Divine statute (that human beings must obey), particularly in the context of the Torah regulations, etc. (Exod 15:25, et al.). 

The ‘decree’ that YHWH sets relates to the “sea” (<y`)—a shorthand way of referring to all the waters of the “earth” (viz., the lower-half of the cosmos), both on the surface of the earth and in the regions below (cf. verse 24). The significance of this decree is rooted in ancient Near Eastern cosmological-mythic tradition, whereby the Deity functioning as Creator (and/or King) of the universe ‘subdued’ the primeval waters, thus making it possible to establish a well-ordered and habitable cosmos. In ancient Israelite poetic tradition, this cosmological myth is applied to El-YHWH, as discussed in the article “Conflict with the Sea in Ancient Near Eastern Myth”. The ‘decree’ that YHWH gives demonstrates His authority and control over the waters, and is part of this line of tradition—cf. Psalm 104:9; Jer 5:22, and especially Job 38:8-11; indeed, line 2 here seems summarily to explain Job 38:11. The phrase “cross over His mouth” means “cross over the authoritative word (decree) uttered by His mouth”.

This decree (regarding the waters) is referenced here in connection with YHWH establishing the “foundations” of the earth. The noun Jr#a# (“earth”) can refer either to the entirety of the lower half of the cosmos or to its flat cylindrical surface. Here, the term is best understood in its broadest sense (i.e., the entire lower half)—cf. Job 38:4ff; Ps 82:5; 102:26[25]; 104:5; Isa 48:13; 51:13. The “foundations” are the lowest parts, the base, corresponding to the ‘firmament’ in the upper half. The ‘firmament’ serves to separate the heavens from the primeval waters above (and surrounding), while the “foundations” do the same for the earth below. In terms of the building imagery, the depths provide the base foundation for the cosmos (as a unified structure).

According to v. 27a, Wisdom was present while all of this foundational work of creation was taking place. Yet she is not otherwise mentioned in vv. 27-29, and thus it is not entirely clear what role she may have had in YHWH’s work as Creator. Such a role is indicated in the parallel passage of 3:19-20 (cf. Psalm 104:24) but is not specified here. This raises interesting questions regarding the extent to which Divine Wisdom (personified) may be seen as possessing the same authority that YHWH exercises (for example, with regard to the waters). To what extent did the author of this hymn conceive of Wisdom performing (together with YHWH, or as His intermediary) the actions that produced the cosmos? This is a key interpretive question, for at least two reasons. First, in the immediate exegetical context of the passage, it relates to a proper understanding of verse 30 and the use of the term /oma* (to be discussed in the next note). Second, in much of the subsequent Jewish and early Christian use of Prov 8:22-31, the Divine Wisdom was certainly seen as performing the work of creation—either as God’s instrument or intermediary—and it is worth determining how this line of development relates to the actual text of our passage.

Christological Significance

See the previous note on v. 28, along with the earlier notes. As mentioned above, there is considerable interpretive significance regarding the relation of Wisdom (personified) to the word by which God created the universe (and exercised control over the waters, cf. above). Here in v. 29, the specific idea of YHWH’s word is expressed through the use of the nouns qj) (“inscribed [word/decree]”) and hP# (“mouth”, i.e., “His mouth” [wyP!]).

It was natural that, in Jewish Tradition, the concepts of God creating through His word (Gen 1:1ff) and through wisdom (Ps 104:24; Prov 3:19f) would be blended together. In Hellenistic-Jewish tradition, this was achieved, in large measure, through the philosophical use of the Greek term lo/go$. And thus, when Jesus is identified with the pre-existent Lo/go$ in the Johannine Gospel Prologue (1:1ff), he is simultaneously being identified with the Word and Wisdom of God—both of which were instrumental in the creation of the universe. In the preface of Hebrews (1:1-4), the pre-existent Son is also identified (though less directly) with God’s Word: “…God, (hav)ing spoken…at (the) last of these days (has) spoken to us in/by (His) Son…through whom also He made the Ages” (vv. 1-2).

In the Gospel Tradition, Jesus’ control over the waters (as a sign of his Divine identity, cf. the previous note) is demonstrated in two famous episodes: (1) his walking on the water of the lake (an episode that occurs in all four Gospels [Mk 6:45-51 par], including John [6:16-21]), and (2) his calming of a storm at sea through a spoken command (Mk 4:36-41 par).

      • References above marked “Fox” are to Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1-9, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 18A (Yale University Press: 2000). Those marked “Fox, Textual Commentary” are to idem, Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition 1 (Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Press: 2015). 
      • References marked “Schipper” are to Bernd U. Schipper, Proverbs 1-15, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2010). See also his monograph on Proverbs 2: Hermeneutik der Tora: Studien zur Traditionsgeschichte von Prov 2 und zur Komposition von Prov 1-9, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 432 (Walter de Gruyter: 2012).

April 3: Proverbs 8:28

This is a series of exegetical notes supplemental to the study on Proverbs 8 (cf. Part 1, 2, 3), covering verses 22-31.

Proverbs 8:28

“in His making strong (the) clouds (up) above,
in His strengthening (the) springs of (the) deep,”

This second couplet builds upon the first (v. 27, cf. the previous note), in further describing YHWH’s work (actions) in creating the cosmos. The primary focus in v. 27 was on the heavens (that is, the upper half), but the lower half (i.e., earth) was included with the reference to the “deep” (<ohT=). Thus, the cosmos in its entirety was in view, and here in v. 28 the two halves of the whole are more clearly delineated through the parallelism of the couplet. In the upper portions of (lit. “from over[head]”, i.e., above, lu^M*m!) the upper half (heavens) one finds the atmospheric “clouds” (<yq!j*v=), cf. Ps 78:23; 89:7[6]; Deut 33:26. Conversely, in the lower parts (“[the] deep”, <ohT=) of the lower half (earth), are the well-springs (tonyu!) that draw from the primeval waters (as mentioned in v. 24). The clouds of the heavens also store water from the primeval waters (which is then released as rain upon the earth), reflecting the control YHWH has over the waters, having ‘subdued’ them during the process of creation; see Job 38:9, and for the cosmological-mythic background cf. my earlier article “The Conflict with the Sea in Ancient Near Eastern Myth”.

As previously mentioned, the four lines of vv. 27-28 each begin with a verbal noun (infinitive), summarizing YHWH’s action, prefixed by the preposition B= (“in, with”) as a temporal indicator. Here, the two verbs are close in meaning to /WK (“be firm”, Hiphil “make/set firm”) in v. 27a. The verb in line 1 is Jm^a* (I Piel, “make firm, make strong”), while in line 2 it is zz~u* (Piel, “make strong”). YHWH sets both the upper atmosphere and the lower depths firmly in place, part of His process of fixing the shape and function of the cosmos (viz., so that it endures and is reliable, with a well-established order).

In the second line, the MT reads a Qal infinitive form of zz~u* (without a suffix), zozu&B^. “in (the) growing strong”. However, most modern commentators (e.g., Fox, p. 285, Textual Commentary, p. 159; Waltke, p. 391; Müller, p. 235) would modestly emend the text to read a suffixed Piel form (ozZ+u^B=, “in His making strong”), or, alternately, simply revocalize as a Piel with the suffix implied (zoZu^B=), i.e., based on the suffix in the first line (cf. Dahood, p. 518). The emendation has the support of the LXX and the other versions (Targum, Syriac, Vulgate), though it is conceivable that different translators may have independently ‘corrected’ the MT in their rendering of the text. Schipper (p. 284) is one of the few who accepts the MT as it stands (cf. also Schäfer, p. 204).

Wisdom was present, with YHWH, while all this was taking place (v. 27, cf. especially the LXX rendering).

Christological Significance

See the previous note on v. 27, along with the earlier notes. An important implication of the portrait here in v. 28 is YHWH’s control over the primeval waters, which He stores in the clouds of the upper atmosphere (to be then released upon the earth) and also provides through the well-springs of the deep (i.e., underground water, below the earth). The presence of Wisdom alongside could be taken to suggest that she possesses the same authority (given to her by YHWH). There is a traditional association of Wisdom with the image of water (and of drinking)—cf. Prov 9:5; Sirach 15:3; 24:21; 2/4 Esdras 8:4. This relates to the Johannine Gospel portrait of Jesus as the incarnation of the pre-existent Son (and Logos) of God—particularly with regard to the thematic motif of the Son distributing (to believers) the life-giving water, identified with the Spirit (1:33; 3:5ff; 4:10-15, 23-24; 6:54ff, 63; 7:37-39; 19:30 and 34, in connection with 20:22). It is in his identity as the pre-existent Son that Jesus is given the Spirit by the Father, so that he is able (in turn) to give it to believers (3:34-35; cf. 14:16f, 26; 15:26f; 16:7ff).

      • References above marked “Fox” are to Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1-9, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 18A (Yale University Press: 2000). Those marked “Fox, Textual Commentary” are to idem, Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition 1 (Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Press: 2015). 
      • Those marked “Waltke” are to Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 1–15, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament [NICOT] (Eerdmans: 2004).
      • References marked “Schipper” are to Bernd U. Schipper, Proverbs 1-15, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2010). See also his monograph on Proverbs 2: Hermeneutik der Tora: Studien zur Traditionsgeschichte von Prov 2 und zur Komposition von Prov 1-9, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 432 (Walter de Gruyter: 2012).
      • References marked “Müller” are to Achim Müller, Proverbien 1-9: Der Weisheit neue Kleider, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 291 (Walter de Gruyter: 2000).
      • Those marked “Schäfer” are to Rolf Schäfer, Die Poesie der Weisen: Dichotomie als Grundstruktur der Lehr- und Weisheitsgedichte in Proverbien 1-9, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 77 (Neukirchener Verlag: 1999).
      • Those marked “Dahood” are to Mitchell Dahood, “Proverbs 8,22-31: Translation and Commentary”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly [CBQ] 30 (1968), pp. 512-21. 

“God Sent Forth His Son…”: Colossians 1:15-20 (Part 2)

Stanza 1: Verses 15-16, continued

In Part 1 of this study, we examined the first stanza (vv. 15-16) of the Colossians ‘Christ-hymn’, paying particular attention to the wording in verse 15. These lines certainly express a pre-existence Christology—that is, Jesus Christ as the pre-existent Son of God, even though the Sonship of Christ is not particularly in view throughout the Colossians hymn itself. Christ is identified as God’s Son in the preceding v. 13f (the only occurrence of the noun ui(o/$ [“son”] in the letter). The substantive adjective prwto/toko$ (which occurs in both halves of the hymn) can be translated as “firstborn” (i.e., a firstborn son), but overall the emphasis in the hymn is not on Christ’s Divine Sonship, but rather on his relationship to creation—both the original creation (in the first half of the hymn) and the new creation, i.e., believers and the Church (in the second half).

In fact, it is not Christ as the Son, but as the Wisdom of God that is primarily in view in the hymn. There was a rich Jewish Wisdom Tradition in which the Wisdom of God was personified (as a woman, the noun hm*k=j*, like Grk sofi/a, being feminine). This is one of the outstanding features of the lectures and Wisdom-poems of Proverbs 1-9 (cf. especially the poems of 1:20-33 [study]; 3:13-20 [study], and chapters 8 and 9). This personification of Wisdom was blended together with the idea that God created the universe with/by wisdom (cf. Ps 104:24), leading to the portrait in Prov 3:19-20 and 8:22-31 [study & series of notes]—viz., Wisdom as a pre-existent being, who was present with YHWH at the beginning, and who played a vital/central role in His work as Creator. Later Jewish tradition expanded upon this framework, developing the concept of the divine Wisdom (Grk Sofi/a) that created, pervades, and sustains the universe (Wisdom 7:22-8:1; 9:2ff; 10:1ff; Sirach 1:3-10; chap. 24; 33:7-8ff; 42:21; Baruch 3:15ff, etc).

Hellenistic-Jewish philosophers (most notably, Philo of Alexandria) subsumed this Wisdom tradition under the Greek lo/go$ concept—referring to the divine power/presence that binds the universe together, giving it order and holding its different components and aspects in balance. This generally corresponds with the later Stoic use of the term for the mind of God that penetrates creation, ordering and controlling all things.

For example, see Philo, On the Sacrifices of Abel and Cain §§64-68, where the Wisdom of God is identified with God’s Word (lo/go$)—the same Word which He spoke to create the universe (65). The Divine nature and pre-existence of this Word is stated in §67, by way of an allegorical interpretation of Exod 17:6; the statement that the Word “stood before any created being” would seem to allude to Prov 8:23. In On Flight and Finding §§108-112, this role of Wisdom in creation is described as that of a mother. The companionship of God and Wisdom in Prov 8:22-31 is thus framed as that of man and wife, father and mother, who together bring forth creation; cf. also On Allegorical Interpretation II.49ff, and also On Drunkenness §30-31, where Prov 8:22-23 is specifically quoted. In §§110-112, the term lo/go$ takes the place of sofi/a, as Philo utilizes the Stoic concept of the Logos, referring to the Logos as “the word of the living God” which “being the bond of every thing…holds all things together, and binds all the parts”. For further references and discussion, see the article “Philo and the Logos of John 1:1ff”. 

In a number of passages, Philo refers to the Logos as the “image” (ei)kw/n) of God, just as the pre-existent Son (Christ) is identified here in Col 1:15; cf. Allegorical Interpretation III.95ff; On the Creation §§24-25. The latter reference is particularly relevant to the context of the hymn, with the point that the Logos, as the image of God, also serves as the image and pattern for the created world—an aspect of the philosophical use of lo/go$ that goes back to the time of Heraklitos. In particular, the Logos is the image/pattern for the human soul, according to Gen 1:26, which relates to the new creation orientation in the second half of the hymn (to be discussed).

Another notable example comes from the Book of Wisdom, and the praise of Wisdom in 7:22-8:1; in particular, the wording of verse 26 is worth noting:

“For she is a shining forth of eternal light,
a spotless looking(-glass) of (the) working of God,
and an image [ei)kw/n] of His goodness.”

Paul seems to be drawing upon this same line of tradition in 2 Corinthians 3:18 and 4:4—in the latter reference he specifically calls Christ the “image [ei)kw/n] of God”, demonstrating that the thought expressed in Col 1:15 is in accord with Paul’s genuine writings.

The Jewish Wisdom Tradition also contains the concept of Wisdom as the child/offspring born of God; cf. the birth imagery (vbs hn`q*, Es^n`, and lyj!) in Prov 8:22-26. Since Wisdom was ‘born’ prior to the Creation, she can rightly be called the “first-born” (prwto/gono$) or “first-produced” (prwto/toko$), as here in v. 15. Indeed, Philo makes use of this metaphorical language at several points, e.g., On the Confusion of Tongues §§146-7: “even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word [prwto/gono$ lo/go$]… for he is called the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God’s image” (cf. also On Dreams I.215).

Thus, there is a definite (if rudimentary) Wisdom Christology that underlies the hymn (esp. the first stanza). We can see how it is applied and expounded, beginning with the lines of verse 16:

Verse 16

“(for it is) that in him were founded all the (thing)s,
in the heavens and upon the earth,
the (thing)s seeable and (thing)s unseeable,
even if (ruling) seats and lordships,
even if chief (ruler)s and authorities—
all the(se thing)s have been founded through him and unto him”

The complex clause of verse 16 is subordinate to v. 15, and epexegetical. It further explains what it means to say that Jesus is the “likeness/image of God”, and also the “first-born” of all that has been created; indeed, it gives us the reason why it is right to speak of Jesus this way. The conjunctive particle o%ti, is explicative, with causal force—i.e., “(for it is) that…”.

There is a clear and carefully constructed symmetry to this statement in v. 16, with a framework governed by prepositional expressions which relate back to the initial relative pronoun. These prepositional phrases enclose the remainder of the verse, so that we may outline the structure of vv. 15-16 as follows:

    • “who is [o%$ e)stin]…”
      • “in him [e)n au)tw=|]…”
        …….
      • “through him [di’ au)tou=]
        and unto him [ei)$ au)to/n]…”

The three expressions, utilizing three different prepositions, are: “in [e)n] him…through [di/a] him and unto [ei)$] him”. This is similar to triadic formulae with a cosmological-existential orientation in contemporary Greek philosophy (cf. the Areopagus speech by Paul, Acts 17:28). The particular triad here is comparable to that used by certain Stoic philosophers and authors, one of the most notable being Marcus Aurelius, in his Contemplations (4.23). Closer in time and religious background to our hymn is the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher-commentator Philo of Alexandria (cf. On the Cherubim 125).
The entire subject has been documented in E. Norden’s classic study Agnostos Theos (1913), esp. pp. 240-50, and cf. also M. Robinson, “A Formal Analysis of Colossians,” 1:15-20, Journal of Biblical Literature [JBL] 76 (1957), p. 276; R. M. Grant, “Causation and ‘the Ancient World View,'” JBL 83 (1964), p. 35 (Barth/Blanke, p, 197).

Here, the three expressions are not presented as a simple triad; rather, they are divided into two parts, involving two parallel statements:

“in him all (thing)s were founded…
all (thing)s have been founded through him and unto him“

Both of these statements involve the verb kti/zw, related to the noun kti/si$ in v. 15. The verb has the basic meaning “found, establish, build”, and here clearly refers to the founding (i.e. creation) of the cosmos by God. The passive form of the verb is an example of the so-called “divine passive” (passivum divinum), with God as the implied subject—i.e., “…were founded (by God)”.  As previously noted, Paul uses the noun kti/si$ (and the verb kti/zw) in two ways: (1) in reference to the original creation of the universe (and human beings) by God, and (2) for the new creation, realized (presently) by believers in Christ. The new creation is patterned after the original (first) creation. The two stanzas of the hymn relate to these two aspects (or stages) of God’s work of creation; moreover, the same dual-aspect is present in the intervening pair of couplets of v. 17. That the first creation is in view here in vv. 15-16 is confirmed by two other factors: (a) the aorist passive e)kti/sqh, as something done by God in the past, and (b) the substantive adjective ta\ pa/nta (“all things”), as a short-hand for the (current) created order.

Paul frequently uses the substantive plural of pa=$ (“all”) in a general and comprehensive sense (“all things”), though less frequently in a cosmological context (cf. 1 Cor 15:28; 2 Cor 5:18). Here the reference is to ‘everything in the cosmos’, especially ‘every living, intelligent being’, as the central phrases of v. 16 make clear. The first two (of the four) central phrases are:

“in the heavens and upon the earth,
the seeable (thing)s and the unseeable (thing)s”

“Heaven and earth” is a conventional shorthand for referring to the cosmos (the world/universe) as a whole and ultimately relates back to the basic bipartate (geocentric) cosmology of the ancient Near East. Even by the mid-1st century, in the Greco-Roman world, when a somewhat more sophisticated geocentric cosmology had developed, “heaven and earth” still served as a simple shorthand for the universe. The adjective a)o/rato$ was used in v. 15, in reference to God as “unseeable”, unable to be seen by human beings; other divine/heavenly beings (Angels, etc) are similarly understood as ‘invisible’, unable to be seen by humans in ordinary circumstances. The adjective o(rato/$, without the privative prefix a)-, naturally represents the opposite: what is visible and can be seen normally by human beings (with their eyes). Divine/heavenly beings tend to be located in “the heavens”, while human beings are on “the earth”; thus, the two phrases are generally synonymous, and in parallel, for a comprehensive description of the cosmos—esp. the inhabitants of the cosmos.

In this context, the preposition e)n (“in”, e)n au)tw=| [“in him”]) refers to the pattern or model used (by God) in creation (cf. above on the Logos in relation to the Hellenistic-Jewish Wisdom Tradition). The closest New Testament parallel is in the Prologue of the Gospel of John (1:4): “in him was life” (e)n au)tw=| zwh\ h@n)—a parallel that would even be closer if the prior two words were included in the phrase, i.e. “that which has come to be in him was life”, but the precise reading (and punctuation) of vv. 3-4 remains in dispute. In any case, the expression “in him” in that passage is clearly related to the creation of the universe (“all things came to be”, “that which has come to be”), just as it is here in Colossians.

The four central lines of v. 16 (cf. the italicized portion in the translation above) expound the expression “all things” as the object (ta/ pa/nta) of God’s creation. The first two lines demarcate the comprehensive cosmos in two different ways:

    • Cosmological— “heaven and earth”, the two parts (halves) of the universe (according to the ancient geocentric cosmology), dualistically juxtaposed as ‘above’ vs. ‘below’
    • Ontological—designating different kinds of being(s), divine/heavenly vs. human/physical, spirit vs. material; the former being ‘invisible’ (i.e. unable to be seen by human beings on earth), the latter being part of the visible world.

In the second two lines (v. 16b), the focus narrows from “all things” (and all beings) to the beings that rule and govern the cosmos—even they were created by God “in” Christ. The conditional conjunction ei&te (“if also, even if”) expresses this particular point of emphasis.

The specific interpretation of the four terms, and their relation to each other, continues to be debated by commentators. I feel it is simplest to keep close to the basic meaning of each word; doing so allows for a rather straightforward explanation:

    • Line 1: the place, location, and domain of rule
      “seats (of rule)”, i.e. thrones (qro/noi), and “place/position as lord” (plur. kurio/thte$),  i.e., the position where (and by which) rulers exercise governmental power and control.
    • Line 2: the particular beings/entities that rule
      “(those) at the beginning, at the top, first” (a)rxai/),  i.e., the chief persons or rulers, and the “powers, authorities” (e)cousi/ai).

I understand the nouns a)rxai/ and e)cousi/ai as a reference to the specific beings that exercise rule, both in the heavens (Angels, etc) and on earth (human beings); they sit in the seats of rule (qro/noi) and govern from a place/position of lordship (kurio/th$). Ultimately, all such rule and lordship belongs to Jesus the Son of God (and to God the Father).

The final line of verse 16 essentially repeats the statement of the first line, the two line being clearly parallel:

“(for it is) that in him were founded all the (thing)s…
all the(se thing)s have been founded through him and unto him”

The three prepositional expression that govern these lines—e)n au)tw=| (“in him”), di’ au)tou= (“through him”), and ei)$ au)to/n (“unto him”)—were discussed briefly above. I mentioned that the first expression (e)n au)tw=|, “in him”) should perhaps be understood in terms of the pattern or model used (by God) in creating the universe. Similarly, according to the Stoic principle of the Logos as the mind of God, the Son could be viewed as the ‘place’ in which the world is created—in the mind/thought of God before it actually takes physical/material form; cf. Philo On Dreams I.62-4; Dunn, p. 91f. Also, since the Divine Logos pervades the entire created universe, it can rightly be said to be “in him”.
The wording in Ps 104:24 LXX naturally supports the customary instrumental sense of the preposition e)n (“by/with”) here: “you made all (thing)s by/with wisdom”. The simple dative in Prov 3:19 LXX could also be read as implying the preposition e)n: “God founded the earth by/with wisdom [th=| sofi/a|]. 

The use of the preposition dia/ (“through”) is rather easier to explain: Jesus, the pre-existent Son (and Wisdom) of God, is the means, the instrumentality, by which God the Father creates the world. Cf. Philo, The Worse Attacks the Better 54 (“through whom [di’ h!$] the whole is brought to completion”); similarly, On Flight and Finding 109; On the Cherubim 125f; Dunn, p. 91. This Christological belief is attested in three separate lines of tradition in the New Testament—not only here in the Christ hymn and the Johannine Prologue, but also in the (Christological) introduction of Hebrews (1:2).

The final prepositional expression, ei)$ au)to/n (“[un]to him”), likely refers to the finished product of creation, insofar as it reflects the pattern. Philo describes the Logos as a stamp, the image of which is imprinted upon the material of the created world. The image is thus both “in” the Logos itself (as the image of God), and its image is stamped “into” the world. Implied also is the goal and purpose of the creation by God, which is for it to be a visible, tangible manifestation of God’s image (as conveyed through the image of the Logos).
While the specific term lo/go$ is not used in the Colossians hymn (in contrast to the Johannine Prologue), I would maintain that the basic outline of the Logos-theology is generally present, transferred, of course, to the person of Jesus as the (pre-existent) Son of God. A principal reason why Jesus is to be recognized as Ruler and Lord over the universe is that it bears his image, since it was made “in him”, “through him”, and “unto/into him”.

The same verb (kti/zw) is also repeated from the first line of v. 16, though in a perfect passive (e&ktistai) rather than aorist passive (e)kti/sqh) form. There is an interesting parallel, again, to be found in the Johannine Prologue (v. 3f):

    • “all things came to be [e)ge/neto, aorist] through him”
    • “that which has come to be [ge/gonen, perfect]” + “in him”

While the aorist typically indicates something which occurred at a point of time in the past, the perfect often refers to a past action or condition that continues into the present. The use of the two forms here could conceivably be intended to bring out such a distinction:

    • e)kti/sqh (aorist)—the original creation, the establishment of the created order at the beginning
    • e&ktistai (perfect)—the created order as it has continued to the present time (from the standpoint of the author of the hymn)

This distinction would set the stage admirably for the second stanza of the hymn, which emphasizes God’s new creation brought about through Jesus His Son. The first creation lasts until the time that the new creation begins; and, indeed, with the death and resurrection (exaltation) of Jesus, this new creation has already begun, even if it is currently realized only for believers who are in union with Christ.

In Part 3, we will look briefly at the central transitional unit (vv. 17-18a), before turning our attention to the second stanza (vv. 18b-20) which contains the effective reference to the incarnation of the pre-existent Son.

    • References above marked “Wilson” are to Robert McL. Wilson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Colossians and Philemon, International Critical Commentary [ICC] (T&T Clark International: 2005).
    • References above marked “Dunn” are to James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, The New International Greek Testament Commentary [NIGTC] (Eerdmans / Paternoster Press: 1996).
    • Those marked “Barthe-Blanke” are to Markus Barth & Helmut Blanke, Colossians, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 34B (1994).
    • Those marked “Bujard” and “Kiley” are to the monographs, respectively, Walter Bujard, Stilanalytische Untersuchungen zum Kolosserbrief als Beitrag zur Methodik von Sprachvergleichen (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1973) and Mark Christopher Kiley, Colossians as Pseudepigraphy, Biblical Seminar 4 (JSOT Press: 1986).

April 2: Proverbs 8:27

This is a series of exegetical notes supplemental to the study on Proverbs 8 (cf. Part 1, 2, 3), covering verses 22-31.

Proverbs 8:27

“In His setting firm (the) heavens, there I (was)—
in His engraving (the) circle upon (the) face of (the) deep,”

Verses 24-26 dealt with the pre-existent birth of Wisdom in relation to the Creation—that is, prior to the creation of the cosmos (spec. the earth). Now, in the next three couplets (vv. 27-29), the focus is on the actual work of creation (by YHWH) and Wisdom’s presence in the midst of it. The four lines of the first two couplets each begin with a verbal noun (infinitive), summarizing the action, prefixed by the preposition B= (“in, with”) as a temporal indicator (comparable to the temporal-relational indicators in the prior verses, cf. the outline diagrams by Müller, p. 240 and Schäfer, pp. 220-3). Here in verse 27, the verbs are /WK (Hiphil, “set/make firm, fix [in place]”) and qq^j* (“carve, engrave, inscribe”). The verb /WK is used a number of times in the Psalms in reference to YHWH creating the universe (24:2; 65:7[6]; 74:16; 89:38[37]; 93:1; 96:10; 119:90), and/or establishing His throne in/above the heavens (9:8[7]; 89:3[2]; 93:2; 103:19); cf. also Isa 45:18; Jer 10:12; 33:2; 51:15. Obviously, the most relevant parallel here is Prov 3:19b which states that YHWH “set (the) heavens firm [i.e., firmly in place] with understanding [= wisdom, v. 19a]”. The verb qq^j* here is used in the context of an artisan’s work (i.e., carving, engraving), but it can also refer to rulers ‘inscribing’ a decree (Deut 33:21; Isa 10:1).

The cosmological scenario here is that described in Gen 1:6-8—the creation of the hemispheric expanse (“[the] heavens”) that constitutes the upper half of the cosmos. Its shape was fixed in place primarily through the “hammered/beaten (surface)” (i.e., ‘firmament’, u^yq!r*), the hard shell (or hemispheric dome) that frames the expanse. The bottom of this dome, which is in the shape of a circle (gWj), is fixed at the boundaries of the earth’s surface (similarly circular in shape, viz., a disc/cylinder), effectively demarcating the shape (and boundary) of the cosmos (cf. Job 22:14; Isa 40:22, and Job 26:10 [vb gWj]). The specific locational expression is “upon (the) face of (the) deep”, using the noun <ohT= (as in v. 24). This may seem a bit strange, since the “deep” properly refers to the region below the surface of the earth (so v. 24), but in this instance the term apparently stands for the entire lower half of the cosmos (viz., the surface of the earth and everything below). The wording also likely alludes to Gen 1:2, where the noun <ohT= refers to the great mass/expanse of the primeval waters.

The LXX translator apparently did not understand the ancient Near Eastern cosmological framework being described here. Instead of the Hebrew image of an artisan engraving a circle “upon the face of the deep”, the LXX reads “He marked out for Himself a throne upon (the) winds [e)p’ a)ne/mwn]”. This does not seem to be based on a different Hebrew text (or reading of the text). The translator correctly recognized the royal implications of the verb qq^j*, and likely was influenced by the Psalm passages (cited above) that speak of YHWH establishing His throne in the heavens. 

Wisdom declares that she was present when all this took place: “there [<v*] I (was)” (cf. Isa 48:16). The parallel in 3:19f indicates that Wisdom played a vital role in the acts and process of creation (“YHWH with Wisdom founded the earth, He set the heavens firm with Understanding”), but that is not particularly being emphasized here. The LXX brings out the implication of Wisdom working with YHWH by the translation sumparh/mhn au)tw=| (“I was with Him alongside”).

Christological Significance

For the Christological implications of the pre-existent birth of Wisdom, and her presence at the beginning, see the previous notes on v. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. Here in v. 27, the focus is on the presence of Wisdom at the beginning of God’s work of creation, as implied by the previously cited New Testament passages (e.g., Col 1:17), but most notably in the Johannine Gospel Prologue (1:2-3). Indeed, the wording of v. 2 seems to echo the LXX of Prov 8:27:

    • “This (one) was in (the) beginning toward [i.e., with] God”
    • “When He made the heaven(s) I was with Him alongside”

The preposition pro/$, used in Jn 1:1b, 2, properly means “toward”, either in the sense of facing toward or moving toward; either way, a close proximity and relation is indicated.
Compare what Philo says of the Logos in On Flight and Finding §101:

“the divine word…is itself an image of God, the most ancient of all the objects of intellect in the whole world, and that which is placed in the closest proximity to the only truly existing God, without any partition or distance being interposed between them”

Elsewhere in the Gospel, the Son (Jesus) speaks of being “alongside” (para/) the Father, the most relevant reference (clearly attesting the idea of Divine pre-existence) being 17:5: “…the honor [do/ca] which I held, before the world’s (com)ing to be, alongside of you”. Cf. also the locative wording in v. 24 (“where I am”) in connection with the Son’s pre-existent glory alongside the Father; in this verse, the associated idea of the creation of the world is brought out more clearly (“before [the] casting down [i.e., founding] of [the] world”).

      • References marked “Müller” are to Achim Müller, Proverbien 1-9: Der Weisheit neue Kleider, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 291 (Walter de Gruyter: 2000).
      • Those marked “Schäfer” are to Rolf Schäfer, Die Poesie der Weisen: Dichotomie als Grundstruktur der Lehr- und Weisheitsgedichte in Proverbien 1-9, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 77 (Neukirchener Verlag: 1999).