Colossians 1:15-20 appear to have been an early Christian hymn. There is evidence this was poetry, perhaps pre-dating Paul and well known to the congregation. Paul uses material like this in other contexts (Phil 2:5-9, for example). It is likely Paul is drawing on a well-known “statement of faith” passed along to the church as part of their education in who Jesus was and is, then drawing some implications from this hymn which are specific to the problem at hand – a group within the church which has some misunderstandings about who Jesus is.
Why use a hymn to relate theology? One possibility is that it is a call back to the foundational understanding of Jesus they received through Epaphras (and hence through Paul). A second possibility is this hymn may have been used and adapted by the false teachers in the Colossian community. We know that in the first century Jews were beginning to speculate seriously about wisdom and were developing the idea of an incarnate Wisdom through whom all things were created. It is possible the false teachers were poking around in the nature of wisdom. Paul says by means of this hymn that if they want real wisdom, they ought to look to Jesus not their own philosophy.
Paul begins by identifying Christ is the “image of the invisible God” (1:15). The word εἰκών is usually translated “image” as in the image an emperor’s head on a coin (BAGD). It is an exact duplicate that is integrally a part of the original. By saying that Christ is in the image of God, he affirms that he is an accurate picture of what God is, and in fact, he is God. L&N 58.35, “that which has the same form as something else.” This is the word chosen by the LXX to translate the Hebrew µl,x{{, in Genesis 1:26-27; 5:3, and 9:6. In Genesis, it is humans who are the image of the invisible God, in the sense that we are God’s representatives in this world; the Law makes it clear no other image of God is to be made.
The word ἀόρατος, “invisible,” is used only five times in the New Testament. In every case it refers to some quality of God, although here in Col 1:16 it refers to the (unseen) spirit world. The use of this word for the spirit world is somewhat common. “Rulers both visible and invisible” appears in Ignatius’s To the Smyrnaeans 6.1, for example.
God as “invisible” is both a Jewish and a Greek idea. In the Hebrew Bible God is never to be represented as an idol or an image, and although there is a great deal of representation of the gods in Greco-Roman paganism, Plato and other philosophers (Stoics, for example), believed in a real god who was invisible, immovable, and totally transcendent.
“To call Christ the image of God is to say that in Him the being and nature of God have been perfectly manifested—that in Him the invisible has become visible.” (F. F. Bruce “Colossian Problems: Part 2: The ‘Christ Hymn’ of Colossians 1:15–20” BSac 141 (1984): 101). Romans 1:20 refers to God’s “invisible qualities.” This is said not to separate Christ and God into two separate categories, but to show that they are part and parcel of the same being, which we refer to as the Godhead, one invisible, the other visible.
Paul seems to be claiming a great deal about Jesus in this verse. What is the theological at stake in this line? Or perhaps to think in about it in another way, what is the Colossian church questioning about Jesus that prompts Paul to respond with this rather audacious claim about Jesus?
One of the main issues we need to sort out for understanding the letter to the Colossians is the nature of the false teaching which was causing problems in the church. Paul clearing thinks that it is important enough to write a letter to a church which he did not found in order to correct the problem. Paul says that members of the church are being help captive to this inadequate theology, which he calls a philosophy and an empty deceit (Col 2:8).
James D. G. Dunn suggested that the problem in Colossae was the same as in Galatians and other early Pauline epistles – Jews were arguing that the gentile Christians were not really “saved” since they did not keep the ceremonial law of the Jews, especially Sabbaths and food laws. This is the “normal” Jewish critique of Gentile Christianity. While this adequately accounts for the Jewish aspect of the Colossian heresy, there is nothing in Galatians which leads to the conclusion that worship of angels or visions were part of the Judaizer’s agenda.
Fred Francis has argued that the Colossian church was influenced by the merkabah mysticism of early Judaism. This mystical form of Judaism stressed visions of heaven and the throne room of God. This sort of vision is found in the Enoch literature and likely does date to the pre-Christian era. A potential problem for this view is that most of the merkabah-type literature we know about is found in Judea, not Asia Minor.
In his presidential address at the 2011 ETS conference, Clint Arnold suggested that the false teaching in Colossae was related to the type of Jewish exorcisms we find in the sons of Sceva (Acts 19). In that passage these Jewish exorcists attempt to cast out a demon in the name of Jesus, but are soundly beaten by the demon possessed man. Arnold discussed parallels in the Testament of Solomon, which is more or less a manual on how to diagnose a demon possession. If the demon’s name could be discovered, then the appropriate angel may be invoked to bind that demon and free the person from oppression.
I thought that Arnold did a good job supporting his claims, and it is a connection which ought to be obvious for anyone who reads the Testament of Solomon. He illustrated his point with several images of magical amulets found in Asia Minor which invoke angelic names as magic charms and occasionally depict Solomon as conquering demonic powers. While Arnold did not take it this far, it is possible that a Jewish mystic / exorcist came to faith in Jesus as savior, but failed to move away from his esoteric practices to deal with demon possession or other illness. Like the Corinthians, some individuals in the Corinthian church were continuing to believe and practice in ways which were not compatible with their new faith. Instead if visits to the Temples, as in Corinth, these believers were clinging to their esoteric knowledge which they believed controlled demons and illness. For Paul, this is an inadequate view since Jesus created these spiritual powers (Col 1:15-20) and has already rendered them powerless.
Thinking of the Colossian heresy in these terms provides another level of application which may be overlooked. For new believers in the non-western world, it is difficult to leave certain culturally accepted folk beliefs because they seem to “work.” But there are ways in which believers in the west fail to “take every thought captive” to Jesus (2 Cor 10:5)
Bibliography:
J. D. G. Dunn, “The Colossian Philosophy: A Confident Jewish Apologia,” Biblica 76 (1995): 153-81. Fred Francis, “Humility and Angel Worship in Col 2:18”, in Conflict at Colossae, 163-95.
Paul wrote the letter of Colossians to a church founded by one of his co-workers, Epaphras.
By the first century, the city of Colossae could only be described as a “small town” by Strabo, (Geography, 7.8.13.) Little is known about the town in this period other than it was nearly destroyed by an earthquake in A.D. 60/61. The cities of Laodicea and Hierapolis are quickly rebuilt; Laodicea can even be described as “rich” when the book of Revelation is written thirty years later. Colossae never recovered from this disaster. Unfortunately, the ancient site of Colossae has not yet been excavated so little is known about the city in the first century.
The church at Colossae was founded by Epaphras (Ἐπαφρᾶς, pronounced “e-paf-ras”), a disciple of Paul from Ephesus (cf. 1:7, 4:12). Paul calls him a “faithful minister” (1:7). The name is short for Epaphroditus (Ἐπαφρόδιτος), a name common in the first century meaning “lovely, fascinating, charming” (LSJ). It is also the name of the servant who delivered a gift to Paul from Philippi) (Phil 2:25 and 4:13; Philemon 23). An inscription was found in Colossae mentioning a T. Asinius Epaphroditus, although it is unlikely this is the biblical Epaphras (F. M. Gillman, ABD 2:533).
Epaphras was from Colossae (4:12) and may be an evangelist in the Lycus valley. The cities of Laodicea and Hierapolis both had thriving churches in the first century (4:12, Rev 3:14-22). Paul tells the church that Epaphras has reported their faith to Paul, and in 4:12 Paul describes himself as “wrestling in prayer” on behalf of the church while he is working hard in other churches. The Colossian believers learned from Epaphras, who learned from Paul.
The verb μανθάνω is associated with “systematic instruction” rather than a brief outline (BDAG). Perhaps Paul used this verb in order to set the gospel preached by Epaphras apart from the Colossian heresy. Epaphras was disciple by Paul and trained to be an evangelist and church planter by the apostle Paul himself. The opponents do not appear to be associated with anyone in the apostolic circle and their teaching is not approved by Paul. In fact, the bulk of the letter engages the ideas of the opponents in order to show their teaching falls short of the Gospel.
Paul may associate himself with Epaphras in this letter because his opponents in Colossae are question his credentials–who is Epaphras to be teaching the congregation spiritual things? The church may be influenced by other teachers for guidance rather than a young evangelist like Epaphras. Paul gives him his personal approval in the opening of this letter, what Epaphras teaches is exactly what Paul taught.
Paul’s prayer serves to underscore the authority of a local pastor-evangelist who faced questions from by his church. Paul lets the church know from the first paragraph that he will be siding with Epaphras in any theological debates in the church!
Bibliography: Florence Morgan Gillman, “Epaphras (Person),” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 533.
Introduction. What should you look for in a Colossians Commentaries? The letter to the church at Colossae is one of the lesser-studied books in the Pauline letters. Because it is a short letter, it can be overshadowed by Romans or 1-2 Corinthians, yet the book has surprising theological depth, especially as Paul presents Jesus in the first chapter. A major concern of most commentaries on the book is the Christology. Some find it too advanced and date the book to a later writer within the Pauline circle (similar to Ephesians). This is not necessary, however, since Paul’s view of Christ in Colossians 1 is quite similar to that of Philippians 2:5-11.
Another unique feature in Colossians is the identity of the “opponent.” Clearly, Paul has some false teaching in mind in the second chapter, but there is a wide range of views as to the identity of these agitators. Clint Arnold wrote a monograph on the topic, and many articles attempt to describe this early defective view. See Arnold’s The Colossian Syncretism: The Interface Between Christianity and Folk Belief at Colossae (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1996).
Colossians Commentaries are often combined with Philemon’s since the two letters are related. Unfortunately, this means that the brief note to Philemon gets tagged to the end of a larger commentary, like an appendix, and is not given the full treatment it deserves. It also bothers me that I cannot sort my books in canonical order, but that might just be me.
James Dunn, Colossians and Philemon (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996). Dunn is always interesting to read, and the New International Greek Text series is excellent. Based on the theology of the book, Dunn thinks that the book was not written by Paul, even if it is “Pauline.” The issue of authorship is not as critical as for other books. Dunn refers to the writer as Paul despite expressing doubts that he was the actual author. He is warm to the possibility that the book was written from a hypothetical Ephesian imprisonment but cannot state this (or any alternative view) with certainty. The opponents addressed by the letter are from the local Jewish synagogue. As Dunn says, to call this a “heresy” is “quite inappropriate” since the “competing philosophy” does not come from within the church. The body of the commentary is based wholly on the Greek text, with detailed lexical and syntactical comments. Dunn is well-versed in Second Temple Period Jewish literature and Greco-Roman works and integrates this material into his commentary well. In particular, material from the Dead Sea Scrolls illustrates the “Jewishness” of Paul’s opponents.
Douglas Moo, Colossians and Philemon (PNTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008). Moo’s commentary is fairly traditional concerning introductory matters (Paul wrote the letter during his Roman imprisonment). He deals with objections to Paul as the author, primarily perceived theological differences when Colossians is compared with Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians. For Moo, the main problem with non-Pauline authorship is that he is not comfortable with pseudepigraphical authorship. It would be quite remarkable that the author would prohibit lying in 3:9 and then claim to be Paul! Concerning the opponent, Moo engages Dunn’s arguments that Paul has a “standard Judaism” in mind. The fact that Colossians lacks the sort of engagement of the Hebrew Bible found in Galatians is a good argument that the opponents are not Judaizers in the Galatians-sense of the word. Moo prefers to see a syncretic philosophy behind the opponents, mixing Judaism and mysticism. The body of the commentary is based on the English text (various translations are compared), and Greek words appear transliterated. Moo engages a wide range of scholarship, including Dunn and Wright. The result is a very useful commentary for a pastor or teacher preparing to present Colossians to their congregations.
Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1982). O’Brien’s introduction has one of the more detailed surveys of the “Colossian Heresy,” but since he writes before Wright and Dunn, his section on Judaism as the source of the problem is light. Ultimately, he sees a Jewish / mystical syncretism as the problem Paul addresses in the letter. With respect to authorship, O’Brien is not particularly dogmatic. While he rejects most non-Pauline arguments, he is aware of the problems associated with Paul as the author. He is happy enough to consider the letter authentic, even if Paul was the source and someone else (Timothy) was the author. The body of the commentary is based on the Greek text. All sources are cited in-text (with frequent references to TDNT for lexical studies), and as with all the Word series, the bibliography at the head of each section is invaluable. However, it is now twenty years out of date.
N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon (TNTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1986; now published by Intervarsity, 2008). The Tyndale series has been around for many years, Wright’s little commentary replaces 1960 Tyndale commentary by Herbert Carson. At only 192 pages, Wright’s commentary is brief yet extremely helpful. The style is stimulating to read and will be helpful for any pastor or teacher preparing a sermon on Colossians. As expected, Wright has a fairly unique view of the Colossian heresy. He thinks that Paul is writing against the same sort of Judaizers he encountered in Galatia, considering Judaism as if it was just another philosophy in the marketplace of ideas of first-century Colossae. (This approach is similar to Dunn’s. Wright’s commentary pre-dates Dunn’s by a decade). This observation allows Wright to read the letter through the lens of the New Perspective on Paul (pages 24-30 make this point clear). As the commentary progresses, Wright consistently highlights Paul’s polemic against Judaism instead of other suggested sources. The commentary is on the English text, with occasional Greek words appearing in transliteration. There is awareness of other scholarship, but the commentary style limits interaction with other commentaries.
Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia C. Keesmaat, Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2004). This is an unusual book, and I initially hesitated to include it in a list of commentaries. It is an important book to me since it was the first evangelical post-modern commentary I encountered. I am not sure I want to call it a commentary in the traditional sense. As the authors imply by the title, they are “remixing” the letter to present it to twenty-first-century America. As such, this is part sermon, part commentary, and part prophetic indictment. I recommend carefully studying Colossians and then reading this book from cover to cover – you will be challenged!
Conclusion. Dunn’s commentary is my first choice, but other Colossians commentaries are worthy of attention. I have not spent sufficient time with Eduard Lohse’s commentary in the Hermenia series. The same is true of Jerry Sumney’s recent volume in the New Testament Library. I like Charles Talbert’s volume in the Paidia series as well. So, what have I missed? What “classic” Colossians Commentaries would you add to this list?
Galatia struggled with Gentiles who wanted to keep the Law and Corinth struggled with Gentiles who did not sufficient “depaganize” and allow Christ to transform their moral behavior. In Colossae, it appears that the problem was a Jewish mystic, possibly exorcist who advocated “secret knowledge” which only the spiritual, insiders could obtain. Possibly this esoteric, secret knowledge was the true nature of Jesus Christ, or perhaps how to use Jesus’ name as a powerful tool for dealing with other spiritual beings. This is a very pragmatic Christianity which attempts to hide knowledge of the real facts until the believer is sufficiently “prepare” to receive it. While I am not sure that the Colossian heresy was a “mystery cult” in the true sense of the word, there seem to have been some initiation for the believer before he was “let in” on the true state of things.
For Paul, Christianity is not at all an exclusive religion which hides doctrine from the outsiders. In fact, everyone is welcome and the whole gospel is preached from the very beginning. There are some deeper, more difficult doctrines, but there is nothing which is a secret. This is one of the real differences between Christianity and many of the other “mystery cults”popular in the first century (and today!) It really is easy to understand the basics of Christian claims and beliefs, whether you like them or not.
Paul therefore goes to the root of the problem and lays out in the introduction to the letter exactly who Jesus is. All the “secrets” are laid out before the reader and there is no question who Jesus is by the end of 1:20.
Christ as the image of the invisible God. By saying that Christ is in the image of God, he affirms that he is an accurate picture of what God is, and in fact, he is God. Bruce once said “To call Christ the image of God is to say that in Him the being and nature of God have been perfectly manifested—that in Him the invisible has become visible.”
Christ as the firstborn of creation. This title for has been a very troublesome exegetical point since it appears that Jesus is a created thing, the first thing that God created. But if this phrase is read against the background of the Hebrew Bible, the word “first born” is actually an expression of position – the son chosen to the the heir as opposed to the naturally born first son. A bit later Paul calls Jesus the“firstborn from among the dead,” an obvious non-literal use of the word “firstborn.”
The point that Paul is getting at is that Christ has made things, so it is pointless to give honor and worship to those things. All honor and worship is due Christ, not anything created. The command is therefore to worship Christ as God, something that would be idolatrous if Christ is a created thing himself. The centrality of Jesus is therefore the starting point for theology in Colossians, but also for ethical and moral teaching and proper worship.
Bibliography: F. F. Bruce, “Colossian Problems: Part 2: The “Christ Hymn” of Colossians 1:15–20″ BibSac 141 (1984): 99-111
Why use a hymn to relate theology? One possibility is that it is a call back to the foundational understanding of Jesus they received through Epaphras (and hence through Paul). A second possibility is this hymn may have been used and adapted by the false teachers in the Colossian community. We know that in the first century Jews were beginning to speculate seriously about wisdom and were developing the idea of an incarnate Wisdom through whom all things were created. It is possible the false teachers were poking around in the nature of wisdom. Paul says by means of this hymn that if they want real wisdom, they ought to look to Jesus not their own philosophy.
The church at Colossae was founded by Epaphras (Ἐπαφρᾶς, 
