Category: “God Sent Forth His Son…”

A study on the Incarnation of Christ as it is presented in the New Testament, focusing specifically on the idea that Jesus Christ represents the incarnation (i.e., as a human being) of the pre-existent Son of God, sent to earth from heaven by God the Father.

“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).

“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).

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

Colossians 1:15-20

The Pauline letter to the Colossians contains a ‘Christ-hymn’ (1:15-20) that is similar in certain respects to the Philippians hymn (2:6-11, previously discussed). One may thus compare the two hymns, at least to some degree, with regard to the Christology that they contain (and evince). The situation of the Colossian hymn is complicated, however, by the questions surrounding the authorship and date of the letter to the Colossians. The majority of critical commentators consider both Colossians and Ephesians to be pseudonymous, even though it is admitted that both letters are Pauline in character, having been (at the very least) inspired by Paul’s stylistic approach, his theology, and his overall mode/manner of expression.

The critical issues and questions are complex and cannot be dealt with in the limited venue of this series. A good number of commentators still consider both letters to be genuine works by Paul, while others regard Colossians (but not Ephesians) to be Pauline. Valid arguments both for and against Pauline authorship can be made. I consider the arguments for pseudonymity considerably stronger in the case of Ephesians, and I am inclined to treat Colossians as an authentic letter by Paul; however, in respect to evidence against Pauline authorship (see, e.g., Wilson, pp. 10-16ff, and the monographs of Bujard and Kiley), I will occasionally, in referencing the authorship of Colossians, use the convention “Paul (or the author)”.

According to the close of the letter (4:3, 10, 18; cf. also 1:24), Paul indicates that he is writing from prison, which has led to considerable discussion as to precisely during which imprisonment Colossians was written (if it is indeed a genuine letter from Paul). This obviously effects the dating of the letter. An Ephesian imprisonment, which would have occurred during the early-mid 50s seems somewhat too early; the later imprisonments in Caesarea (c. 58-60) and Rome (early 60s, perhaps 61-62) are better candidates. In terms of the apparent developments in style and theological emphasis/expression, a date in the early-60s would seem to be warranted, in which case Colossians (with its Christ-hymn) was probably written at least a couple of years after Philippians. The situation, however, remains rather speculative, and there remain considerable differences of opinion among scholars.

The Christ-Hymn

Like the Philippians hymn, the ‘Christ-hymn’ in Colossians is comprised of two main sections (or ‘stanzas’). The two parts of the hymn are best delineated according to vv. 15-16 and vv. 18b-20, with vv. 17-18a forming a central bridge-unit (cf. the analysis by Wilson and Barth-Blanke). Also, similar to the Philippians hymn, the first half has a pre-existence Christology in view, while in the second half the focus is the traditional exaltation Christology (i.e., emphasizing the resurrection and exaltation of Christ). However, the incarnation of Christ is referenced primarily in the second half, rather than the first.

In the prior study on the Philippians hymn, it was noted that the Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ was not directly mentioned in the Christ-hymn (nor in the letter as a whole). The situation is rather different in Colossians, where the hymn is introduced by a reference to Jesus Christ as God’s Son (though this is the only such occurrence of ui(o/$ [“son”] in the letter):

“…(God) rescued us out of the authority of darkness and placed us over into the kingdom of His (be)loved Son, in whom we hold the loosing from (bondage), the putting away [i.e., forgiveness] of sins” (vv. 13-14)

This Son-reference is in keeping with the other Pauline pre-existence (and incarnation) references that we have previously examined (e.g., Gal 4:4; Rom 8:3), and fits with the framing of the hymnic/credal portion of Rom 1:3-4 (“about His Son…Yeshua [the] Anointed, our Lord”).

And yet, the Sonship of Christ is not particularly in view throughout the Colossians hymn itself, even though the substantive adjective prwto/toko$ (which occurs in both halves of the hymn) can be translated as “firstborn” (i.e., a firstborn son). 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).

Here in Part 1 of this article, we will examine briefly the first half (or stanza) of the hymn, vv. 15-16; a detailed exegetical study will be reserved for a more complete set of exegetical notes (Commentary) that I am planning for both Colossians and Ephesians (cf. also an earlier set of notes specifically on the Christ-hymn).

Stanza 1: Verses 15-16

“who [o%$] is (the) image of God the unseeable (One),
(the) first (one) brought forth of everything founded (by God);
(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”

Verse 15a

Both stanzas of the hymn begin the same way, with a relative pronoun (o%$) followed by a 3rd person present indicative of the verb of being (e)stin, “he is”). As I have previously noted, this use of the relative pronoun is typical of ancient hymns and is a marker of the ‘Christ hymns’ in the New Testament (Phil 2:6-11; 1 Tim 3:16; Heb 1:3-4). It refers back to Jesus as the “beloved Son” of God (v. 13, cf. above) and follows the initial relative pronoun in v. 14 (e)n w!|, “in whom…”). Thus, the hymn functions syntactically as a continuation of v. 14, and of vv. 9-14 as a whole (an incredibly long Greek sentence). The prepositional expression e)n w!| (“in whom”) in v. 14 involves the relation of believers to Jesus, and what God did for us, through the person of Jesus, on our behalf.

In the hymn, the focus shifts to who Jesus is, and thus may more properly be said to have a Christological orientation, emphasizing the person of Christ himself. This is the significance of the verb of being (e)stin, “he is”) used in combination with the relative pronoun—i.e., “who he is”, Jesus is the one “who is (thus)”. And verse 15a provides the first statement declaring who Jesus is; he is…

“(the) image [ei)kw/n] of God the unseeable (One)”

This predicate is made up of two main components: (1) the noun ei)kw/n, used in the expression ei)kw\n [tou=] qeou=, and (2) the privative adjective a)o/rato$ used as a substantive Divine title.

The word ei)kw/n is derived from the verb ei&kw, meaning “be like, resemble”; thus, an ei)kw/n is a likeness, and the word is typically translated as “image”. It is often used for a visible pictorial representation, though it can refer to a more abstract representation as well. There are 23 occurrences of the noun in the New Testament, in many instances it refers to a concrete, physical likeness, as with a statue or the stamp of a coin (Mk 12:16 par; Rom 1:23; Rev 13:14-15, etc). However, Paul tends to use the word in a more abstract sense, influenced by the tradition in Gen 1:26-27 (see below). In any case, the word here must be understood within the specific expression ei)kw\n tou= qeou= (“likeness/image of God”). There are three relevant strands of tradition, regarding this expression, which are particularly relevant here in the hymn:

    • Platonic thought, going back to Plato’s concept of the visible world as the perceptible image (ei)kw/n) of an intelligible Deity (Timaeus 92c, cf. Barth/Blanke, p. 248).
    • The philosophical tradition, best seen in the writings of Philo of Alexandria, of the Logos (lo/go$) as the image of God; the created universe, in turn, is the visible image of the Logos of God, like a personal stamp upon a coin (On the Creation 25; On Dreams 2.45). This idea draws upon both the Platonic concept as well as the Old Testament (and Jewish) tradition of Wisdom, personified, as the image of God (Wisdom 7:26), through which God created the world (Prov 8:22-31).
    • The Genesis Creation account, with the specific idea of humankind (<d*a*) as the “image of God” (1:26-27; 9:6; Wisd 2:23).

Paul clearly is drawing on the Genesis tradition in 1 Cor 11:7; 15:49, and it likely informs his use of ei)kw/n elsewhere in his letters. It relates to the Pauline “new creation” theme, which also provides the context for the only other occurrence of the word in Colossians (3:10; cp. Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18). The actual expression “image of God” is used only in 2 Cor 4:4, where the reference is primarily to the do/ca (“honor/glory/splendor”) of Christ, understood in traditional terms as a visible indication (involving light-imagery) of deity, which makes the exalted Jesus worthy of honor and worship. This pairing of ei)kw/n and do/ca is similar to the pairing of morfh/ and do/ca in the Philippians Christ-hymn; indeed, ei)kw/n is comparable in meaning to the nouns morfh/ and o(moi/wma in Phil 2:6-7.

In this regard, an allusion to the Creation account (and the idea of human beings as the “image of God”) is of considerable importance for a possible allusion to the incarnation here in v. 15. If it is in the person of the Son (Christ) that God is made manifest (i.e., visible) to humankind, then the Gen 1:26f allusion suggests that it is specifically as a flesh-and-blood human being that the Son makes visible the “unseeable God”. This is particularly emphasized in the Johannine Gospel Prologue (1:14ff), and it may well be in view here for Paul (or the author of the hymn).

A comment should be made on the idea of Christ making visible the “unseeable” God, as expressed by use of the adjective a)o/rato$. This word is a combination of the adjective o(rato/$, meaning “seeable, visible, able to be seen”, and the negative or privative prefix a)-. It thus means “without being seen”, and here, as applied to God, in the more forceful sense of “unable to be seen, unseeable”. The adjective occurs a second time in the hymn (v. 16), but otherwise only three times in the New Testament (Rom 1:20; 1 Tim 1:17; Heb 11:27). It is even less frequent in the Greek Old Testament (LXX), occurring just three times (Gen 1:2; Isa 45:3; 2 Macc 9:5).

The main idea, stemming from Old Testament and Jewish tradition, is that no human being can look upon God with their eyes, under normal circumstances (cf. Exod 3:6; Deut 18:16; John 1:18; 6:46; 1 Jn 4:12ff; cp. Gen 32:30; Exod 24:9-11; Judg 6:22; Isa 6:5, etc). The Johannine writings, in particular, draw upon this idea, as the references above indicate; it is an important part of the Johannine Christology—human beings “see” (= know) God the Father only through Jesus the Son. Paul’s use of ei)kw/n, in terms of a vision of God (esp. 2 Cor 3:18; 4:4), suggests that he generally shares this Johannine understanding. Through the proclamation of the Gospel of Christ, through our trust in him (leading to union with him through the Spirit), we experience the glorious image and likeness (ei)kw/n) of God Himself—indeed, we ourselves are transformed into the same likeness (Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18).

Verse 15b

prwto/toko$ th=$ kti/sew$
“(the) first (one) brought forth of everything founded (by God)”
or, in simpler and more conventional translation:
“(the) first-born of all creation”

The phrase in the second line (v. 15b) relates to the same verb (e)stin, “he is”) in v. 15a (see above) and likewise defines who Jesus is (o%$ e)stin). The question then is, whether it represents a separate predicate, apposite to the first, or whether 15b is subordinate to 15a. If the latter, then the expression prwto/toko$ th=$ kti/sew$ explains what it means to say that Jesus is “the likeness/image of the unseeable God”.

The expression itself is comprised of two terms which, respectively, derive from verbs with a similar meaning—ti/ktw and kti/zw. The verb ti/ktw fundamentally means “bring forth, produce”, and is often used in reference to what the ground/soil produces, or to the birth of an animal or human being. In the former context, prwto/toko$ would mean “first-produced” (i.e. ‘first-fruits’), in the latter, “first-born”. The basic denotation of kti/zw is “found, establish, build”, as of a city or a house. Thus, kti/si$ refers to something that has been founded, built, or (more loosely) made; in a religious or theological context, this means something made (created) by God.

New Testament authors inherited the term kti/si$ primarily from the (philosophical/theological) vocabulary of Hellenistic Judaism—and particularly from the Wisdom literature (e.g., LXX Wisdom 2:6; Sirach 16:17). The Pauline usage of the noun kti/si$ is notable, and can be divided into two contexts:

    • The first creation, the current created order, especially the created beings (humans, animals, etc)—Romans 1:20, 25; 8:19-22, 39
    • The idea of a new creation, through union with Christ, especially in terms the resurrection (i.e., participation in Jesus’ resurrection)—Gal 6:15; 2 Cor 5:17; while this resurrection-aspect is clearly present in Rom 8:19ff as well.

This usage corresponds with my understanding of the predicate of v. 15a, as I pointed out above.

The first term in the expression, prwto/toko$ is a verbal adjective which means, as noted above, “(the) first [prw=to$] (thing or person) brought forth [to/ko$]”. This passive adjective has a corresponding active form (nearly identical), prwtoto/ko$ (“bringing forth first”), which is more common in Greek, but which does not occur in the New Testament (or the LXX). This makes it all but certain that Paul (and other early Christians) inherited the passive prwto/toko$ from Old Testament and Jewish tradition, deriving it largely from the LXX usage (133 times), where it primarily refers (in a literal sense) to the firstborn offspring of animals and human beings. There are, however, also instances where it is used in a more figurative sense, referring to a high or privileged (“first”) position (e.g., Exod 4:22; Psalm 89[88]:28).

Elsewhere in the New Testament, in Lukan Infancy narrative (Lk 2:7), it is used in the literal, biological sense of a woman’s first child (Jesus, born by Mary); cf. also Heb 11:28. Thus, there could conceivably be an allusion here in the hymn to the incarnation (and birth as a human being) of the Divine Son. However, the other occurrences (of proto/toko$) all have a more specialized meaning, in reference to the special position Jesus has, in relation to other human beings (believers). This connotation is fundamentally Christological, and is defined primarily (if not exclusively) in terms of the early exaltation Christology.

This point is confirmed by the use of the idiom “firstborn [prwto/toko$] out of the dead” (and comparable terminology)—referring to Jesus’ resurrection—by multiple lines of tradition in the New Testament. The specific expression is used by Paul here in Col 1:18 (to be discussed) and by the book of Revelation (1:5); it is clearly alluded to by Paul also in Rom 8:29, and the basic idea is implied in Acts 3:15, and other references could perhaps be cited as well. The exaltation of believers follows from our union with Jesus and our participation in the power of his resurrection (which is also a promise of our own resurrection); for this reason, we share that same identity as the privileged first-born (cf. Heb 12:23), though in Rom 8:29 Paul prefers to think of believers as ‘younger’ brothers to Jesus, who alone holds the position of “firstborn”.

How, then, should we understand the use of the word here in Col 1:15? There are three main lines of interpretation:

    1. It refers to Jesus as the pre-existent Son of God, and, specifically, that he was ‘born’ prior to the creation of human beings, etc.
    2. It refers to the position of (the exalted) Jesus as “first”, indicating, primarily and fundamentally, a position of rule and authority over creation
    3. It is to be understood in the context of the early Christian idiom of Jesus as the “first born out of the dead”, referring to his resurrection and exaltation.

Given the theme of Jesus’ position of rule and authority that runs through the hymn as a whole, meaning #2 would seem to be the most likely. The only (other) use of the word prwto/toko$ in anything like meaning #1 is in Hebrews (1:6), a book which, along with the Gospel of John, has the strongest (and clearest) pre-existence Christology in the New Testament.

There are two other factors which need to be considered, with regard to a possible pre-existence emphasis here in the hymn: (1) the use of the noun kti/si$ to establish the creation / new-creation thematic nexus, and (2) the influence of Old Testament and Jewish Wisdom tradition on the Christological portrait. If kti/si$ here fundamentally refers to the first (original) creation of the world, then it is more likely that Jesus’ role in that creation is being referenced. Even more significant, if the Christology of the hymn is drawing upon Wisdom-tradition (as in the Johannine Prologue), then it greatly increases the likelihood that the idea of the role of the pre-existent Wisdom in God’s creation of the universe is in view. These questions will be addressed in Part 2 of this article, along with a brief examination of verse 16.

    • 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 “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).

“God Sent Forth His Son…”: Philippians 2:6-11 (Part 4)

Philippians 2:6-11, continued

(See Parts 1, 2, and 3 of this article)

3. The Christ-Hymn and the Pauline view of the Incarnation

We have already examined the idea of the incarnation of Christ as presented in the first half (vv. 6-8) of the Philippians hymn—both in terms of the language/wording used and the overall structure of the hymn. Now it remains to consider how this portrait relates to the other references and allusions to the incarnation elsewhere in Paul’s letters.

Of particular importance is description of Christ’s Divine/heavenly pre-existence in verse 6. As we have seen, there are several other references that suggest pre-existence (the closest parallel being 2 Cor 8:9), but these are allusive at best; it is only here at the beginning of the Christ-hymn that we find anything approaching a developed conception of pre-existence. Even so, the idea of pre-existence can be affirmed only indirectly, on the basis of the sequence and structure of the hymn, in two major ways: (1) a description of Divine/heavenly existence (verbs u(pa/rxw and ei)mi) precedes Christ’s life as a human being (with the verb gi/nomai alluding to his human birth); and (2) the chiastic thematic/conceptual structure of the hymn indicates that an exalted existence prior to Christ’s human birth corresponds to a similar existence after his death (vv. 9-11).

We are also provided with very little information about the nature of this pre-existence. The parallel with the post-resurrection exaltation (vv. 9ff) tells us that Christ possessed an exalted status and position in heaven alongside God; the context of v. 6 in relation to vv. 7-8, with the language of emptying (vb keno/w) and lowering (vb tapeino/w) oneself, confirms this point of orientation. Beyond this, there is only the statement that he existed “in (the) form of God” (e)n morfh=| qeou=), in a manner that came near to being “equal to God” (i&sa qew=|). As I argued in Part 1 (and again in Part 3), the expression e)n morfh=| qeou= should be understood primarily in terms of status and position, though, in a fundamental sense, it must also refer to the possession of the (visible) Divine/heavenly glory.

It is worth considering the conceptual framework in which Paul (and/or the author of the hymn [if it was someone other than Paul]) envisioned the exalted pre-existence of Christ. There are four major lines of interpretation that one might pursue, for each of which there have been advocates among modern commentators:

    • A heavenly/angelic (Messianic) being, akin to the “Son of Man” figure from Daniel and the Enoch Tradition.
    • A heavenly ‘Adam’, corresponding to the earthly Adam—i.e., the first human, after whom all others are patterned; cf. 1 Corinthians 15; Romans 5.
    • The Divine Wisdom, comparable to the Word (Logos) of the Johannine Gospel Prologue (1:1-18).
    • The Son of God, similar to the pre-existent Son referenced throughout the Gospel of John.

There is obviously a certain amount of conceptual overlap between these four figure-types, as we can see, for example, from the Johannine Prologue, in which the idea of the Divine/pre-existent Wisdom from Jewish tradition is blended together with the figure of the Son of God. Similarly, among early Christians the concept of the Messiah as the ‘Son of God’ (drawn from Scriptural and religious tradition) came to be joined together with a heavenly ‘Son of Man’ figure (from Daniel 7) and applied to the person of Christ; a somewhat comparable dynamic seems to have occurred within the Enochic Tradition, applied to the person of Enoch.

If we turn to the other Pauline references that we have studied, we find that the primary point of reference is to the pre-existent Christ as the Son of God. This is very much clear from Gal 4:4 and Rom 8:3, which specifically refer to God sending forth His Son. In Rom 8:3, the simple verb pe/mpw (“send”) is used, but in Gal 4:4 it is the compound verb e)caposte/llw (“send out from”); if one takes the compound verb in a precisely literal sense, then the reference is to God sending forth His Son from where He is (i.e., the Divine realm of heaven). In Rom 1:3-4, the point of reference is also to Christ as the Son, even though, in this instance his Messianic identity is more clearly in view, and thus the Sonship could be understood in a traditional Messianic (rather than heavenly/pre-existent) sense. Cf. also Rom 5:10, which alludes to the possession of Divine Sonship by Christ prior to his death.

It is noteworthy, however, that there is no specific mention of Christ as God’s Son anywhere in the Christ-hymn (nor in Philippians at all, for that matter). This is somewhat surprising if Divine Sonship were the primary idea being emphasized in verse 6. It could be argued that the expression “(the) form [morfh/] of God” here is comparable to “(the) image [ei)kw/n] of God” in 2 Cor 4:4 (cf. also Col 1:15), with the Son being understood as the “image” of the Father. However, Sonship does not seem particularly to be emphasized in either 2 Cor 3:1-4:6 or the ‘Christ-hymn’ of Col 1:15-20 (to be discussed). Rather, in these two passages, Paul seems to be drawing upon Hellenistic Jewish tradition regarding the personification of the Wisdom of God; Christ is thus being identified as the Divine (and pre-existent) Wisdom (cf. Prov 8:22-31). Such an identification is likely in view also in 1 Cor 8:6, with the allusions to Christ’s role in Creation and in sustaining the cosmos (cf. John 1:3f, 10).

At the same time, if the expression “(the) form of God” in Phil 2:6 is in any way comparable with “(the) image of God”, then the use of this terminology in 1 Cor 11:7 and 15:49 could imply an allusion to the Creation account and the idea that humankind (Adam) was made “in the image of God” (Gen 1:26-27); this, in turn, would tend to support the Adam/Christ parallelism that Paul utilizes in 1 Cor 15 and Romans 5. The context of Romans 8:29 seems to draw upon this same line of interpretation; indeed, in Romans 8 the theme of (Divine) sonship is blended together with that of humanity’s corporate identity in Christ (i.e., the new ‘Adam’).

Thus, as this brief survey indicates, Paul was capable of utilizing all four of the conceptual frameworks outlined above, even combining them in different and creative ways. In my view, the pre-existence of Christ in Phil 2:6, in the context of the Christ-hymn as a whole, is best understood in the light of the exaltation Christology of vv. 9-11. Within this early Christology, which informed all of the earliest Christian preaching (and featured in the first Gospel narratives), Jesus’ identity as the Son of God (and as the heavenly Son of Man [of Daniel 7]) was understood primarily in terms of his resurrection and exaltation to heaven (at God’s right hand). The chiastic structure of the Christ-hymn produces an inverse ‘mirror-image’ of the exaltation-Christology, so that, in the first half of the hymn (vv. 6-8), the conception of Christ’s exalted pre-existent status (and subsequent incarnation) mirrors the traditional portrait of his post-resurrection exaltation. It is doubtful whether the pre-existence Christology of the hymn goes much beyond this.

As noted above, in 2 Corinthians 3:1-4:6, followed by Colossians 1:15-20, Paul does seem to be developing a seminal Wisdom Christology, by which Jesus Christ was identified with the personified (and pre-existent) Wisdom of God. More distinctive as a Pauline contribution is his Adam/Christ typology that he utilizes in 1 Corinthians 15 and then develops more extensively in Romans 5-8. However, for most of the incarnation-references that we have examined, these Christological developments are only marginally in evidence. More commonly, Paul simply refers to Jesus’ Messianic identity and to his exalted status as Son of God and “Lord”, evincing a tendency to attribute these to Jesus’ person even prior to his death and resurrection. This certainly implies at least a rudimentary pre-existence Christology, but one that was as yet not defined with theological precision, not even in the Philippians Christ-hymn. Given the context of this hymn within the letter, it would be unrealistic to expect such precision, in any case.

In the Christ-hymn of Colossians (1:15-20), we perhaps find evidence for a Christology that has gone a step or two further in its development. It is to this key passage, complicated by questions regarding the Pauline authorship of the letter, that we will turn for the next article in our series.

“God Sent Forth His Son…”: Philippians 2:6-11 (Part 3)

Philippians 2:6-11, continued

(See Parts 1 and 2 of this article)

2. The Wording used in verses 6-8 (continued)

In this section we are examining certain key phrases and expressions (concentrated in vv. 6-7):

    • e)n morfh=| qeou= (“in [the] form [morfh/] of God”)
    • a(rpagmo\n h(gh/sato, in the context of:
      to\ ei@nai i&sa qew=| (“[the] being equal to God”)
    • e(auto\n e)ke/nwsen (“he emptied himself”)
    • the three nouns morfh/, o(moi/wma, and sxh=ma in sequence—all referring to the human existence and condition of Jesus

The first two phrases/expressions (v. 6) relate to the idea of Christ’s Divine pre-existence, while the last two (v. 7) relate to the incarnation. For the discussion on the first expression (e)n morfh=| qeou=) with its use of the noun morfh/, see Part 1; the last three expressions were examined in Part 2. Here, in Part 3, the three nouns—morfh/, o(moi/wma, and sxh=ma—used in sequence in verse 7 will be considered. These nouns occur in a series of participial phrases:

    • “(hav)ing taken (the) form of a slave”
      morfh\n dou/lou labw/n
    • “(hav)ing come to be in (the) likeness of men”
      e)n o(moiw/mati a)nqrw/pwn geno/meno$
    • “(hav)ing been found in bearing as a man”
      sxhma/ti eu)reqei\$ w($ a&nqrw/po$

The phrases are parallel, closely parallel in wording, but they do form a definite sequence of progression; this sequence may be outlined as follows:

    • the human condition (in contrast to the Divine/heavenly condition [v. 6])
    • a human being, like all other human beings (in form and appearance)
    • a distinct and specific human being—viz., a particular man

The first two phrases are identical in structure (using the Greek word order):

    • morfh\n | dou/lou | labw/n
      “(the) form | of a slave | (hav)ing taken”
    • e)n o(moiw/mati | a)nqrw/pwn | geno/meno$
      “in (the) likeness | of men | (hav)ing come to be”

Let us first consider the two verbs, each in the form of an aorist participle (indicating a past action or condition). In the first phrase, it is the common verb lamba/nw (“take”), which refers to Christ’s voluntary adoption of the human condition, as indicated by the context of v. 6 and the initial phrase of verse 7 (discussed in part 2): “he emptied himself”. The second verb, the verb of becoming (gi/nomai, “come to be”), refers to Christ’s existence as an (actual) human being and alludes, most likely, to his birth as a human being. The related verb genna/w is more commonly used in reference to a birth, but gi/nomai can sometimes carry this same sense. One naturally thinks of its use in John 1:14 (“And the Word became [e)ge/neto] flesh”), though the Pauline usage in Rom 1:3 and Gal 4:4 (both previously discussed) is surely a more relevant parallel, particularly in the use of the aorist participle:

“…His Son, the (one hav)ing come to be [genome/nou] out of (the) seed of David according to (the) flesh” [Rom 1:3]
“…God sent forth His Son, (hav)ing come to be [geno/menon] out of a woman…” [Gal 4:4]

Since the birth of the Son (as a human being) is clearly being referenced in these verses, almost certainly it also is here in Phil 2:7.

Also parallel are the expressions “form of a slave” (morfh\n dou/lou) and “in (the) likeness of men” (e)n o(moiw/mati a)nqrw/pwn). In this context, the noun dou=lo$ (“slave”) is parallel with a)nqrw/po$ (“man”, plur. “men”), suggesting that the human condition is depicted as a kind of slavery. As discussed in Part 1, this is best understood in terms of the precise parallel between the two expressions:

    • morfh\ qeou= (“[the] form of God”) [v. 6]
    • morfh\ doulou= (“[the] form of a slave”) [v. 7]

The noun qeo/$ (“God”) refers to the Son’s exalted status and position (in heaven, alongside God [the Father]); by contrast, the noun dou=lo$ (“slave”) indicates the lowly status and position of a human being. The lowness of this status/position is understood, primarily, in comparison to God. Next to God Himself, human beings are mere slaves. Nevertheless, it is possible to read into the use of the term dou=lo$ here other connotative and contextual aspects of meaning. For example, many commentators see here in dou=lo$ an allusive reference to the concept of the “servant of God [YHWH]”, particularly as the corresponding term in Hebrew (db#u#) is used in Isa 52:13-53:12. Paul’s frequent designation of Christian ministers and missionaries as the “servants” (i.e., “slaves”, dou=loi) of God (and Christ), such as at the beginning of Philippians (1:1), lends credence to such a proposition (see below).

Closer to the theological context of Gal 4:4 (cf. Rom 8:3) is the Pauline concept of humankind being under bondage (i.e., as slaves) to the power of sin; within the Pauline theology, being “under the law” (Gal 4:4) is closely related to being “under sin” (note the parallelism in Gal 3:22-23, and cf. also “under [the] curse” in 3:17). If coming to be born as a human being means being “under the law”, then this also involves being in bondage to the power of sin (“under sin”). Christ came to be born “under sin” so that he might free humankind (i.e., believers) from the power of sin (cf. the context of Rom 8:3).

This brings us to the relationship between the second and third phrases, particularly with regard to the parallel expressions “in (the) likeness of men” and “in bearing as a man”. The plural of a&nqrwpo$, “men”, refers to human beings generally, while the singular (“man”) refers to a particular individual—that is, Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son, as a human being. He came to be born as a human being like all other humans; and, upon his birth, he appeared and carried himself just like any other man. The noun sxh=ma in this regard is somewhat ambiguous. It is derived from the verb e&xw (“hold, have”) by way of the (2nd aorist) infinitive sxei=n (“to hold, to [have] held, holding”). The denotation of the noun is thus “holding”, i.e., the way (or manner) in which something is “held” or “holds together” (i.e., its form/shape/structure), or (reflexively) the way in which one “holds oneself” (i.e., conducts or carries oneself). In order to preserve this basic range of meaning, while still keeping the English readable, I have translated sxh=ma above as “bearing”.

Clearly, the three nouns in these phrases—morfh/, o(moi/wma, and sxh=ma—are closely related in meaning. Yet, there are definite distinctions between them, however subtle. The noun morfh/ properly refers to the visible form or shape of an object (or person). The noun o(moi/wma, from the verb o(moio/w (pass. “be[come] like”), means “likeness”, indicates a close similarity or resemblance (between one thing/person and another). As discussed above (and in Part 1), the use of morfh/, in this context, refers to the Son’s status and position such as it is clearly distinguishable (i.e., visible); as a human being, the incarnate Son’s status and position was lowered to that of a mere “slave” which could be readily apparent to any observer (that is, he was clearly a human being). The use of o(moi/wma (in the prepositional expression “in the likeness [of]”, e)n o(moiw/mati) emphasizes this point. In every way, the incarnate Son, resembled (i.e., looked like) every other human being. The use of sxh=ma takes the point a step further, applying it specifically the person of Christ as a human being. In his “bearing”, Christ had the physical form/structure of a human being, having been born just like every other human; at the same time, he carried himself in the manner and fashion of an ordinary human being—that is, in his daily life: eating, sleeping, speaking and relating to other people, et al. The passive participle of the verb eu)ri/skw (“find”), “(hav)ing been found”, refers generally to the observance of Christ by other people, and to the experience they had as they encountered him.

Nevertheless, the use of the comparative particle w($ (“as”), i.e., “as a man”, in light of the noun o(moi/wma (“likness”) in the prior phrase, may be intended as an allusion to the fact that the incarnate Son was also something more than an ordinary human being (v. 6). The point should not be pressed too far, nor should the language and imagery in the hymn be forced into the theological and ideological matrix of later Christology. The wording in verse 7, taken on its own, provides specific support for neither the orthodox nor a docetic Christology. While it is certainly emphasized that the Son became a human being and resembled one in every way, the verse offers no precise definition as to the nature and (possible) limitations of the incarnate Son’s humanity.

In contrast to the difficult wording in verses 6-7, that of verse 8 is simpler and more straightforward. Note, however, the way in which the phrasing of verse 8 is formally parallel with v. 7:

    • “he emptied himself,
      • …(hav)ing come to be in (the) likeness of men”
    • “he lowered himself,
      • (hav)ing come to be obedient to the point of death”

Clearly, we are dealing with two distinct stages of the incarnation: (a) the Son’s birth as a human being (and his human life generally), and (b) the incarnate Son’s ministry among human beings, culminating in his death. The two components in the participial clause of verse 8—Christ’s obedience (u(ph/koo$) and his death—suggest two distinct aspects of the “slave” (dou=lo$) motif (i.e., the first of the participial phrases in v. 7), outlined above. First, there is the concept of Christ as the “servant of God”, one who serves God with total obedience and commitment (even to the point of death). Second, is Pauline theological concept of humankind being under bondage (i.e., as slaves) to the power of sin and death. Christ’s death (on the cross) is the end product of his having been born “under the law” and “under sin” (Gal 3:22-23); of great significance, in this regard, is the use of the related expression “under (the) curse” in Gal 3:17, since it is specifically tied to Jesus’ death on the cross. Though it is only implied here in the hymn, the Son came to be born as human being “under sin” so that he might set human beings free from their bondage to sin and death.

In Part 4 of this article, we will explore how the Christology of Phil 2:6-11—and especially, the references to the incarnation in vv. 6-8—relates to the other Pauline passages that we have previously discussed.

“God Sent Forth His Son…”: Philippians 2:6-11 (Part 2)

Philippians 2:6-11, continued

(See Part 1 of this article)

2. The Wording used in verses 6-8 (continued)

In this section we are examining certain key phrases and expressions (concentrated in vv. 6-7):

    • e)n morfh=| qeou= (“in [the] form [morfh/] of God”)
    • a(rpagmo\n h(gh/sato, in the context of:
      to\ ei@nai i&sa qew=| (“[the] being equal to God”)
    • e(auto\n e)ke/nwsen (“he emptied himself”)
    • the three nouns morfh/, o(moi/wma, and sxh=ma in sequence—all referring to the human existence and condition of Jesus

The first two phrases/expressions (v. 6) relate to the idea of Christ’s Divine pre-existence, while the last two (v. 7) relate to the incarnation. For the discussion on the first expression (e)n morfh=| qeou=) with its use of the noun morfh/, see Part 1.

We now turn to the phrase a(rpagmo\n h(gh/sato in the context of the syntactical expression to\ ei@nai i&sa qew=| (“[the] being equal to God”). These two components, governed by the negative particle ou)k (ou)x), comprise the clause of v. 6b, conditioned by the initial participial clause of v. 6a (“who, beginning under in [the] form of God…”). Verse 6b is the continuation of this statement, forming an exceptive contrast: i.e., “who, (though) beginning in (the) form of God, did not [ou)k]…”

There are two main interpretive difficulties, related to the meaning of each of the components of v. 6b. The first is the meaning of the phrase a(rpagmo\n h(gh/sato. The noun a(rpagmo/$ is derived from the verb a(rpa/zw, meaning “take (with force), seize, snatch (away)”, often in the negative and/or violent sense of “rob, steal, plunder”. The negative/violent sense certainly occurs where the verb is used in, e.g., Matt 11:12; 13:19; John 6:15; 10:12, 28-29; however, in the only three instances of the verb in Paul’s letters, it refers to a person being ‘taken up’ into heaven (1 Thess 4:17; 2 Cor 12:2, 4, cp. with Rev 12:5, and the salvation context of Jude 23). The derived noun a(rpagmo/$ could have the active meaning of “seizing” or the passive meaning (similar to the related a%rpagma) “that which is seized”. Since a(rpagmo/$ occurs only here in the New Testament, it is difficult to determine the precise meaning in context; nor is it used in the LXX (while the related a%rpagma occurs 18 times) and is likewise extremely rare in extra-biblical Greek of the period (outside of early Christian writings dependent upon Phil 2:6), with not a single surviving occurrence, as far as I am aware, earlier than our passage.
The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae search tool locates just four occurrences in non-Christian Greek writings from the first-second centuries A.D., viz., of Plutarch (2), Phrynichus, and Vettius Valens.

The verb h(ge/omai is a middle deponent form of the primary verb a&gw (“lead”), and thus meaning “lead forth”, sometimes in the figurative-conceptual sense of bringing something forth in one’s mind, so as to give it consideration, regard, etc. This is quite clearly the sense in which it is used here, particularly when compared with the usage earlier in v. 3, and again in 3:7-8.

The denotative meaning of the second phrase-expression, to\ ei@nai i&sa qew=| (“[the] being equal to God”), is straightforward enough, but its exact significance in context remains much disputed. But, before proceeding, let us assemble the entire clause, combining together the two phrase-components, governed by the negative particle (i.e., indicating what Jesus did not do): “he did not lead forth (in his thought) [i.e., consider/regard] the being equal to God (as) a a(rpagmo/$.” The main question to be addressed, then, is whether a(rpagmo/$ means the act of seizing or something to be seized. Most commentators follow the latter option, whereby a(rpagmo/$ is more or less equivalent with the related a%rpagma, even though nouns ending in –mo$ tend to have a predominantly active/action orientation. To capture both possibilities, one may translate as follows:

“…he did not lead forth (in his thought) the being equal to God (as something for) seizing”

The use of a(rpagmo/$, in the sense of “(something for) seizing”, should be understood in the positive sense of an honor, something to be prized, in keeping with the exalted position of Christ at the beginning. In English idiom, a(rpagmo/$ could be rendered (in this sense) as “a (great) catch”; cf. the expression a(rpale/an do/sin, “a gift desirable for seizing/taking”, in the 8th Pythian ode of Pindar (line 65), using the related adjective a(rpale/o$.

This leads to a second major interpretive question: how does “being equal to God” relate to being “in the form of God” (v. 6a)? Are the expressions essentially equivalent in meaning, or is there a distinction? If the former, then the issue in v. 6 is that Christ did not wish to hold on to his equality with God (viz., as something which he already possessed), but willingly gave it up. This line of interpretation, which is favored by a fair number of commentators, is more or less required by orthodox Christology; however, in the overall context of the Christ-hymn of vv. 6-11, it is rather unlikely. Almost certainly an important distinction is in view, between being “in the form of God” and “being equal to God”. In his exalted position as the pre-existent Son of God, Christ was still—as the Son—subordinate to the Father. Like a faithful and dutiful son, Christ was unwilling to take hold of the honor that belongs to his father, even though he is set to inherit it, before the time when it is bestowed upon him (by the father). Such ‘subordinationism’ may be problematic from the standpoint of later orthodox Christology, but it is altogether in keeping with the first-century Christology of the New Testament.

This brings us to the key phrase of verse 7: e(auto\n e)ke/nwsen (“he emptied himself”), utilizing the verb keno/w (“to [make] empty”). The initial adversative conjunction in verse 7, a)lla/ (“but, rather”) sets in contrast what Christ did not do (v. 6) with what he actually did. He did not consider “being equal to God” as something for grabbing hold of (as an honor or prize), but instead he “emptied himself”. While the verb keno/w can be used in the concrete sense, e.g., of emptying a vessel of its contents, this meaning is properly reserved for the compound verb e)kkeno/w (“empty out”), which occurs more frequently in the LXX (16 times) than simple keno/w (only twice, Jer 14:2; 15:9). In both the LXX and the New Testament, keno/w is used in a more abstract or figurative sense. The four other NT occurrences are all in Paul’s letters (Rom 4:14; 1 Cor 1:17; 9:15; 2 Cor 9:3), and, in all of these instances, keno/w has something of a figurative meaning, connoting the loss of honor, esteem, or value and significance. By comparison, in the LXX, it is used of a human subject, indicating the loss of strength and energy, just as in English idiom we might speak of being “spent” or “on empty”.

The use of keno/w with a reflexive pronoun (as the object), whereby a person is said to “empty himself”, is extremely rare in Greek writings of the period, especially when one excludes other early Christian writings that are dependent upon Phil 2:7. There is a rare occurrence of the idiom in the work of Aristophanes of Byzantium (quoted by Claudius Aelian), where it is used in the context of a person physically ’emptying himself’ through lack of food and rest—indicating a basic connotation of self-denial which is not entirely out of keeping with the setting of the Christ-hymn (see below).

While the use of keno/w in the Christ-hymn certainly relates to the idea of incarnation, the precise significance of what it means for the pre-existent Son of God to “empty himself” remains much discussed and debated among commentators. Particularly controversial are the lines of interpretation which may be summarized under the label of a Kenosis (or Kenotic) theory—from the Greek word ke/nwsi$ (an “emptying”), derived from the use here of the verb keno/w. According to the various formulations of Kenosis theory, the pre-existent Christ (or Son), in becoming fully human, “emptied himself” of the Divine nature and/or attributes. While this approach is problematic in terms of orthodox Christology it does have the advantage of explaining and harmonizing certain aspects of the New Testament witness.

The use of the term “nature” itself is problematic, as it is rather general in English and can be used in a relatively wide range of semantic contexts. In particular, the Christological focus shifts markedly whether “nature” is understood primarily in terms of identity or in terms of attributes. If we are to understand being “in the form of God” in terms of Jesus’ identity as the Son of God, then it is clear, from the New Testament and early Christian perspective, that Christ never gave up being the Son of God. However, it is a different matter with regard to the Divine attributes—those fundamental characteristics which are typically attributed to Deity, such as omnipotence and omniscience, as well as ‘moral’ attributes such as righteousness and holiness (including the idea of sinlessness). Many theologians maintain that the experience of a true and full human nature by Jesus Christ would require his surrendering (or at least limiting) possession and/or use of these attributes.

The New Testament witness and the Gospel Tradition, it may be argued, supports such a Kenosis-Christology. For example, it seems quite clear from the Gospel narrative, that the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus at his baptism enabled him to fulfill his Messianic mission, giving him the power (and authority) to act as God’s anointed representative, performing miracles and casting out the evil spirits, etc; see esp. Luke 4:1ff, 14ff (18ff [Isa 61:1]) in the context of the baptism (3:21-22), and the saying of Matt 12:28 par in the context of the ‘Beelzebul’ episode (Mk 3:22-30). But, if Jesus Christ, as the incarnate Son, already fully possessed the Spirit and was all-powerful (i.e., possessing the Divine attribute of omniscience), then the Gospel portrait, with its emphasis on the importance of the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus (at his baptism), becomes difficult to maintain.

Similarly, the temptation scene (Lk 4:1-13 par), and the reality of Jesus’ human experience (as indicated in statements such as Heb 2:18; 4:15), would lose much of its significance if Christ were unable to sin (due to his possession of Divine sinlessness, etc). Rather, the overall portrait in the New Testament suggests that Jesus was prone to temptation, and subject to the impulse toward sin, just like any other human being. That he remained faithful to God and did not sin may be seen as the result of his reliance upon the presence and the power of God’s holy Spirit; his example also sets the pattern for the possibility of sinlessness among believers, insofar as they/we also submit to the guidance of the Spirit and rely wholly on its power.

Yet, even though the New Testament may support such a Kenosis-theory involving the divine attributes, it remains rather speculative. It must also be admitted that the Christ-hymn here in Philippians displays no clear evidence of any sort of developed Kenotic theory, apart from use of the phrase “he emptied himself”, the interpretation of which is the very point at issue.

A more profitable line of interpretation involves, not the Divine ‘attributes’, but the exalted status and position which the Son held prior to his incarnation. As we discussed with regard to the use of the expression “in the form of God” (v. 6, see in Part 1), the primary point of reference is not to the pre-existent Christ’s Divine “nature” or “attributes”, but to his exalted status/position in heaven (with God the Father). The parallel between the expressions “in the form of God” and “in the form of a slave” would seem to confirm this. The expression in v. 7 is not “in form of a man”, but “in the form of a slave”—viz., a lowly position on earth (as a human being), in contrast to his exalted position (with God) in heaven. By “emptying himself”, Christ went from this exalted Divine position to the lowly status of a human being. The use of the reflexive pronoun (“himself”) makes clear that what he “emptied out” was not the Divine nature or attributes, etc, but his own self.

Another useful interpretive approach involves the conceptual parallel between emptying and pouring out. In particular, we should consider instances of Paul’s use of this related idiom. As it happens, Paul makes use of it here in Philippians, in the context of the Christ-hymn (v. 17). The verb is spe/ndw, “pour out”, often utilized in the ritual setting of sacrificial libations or drink-offerings (cf. Gen 35:14, etc. LXX). Paul states, with regard to himself (and his work as a minister of the Gospel): “But, indeed, if I am poured out [spe/ndomai] upon the sacrifice and the service of your trust, I rejoice and (also) rejoice together with you all.” The same sacrificial language and imagery (with the verb spe/ndw) occurs in 2 Tim 4:6. In the service of Christ and the Gospel, Paul, like every faithful Christian minister, has “poured himself out” (i.e., “emptied himself”), devoting his entire life, giving out all of his strength and energy, etc, for that mission. In light of the context of the Christ-hymn, and the message regarding the need for self-sacrifice by believers, in service to one another (vv. 1-5), Paul surely understands the “self-emptying” by Jesus in a similar way. Christ willingly gave all of himself—his entire life and being—to the mission God set for him, which involved being sent out from his Divine/heavenly position to take on the lowly status and position of a human being (on earth)—i.e., an incarnation—with all of the weaknesses and limitations which that entailed.

In Part 3 of this article, we will examine the remaining words and phrases in verse 7 (and 8) as they relate to the idea of the incarnation of Christ. Then, in conclusion, we will consider the Christological message of vv. 6-8 in relation to the wider Pauline Christology—particularly the earlier references to pre-existence and incarnation in Paul’s letters (discussed in the prior studies).

“God Sent Forth His Son…”: Philippians 2:6-11 (Part 1)

Philippians 2:6-11

The next article in this series will look at the so-called Christ-hymn of Philippians 2:6-11. The designation ‘Christ-hymn’ reflects a general scholarly consensus (with few exceptions) regarding this passage, whereby its poetic and hymnic features are recognized. The poetic analysis can be traced back to at least the end of the 19th century (with the work of Johannine Weiss), and has continued throughout the decades until the present day. The identification of Phil 2:6-11 as an early Christian hymn owes much to the landmark study by Ernest Lohmeyer in 1928 (Kyrios Jesus: Eine Untersuchung zu Phil. 2,5-11), and it is only in recent decades that this theory has begun to be seriously questioned by a number of scholars. It remains the majority view, however, and even more skeptically-minded commentators tend to follow it.

In using the designation ‘Christ-hymn’ there are three basic features and criteria which are understood:

    • The passage has a poetic, hymn-like structure, comprised of verses and stanzas
    • It contains a confessional formula or statement of belief that is Christological in nature—viz., regarding what early Christians believed about the person of Christ, who he is and what he did (or what God the Father did through him)
    • It had a liturgical use and purpose, utilized within the context of a communal worship setting.

The last of these three criteria is the most doubtful and speculative.

Along with the basic critical theory that identifies Phil 2:6-11 as a hymn, there has been considerable discussion and debate among commentators as to whether Paul was the author of this hymn, or whether he utilized and adapted an existing hymn which others may have composed. Scholars are somewhat divided on the question, which is approached on the basis of: (1) the poetic style and structure of the hymn, (2) the language and vocabulary, and (3) the theological points of emphasis. Sound arguments for and against Pauline authorship have been put forward, and you will find a detailed presentation of them in Ralph P. Martin, Carmen Christi: Philippians 2:5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of early Christian Worship, Revised Edition (Eerdmans: 1983), pp. 42-62. With regard to the vocabulary and theological emphases, I find the arguments for non-Pauline authorship much stronger in the case of Rom 1:3-4 (cf. the earlier article in this series) than that of Phil 2:6-11. While it is certainly possible that Paul adapted an existing (non-Pauline) hymn, he could just as well have composed the passage himself. If he did adapt an existing work, then at least two points must be admitted: (i) it was adapted in such a way as to be accord with much of Paul’s own language and style, and (ii) Paul was himself in basic agreement with its theology (and Christology).

I have previously examined all of the New Testament passages which can reasonably be regarded as ‘Christ-hymns’, including a set of notes on Phil 2:6-11. Furthermore, my intention is to embark on an even more detailed series of exegetical notes on the passage in the coming weeks. Thus, I will not be engaging in that level of exegesis here in this article. Rather, I will focus on key questions and issues regarding the twin Christological tenets of the pre-existence and incarnation of Christ—the evidence for these in Phil 2:6-11, and the manner in which they are expressed.

Throughout the history of interpretation, most commentators have accepted (or assumed) that both of these Christological tenets—Divine pre-existence and incarnation—are present in the hymn (esp. verses 6-8). However, increasingly there have been a number of commentators in recent decades who would have argued that the idea of Divine pre-existence (and incarnation) is not (or is not necessarily) present at all. The most common view in this regard is one which explains vv. 6-8 in terms of an Adam-Christ paradigm, of the sort which Paul utilizes in 1 Corinthians 15 (vv. 22ff, 45-49) and Romans 5-8 (esp. 5:12-21). According to this line of interpretation, verse 6 does not refer to Christ’s Divine pre-existence, but to the fulfillment of his role as the “second Adam”. Thus, for example, to speak of Christ being “in the form [morfh/] of God” is just another way of referring to Adam (i.e., humankind originally) as having been created “in the image [ei)kw/n, Heb <l#x#] of God” (Gen 1:26). Similarly, the idea of possessing “equality [lit. being equal, ei@nai i&sa] to God”, and of this as something one might ‘seize’ or ‘hold onto’ (i.e., a(rpagmo/$), is to be understood as an allusion to Gen 3 (vv. 5, 22), along with the use of tWmD= in Gen 1:26. Whereas the first Adam lost his likeness/equality to God through disobedience, the second Adam (Christ) gave it up willingly (v. 7), in an act of obedience to God (v. 8).

However, as I indicated, most commentators still understand vv. 6-8 as referring both to Divine pre-existence and incarnation. Yet, even when this is accepted, there is still some uncertainty as to the force of the particular idea of pre-existence and what it entails. There are four lines of interpretation which may be considered:

    • A heavenly Adam, corresponding to the earthly Adam of history and religious-cultural tradition (cf. 1 Cor 15:47-49); this would represent a variation of the Adam-Christ typology (see above), following upon certain strands of Jewish mystical and philosophical tradition.
    • A heavenly being (Angel, etc), without any reference to an Adam-tradition; cf. the “Son of Man” tradition(s) in Judaism and early Christianity.
    • The pre-existent (personal/personified) Wisdom of God—cf. Proverbs 8 (vv. 22-31) and subsequent Jewish tradition.
    • The Son of God (cf. Gal 4:4; Rom 8:3, etc), without necessarily a specific connection with the Divine Wisdom.

While Paul may well have had an Adam-Christ paradigm and/or a rudimentary Wisdom-Christology in view—since there is evidence for both of these elsewhere in his letters—I would argue that principal in Paul’s mind (via the hymn) is Jesus as the exalted Son of God (in accordance with Christ’s position and status following the resurrection). The parallelism of the two halves of the hymn more or less confirms this Christological orientation.

In this article, I wish to treat the matter from two vantage points: (1) the concentric-chiastic structure of the hymn (as touched on above), and (2) the specific wording used in the first half of the hymn (vv. 6-8), where the ideas of pre-existence and incarnation are most relevant and prominent.

1. The Structure of the Hymn

Virtually all scholars recognize the basic division of the hymn into two parts—verses 6-8 and 9-11—which are more or less equally balanced, and which mirror each other in theme and concept. Indeed, one of the great beauties of the hymn is the way that the poetic structure of the hymn matches its theological (Christological) narrative.

Verses 6-8 describe the lowering of Jesus from an exalted heavenly place alongside God the Father, while vv. 9-11 correspondingly describe the exaltation, the raising of him back to heaven. This may be framed as a chiastic outline—moving from divine/heavenly (pre-)existence, and then back to an exalted status (as God/Lord) in heaven:

    • God sends his Son from him (i.e. from heaven)
      • to be born (lit. come to be) of a woman (Gal 4:4)
        • into the suffering/slavery of the human condition (v. 7a)
        • suffering/death on the cross (v. 8)
      • through the resurrection, Jesus is “born” (i.e. firstborn of the dead)
    • God exalts him to heaven, at his right hand, as Son of God (cf. Ps 2:7 / Acts 13:32-33) and Lord

This same sequence is indicated, in simpler form, by the four main aorist verbs that guide the syntax of the passage:

    • e)ke/nwsen (“he [Jesus] emptied [himself]”)—his ‘departure’ from heaven and birth/incarnation as a human being
    • e)tapei/nwsen (“he lowered [himself]”)—his suffering and death
    • u(peru/ywsen (“[God] lifted [him] high”)—Jesus’ resurrection and ascension/exaltation
    • e)xari/sato (“[God himself] showed favor [to him]”)—”with the name over every name”, as Lord and (Son of) God in heaven

Commentators have differing views on how best to delineate the poetic structure of the hymn. The main point, however, is that the two halves mirror each other conceptually, so that the lowering of Christ (“he lowered himself” [e(auto\n e)ke/nwsen], v. 8) is matched by the exalting of him by God (“He lifted him high” [au)to\n u(peru/ywsen], v. 9). Thus, the incarnation of Christ, culminating in his death, is parallel to his exaltation (after his resurrection); and, to extend the mirror-pattern, the exalted/heavenly state of the pre-existent Christ is parallel to that of the resurrected Christ.

It is easy to see how this chiastic paradigm came about. Beginning with the Gospel narrative of the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus, which forms the basis of the early exaltation-Christology, this narrative was enhanced and expanded to incorporate the developing pre-existence Christology (an early form of which is found here in the hymn). The pre-existence of Christ was explained in relation to the exaltation-Christology, and according to the conceptual and narrative pattern of that Christology. Prior to his incarnation, at the very beginning, Christ had an exalted and Divine status/position (with God) which corresponded to the status/position (at God’s “right hand”) he held following the resurrection. The two ‘states’ are similar (and comparable), even if they are described with different wording and terminology in the hymn.

2. The Wording Used in Verses 6-8

The references to the Divine pre-existence and the incarnation of Christ in the first half of the hymn (vv. 6-8) would seem to be relatively clear, and yet the specific wording that Paul (and/or the author of the hymn) uses to express these ideas is difficult and challenging. The hymnic nature of the passage itself is the primary cause of the difficulty, since complex and multifaceted theological concepts are being referenced with the utmost poetic concision—using just a short phrase or single expression. Sometimes the interpretive problem hinges on the meaning of a single word, used in context. Determining the precise meaning has proven difficult indeed, and disagreements remain among commentators and theologians regarding the best way to understand (and translate) the wording of the hymn in these verses.

Here are the key phrases and expressions (concentrated in vv. 6-7):

    • e)n morfh=| qeou= (“in [the] form [morfh/] of God”)
    • a(rpagmo\n h(gh/sato, in the context of:
      to\ ei@nai i&sa qew=| (“[the] being equal to God”)
    • e(auto\n e)ke/nwsen (“he emptied himself”)
    • the three nouns morfh/, o(moi/wma, and sxh=ma in sequence—all referring to the human existence and condition of Jesus

The first two phrases/expressions (v. 6) relate to the idea of Christ’s Divine pre-existence, while the last two (v. 7) relate to the incarnation.

The best place to begin is with the use of the noun morfh/, since it occurs in both v. 6 and 7; it thus would seem to provide a key to the hymn’s understanding of the Divine pre-existence and incarnation of Christ. The centrality of the terminology is, I think, confirmed by the fact that morfh/ is used in parallel expressions:

    • morfh\ qeou= (“form of God”)
    • morfh\ dou/lou (“form of a slave”)

The parallelism extends to the specific phrase used in each case, a phrase that is normative (and definitive) for describing the pre-existent and incarnate states, respectively, of Jesus Christ:

    • e)n morfh=| qeou= u(pa/rxwn (“be[ginn]ing in [the] form of God”)
    • morfh\n doulou= labw/n (“[hav]ing taken [the] form of a slave”)

The noun morfh/ means “form, shape”, in the sense of the visible appearance of something. Rather surprisingly, the two occurrences here in vv. 6-7 are the only occurrences in the entire New Testament (apart from Mark [16:12]). The idea of the visible appearance of God suggests the traditional-theological use of the noun do/ca (corresponding to Hebrew dobK*), in the specific sense of the Divine splendor that surrounds God (as described in theophany-visions). And, indeed, this basic sense of the terminology would seem to be confirmed by the parallel in verse 11, with the closing expression “unto the do/ca of God the Father”. In terms of the mirrored-chiastic parallelism of the hymn (cf. above), the expressions morfh\ qeou (“form of God”) and do/ca qeou= (“splendor of God”) are certainly parallel, the hymn’s final expression corresponding to its first. The latter expression alludes to the Divine splendor possessed by the exalted Christ (following his resurrection), and thus the former must carry a similar/comparable meaning for the pre-existent Christ.

Therefore, we may fairly explain the hymn’s (and Paul’s) use of the expression “in the form of God” (e)n morfh=| qeou=) as referring to an exalted Divine/heavenly state in which Christ existed at the beginning. The verb u(pa/rxw literally means “begin under” —that is, begin in a certain position or condition, though it can also carry the existential meaning “begin to be” (i.e., begin to exist). This existential meaning was generalized so that, quite often, the verb simply means “to be”, comparable to the verb of being (ei)mi). It is best, I think, to retain here the more precise and specific meaning of beginning under (i.e., in) a particular state or condition (viz., that of the exalted “form” of God).

The parallel with the expression in verse 7 (“form of a slave” [morfh\ dou/lou]) emphasizes the specific aspect of status and position. At the beginning, Christ held an exalted status and position alongside God; but then, after he “emptied himself”, he took on (vb lamba/nw, “take”) the status and position of a lowly slave. This designation of a “slave” (dou=lo$), coming at the start of the description in verse 7, essentially summarizes the human condition (“form of a slave”) of the incarnate Christ. Yet it does not refer only to his humanity in general terms; rather, it also signifies the culmination of Jesus’ human life (and his earthly mission)—viz., his death on the cross (v. 8). The “emptying” (vb keno/w) mentioned in verse 7 is paralleled by the “lowering” (vb tapeino/w) in verse 8. These two actions must be taken in tandem, even if they also signify distinct ‘stages’ in the incarnate existence of the Son (Christ)—i.e., the initial incarnation/birth as a human being, with the beginning of his earthly life and ministry (v. 7), followed by the completion of that life/ministry with his sacrificial death (v. 8).

In Parts 2 and 3 of this article, we will proceed to examine the remaining key words, expressions, and phrases in vv. 6-8. Then, we will conclude by comparing the Christ-hymn with Paul’s earlier references to the pre-existence and incarnation (discussed in the prior articles of this series).

“God Sent Forth His Son…”: Romans 8:3ff, 14-17ff, 29-30

Romans 8:3ff, 14-17ff, 29-30

Chapter 8 is the fourth, and final, major section of the probatio of Romans (Rom 1:18-8:39). The first three sections were:

    • Rom 1:18-3:20: Announcement of God’s (impending) judgment, according to the Law (of God)
    • Rom 3:21-5:21: Announcement of God’s justice/righteousness (in Christ), apart from the Law (Torah)
    • Rom 6:1-7:25: Announcement of Freedom from the Law and Sin

This last section (chapter 8) I would divide as follows:

    • Rom 8:1-30: Announcement of Life in the Spirit (Exhortation)
      —8:1-11: The conflict (for believers) between the Spirit and the Flesh
      —8:12-17: Believers are sons (of God) and heirs (with Christ) through the Spirit
      —8:18-25: Believers have the hope of future glory (new creation) through the Spirit
      —8:26-30: Believers experience the work of salvation through the Spirit
    • Rom 8:31-39: Doxology: The Love of God (in Christ)

The important Christological statement in verse 3 (discussed in the previous article) serves as the basis for Paul’s exposition of the declaration in vv. 1-2:

“(So) then, now (there is) not any judgment against the (one)s (who are) in (the) Anointed Yeshua—for the law of the Spirit of life in (the) Anointed Yeshua (has) freed you from the law of sin and of death!”

Believers (“the [one]s in Christ Jesus”) have been saved from the Judgment, in that they/we were “set free” (vb e)leuqero/w) from the binding power (or “law”, no/mo$) of sin (and death). Judgment was brought down on sin itself, as it exercised power “in the flesh”, condemning it and stripping it of its enslaving power. In terms of Paul’s personalization of sin, depicting it as a tyrannical ruler, one is reminded of the Judgment-scene in the vision of Daniel 7 (vv. 11-12, 26-27).

Two aspects of Paul’s description go hand-in-hand:

    • Sin is judged by God, with its ruling/enslaving power removed, and thus
    • Humankind is set free from the power of sin

Freedom from the binding power of sin also means freedom from the binding power of the law (i.e., the Torah regulations and requirements). On this sensitive and controversial subject, cf. the articles in my earlier series “Paul’s View of the Law” (note especially the discussion on the preceding sections of Romans [7:7-25]).

An important point of emphasis for Paul here is that both aspects of this salvation which God worked for believers—judgment against sin, and the loosing from bondage—took place “in the flesh”. This was the very human “flesh” —i.e., the human nature—that had been created (by God), but came to be corrupted and enslaved to the power of sin (cf. Paul’s extended discussion in chaps. 5-7). The means by which God accomplished the salvation of humankind, freeing it from bondage, was the death of His own Son.

We have already discussed the likely incarnational orientation of the paradigm in verse 3 (cf. also Gal 4:4): God sent forth His Son, presumably from heaven to earth, in order to be born as a human being (i.e., in human “flesh”). In this regard, and in the context of the probatio of Romans (esp. chapters 5-8), the significance of the expression “flesh of sin” (sa\rc a(marti/a$) lies in the idea that the human nature (“flesh”) was corrupted and enslaved to the power of sin. The Son of God came to participate in this human condition, having been born under the curse of the law (Gal 3:13; 4:4), and “in the likeness” (e)n o(moiw/mati) of this “flesh of sin”. Through the death of the incarnate Son, sin was condemned and its power broken— “(God) brought down judgment against sin in the flesh”.

At the same time, sin—that is, the sins of human beings—was dealt with; the language that Paul uses (“about/concerning sin” [peri\ a(marti/a$]) contains an allusion to the sacrificial offerings for sin (cf. the discussion in the previous article). Within the ancient cultic apparatus, the impurity, guilt, and damaging effects of human sin were removed through the various sin/guilt offerings, a process that is symbolized (in ritual terms) by the animal sacrifices and their accompanied offerings. The death of Jesus fulfilled this sacrificial type-pattern.

Thus, in Christ humanity is doubly freed from sin: the guilt and harmful effect of our sins is removed, and we are given the ability to live free from sin henceforth.

Verses 1-11 make clear that this freedom is in effect only for believers in Christ (“th[ose] in Christ Jesus”) and is fulfilled only insofar as they/we walk [i.e., live/act] “according to the Spirit” (kata\ pneu=ma, v. 4). Here, Paul utilizes his familiar and distinctive contrast between “flesh” and the Spirit. The contrast is established in verse 4, and then stated clearly in v. 5, juxtaposing those who think (and act) “according to the flesh” with those who do so “according to the Spirit”; the ultimate consequences for each mindset and lifestyle are given in verse 6 (cf. also the following clarifying statements in vv. 7-8).

In the remainder of the section (vv. 9-11), Paul connects the presence of the Spirit with the believer’s union with Jesus Christ. The believer is in Christ (v. 1, etc), but Christ is also in the believer (v. 10); similarly, the believer is in the Spirit (v. 9a), and the Spirit is also in the believer (vv. 9b, 11). This reflects the reality that the Spirit of God is also the Spirit of His Son (cf. Gal 4:6). When we are united with the Spirit, we are united with the Son.

A cornerstone tenet of the Pauline theology is that believers, through union with Christ (in the Spirit), participate in both his death and resurrection. Paul refers to this guiding principle on a number of occasions, but most clearly and extensively in Romans 6:1-11, where it is expressed through the symbolism of the baptism ritual (vv. 3-4). Through our union with Christ’s death, we died to the power of sin, so that it no longer has rule over us (vv. 6-7). Similarly, through our union with his life (i.e., resurrection), we are able to experience the eternal life of God (vv. 8-10). The latter entails the promise of fulfillment with the end-time resurrection of the body, an aspect of the theological paradigm which Paul particularly emphasizes in chapter 8, beginning with verse 11:

“And, if the Spirit of the (One hav)ing raised Yeshua out of (the) dead houses [i.e., dwells] in you, (then) the (One hav)ing raised (the) Anointed out of (the) dead will make live your dying bodies, through His Spirit housing [i.e., dwelling] in you.”

Incarnation and the Divine Sonship in 8:12-30

Having dealt with the present conflict for believers, between the Spirit and the flesh (vv. 1-11, cf. above), the central theme of the sonship of believers is introduced in the next section (vv. 12-17), to be further expounded in the remainder of the chapter (vv. 18-25 and 26-30). Insofar as believers live and “walk about” in the Spirit, being guided by the presence and power of the Spirit, they/we truly are the sons (i.e., children) of God. This is the message of the chapter, summarized in verse 14 (which entails the exhortation from vv. 1-11 [and vv. 12-13]):

“For, as (many) as are led by/in (the) Spirit of God, these are (the) sons of God.”

As noted above (and cf. the discussion in the previous article), Paul’s wording in verse 3 (cp. Gal 4:4), suggests at least a rudimentary belief in the incarnation of the (pre-existent) Son of God, and thus represents early evidence for a seminal pre-existence Christology. And, if we are to ask what this Christology, as expressed here in Romans 8, tells us about Paul’s understanding of the nature and purpose of the incarnation, it is best summarized by his exposition of the Sonship theme. Paul’s thought in this regard follows closely upon his exposition in Gal 3:26-4:7; indeed, the wording in vv. 14-17 is quite similar to that of the earlier passage. Based on the ideas expressed therein, we may epitomize Paul’s message regarding the purpose of the incarnation in terms of the relation of the Son (Christ Jesus) to believers, and involving a mirrored reciprocity:

God’s Son became a human being
so that
human beings (believers) might become the sons of God. 

And, as the context of both passages makes quite clear, this dynamic is dependent entirely upon the presence and activity of the Spirit. For Paul, to be “in the Spirit” is the same as being “in Christ”; indeed, the Spirit of God is also the Spirit of Christ. This is quite clear from the wording in Gal 4:6, but also from the way that, here earlier in v. 9, Paul uses the expressions “Spirit of God” (pneu=ma qeou=) and “Spirit of (the) Anointed” (i.e., “Spirit of Christ”, pneu=ma Xristou=) interchangeably. 

Believers obtain this Divine sonship, through the Spirit, by sharing in the Sonship of Jesus Christ. The spiritual participation of believers in the death and resurrection of Jesus was noted above (in the discussion on vv. 1-11), but this also means participation in his Sonship—in two key respects: (1) the new humanity represented by the person of Christ, and (2) experience of the resurrection, which follows the pattern of Jesus own resurrection (and exaltation). These two aspects are closely related, and Paul deals with both of them in the remainder of chapter 8, as he also does in 1 Corinthians 15 (beginning with v. 20). Both passages also utilize an Adam-Christ typology, which, while made quite explicit in 1 Cor 15 (vv. 21-23, 45ff), is also present in Romans 8, in light of the context of the prior chapters (5-7, cf. especially 5:12-21).

However, the idea of the incarnation is not particularly in view in 1 Cor 15—there the focus is entirely on the resurrection: the new humanity inaugurated by Jesus Christ essentially begins with his resurrection, rather than his birth as a human being. Indeed, throughout his letters Paul specifically indicates that Jesus was born into the old human condition, in which humankind was in bondage to the power of sin (and death), and also bound under the Law (Torah) of the old covenant—cf. Gal 3:13; 4:4; 2 Cor 5:21; Rom 8:3; 15:8, and note also Rom 1:3. It is through Jesus’ death and resurrection that it became possible for human beings (believers) to die to the old condition and be ‘raised’ into the new—viz., a new humanity, and a “new creation” (cf. Gal 6:15; 2 Cor 5:17). 

The two aspects of Sonship, mentioned above, are thus combined: believers participate in a new humanity, a new creation, by being “in Christ”, even as we had previously been “in Adam” (1 Cor 15:22); but this new human condition involves the experience of new life through the resurrection. There is a dual-nature to this experience of the resurrection by believers, with both present and future aspects. Paul indicates this here a number of ways, including by his use of the term ui(oqesi/a (“placement as a son”). Earlier in Gal 4:5-6, Paul seems to use this noun as part of a two-stage process: believers obtain the legal status as God’s children (“sons”) through faith, but then truly become His offspring upon receiving the Spirit (and thus sharing in the very Sonship of Jesus). However, here in Romans 8, Paul seems to use ui(oqesi/a in a more comprehensive sense, encompassing the present-future aspects of believers’ sonship. First, we have the statement in verse 15, indicating the present aspect:

“…you have received (the) Spirit of placement as (His) son [ui(oqesi/a], in which we cry ‘Abba, Father!'” (cf. Gal 4:5-6)

This clearly refers to the receipt of the Spirit by believers, in the present. And there is also a future aspect, as Paul states in verse 23:

“…looking to receive from (Him the) placement as (His) son [ui(oqesi/a]”

As believers, in the present we experience this Divine Sonship, this new humanity and the new life of the resurrection, inwardly through the presence of the Spirit. In this regard, here in verse 23, Paul refers to believers as “holding the a)parxh/ of the Spirit”.  The noun a)parxh/, which simply means “(the) beginning from”, often refers or alludes specifically to the beginning of the harvest; this motivic use is applied to believers throughout the New Testament, both in Paul’s letters (2 Thess 2:13; Rom 16:15, etc) and elsewhere (James 1:18; Rev 14:4). In 2 Cor 1:22 (also 5:5, and cf. Eph 1:14), Paul uses a different image: that of a deposit (i.e., down-payment) or pledge (a)rrabw/n). Believers have received the Spirit as promisory deposit and pledge (in the present) of what they/we will receive in full in the future. As indicated clearly in verse 23 (and elsewhere), the full experience will occur with the end-time resurrection.

The Divine sonship of believers will culminate (and be fully realized) with the resurrection of our bodies, which Paul describes as the “loosing from (bondage) [a)polutrw/si$] of our body”. Believers have been set free (in the Spirit) from bondage to the power of sin (and death), but we remain subject to impulses toward sin in the flesh, and our bodies are still mortal and subject to death. Only with the final resurrection, will we be completely transformed by the Spirit (even as Jesus himself was), so as to experience the new life of the new humanity in full. Paul expounded this belief more precisely in 1 Corinthians 15, where he also makes use of the term a)parxh/ in the eschatological context of the resurrection; but there it is applied to Jesus Christ, as the a)parxh/ of the new creation:

“But now (the) Anointed has been raised out of (the) dead, (as the) a)parxh/ of th(ose) having slept” (v. 20)

The resurrection of Jesus marks the beginning of the end-time ‘harvest’; the resurrection of believers comprises the remainder of this harvest:

“…each (person) in his own order: (the) Anointed (as the) a)parxh/, (and) then after (this), the (one)s (who are) of the Anointed, in his (com)ing to be along [parousi/a] [i.e., at his return]” (v. 23) [cf. Mk 13:26-27 par; 1 Thess 4:16-17]

An important component to Paul’s understanding of the incarnation, and his use of the Adam-Christ typology, is the dual-nature of the typological pattern. For Paul, “Adam” is a real historical person (the first human being of the original creation), but he is also a corporate person who collectively represents humankind as a whole. Thus, all human beings follow the first human (Adam), coming after him (in time) and following his pattern; but human beings also share (collectively) in the human nature and human condition of “Adam” —that is, they are “in Adam” (1 Cor 15:22). Jesus Christ embodies a similar duality: (i) he is the first human being of the new creation, and (ii) he collectively represents the new human condition for those who are “in Christ”. Paul deals with both parts of this duality in 1 Cor 15, and also in Romans 8, in the final sections of vv. 18-25 and 26-30. As far as the collective aspect is concerned, this is established from the beginning of the chapter, with the idea of believers being “in Christ”, and sharing (spiritually, through union with him) in his death and resurrection and the Divine Sonship (vv. 2-17, cf. above). It continues throughout vv. 18-25, whereby believers (collectively), as the sons of God, represent the a)parxh/ of the new creation; this is only possible because they/we are “in Christ”. 

The idea of Jesus Christ as the first human being of the new creation—an idea that is so prominent in 1 Cor 15—finally comes clearly into view at the close of the fourth section, in vv. 28-30. The plan and process of salvation for believers is here outlined and summarized, being presented in a definite expository sequence: (a) “knew beforehand” [vb proe/gnw], (b) “marked out beforehand” [vb proori/zw], (c) “called” [vb kale/w], (d) “made right” [vb dikaio/w], (e) “honored/glorified” [vb doca/zw]. At the heart of this sequence is the central explanatory and qualifying clause in verse 29, indicating that this all took place so that believers might be—

“…formed together with the image of His Son, unto his [i.e., Jesus’] being (the) first-produced Son among many brothers”

Here, as in 1 Cor 15, the Divine Sonship is defined primarily in terms of the resurrection—i.e., it is through the resurrection that Jesus comes to be the first representative of the new creation, the new glorified humanity. But he is not the only such “son” —his death and resurrection also allows for the ‘birth’ of many more such “sons”, who thus are his “brothers” (or, inclusively, “brothers and sisters”). 

Though the role of the incarnation, per se, is limited here in Paul’s exposition, there can be no doubt of its being rooted in the Adam-Christ typology. Jesus Christ could only fulfill the typological pattern of “Adam” by being born and living (and dying) as a true human being. Moreover, as noted above, it was necessary for God’s Son (Jesus) to be born into the old human condition, under the old covenant, and in bondage to the power of sin and death. Only then could humankind be set free from its bondage, able to enter into the new life of the new human condition (i.e., the new creation and the new covenant). 

In our next article, we will turn our attention to the ‘Christ-hymn’ of Philippians 2:6-11, where the rudimentary pre-existence and incarnational Christology, evinced rather allusively in Paul’s earlier letters, comes more clearly into view.