Heavenly Perspective: A Study of the Apostle Paul's Response to a Jewish Mystical Movement at Colossae

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES 326 Formerly the Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement series Editor...

Author: Ian Smith

290 downloads 985 Views 1MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

326 Formerly the Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement series

Editor Mark Goodacre Editorial Board John M.G. Barclay, Craig Blomberg, Kathleen E. Corley, R. Alan Culpepper, James D.G. Dunn, Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, Michael Labahn, John S. Kloppenborg, Robert Wall, Robert L. Webb, Catrin H. Williams

This page intentionally left blank

HEAVENLY PERSPECTIVE

A Study of the Apostle Paul’s Response to a Jewish Mystical Movement at Colossae

IAN K. SMITH

Copyright © Ian K. Smith, 2006 Published by T&T Clark International A Continuum imprint The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX 80 Maiden Lane, Suite 704, New York, NY 10038 www.tandtclark.com All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Ian K. Smith has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the Author of this work. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 0567031071 (hardback) Typeset by Free Range Book Design & Production Ltd Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by MPG Books Ltd, Cornwall

CONTENTS List of Tables Preface Abbreviations

xi xiii xv

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1. The Colossian Error 2. Jewish Settlement in the Lycus Valley a. The Form of Judaism Practised in Colossae b. The Composition of the Colossian Church 3. Authorship a. Language and Style i. Vocabulary ii. Style b. Theology i. Christology ii. Ecclesiology iii. Eschatology c. The Relationship of Colossians to Ephesians and Philemon i. Colossians and Ephesians ii. Colossians and Philemon d. Conclusion on Authorship 4. Research Methods – The Primacy of the Text

1 1 3 4 5 6 8 8 10 12 12 12 14 14 14 15 16 16

Chapter 2 AN OVERVIEW OF SCHOLARSHIP 1. Was there a Colossian Heresy? 2. Essene Judaism and Gnosticism a. J. B. Lightfoot b. The Dead Sea Scrolls c. An Evaluation of Lightfoot’s Interpretation 3. Hellenism a. M. Dibelius – A Hellenistic Mystery Cult b. G. Bornkamm – Jewish Gnosticism and Paganism c. R. E. DeMaris – Middle Platonism d. T. Martin – Cynic Critique

19 19 21 21 22 24 24 24 26 28 29

vi

Heavenly Perspective 4. Paganism a. C. Arnold – Judaism and Phrygian Folk-Religion 5. Judaism a. S. Lyonnet – A Call for Reappraisal b. F. O. Francis – Jewish-Christian Mystical Asceticism c. A. Bandstra – Access to Heaven without Mediation d. F. F. Bruce – Merkabah Mysticism 6. Conclusion

Chapter 3 JEWISH MYSTICISM 1. The Development of Merkabah Mysticism a. The Anthropomorphous Representation of God b. Heavenly Ascent and Transformation 2. Survey of Jewish Mystical Texts a. Ante-Pauline Texts i. 1 Enoch (Ethiopic Enoch) (Book of Watchers) ii. The Book of Jubilees iii. 2 Enoch (Slavonic Enoch) iv. Testament of Levi v. Philo vi. Qumran Literature vii. Conclusions from Ante-Pauline Literature b. Contemporary Texts i. Enoch (Ethiopic Enoch) (The Book of Similitudes) ii. Testament of Abraham iii. Apocalypse of Abraham iv. Revelation v. Conclusions from Contemporary Literature c. Post-Pauline Texts i. 4 Ezra ii. Apocalypse of Zephaniah iii. 2 Baruch iv. 3 Baruch v. Ascension of Isaiah vi. Conclusions from Post-Pauline Literature 3. Practices Associated with Heavenly Ascents a. The Role of Angels b. Dualism c. Wisdom d. Orthodoxy and Orthopraxis 4. Jewish Mysticism in Asia Minor a. Paul’s Understanding of Jewish Mysticism 5. Conclusion

31 31 33 33 34 35 36 37

39 39 42 47 48 48 48 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 56 57 57 59 60 60 60 61 62 62 63 64 64 65 67 69 69 70 71 73

Contents Chapter 4 THE LORDSHIP OF CHRIST: COLOSSIANS 2.6-8 1. The Tradition Received from Epaphras: Colossians 2.6-23 2. The Threat of the Philosophy a. filosofi/a b. ta\ stoixei~a tou= ko/smou i. Basic Principles ii. The Elements of the Universe ii. Astral Powers c. Who/What are ta\ stoixei~a tou= ko/smou? i. Angels and Basic Principles/Law ii. Angels and the Elements of the Universe iii. Angels and Astral Powers 3. Conclusion

vii

74 74 76 78 80 80 82 83 84 84 85 86 87

Chapter 5 THE SUFFICIENCY OF CHRIST: COLOSSIANS 2.9-15 1. Poetic Structure 2. Christology: the Remedy to the Error a. The ‘Fullness’ of Christ: Colossians 2.9 i. plh/rwma ii. th=j qeo/thtoj iii. swmatikw~j b. The ‘Fullness’ of Christians: Colossians 2.10 3. The Cross of Christ: Victory over the stoixei~a tou= ko/smou a. Religious Ritual i. Circumcision ii. Baptism b. The Bondage of the Law and the Forgiveness of Sins c. Victory over the Powers and Authorities: Colossians 2.15 i. e0deigma/tisen e0n parrhsi/a ii. The Subject of the Verb iii. qriambeu/saj ta\j a0rxa\j kai\ ta\j e0cousi/aj 4. Conclusion

88 88 89 90 90 91 92 93 94 94 94 96 97 105 105 106 108 113

Chapter 6 THE SHADOW OF ASCETICISM: COLOSSIANS 2.16-19 1. Jewish Rituals: Colossians 2.16-17 a. Dietary Restrictions b. Festivals and Celebrations c. Shadows and Reality 2. Heavenly Visions and the Worship of Angels a. qe/lwn e0n tapeinofrosu/nh| kai\ qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn i. qe/lwn e0n tapeinofrosu/nh| ii. qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn b. a4 e9o/raken e0mbateu/wn

115 115 116 117 118 119 119 120 122 127

viii

Heavenly Perspective

c. ei0kh|= fusiou/menoj u9po\ tou= noo\j th=j sarko\j au0tou= d. ou0 kratw~n th\n kefalh/n 3. Conclusion

130 131 132

Chapter 7 THE IMPOTENCE OF THE ERRORISTS’ MESSAGE: COLOSSIANS 2.20-23 1. The Basis of Liberation: the Death of Christ a. Liberation from Evil Spirits b. Liberation from Regulations i. The Futility of Regulations ii. The Futility of Asceticism 2. Conclusion

134 134 135 135 137 137 142

Chapter 8 WHAT WAS THE COLOSSIAN PHILOSOPHY?

143

Chapter 9 CHRISTOLOGY – THE ANTIDOTE TO ERROR: COLOSSIANS 1.15-20 1. Form and Prehistory of Colossians 1.15-20 a. A Pre-Christian Hymn b. A Pauline Redaction c. A Pauline Composition d. Conclusion 2. The Structure of Colossians 1.15-20 3. Exegesis of Colossians 1.15-20 a. The Supremacy of Christ in Creation: Colossians 1.15-16 i. ei0kw\n tou= qeou= ii. prwto/tokoj pa/shj kti/sewj iii. The Sphere of Christ’s Supremacy 4. The Centrepiece a. Christ’s Work in Creation: Colossians 1.17 b. Christ’s Work in Redemption: Colossians 1.18a 5. Christ’s Supremacy in Redemption: Colossians 1.18b-20 6. Conclusion

146 147 147 150 152 152 153 159 159 159 162 163 166 166 167 169 172

Chapter 10 THE BRIDGE TO EXHORTATION: COLOSSIANS 3.1-4 1. The Relationship of Colossians 3.1-4 to Colossians 2.6-23 2. Spatial Eschatology as Motivation for Ethics: Colossians 3.1-2 3. Temporal Eschatology as Motivation for Ethics: Colossians 3.3-4 4. Conclusion

173 173 174 181 184

Contents

ix

Chapter 11 EPISTOLARY PARAENESIS 1. Revelation a. Colossians 1.9-14 b. Colossians 1.25-29 c. Colossians 2.2-3 d. Revelation – Conclusion 2. Victory a. Colossians 1.12-14 b. Colossians 2.13-15 c. Colossians 3.5-17 d. Victory – Conclusion 3. Reconciliation a. Colossians 1.15-23 b. Colossians 3.11-17 c. Colossians 3.18-4.1 d. Reconciliation – Conclusion 4. Conclusion

185 187 187 188 190 191 192 192 195 195 197 198 198 199 201 203 203

Chapter 12 CONCLUSION

205

Bibliography Index of Authors Index of References

209 235 241


LIST OF TABLES Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5

88 89 90 94 101

Table 7.1

137

Table 9.1 Table 9.2 Table 9.3 Table 9.4 Table 9.5 Table 9.6 Table 9.7

148 151 153 155 156 156 164

Table 10.1

181

Table 11.1

196


PREFACE A heightened interest in Colossians began for me during several years of cross-cultural missionary work in an animistic culture in Vanuatu (a small nation in the Pacific) where many people live in the fear of the power of evil, and where such fear results in legalism and mystical practices. Living within such a culture forced me to question many of my theological presuppositions, but although the questions were different, the answer was still the same: it all hinges on a correct understanding of the person and work of Christ. The little letter to the Colossians is so rich in its Christological presentation and so logical in showing the resultant victory and lifestyle for those who are in Christ, that a better understanding of its background and message can only be of benefit for all who study it. It is hoped that this book will help facilitate this. This book is an adaptation of a doctoral thesis submitted to the University of Sydney. I am indebted to my supervisor, Dr Iain Gardner, and my associate supervisor, Dr Peter O’Brien, for their constant support, correction and encouragement. I was first introduced to the problem of identifying the Colossian errorists in a first-year New Testament class taught by Dr O’Brien in 1982. It was beyond my wildest imaginings that the study of this small letter would continue for so long. I express my thanks to the Committee of the Presbyterian Theological Centre, Sydney, which granted me study leave to complete this monograph and to my colleagues who carried an extra load while I was on leave. Dr John Davies, Dr Gregory Goswell and the Revd Peter Hastie read an earlier draft of this work and made useful suggestions. In particular I am indebted to Dr Davies for his constant leadership, advice and encouragement. I express my gratitude to the members of my family. My wife Jenni, and our children Fiona and Ryan, Kathryn, Jeremy and Bronwyn have shown great forbearance and love while I have been preoccupied with this study. They have shared it all, from searching for a topic to the final form. They have given me a practical example of the household code of Colossians 3. Finally, my wife, Jenni, has shown enormous love and support in this project. She has encouraged, proof-read, supported and loved me through the whole process. Most of all, she believed that it could be done. This book is lovingly dedicated to her. Ian K. Smith Presbyterian Theological Centre, Sydney November 2005


ABBREVIATIONS General Abbreviations § BCE

c. CE

cf. ch., chs col. ed. edn. e.g. esp. ET et al. etc. f, ff frag. i.e. n. n.d. NT OT p., pp. rec. s.v. v., vv. viz. vol(s).

section Before Common Era circa, about Common Era confer, compare chapter, chapters column editor edition exempli gratia, for example especially English Translation et alii, and others et cetera, and so on following (verse or verses, pages etc.) fragment id est, that is footnote/endnote no date New Testament Old Testament page, pages recension sub verbo, under the word verse, verses videlicet, namely volume(s)

xvi

Heavenly Perspective Abbreviations of the Names of Biblical Books (with Apocrypha) Old Testament

Gen. Exod. Lev. Num. Deut. Josh. Judg. Ruth 1 Sam. 2 Sam. 1 Kgs 2 Kgs 1 Chron.

2 Chron. Ezra Neh. Est. Job Ps. (pl. Pss.) Prov. Eccl. Song Isa. Jer. Lam. Ezek.

Dan. Hos. Joel Amos Obad. Jon. Mic. Nah. Hab. Zeph. Hag. Zech. Mal.

Apocrypha or Deutero-Canonical Books 1 Esd. 2 Esd. Tob. Jdt. Add. Est. Wis. Sir.

Ep. Jer. Song 3 Childr. Bel Pr. Man. 1 Macc. 2 Macc. Bar.

New Testament Mt. Mk Lk. Jn Acts Rom. 1 Cor. 2 Cor. Gal.

Eph. Phil. Col. 1 Thess. 2 Thess. 1 Tim. 2 Tim. Tit. Phlm

Heb. Jas 1 Pet. 2 Pet. 1 Jn 2 Jn 3 Jn Jude Rev.

Abbreviations

xvii

Abbreviations of the Names of Pseudepigraphal and Early Patristic Books 2 Bar. Syriac 3 Bar. Greek Apoc. Abr. Apoc. Zeph. Asc. Isa. Ass. Mos. Barn. 1-2 Clem. Did. 1 En. 2 En. Gos. Truth Hermas, Sim. Hermas, Vis. Ignatius, Pol. Ignatius, Smyrn. Jub. 3 Macc. 4 Macc. Odes Pss. Sol. T. Abr. T. Ash. T. Benj. T. Dan T. Isaac T. Job T. Jud. T. Levi T. Naph. T. Sim. T. Sol.

Apocalypse of Baruch Apocalypse of Baruch Apocalypse of Abraham Apocalypse of Zephaniah Ascension of Isaiah Assumption of Moses Barnabas 1-2 Clement Didache 1 (Ethiopic) Enoch 2 (Slavonic) Enoch Gospel of Truth Hermas, Similitude Hermas, Vision Ignatius, Letter to Polycarp Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans Jubilees 3 Maccabees 4 Maccabees Odes of Solomon Psalms of Solomon Testament of Abraham Testament of Asher Testament of Benjamin Testament of Dan Testament of Isaac Testament of Job Testament of Judah Testament of Levi Testament of Naphtali Testament of Simeon Testament of Solomon

Abbreviations of Versions of the Bible LXX NIV NASB NRSV RSV RV UBS4

Septuagint New International Version New American Standard Bible New Revised Standard Version Revised Standard Version Revised Version The United Bible Societies’ Greek Text (fourth edition)

xviii

Heavenly Perspective Abbreviations of Names of Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Texts

1QH 1QM 1QpHab 1QS 1QSa 1QSb 4QDb 4QShirShabbe (4Q 405) 11QMelch 11QPsa 11QT

Hymns/Hodayot War Scroll Habakkuk Pesher Community Rule / Manual of Discipline Community Rule Community Rule Damascus Document b Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice Melchizedek Psalm Scroll Temple Scroll

Abbreviations of Orders and Tractates in Mishnaic and Related Literature To distinguish same-named tractates in the Mishnah, Tosefta, Babylonian Talmud and Jerusalem Talmud, note respectively m., t., b. or y. before the title of the tractate. ‘Abod. Zar. Hag. Meg. Sanh.

‘Aboda Zarah Hagigah Megillah Sanhedrin

Classical and Patristic Literature Ant. CMC Hist. eccl. War Leg. All. Strom.

Antiquities of the Jews The Cologne Mani Codex Ecclesiastical History The Jewish War Legum allegoriae Stromata

Abbreviations of Commonly Used Periodicals, Reference Works and Serials ABD AGJU AnBib ANRW

David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992) Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Analecta biblica Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase (eds), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1972–)

Abbreviations APOT ATR AusBR BASOR BDAG

BDF

BEvT BGU

BHT Bib BKAT BSac BU BZNW CBQ CGTC CNT EBib EDNT EDSS

EFN EGGNT EKKNT EncJud EvQ ExpTim FRLANT GTJ HNT HTKNT HTR HTS HUCA ICC

xix

R. H. Charles (ed.), Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (2 vols; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913) Anglican Theological Review Australian Biblical Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, F. William Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn., 2000) Frederich Blass, A. Debrunner and Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961) Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie Ägyptische Urkunden aus den Koeniglichen Museen zu Berlin herausgegeben von der Generalverwaltung griechische Urkunden (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1912) Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Biblica Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament Bibliotheca Sacra Biblische Untersuchungen Beihefte zur ZNW Catholic Biblical Quarterly Cambridge Greek Testament Commentaries Commentaire du Nouveau Testament Etudes Bibliques Horst Balz and Gerhard Schreiner (eds), Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam (eds), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) Estudios de Filología Neotestamentaria Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Encyclopaedia Judaica Evangelical Quarterly Expository Times Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Grace Theological Journal Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review Harvard Theological Studies Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary

xx IDB IDBSup Int JAC JAOS JBL JETS JJS JSJSup JSNT JSNTSup JSOT JSS JTC JTS JTSA KEK LCL LSJ NCB NICNT NICOT NIDNTT NIGTC NovT NovTSup NTOA NTS Numen OTP PTMS PVTG RB RevExp RevQ RevScRel RHPR RNT RTR SBL SBLDS SBLMS SBLSP

Heavenly Perspective George Arthur Buttrick (ed.), The Interpreters’ Dictionary of the Bible (4 vols; Nashville: Abingdon, 1962) IDB, Supplementary Volume Interpretation Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Jewish Studies Journal for the Study of Judaism, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal of Semitic Studies Journal for Theology and the Church Journal of Theological Studies Journal of Theology for Southern Africa Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament Loeb Classical Library H. G. Liddell, Robert Scott and H. Stuart Jones, Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 9th edn., 1968) New Century Bible New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Commentary on the Old Testament Colin Brown (ed.), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (3 vols; Exeter: Paternoster, 1975) The New International Greek Testament Commentary Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum, Supplements Novum Testamentum et orbis antiquus New Testament Studies Numen: International Review for the History of Religions James Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti graece Revue biblique Review and Expositor Revue de Qumran Revue des sciences religieuses Revue d’Histoire et de philosophie religieuse Regensburger Neues Testament Reformed Theological Review Society of Biblical Literature SBL Dissertation Series SBL Monograph Series SBL Seminar Papers

Abbreviations SBM SBT SC SD SE SJT SNT SNTSMS SPAW ST SUNT TDNT

TNTC TSAJ TU TZ VC VS VT VTSup WBC WTJ WUNT ZNW ZTK

xxi

Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies in Biblical Theology Sources chrétiennes Studies and Documents Studia Evangelica I, II, III (= TU 73 [1959], 87 [1964], 88 [1964], etc.) Scottish Journal of Theology Studien zum Neuen Testament Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Studia theologica Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (eds), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; 10 vols; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–) Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Texte und Untersuchungen Theologische Zeitschrift Vigiliae christianae Verbum salutis Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche


Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION 1. The Colossian Error Paul’s aim in writing to the Colossians was to correct error in theology and practice, and to present the Christian gospel to a congregation he had not previously met. Although many have attempted to define the nature of this error and to determine the identity of the errorists, at present no consensus exists. R. DeMaris stated in his 1994 study of the Colossian controversy: This division in opinion, while it could engender pessimism about ever solving the Colossian philosophy puzzle, has in fact stimulated a rich variety in reconstructions of the philosophy. Surprisingly, however, book-length studies of the Colossian controversy have been few. F. Francis’s (sic) dissertation of 1965 and L. Congdon’s of 1968 offered substantial treatments of the issue, but a generation passed until T. Sappington’s study of 1991. The relative dearth of detailed studies and the still unresolved debate over the Colossian philosophy point to the value of additional investigations.1

Since DeMaris’ monograph, two further extended works have been published on the Colossian error: C. Arnold’s The Colossian Syncretism: the Interface between Christianity and Folk Belief at Colossae2 in 1995 and T. Martin’s By Philosophy and Empty Deceit: Colossians as Response to a Cynic Critique3 in 1996. Although each of these recent works has enhanced our understanding of the Colossian situation and helped to define both the error and its antidote, at present no consensus exists. This book will seek to

1. R. E. DeMaris, The Colossians Controversy: Wisdom and Dispute at Colossae (JSNTSup, 96; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), p. 12. The studies DeMaris refers to are: F. O. Francis, ‘A Re-examination of the Colossian Controversy’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, 1965); L. M. Congdon, ‘The False Teachers at Colossae: Affinities with Essene and Philonic Thought’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Drew University, 1968); T. J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae (JSNTSup, 53; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991). 2. C. E. Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism: the Interface between Christianity and Folk Belief at Colossae (WUNT, 2.77; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1995). 3. T. W. Martin, By Philosophy and Empty Deceit: Colossians as Response to a Cynic Critique (JSNTSup, 118; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1996).

2


further enlighten our understanding of the problem addressed by the Colossian letter. It is not always possible to determine the nature of an error by the response that is given. The Colossian letter however gives us some indicators. It would appear that the references in Colossians to Sabbath (2.16), circumcision (2.11) and food laws (2.21) indicate that the error arose from within Judaism. Furthermore, with the references to the activity of angels (2.18), powers and authorities (2.15) and things above (3.2), it is evident that the error had something to do with the activity of ‘other-worldly’ beings. It is the thesis of this study that the Colossian error arose from within the milieu of Jewish mysticism. In particular, affinities can be found with Merkabah mysticism with its belief in heavenly ascents and ‘other-worldly’ activity. This reconstruction of the nature of the Colossian error is not without its challenges. There is little archaeological evidence as the site of Colossae remains unexcavated. The nature of Merkabah mysticism is notoriously vague. Did such a movement exist in the first century? If so, did those who accepted the stories of heavenly ascent believe in the historical reality of these stories? Alternatively, if such a movement post-dates Paul, are there antecedents to it which help us to understand the background to the Colossian error? In seeking to identify the nature of the Colossian error, three tasks will be undertaken. First, in order to benefit from those who have previously made similar studies, we shall survey their conclusions. Secondly, we will look at the nature of first-century Jewish mysticism in general and Merkabah mysticism (and its antecedents) in particular. We will also seek to ascertain the level to which first-century inhabitants of Colossae would have been affected by such movements. Finally, we will seek to understand from the text of Colossians itself both Paul’s response to the error and, as far as can be determined, the situation that gave rise to this response. Previous studies on the nature of the Colossian philosophy have normally only dealt with the sections in the first two chapters of the letter which refer directly to the error. Few scholars have investigated the relationship between Paul’s teaching on the Colossian philosophy and the pastoral ramifications addressed within the letter. How does cosmic reconciliation, referred to in the first two chapters of the epistle, relate to reconciliation within the church as addressed in the final two chapters? How does an elitist claim of super-spirituality arising from a mystical experience undermine the teaching of the sufficiency of the work of Christ in reconciliation? How does theology relate to paraenesis? This work will seek to deal with the major themes of the entire epistle, which will give a greater appreciation of Paul’s multifaceted response. Before proceeding with our study, it is necessary to address three important introductory issues: the demography of first-century Colossae with particular reference to Jewish settlement; the authorship of the Colossian letter; and research methods to be undertaken. It is to these that we now turn our attention.

Introduction

3

2. Jewish Settlement in the Lycus Valley Colossae was in Phrygia in the southern part of the Roman province of Asia in the Lycus valley. In Paul’s day it was overshadowed by the more prominent cities of Laodicea, the financial and administrative centre for the region in Roman times, and Hierapolis with its hot mineral spring which attracted many visitors.4 These towns are mentioned in Col. 4.13. Of these three towns, Colossae was by far the oldest. Xerxes and his armies passed that way in 480 BCE. Herodotus states: ‘… he arrived at Colossae, a considerable city of Phrygia, in which the river Lycus, falling into a chasm of the earth disappears’ (Herodotus 7.30). About a century later, Xenophon referred to Colossae being large and wealthy as he related how Cyrus marched ei0j Kolossa\j po/lin oi0koume/nhn kai\ eu0dai/mona kai\ mega/lhn (Anabasis 1.2,6). By New Testament times, however, Colossae was a city in decline. Lightfoot comments: ‘Without doubt Colossae was the least important church to which any epistle of St Paul is addressed’.5 An important feature of the Lycus valley was the presence of a substantial Jewish minority. The Jewish population can be traced back to the time of the prophet Obadiah who mentions the city of Sepharad, which is normally taken to be a reference to Sardis, the capital of Lydia in the west of Asia Minor.6 Josephus tells how Seleucus Nicator (312-281/0 BCE), the founder of the Seleucid kingdom which included Asia Minor, granted full civic rights to the Jews in all the cities that he founded (Ant. 12.119) and how Antiochus II planted Jewish colonies in the cities of Ionia (Ant. 12.125). Jewish settlement on any significant scale, however, is to be dated from the late third century BCE when Antiochus III brought two thousand Jewish families from Babylon and Mesopotamia and settled them in Lydia and Phrygia in order to stabilize the region (Ant. 12.147-153). They were granted land for homes, farming and viticulture and exemptions from taxation to ensure the settlement became permanent.7 Once a Jewish settlement was established, the influx of other Jews

4. W. M. Ramsay, The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia : being an essay of the local history of Phrygia from the earliest times to the Turkish conquest (2 vols; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897), I, pp. 1–121. 5. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon (London: Macmillan, 1912), p. 16. 6. Lipin/ski points out that Sepharad is identical with the Persian satrapy of Spardia in Asia Minor. An inscription which refers to drps in Aramaic was discovered at Sardis. It is dated in the tenth year of Artaxerxes. If Artaxerxes I is meant, it would indicate that there was a colony of Arameans or Jews as early as 455 BCE. Furthermore, an Aramaic inscription discovered at Daskyleion in North-West Anatolia, north of Sardis, normally dated at c.450 or c.400 BCE, gives evidence of a rich Jewish family there. E. Lipin/ski, ‘Obadiah 20’, VT 23 (1973), 368–70 (368). See F. M. Cross, ‘An Aramaic Inscription from Daskyleion’, BASOR 184 (1966), 7–9. See also L. C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah (NICOT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), p. 171. 7. P. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor (SNTSMS, 69; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 6.

4


would have continued.8 In Hierapolis a number of Jewish epitaphs have been found showing that Jews had become part of Asian culture.9 In 62-61 BCE the Roman proconsul, Lucius Valerius Flaccus, prevented the Jews of Phrygia from sending twenty pounds of gold from the region of Laodicea as part of the Jerusalem Temple tax.10 Calculated at the rate of a half shekel per man (Exod. 30.13-16), the sum represented a significant Jewish population.11 Presumably Laodicea was the collecting point, and therefore this number could include Jews in surrounding areas. According to Philo, Jews were very numerous in every city of Asia Minor (’Ioudai=oi kaq’ e9ka/sthn po/lin ei0si\ pamplhqei=j 0Asi/aj (De Legatione 245)). It should be noted that on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2.9-10), Jews were gathered in Jerusalem from Asia and Phrygia. The evidence would suggest, therefore, that Colossae was a cosmopolitan city at the time of Paul, populated by both Jews and Gentiles. a. The Form of Judaism Practised in Colossae The nature of Judaism practised in Colossae is significant for an understanding of the situation addressed in the Colossian letter. Although details on this are relatively scarce, few would deny the influence of Hellenism. The mindset of Hellenism was that the ‘universe suffered from some sort of irreparable rift. The two fundamental realms of reality which make up the universe, the celestial and the terrestrial, are set in opposition to one another

8. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 20. 9. E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (eds. G. Vermes and F. Miller; trans. T. A. Burkill et al.; 3 vols; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), III pp. 27–28. 10. The Temple tax involved the annual payment of a half shekel (two drachmae or denarii) by every Jewish male between the ages of twenty and fifty, P. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, p. 13. Flaccus was brought to court in 59 BCE on a charge of acting illegally in this matter. He was defended by Cicero whose speech has been preserved. Cicero states that at Apamea, gold amounting to just under 100 Roman pounds had been impounded; at Laodicea, just over 20 pounds (Pro Flacco 28.68). 11. Estimates concerning the size of the population vary. Lightfoot estimates a male population of more than 11,000: J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 20; F. F. Bruce over 9,000: F. F. Bruce, ‘Colossian Problems I: Jews and Christians in the Lycus Valley’, BSac 141 (1984), 3–15 (5); J. D. G. Dunn 14,000: J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), p. 21. To estimate from the monetary value of half-shekels to a weight of twenty pounds and then to determine the Jewish population of the region is, at best, an approximation. Lightfoot’s calculations suppose that the half-shekel weighs 110 grams, the Roman pound is 5050 grams and the relation of gold to silver at the time was 12:1. Bruce, however, has worked from the Pompeiian standard of 36 aurei to the gold pound. The aureus was reckoned to be equivalent to 25 drachmae. Equating a halfshekel with a didrachma, the adult male population of Laodicea is estimated as 9,000 men.

Introduction

5

on account of some cosmic crisis variously described’.12 Human life was therefore understood as a reflection or shadow of the celestial reality. People lived in fear of invisible powers which they needed to appease in order to ensure positive outcomes in life. It is understandable, therefore, that movements arose that sought access to the celestial world by mystical experiences. There developed an ‘industry’ of those who claimed to be able to control celestial forces with practices such as astrology, divination, magic and initiation into mystery cults. Conversion to philosophic schools flourished.13 Jews were not exempt from these activities. As H. D. Betz has pointed out, ‘Jewish magic was famous in antiquity’.14 The practices of some of the Jews in Phrygia were syncretistic. An instance of this can be seen in an inscription in Akmonia. Julia Severa was honoured by the local synagogue15 and was mentioned in local coins of Nero, Agrippina and Poppaea as having held municipal office together with her husband Servenius Capito.16 Although it is unlikely that she was a proselyte or even a God-fearer, it appears that she served as a Gentile patron and benefactor of the Jews in Akmonia.17 b. The Composition of the Colossian Church It would appear that the Christian church in Colossae was made up of both Jews and Gentiles. The Jewish influence within the congregation can be seen by references to circumcision (2.11) and to Sabbath (2.16). There are also allusions to a Gentile background for other members of the congregation. In 1.12, 21; 2.13 there are indications of outsiders being brought into the company of the people of God.18 In particular in 2.13 Paul addresses his 12. Wilson refers to the widespread perception in Hellenistic society that the unrighteous conduct of humanity had corrupted the cosmos. W. T. Wilson, The Hope of Glory: Education and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Colossians (NovTSup, 88; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997), p. 3. Betz concludes his study by arguing: ‘One thing, however, must be kept clearly in mind: Jewish and, subsequently, Christian apocalypticism as well cannot be understood from themselves or from the Old Testament alone, but must be seen and presented as peculiar expressions within the entire development of Hellenistic syncretism.’ Hans Dieter Betz, ‘On the Problem of the Religio-Historical Understanding of Apocalypticism’, JTC 6 (1969), 134–56 (155). 13. See G. Anderson, Sage, Saint and Sophist: Holy Men and Their Associates in the Early Roman Empire (New York: Routledge, 1994), pp. 8–15. 14. H. D. Betz (ed.), The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation including Demotic Spells (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), p. xlv. 15. ‘Inscription 766’, in J. B. Frey (ed.), Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum: Recueil des inscriptions juives qui vont du iiie siècle avant Jésus-Christ au viie siècle de notre ère (2 vols; Rome: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Christiana, 1952), II, p. 27. 16. F. F. Bruce, ‘Jews and Christians in the Lycus Valley’, 7. 17. For information concerning Julia Severa, see: D. D. Binder, Into the Temple Courts: The Place of Synagogues in the Second Temple Period (SBLDS, 169; Atlanta: SBL, 1999), pp. 146, 287. See also L. I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), pp. 111, 350, 480–81. 18. C. F. D. Moule, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon (CGTC, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957), p. 29.

6


comments to th=| a0krobusti/a| th=j sarko\j u9mw~n. The Gentile composition of the congregation is further confirmed by the scarcity of references to the Hebrew Bible.19 In the light of the particularly Jewish nature of the problem addressed, it is significant that the word no&moj does not even occur.20

3. Authorship It is important to determine the authorship and date of Colossians before examining the background to the Colossian error. Some of the hypotheses concerning the nature of the Colossian philosophy are dependent on the development of post-Pauline movements that thereby demand deutero-Pauline authorship of Colossians. Furthermore a conclusion on the issue of Pauline authorship will set appropriate parameters for a comparison of Colossians with other literature.21 Since E. Mayerhoff22 there has been doubt regarding Pauline authorship of Colossians. Mayerhoff made four points: (1) the difference of language in Colossians from ‘other’ Pauline letters;23 (2) the difference in style and ‘way of thinking’ (Denkweise) from genuine Pauline correspondence;24 (3) the dependence of Colossians on Ephesians (which Mayerhoff believed was Pauline), on the presupposition that Paul would not use one of his own letters to construct another;25 (4) the nature of the Colossian error which pointed to a later date than the life of the apostle Paul.26 F. C. Baur, arguing from the Christology of the epistle, claimed there is ‘… no analogy in Paul’s writings, but we are here transported to a circle of ideas which belongs to a totally different historical era, viz., to the period of Gnosticism’.27 H. J. Holtzmann suggested that Paul wrote a shorter letter to the Colossians which was later enlarged by the author of Ephesians, whom he believed to be someone other than Paul. He placed Colossians and Ephesians in a

19. Ibid., p. 29. C. R. Bowen finds five allusions to the Hebrew Bible in the letter: 2.3 (Isa. 45.3); 2.22 (Isa. 29.13); 3.1 (Ps. 110.1); 3.10 (Gen. 1.26f); 3.25 (Deut. 10.17). C. R. Bowen, ‘The Original Form of Paul’s Letter to the Colossians’, JBL 43 (1924), 177–206 (193). 20. C. R. Bowen, ‘The Original Form of Paul’s Letter to the Colossians’, 193. 21. For a succinct history of the arguments advanced against the authenticity of Colossians see M. C. Kiley, Colossians as Pseudepigraphy (The Biblical Seminar, 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), pp. 37–39. 22. E. T. Mayerhoff, Der Brief an die Colosser, mit vornehmlicher Berücksichtigung der drei Pastoralbriefe kritisch geprüft (Berlin: Hermann Schultze, 1838). 23. Ibid., pp. 1–41. 24. Ibid., pp. 42–71. 25. Ibid., pp. 72–106. 26. Ibid., pp. 107–62. 27. F. C. Baur, Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ: his Life and Work, his Epistles and his Doctrine: a Contribution to the Critical History of Primitive Christianity (ed. E. Zeller; 2 vols; Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1875), II, pp. 7–8.

Introduction

7

relationship of literary interdependence.28 Similar theories of interpolation are offered by D. H. von Soden,29 C. Masson,30 P. N. Harrison,31 J. Weiss,32 and J. Knox.33 These theories of interpolation, however, are very arbitrary and have not found wide support. As Lohse points out in reference to Masson’s theory, it: sunders related sentences without sufficiently proving whether (and to what extent) material formulated by tradition was taken up and employed by Col. It is therefore appropriate that the hypothesis which sees Col. as an editorially expanded Pauline letter has not found support. Col. has a thoroughly unified structure from the point of view of form as well as that of content.34

In 1909, A. S. Peake, reflecting on the work of Holtzmann wrote: … if Holtzmann is right in asserting that several parallel passages do not depend on Colossians, we are shut up in the view that both Epistles (Colossians and Ephesians) came from the same hand, and that the hand of Paul. In such a case we can hardly speak of secondary or derived passages as we should if two authors were concerned. But in any case we may feel some confidence that the authenticity of Colossians will come to be accepted in the near future by general consent.35

Commenting on this, C. L. Mitton wrote in 1951: ‘This confidence has not been misplaced, and the years since 1909 have seen a growing consensus of opinion towards the recognition of Colossians as a genuine Pauline letter’.36 28. H. J. Holtzmann, Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe: auf Grund einer Analyse ihres Verwandtschaftsverhältnisses (Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1872), pp. 104–21. See also E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon (ed. H. Koester; trans. William R. Poehlmann and Robert J. Karris; Hermeniea, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), p. 90. 29. For a survey of the evolution of von Soden’s understanding of the prehistory of Col. 1.15-20 see E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 90. His final view was that the whole of 1.15-20 was an interpolation. See D. H. von Soden, Urchristliche Literaturgeschichte: die Schriften des Neuen Testaments (Berlin: Alexander Duncker, 1905), pp. 49–53. 30. Masson argues that a shorter version of Colossians was supplemented by the author of Ephesians in order that these expansions of a ‘Pauline’ work might give more authority to Ephesians. C. Masson, L’Epître de Saint Paul aux Colossiens (CNT, 10; Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1950), pp. 86, 159. 31. Harrison argues that Colossians was completed by the author of Ephesians, namely Onesimus of Colossae. From word statistics he contends that the original Pauline letter consists of 1.1-6a; 1.6c-9a; 1.26-2.2a; 2.5,6; 3.2-13; 3.17-4.18 (about half the current letter). He claims that 1.6b; 9b-25; 2.2b-4, 2.7-3.1; 3.14-16 are later interpolations. P. N. Harrison, Paulines and Pastorals (London: Villiers, 1964). 32. J. Weiss, Earliest Christianity: A History of the Period A.D. 30–150 (trans. F. C. Grant; 2 vols; New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959), I, pp. 150–51. 33. J. Knox, Jesus, Lord and Christ (New York: Harper and Row, 1958), p. 158, n. 20. 34. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 90, who cites the review of Masson’s commentary in W. Bieder, ‘Rezensionen’, TZ 8 (1952), 135–43. 35. A. S. Peake, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament (London: Duckworth, 1914), p. 52. 36. C. L. Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians: Its Authorship, Origin and Purpose (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951), p. 55.

8


These comments, however, now appear to be unrealistically optimistic, as the issue of authorship is still far from resolved with many modern scholars denying Pauline authenticity37 and others affirming it.38 In favour of Pauline authorship it should be noted that the letter is attributed to Paul both at its beginning (1.1) and conclusion (4.18). There are no textual variants that dispute these verses. It is reasonable, therefore, to start from the premise of Pauline authorship and to ask whether sufficient evidence is given to deny this claim. Although modern theories on authorship differ,39 the Pauline authorship of Colossians is normally contested on three grounds: language and style; theology, especially the Christology of the letter; the relationship of Colossians to Ephesians and Philemon. a. Language and Style i. Vocabulary In Colossians there are thirty-four words that appear nowhere else in the New Testament (hapax legomena) and twenty-eight words that do appear elsewhere in the New Testament but not in the other Pauline letters, ten words which are in common only with Ephesians, and fifteen words that appear in Colossians and Ephesians as well as the rest of the New Testament but not in the other Pauline letters.40 Furthermore, Colossians does not mention particularly Pauline words such as a9marti/a, a0poka/luyij, dikaiosu/nh, dokima/zw, e0leuqeri/a,

37. In 1984, R. Brown estimated that ‘by very broad approximation’ sixty percent of critical scholars judge that Paul did not write Colossians. R. E. Brown, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1984), p. 47. DeMaris sees the shift to pseudonymity happening as a result of W. Bujard’s analysis that appeared in 1973. See W. Bujard, Stilanalytische Untersuchungen zum Kolosserbrief: als Beitrag zur Methodik von Sprachvergleichen (SUNT, 11; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1973) and R. E. DeMaris, The Colossian Controversy, p. 12. This consensus was further strengthened by M. Kiley who argues that the author of Colossians knew only Philippians and Philemon and that he modelled Colossians on these. He suggests that the letter may be written by Epaphras to Laodicea under the guise of being written by Paul to Colossae. M. Kiley, Colossians as Pseudepigraphy, pp. 76–91. See also Dunn who states: ‘… I have to confirm the strong likelihood that the letter comes from a hand other than Paul’s’. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 35. 38. See for example R. P. Martin, Colossians and Philemon (NCB, London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1973), pp. 32–40; M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon (EGGNT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 3–4; P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon (WBC, 44; Waco: Word Books, 1982), pp. xli–xlix. In 1997 N. T. Wright wrote: ‘I regard Colossians as certainly by Paul ...’ N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?, (Oxford: Lion, 1997), p. 8. 39. E. P. Sanders, for example, argues that Colossians was written by taking phrases from Paul’s seven letters, thereby denying Pauline authorship. This theory is clearly related to source criticism as often applied to the Pentateuch and Synoptic Gospels, but has even less credibility when dealing with Pauline correspondence. See E. P. Sanders, ‘Literary Dependence in Colossians’, JBL 85 (1966), 28–45. 40. See a list of these words in E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, pp. 85–86.

Introduction

9

e0paggeli/a, katerga/zomai, kauxa/omai, koi/noj, loipo/j, no/moj, pisteu/w, pei/qw, sw|/zw, u9pakoh/.41 Such a study of vocabulary, however, should not be determinative for the denial of Pauline authorship. Many of the terms used in Colossians would be citations of people other than Paul. It is widely held that hymnic material appears in the letter. Furthermore, if Paul uses the ‘catchwords’ of his opponents, this would account for differences of vocabulary. This also accounts for why he does not cite more general Pauline themes. As Kiley states: ‘In order to be useful, such lists of missing words need to be connected with observations about the relative appropriateness of these terms to the argument of Colossians, and the fact that their absence is surprising’.42 The statistics of vocabulary cannot simply be used for determining authorship. Many other variables need to be taken into account, such as the education and linguistic facility of the author.43 In view of Paul’s Pharisaic and Rabbinic education (Acts 22.3) it is not surprising that he could draw on a large pool of vocabulary. Furthermore, Col. 4.18 would imply that Paul used an amanuensis. An amanuensis would not be merely ‘a typewriter’, but may indeed have had some input into the formation of sentences and the choice of vocabulary. It is nowhere claimed that Paul had the same amanuensis for each of his letters.44 Other Pauline letters omit significant Pauline terms, yet their authorship is not doubted. For example, 1 Thessalonians mentions neither a0poka/luyij nor dikaiosu/nh nor u9pakoh/, and Galatians has thirty-one hapax legomena,45 yet these letters are accepted as Pauline. Furthermore, Colossians is a short letter. One would not expect all the terms found in an extended epistle such as Romans to appear in the four chapters of Colossians. The study of vocabulary does not raise sufficient doubt about Pauline authorship. It is necessary therefore to study the style of the letter.

41. For a more extended list see E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 87. 42. M. Kiley, Colossians as Pseudepigraphy, p. 45. 43. W. P. Workman’s comparison of hapax legomena in Shakespeare and in Paul is instructive. Workman discovered that the number of Shakespearean hapax legomena (words used in a particular play but not found elsewhere in Shakespeare) per page varied from 3.4 (Julius Caesar) to 10.4 (Hamlet). This is a similar range to Pauline hapax legomena (words used in a particular epistle but not elsewhere in the New Testament) which vary from 3.6 (2 Thessalonians) to 13 (I Timothy and Titus). The number of hapax legomena in Colossians is 6.3 per page. See W. P. Workman, ‘The Hapax Legomena of St. Paul’, ExpTim 7 (1896), 418–19. See also a response in P. N. Harrison, Paulines and Pastorals, pp. 60–65. 44. E. R. Richards concludes: ‘Even if Paul exercised much control over his secretary, there was more influence possible from a secretary than many modern exegetes have allowed’. E. R. Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul (WUNT, 2.42; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1991), p. 201. 45. See the list in E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 86, n. 146.

10


ii. Style E. Percy46 and W. Bujard47 each see the issue of Pauline authorship centring on style. Expressions are combined which belong to the same stem. For example 1.11 e0n pa/sh| duna/mei dunamou/menoi; 1.29 kata\ th\n e0ne/rgeian au0tou= th\n e0nergoume/nhn; 2.11 perietmhq/ hte perietomh=| a0xeiropoih/tw|; 2.19 au1cei th\n au1chsin tou= qeou=.48 This repetition, however, also occurs in an undisputed Pauline letter such as in 1 Cor. 7.20: e0n th=| klh/sei h[| e0klhq/ h; 1 Cor. 10.16: to\ poth/rion th=j eu0logi/aj o4 eu0logou=men; and 1 Cor. 11.2: kaqw\j pare/dwka u9mi=n ta\j parado/seij. In Colossians synonyms are frequently piled together, for example 1.9: proseuxo/menoi kai\ ai0tou/menoi.49 Again this is not unique to Colossians as it is also noted in undisputed Pauline letters, for example Rom. 1.18: pa=san a0se/beian kai\ a0diki/an.50 The style of Colossians is seen as ‘cumbersome, wordy, overloaded almost to opaqueness with dependent clauses, participial and infinitive constructions or substantives with e0n’.51 This ‘cumbersome, wordy’ style is seen in long sentences with many pleonasms. For example in 2.8-15, one statement is loosely joined to the preceding one so that an unwieldy structure emerges. In 1.3-23 ‘relative clauses, inserted causal phrases, participial phrases and secondary notes inflate the sentence to a degree that its form almost collapses’.52 Dependent genitives are used, for example in 1.5: e0n tw~| lo/gw| th=j a0lhqei/aj tou= eu0aggeli/ou. 53 Loosely joined infinitive constructions show purpose or result for example in 1.10: peripath=sai a0ci/wj tou= kuri/ou (see also 1.22, 25; 4.3, 6). Substantives are joined to a phrase by the preposition e0n: e.g. 1.6: th\n xa/rin tou= qeou= e0n a0lhqei/a| (see also 1.8, 12, 29). This style, however, need not refute Pauline authorship. The cumbersome presentation may be accounted for by the liturgical-hymnic style when compared with other Pauline letters, which often have a developed argumentative style similar to Cynic or Stoic diatribes or to the discussion of Jewish

46. ‘Die wirklichen Probleme in bezug auf die Form des Briefes liegen somit ganz auf dem stilistischen Gebiet.’ E. Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe (Lund: Gleerup, 1946), p. 18. 47. W. Bujard, Stilanalytische Untersuchungen zum Kolosserbrief. 48. E. Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe, p. 18. See also E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 88. 49. Percy lists twenty occurrences of this in Colossians. E. Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe, p. 20. 50. For further examples see Ibid., pp. 20–21. 51. W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (trans. H. Clark Kee; London: SCM Press, 1975), p. 341. See also W. Bujard, Stilanalytische Untersuchungen zum Kolosserbrief, pp. 121–28. 52. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 89. Lohse notes that there are several instances of heavily laden sentences in Paul, to the point that he becomes almost incomprehensible (e.g. Gal. 2.3-5, 6-9; Rom. 1.1-7; 2.5-10, 14-16; 3.23-26). 53. Lohse cites ten occurrences of this in 1.5, 12, 13, 20, 24, 27; 2.2 (twice), 11, 12. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 88.

Introduction

11

scribes.54 This is particularly seen in highly stylized sections such as 1.12-14, 15-20; 2.9-15. The use of dependent genitives appears in other Pauline letters such as Rom. 2.5; 4.11; 1 Cor. 2.6.55 Similarly, infinitive constructions showing purpose occur in Rom. 1.28; 2 Cor. 11.2.56 The use of e0n to connect a phrase to a substantive also occurs in Rom. 14.17; 15.13.57 In order to introduce an explanation, Colossians occasionally uses the formulaic phrase o3 e0stin, e.g. 1.24: u9pe\r tou= sw&matoj au0tou=, o3 e0stin h9 e0kklhsi/a. In 3.14 the masculine is retained despite the gender of the word being explained: e0pi\ pa=sin de\ tou/toij th\n a0ga/phn, o3 e0stin su/ndesmoj th=j teleio/thtoj. Concerning 3.14 Turner comments: ‘Such a solecism appears nowhere else in the Paulines. Is this important for authorship?’58 There is also a lack of me\n … de/ constructions in Colossians and a sparse use of de/.59 In the consideration of style, it must be remembered that there are similarities between Colossians and the other Pauline letters. The letter begins with a common introduction (Pau=loj a0po/stoloj Xristou= 0Ihsou= … ) and concludes in a way similar to other Pauline letters (h9 xa/rij meq’ u9mw~n). Other examples of Pauline style can be seen in the thanksgiving prayer (1.3-8); hortatory conclusions,60 especially the relationship between the indicative and the imperative in the paraenetic statements (e.g. 3.5-17); the listing of messages and greetings (4.7-18); the use of Pauline expressions such as e0n Xristw~| (1.2, 4, 26);61 statements about the contrast between the old and new person (3.5-17). Other stylistic devices that are common in the Pauline letters include the superfluous use of kai/ after dia\ tou=to (1.9 cf. 1 Thess. 2.13; 3.5; Rom. 13.6); the use of phrases like oi0 a3gioi au0tou= (1.26 cf. 1 Thess. 3.13; 2 Thess. 1.10) and e0n me/rei (2.16 cf. 2 Cor. 3.10; 9.3).62 The age and experience of the apostle Paul at the time of writing his respective letters must be considered. Many have noted that Colossians is less direct than Galatians; however, the letter is normally dated much later. The apostle is clearly milder in his speech, even if the dangers of errant views are not underestimated. As Karl Staab states: In his old age, the apostle becomes calmer. His language is milder, more serene, richer and more winsome. Nevertheless, the old spirit of fire can still be seen whenever

54. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 89. 55. E. Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe, p. 27. 56. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 89. 57. Percy lists many examples. E. Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe, pp. 27-31. 58. N. Turner, ‘Syntax’, in J. H. Moulton, W. F. Howard and N. Turner (eds), A Grammar of New Testament Greek (4 vols; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1929), III, p. 317. 59. E. P. Sanders, ‘Literary Dependence in Colossians’, 40–41. 60. For example in 2.1 qe/lw ga\r u9ma=j ei0de/nai; the use of ou]n in 2.6, 16; 3.1, 5. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 85, n. 140. 61. Note related expressions, such: as e0n Kuri/w| (3.18, 20; 4.7, 17); e0n au0tw|~ (1.16, 17, 19; 2.6, 7, 9, 10, 15); e0n w{| (1.14; 2.3, 11, 12); su\n Xristw|~ (2.20; 3.1, 3). 62. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 85.

12

Heavenly Perspective he senses danger for the church (compare Col. 2.8, 16-23; Phil. 3.2). His focus is more directed towards the depth and breadth of the secret of Christ than it had been in the past, due to the seclusion which was forced upon him during his years in detention and the serenity which comes with age and maturity (author’s translation).63

On the basis of style and language, it must be concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to deny Pauline authorship. We therefore turn our attention to the theology of the epistle. b. Theology i. Christology It is argued that the Christology expressed in 1.15-20, 2.9-10 and 2.15 is further developed than that of the undisputed Pauline epistles.64 Lohse therefore states: ‘The Christology of Colossians goes beyond the statements found in the major letters in that it develops a cosmic breadth, affirming that the whole fulness dwells bodily in Christ (2.9) and that he is the head of all rule and authority (2.10)’.65 The Christology has therefore been seen as a Christianizing of Gnostic beliefs, implying that a profound development has taken place.66 In response to these claims it must be noted that the cosmic Christology that is evident in Colossians is also evident in the undisputed Pauline epistles: e.g. 1 Cor. 2.8; Gal. 4.3, 9; Phil. 2.10. Similar language about Christ being the ei0kw\n tou= qeou= is seen in 2 Cor. 4.4. The fact that Christ is victorious over the angelic realm is evident in Rom. 8.29-39 and Phil. 2.9-11. Furthermore, the cosmic Christology of Colossians is directly related to the philosophy being disputed. The errorists lived in the fear of evil cosmic forces and with a preoccupation about the worship of heavenly angelic beings. Paul is keen to redirect their attention from these cosmic powers to the person of Christ. Therefore the cosmic Christology of the letter is determined by the situation addressed rather than being an indicator of a later date for the epistle. ii. Ecclesiology Dunn sees the ecclesiology of 1.18 correlated with 2.10 as a development closer to Eph. 1.21-23 than to the ecclesiology of Rom. 12.4-8 or 1 Corinthians 12.67 In Romans and Corinthians the head is not seen as a more significant part of the body; its interdependence with other parts is emphasized (1 Cor. 12.21). In Colossians, Christ is the head of the church: both the

63. K. Staab, Die Thessalonicherbriefe: Die Gefangenschaftsbriefe, (RNT, 7.1; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1969), p. 67. 64. See for example J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 36. 65. E. Lohse, The Formation of the New Testament (trans. M. E. Boring; Nashville: Abingdon, 1981), p. 91. 66. See W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 342, who cites Marxsen, Schenke, Grässer and Lohse. 67. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 36.

Introduction

13

universal church as expressed in 1.18, 24, and the local church as evidenced in 4.15. This difference, it is assumed, points to a later date and different author from Romans and 1 Corinthians. O’Brien, however, argues that the references in 1.18 and 1.24 are actually references to the heavenly church, in the light of Christians having already been raised with Christ in 3.1-4.68 As F. F. Bruce points out: The advance from language of simile in 1 Corinthians and Romans to the real interpersonal involvement expressed in the language of Colossians and Ephesians may have been stimulated by Paul’s consideration of the issues involved in the Colossian heresy. Far from being subject to the principalities and powers, he argued, Christ was their author and ruler by the twofold claim of creation and conquest … In this way not only is the living fellowship between the members of the church brought out (as in the earlier epistles referred to) but so is the dependence of all the members on Christ for life and power, and his supremacy is vindicated against a system of thought which threatened to cast him down from his excellency. In consequence ‘body’ is used in Colossians and Ephesians in correlation with ‘head’ rather than (as in earlier epistles) with ‘spirit’; but this is no valid argument against identity of authorship.69

This understanding of headship shows why the Colossian Christians do not need to fear the principalities and powers or any supernatural force. The same theme is reiterated in Ephesians. Therefore, it should not be surprising that the ‘head’ imagery is slightly different in Colossians from earlier epistles. In Colossians Paul is teaching cosmic rule; in 1 Corinthians and Romans he is teaching the interdependence of Christians. A recent addition to the argument against Pauline authorship, which can loosely be categorized in the area of ecclesiology, is that of M. Kiley. His thesis is that all seven undisputed epistles of Paul show him engaged in financial transactions on behalf of his mission. Conversely, in the six disputed epistles there is an absence of such transactions.70 Although Kiley argues for GraecoRoman parallels,71 his thesis must be rejected. In the undisputed Paulines, Paul does not directly solicit funds for his mission programme to the Gentiles. Indeed, some of his financial transactions may detract from the goal of preaching to the Gentiles. This would include the collection for the poor Jerusalem saints in Rom. 15.26; 1 Cor. 16.1-4; 2 Cor. 8-9. Other financial transactions are not necessarily for the purpose of the Pauline mission such as Gal. 2.10 which asks the Gentile churches to remember the poor. Is it really valid to call this brief aside and that of 1 Thess. 2.9 ‘mission-related financial transactions’?72 In Phlm. 18–19 it was not to the benefit of the Pauline mission

68. 69. p. 421. 70. 71. 72.

See P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, pp. xlv–xlvi, 57–61. F. F. Bruce, Paul the Apostle of the Free Spirit (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1977), M. Kiley, Colossians as Pseudepigrapha, pp. 72–73. Ibid., pp. 108–18. Ibid., p. 49. L. R. Donelson, ‘Review’, JBL 107 (1988), 334–35 (335).

14


to lose the services of Onesimus!73 It is very reductionistic to categorize the thirteen epistles attributed to Paul as either authentic or deutero-Pauline on the basis of appealing for financial support. Kiley’s thesis is ultimately an argument from silence and he does not speculate about the implications of his thesis for Paul’s motives in letter-writing. Kiley’s thesis has not gained wide acceptance. iii. Eschatology In the place of the temporal expectation of future hope, Colossians’ eschatology is spatial, distinguishing between below and above (Col. 3.1-4) with a present hope in heaven (1.5). This distinction can be seen in comparing baptism in Rom. 6.4 as a sign that the Christian who has died to sin lives a life oriented towards the future resurrection, whereas in Colossians the Christian is seen as having been already raised.74 ‘Consequently, spatial concepts exercise greater influence over the author’s eschatological reflections than those we find in the undisputed letters, and they do so at the expense of concrete and typically Pauline expectations that the future will bring anything fundamentally new, rather than a revelation of what already exists but is presently “hidden” or invisible’. 75 If, as we shall argue, the Colossian philosophy was grounded in Jewish mysticism that engaged in current heavenly ascents, and if there was a very real need to explain dominion over the principalities and powers, it is easy to see why Paul would have emphasized the Christian’s present status in Christ in terms of a spatial and cosmic eschatology. It can be seen, therefore, that the differences in theological emphases in Colossians arise from the particular situation addressed. There is not sufficient evidence here to disprove Pauline authorship. c. The Relationship of Colossians to Ephesians and Philemon i. Colossians and Ephesians The similarity in style, structure and content of Ephesians and Colossians is generally acknowledged. 76 Those who deny the Pauline authorship of Colossians normally presuppose the non-Pauline authorship of Ephesians. Thus F. C. Baur asserts: ‘there can be no doubt of this, that the two (Colossians and Ephesians) are so much interwoven that they must stand or fall together in their claim to apostolic origin’.77 The denial of Pauline authorship of Colossians on the basis of the nonPauline authorship of Ephesians, however, is building on a disputed 73. For a full explanation of these reasons see C. E. Arnold, ‘Review’, EvQ 60 (1988), 69–71. 74. E. Lohse, The Formation of the New Testament, p. 92. 75. W. T. Wilson, The Hope of Glory, p. 20. 76. Similarities are seen between Col. 1.1-2/Eph. 1.1-2; Col. 1.4/Eph. 1.15; Col. 1.14/Eph. 1.7; Col. 1.25/Eph. 3.2; Col. 2.13/Eph. 2.5; Col. 2.19/Eph. 4.15-16; Col. 3.12/Eph. 4.32; Col. 3.16-17/Eph. 5.19-20; Col. 3.22-4.1/Eph. 6.5-9; Col. 4.7-8/Eph. 6.21-22. See C. L. Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians, pp. 55–67, 279–315. 77. F. C. Baur, Paul: The Apostle of Jesus Christ, II, p. 44.

Introduction

15

foundation. Authorship questions on Ephesians are far from settled.78 Even if Ephesians were seen as deutero-Pauline, this need not affect a decision on Colossians. Most scholars see Colossians as prior to Ephesians.79 Dunn states, commenting on the similarities between Ephesians and Colossians, ‘… this feature is best explained by Ephesians being written using Colossians as a kind of template (so most)’.80 Holtzmann’s and Masson’s theories81 that the writer of Ephesians added to an earlier and shorter Colossian letter lacks any textual support. Their respective theories divide Colossians differently between what is Pauline and what is not. Holtzmann sees the authentic Pauline sections as 1.9b-12, 14-24, 26-28; 2.2b-3, 7a, 9-11, 15, 17-19, 22f; 3.1, 2, 4-11, 14-16, 18-25; 4.1, 9, 15-17;82 whereas Masson sees them as 1.1-4, 7, 8; 2.6, 8, 9, 11a, 12a, 16, 20, 21; 3.3, 4, 12, 13a, 18-22a, 25; 4.1-3a, b, 5-8a, 9-12a, 14, (15), 17, 18.83 This divergence shows the subjectivity of the task. ii. Colossians and Philemon The relationship of Colossians to Philemon has been one of the strongest arguments for Pauline authorship of Colossians. C. H. Dodd writes of Philemon that the epistle ‘carries its authentication on its face. Nowadays, in fact, to reject it is a mere eccentricity of criticism’.84 Even P. N. Harrison, who denies Pauline authorship of Colossians, says of Philemon ‘… today not only Conservative but also Critical scholarship is practically solid in agreeing with Renan that “only Paul could have written this little masterpiece”’.85 The strong link between Colossians and Philemon and the undoubted authenticity of Philemon should be a deciding factor for Pauline authorship of Colossians.

78. See A. T. Lincoln, Ephesians (WBC, 42; Dallas: Word, 1990), pp. lix–lxxiii, for arguments on why Lincoln has moved from a position on authenticity to pseudonymity. See also P. T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Pillar, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), pp. 4–47, for a defence of Pauline authorship of Ephesians. 79. A. T. Lincoln concludes his discussion on the interrelationship of the two letters by stating ‘What has emerged from this overview is the dependence of Ephesians on a prior Colossians ...’ A. T. Lincoln, Ephesians, p. lv. 80. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 36. For the opposite view that Colossians presupposes Ephesians see J. Coutts, ‘The Relationship of Ephesians and Colossians’, NTS 4 (1957–1958), 201–207. 81. As discussed earlier in this Chapter. 82. H. J. Holtzmann, Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe, 104–21, as summarized in E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 90. 83. ‘L’épître primitive avait, par conjecture, la teneur suivant: Adresse et salutation: 1.1, 2. Action de grâce et prière: 1.3, 4, 7, 8. Mise en garde les hérétiques: 2.6, 8, 9, ‘car en Lui, 11a vous avez été circoncis d’une circoncision non faite de main d’homme, 12a quand vous avez été ensevelis avec Lui par le baptême’, 16, 20, 21; 3.3, 4. Parénèse: 3.12, 13a, 1822a, 25; 4.1, 2, 3a, b, 5, 6. Personalia: 4.7, 8a, 9. Salutations: 4.10-12a, 14 (15), 17-18.’ C. Masson, L’Epître de Saint Paul aux Colossiens, p. 159. 84. C. H. Dodd, ‘Ephesians’, in F. C. Eiselen, E. Lewis and D. G. Downey (eds), The Abingdon Bible Commentary (Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1929) pp. 1222–37 (1223). 85. P. N. Harrison, ‘Onesimus and Philemon’, ATR 32 (1950), 270.

16


The two letters name precisely the same authors: Paul and Timothy, and more or less the same list of greeters: Epaphras, Aristarchus and Mark, Demas and Luke. Both letters mention the sending of Onesimus (Col. 4.9; Phlm 12) and have special words for Archippus (Col. 4.17; Phlm 2).86 This similarity points to the same author, namely Paul. d. Conclusion on Authorship It is concluded that there is insufficient evidence to deny Pauline authorship of Colossians. It is difficult to envisage a scenario where 4.7-17 could be explained after Paul’s death as the references are so closely related to the Colossian church (4.7-9, 10, 12-13, 15-17). Why would a pseudepigrapher choose to relate the names of these people? More perplexing, why would a pseudepigrapher choose to send a letter, in the name of Paul, to a place whose church was not established by the apostle? Theories of literary dependence of Colossians on a ‘genuine’ Pauline letter such as Philemon as a device to give the impression of Pauline authorship can at best be seen as conjecture. Such theories are similar to source criticism approaches that have been applied to the study of the Pentateuch and the Synoptic Gospels. These theories fragment ancient literature according to modern theories, leading to dubious and varied results; we will treat the Colossian letter as a coherent literary unity. It is therefore concluded that Colossians was written by the apostle Paul in the second half of the first century.87

4. Research Methods – The Primacy of the Text The different conclusions on the nature of the Colossian error, or indeed the existence of an error, are the results of the methods of approach used by

86. Lohse’s suggestion that a disciple of Paul formed the list of greetings (4.7-18) from names and information he found in Philemon, and that this disciple added reports from the circle of the apostle’s co-workers is unconvincing. Lohse does not deal with issues of motivation for doing this nor for the fact that these greetings would thereby be fabricated, especially if written up to 80 CE, fifteen years after Paul’s death! E. Lohse, The Formation of the New Testament, pp. 92–93. 87. For a more specific date it is necessary to determine the place of Paul’s imprisonment when writing Colossians. If the letter was written from Rome, it is to be dated c.60–61 CE; if it was written from Ephesus it is dated between 52 and 57 CE. For a summary of the issues surrounding the place of Paul’s imprisonment when writing Colossians see P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, pp. xlix–liv. The Lycus Valley was severely affected by an earthquake between 60 CE and 64 CE. For a summary of the issues regarding the dating of this earthquake see J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 38–39. As the site of Colossae was probably destroyed by this earthquake, the epistle would have been written prior to its occurrence. It is difficult, however, to make firm conclusions about the level of destruction suffered at Colossae as the site has not been excavated.

Introduction

17

different scholars. These methods of research are rarely discussed by authors.88 It is important, therefore, that the method of approach adopted by this study be clarified. The temptation in the analysis of an ancient and oft studied document is to look for new background information that will help in the understanding of the text, and thereby make a ‘fresh approach’. Many studies on the Colossian philosophy have focused heavily on background material. As will be surveyed in Chapter Two, some scholars have focused on Greek mystery religions or the Dead Sea Scrolls or Second Temple Jewish literature or the magical papyri as the background to the error. Although such study is essential for clarifying the nature of the Colossian philosophy, it is important not to lose focus on the text of Colossians itself. It is the text that must control the outcomes; background information informs in order to allow an appropriate understanding of the text. This interplay between text and background will be evident throughout this monograph. J. Sumney has looked extensively at issues of methodology in determining the opponents in 2 Corinthians. He concludes, ‘that reconstructions and sources other than the primary text must not determine our identification of a letter’s opponents. The letter itself must supply the primary information about its opponents’.89 In evaluating the primary text, Sumney determines ‘which kinds of passages in a letter are more and less useful for identifying opponents’.90 In particular he ranks a passage in the order of ‘its certainty of reference and its reliability’.91 Certainty of reference ranks the material in the letter into levels of certainty that the material refers to the opponents. Sumney ranks material concerning opponents into three descending categories of certainty: explicit statements, allusions and affirmations.92 Explicit statements describe the opponents, allusions provide further information about the opponents as they treat topics that have been raised in explicit statements, and affirmations are only used to add detail. He then categorizes the reliability of these statements to determine which contexts allow for information to be presented fairly.93 His four categories for reliability are, in descending order: didactic, apologetic, polemical, and conventional periods (by which he means letter-writing conventions such as greetings, farewells, thanksgiving clauses and paraenesis).94 Therefore for Sumney, the clearest understanding of an

88. An exception to this is F. O. Francis, ‘The Christological Arguments of Colossians’, in J. Jervell, W. A. Meeks (eds), God’s Christ and His People: Studies in Honour of Nils Alstrup Dahl (Festschrift Nils Alstrup Dahl; Oslo, Universitetsforlaget, 1977), pp. 192–208 (192–94). 89. J. L. Sumney, Identifying Paul’s Opponents: The Question of Method in 2 Corinthians (JSNTSup, 40; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 95. 90. Ibid., 110. 91. Ibid., 96 (emphasis his). 92. Ibid., 96. 93. Ibid., 95. 94. Ibid., 96.

18


opponent’s position will be seen in an explicit statement that comes in a didactic section, and the least clear will be in an affirmation in a letterwriting convention. It is not our purpose to apply Sumney’s methodology to the text of Colossians. This has already been done both by Sumney himself95 and by T. Martin.96 These studies have divided the text according to Sumney’s categories of certainty of reference and reliability and have resulted in a ‘piece-meal’ approach that looks at verses in isolation from their overall context. Sumney’s categories, however, do help us in our overall approach. Although Colossians contains sections that are polemical (e.g. 2.20-23) and apologetic (e.g. 2.1619), its primary purpose is in neither of these areas. Instead of engaging the opponents in direct polemic, Paul instructs the Colossians in how they should respond to these opponents.97 Although the opponents are only named by indefinite pronouns (tij [2.8, 16], mhdei/j [2.18]) almost all commentators see that these are explicit references to real or potential opponents. The clearest passage that gives this didactic teaching with explicit reference to opponents is 2.6-23. Therefore we shall begin our exegetical study here. Once the Colossian error is established, it is necessary to determine allusions to the error. In particular, we will look at 3.1-4 and 1.15-23 to understand Paul’s corrective. Finally, the practical outworkings of these correctives will be discussed.98 Sections of Colossians that give minimal input to the nature of the Colossian philosophy will not be studied. To place this exegetical work in its context, two preliminary tasks will be performed: a survey of solutions to the Colossian error, and an explanation of the Jewish mystical movements from which, we argue, the error arose. It is inevitable that subjective evaluations of the text will be made. The limitations of the study are also recognized. Paul is not writing to outline the nature of an error. This error was known to writer and reader alike; his concern is for teaching and character formation in the light of this error. It is hoped, however, that the above approach will give a result that is as objective as possible in a reconstruction of the Colossian error.

95. See J. L. Sumney, ‘Those who “Pass Judgment”: The Identity of the Opponents in Colossians’, Bib 74 (1993), 366–88. 96. T. W. Martin, By Philosophy and Empty Deceit. 97. Ibid., p. 23. 98. See J. L. Sumney, ‘Those who “Pass Judgment”’, 366–67.

Chapter 2

AN OVERVIEW OF SCHOLARSHIP Research on the nature of the Colossian philosophy has been extensive. In 1973 J. J. Gunther listed forty-four different identifications of the opponents at Colossae which had been proposed by scholars in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.1 Since 1973, further solutions have been suggested. Therefore a survey of the history of interpretation will help to determine not only the state of current research, but also avoid a repetition of previously trod, unproductive territory, and suggest where future lines of inquiry should go. Due to the bewildering number of proposed solutions, this chapter will only present an overview of the interpretations that have significantly affected subsequent scholarship.

1. Was there a Colossian Heresy? It has normally been assumed that Paul was reacting to false teaching that was either a real or a potential threat to the church at Colossae. The error has often been called the ‘Colossian heresy’. Dunn makes the important point that referring to Paul’s opponents’ philosophy as ‘heresy’ may be unhelpful, as this implies that at the stage of writing Colossians there was a defined conception of what constituted ‘Christian orthodoxy’ with clearly delineated boundaries.2 Furthermore, the word ‘heresy’ implies a crisis within the Colossian church brought about by a different system of belief.3 Paul, however, does not address the Colossians with the same level of intensity as the Galatians (Gal. 1.6-9; 3.1-3; 4.8-10; 5.2-12). Dunn also argues against the use of ‘error’ and ‘errorists’ for similar reasons.4 Although this book will refrain from using the more emotive terms of ‘heresy’ and ‘heretics’, it will still use ‘error’ and ‘errorists’. Dunn’s avoidance of these terms is not reflective of the world of Paul in which doctrine was perceived as truth or error. In Colossians Paul

1. J. J. Gunther, St. Paul’s Opponents and their Background: A Study of Apocalyptic and Jewish Sectarian Teachings (NovTSup, 35; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973), pp. 3–4. 2. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 24–25. 3. For example, E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 127 speaks of ‘a teaching which threatened to engulf the community’. 4. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 24–25.

20


expresses the difference between truth and error through expressions such as ‘the word of truth, the Gospel’ (1.5 (NRSV)), and conversely ‘empty deceit’ (2.8 (NRSV)). In Paul’s understanding, those who practised the Colossian philosophy were in error, even if they were not heretics. Therefore we shall refer to the ‘Colossian philosophy’, the ‘Colossian error’ and the ‘errorists’. M. Hooker has questioned whether there was an error at all. She states ‘… one glance at Galatians reminds us of the way in which Paul reacts when he feels that faith in Christ is being undermined’.5 She argues that the Colossians were under pressure to conform to the beliefs and practices of their Pagan and Jewish neighbours, rather than a situation where their faith was endangered by deliberate attacks from false teachers.6 She argues that dogmati/zesqe in 2.20 can be rendered ‘why subject yourselves?’ (to any attempt which may be made to impose such regulations) rather than ‘why do you subject yourselves?’ She therefore concludes that Paul is issuing a warning rather than an accusation.7 Hooker sees that the Christological section of Col. 1.15-20 is not developed to combat false teaching, but to demonstrate that both creation and redemption are completed in Christ because he has replaced the Jewish law. Legal requirements have been abolished as they are only the shadow of the reality that is Christ.8 Although Hooker makes a strong case in pointing to the lack of indignation which is found in Galatians, her thesis has not found wide acceptance. She does not give enough weight to the references to a definite group as indicated by the pronouns tij (2.8, 16) and mhdei/j (2.18). Paul is not only referring to a specific group, but a specific philosophy, as seen by the definite th=j filosofi/aj (2.8), a specific philosophy that is seen as empty and deceptive.9 Furthermore, her thesis does not give enough emphasis to ‘catchwords’ of the philosophy such as qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn, ascetic regulations, e0mbateu/wn and plh/rwma. Gnilka says of Hooker’s view that it is a gross oversimplification as it does not take seriously the specific statements within the letter and does not reflect on the connection between the belief in the powers and the ritual prohibitions (the taboos).10 On balance, then, we conclude that Paul is combatting a specific philosophy held by a particular group in Colossae. Most scholars agree that the Colossian philosophy was syncretistic. It is difficult, therefore, to categorize different scholars’ definitions of the

5. M. D. Hooker, ‘Were there false teachers in Colossae?’, in B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley (eds), Christ and Spirit in the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), pp. 315–31 (316). 6. Ibid., p. 329. 7. Ibid., pp. 317–18 (emphasis hers). 8. Ibid., pp. 329–30. 9. C. E. Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism, p. 185. 10. ‘Diese Beurteilung ist eine grobe Vereinfachung, die die spezifischen Aussagen unseres Briefes nicht wahrnimmt und die Vereinbarkeit von Mächteglauben und Tabugeboten nicht reflektiert’. J. Gnilka, Der Kolosserbrief (HTKNT, 10; Freiburg: Herder, 1980), p. 164, n. 4.

An Overview of Scholarship

21

philosophy, as syncretism by its very nature extends beyond clearly defined categories. For the sake of clarity, we will seek to organize the different approaches into distinctive groupings; however, at points these divisions may seem arbitrary. The broad groupings that will be used are: Essene Judaism and Gnosticism; Hellenism; Paganism; Judaism.

2. Essene Judaism and Gnosticism a. J. B. Lightfoot Modern interpretation of the Colossian philosophy normally begins with J. B. Lightfoot, who saw the philosophy as a form of syncretistic Judaism. The Jewish references to Sabbath and circumcision are clear, but other references such as pa=n to\ plh/rwma (2.9), qe/lwn e0n tapeinofrosu/nh| kai\ qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn (2.18), a4 e9o/raken e0mbateu/wn (2.18) suggest a second background, which Lightfoot saw as a form of Gnosticism. Lightfoot argued that the mention of Sabbaths, circumcision, dietary restrictions and new moons is decisive in seeing the philosophy as Jewish.11 Of the three major Jewish sects, he dismissed the Sadducees as a background for the philosophy, due to their denial of the existence of angels.12 Between the Pharisees and the Essenes he remarks: ‘Both alike were strict observers of the ritual law; but, while the Pharisee was essentially practical, the tendency of the Essene was to mysticism … the characteristic feature of Essenism was a particular direction of mystic speculation, involving a rigid asceticism as its practical consequence’.13 Lightfoot argued for the mystical practices of the Essenes from Josephus’ account of them.14 He therefore saw that this kind of Jewish thought and practice was present in Asia Minor in the first century, which he qualified by saying: ‘But indeed throughout this investigation, when I speak of Judaism in the Colossian Church as Essene, I do not assume a precise identity of origin, but only an essential affinity of type’.15 Lightfoot observed that the Jewish references did not exhaust the presentation of the philosophy. There was an element of theosophic speculation on intermediate beings between God and humanity, as seen especially in 2.18 with the reference to the ‘worship of angels’. Lightfoot therefore saw a link between Essenism and Gnosticism in the Colossian error. He argued that when Gnosticism was fully developed in the second century, the system of Cerinthus portrayed Jewish roots. He therefore argued for a line of development from 11. J. B. Lightfoot, ‘The Colossian Heresy’, in F. O. Francis and W. A. Meeks (eds), Conflict at Colossae: A Problem in the Interpretation of Early Christianity Illustrated by Selected Modern Studies (Missoula, MT: SBT and Scholars Press, 1975), pp. 13–59 (13). 12. Ibid., p. 18. 13. Ibid., pp. 18–19. 14. Lightfoot lists the important sources of information on the Essenes as Josephus, War 2. 8. 2–13; Josephus, Ant. 13. 2. 2; 15.10. 4, 5. See J. B. Lightfoot, ‘The Colossian Heresy’, pp. 13–59 (42, n.19). 15. Ibid., p. 25.

22


Judaism to Gnosticism, and saw the Colossian philosophy as part of that trajectory.16 Lightfoot identified three aspects of the letter that reflect a Gnostic background:17 the concern for wisdom (1.26-28; 2.2-4, 23; 3.16); the cosmological speculation as suggested in the word plh/rwma (1.19; 2.9-10); the emphasis on intermediate beings: thrones, dominions, principalities, authorities (1.16; 2.15) and, in particular, angels (2.18). b. The Dead Sea Scrolls The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has given more credibility to the possibility of an association between those who practised the Colossian philosophy and the Essenes.18 E. W. Saunders has continued the work of Lightfoot by arguing for Essene associations with the Colossian philosophy after studying Qumran theology.19 He identified the philosophy as characterized by the pursuit of esoteric wisdom, ritual perfection and asceticism. He then located parallel concerns in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Like Lightfoot, Saunders did not believe that there was necessarily an historical connection. Rather, both the Colossian philosophy and Qumran represented a dualism known also in Gnosticism. Similarities between Qumran literature and the Colossian philosophy have been pointed out by several scholars who have concluded that the Colossian error was directly related to the teachings of the Qumran community. W. D. Davies claimed that there are clear allusions on calendrical matters (especially Sabbath), dietary matters, asceticism, access to special wisdom and knowledge, angelology and a dualistic view that this world is populated by evil forces.20 He has pointed out exact verbal parallels in the expression ‘body of flesh’ in 1QpHab 9.2 and Col. 1.22 and 2.11.21 P. Benoit22 has also seen similarities to

16. Ibid., pp. 35–37. 17. Ibid., pp. 27–32. 18. There is current debate on whether the Dead Sea Scrolls were produced by the Qumran community, and whether this community was a group of Essenes. For the prevailing view that the Scrolls are the library of a sectarian Jewish community, see F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumrân and Modern Biblical Studies (London: Duckworth, 1958); J. T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judea (SBT, 26; London: SCM Press, 1959); J. C. VanderKam, An Introduction to Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), p. 163. For an alternate view that they originated from libraries in Jerusalem and were hidden away for safekeeping before or during the siege of 70 CE see N. Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Search for the Secret of Qumran (New York: Scribner, 1995). 19. E. W. Saunders, ‘The Colossian Heresy and Qumran Theology’, in B. Daniels and J. Suggs (eds), Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament (SD, 29; Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1967), pp. 133–45 (134–35). 20. W. D. Davies, Christian Origins and Judaism (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1962), pp. 107, 134–38, 158–60. 21. W. D. Davies, ‘Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Flesh and Spirit’, in K. Stendahl (ed.), The Scrolls and the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1958), pp. 157–82 (166–68). 22. P. Benoit, ‘Qumran and the New Testament: Paul and Qumran Studies’, in J. Murphy-O’Connor (ed.), New Testament Exegesis (London: Chapman, 1968), pp. 1–30 (17).


23

Qumran in circumcision, the exact observance of food laws and festal calendar, as well as speculation about the angelic powers. These elements coincided with heterodox Judaism practised in the Qumran community. E. M. Yamauchi has compared the practices of the Colossian errorists with those of the Essenes as displayed in the Dead Sea Scrolls.23 He found areas of similarity such as eating habits, concern for calendrical matters and especially Sabbath observance. Furthermore, conceptually the philosophy’s interest in secret knowledge or mysteries and in angels pointed to an Essene background.24 Some significant features of the philosophy, however, showed little affinity with Qumran, and therefore Yamauchi saw the philosophy as approximating to Gnosticism.25 Yamauchi concluded that the philosophy represented a stage of transition between Essene heterodoxy and Gnosticism.26 A variation on Lightfoot’s (Essene) Jewish/Gnostic background is given by W. Schmithals,27 who found two types of material dealing with the activity of opponents: references to the words and powers of persuasion that would lead people away from the truth to a false wisdom; and anti-Jewish reference condemning the use of food and purity regulations and the observance of a Jewish calendar of feasts.28 Schmithals states: ‘All in all, the opponents in Colossians give us a unique example of a speculative Hellenistic Gnosis on the one hand and Jewish ethics and practices on the other merging into one another’.29 Schmithals suggests that Colossians has passed through two editions to reach its present form. The original letter was written by Paul to warn the Christians at Colossae against Judaizing legalism. God-fearers from the synagogue were continuing to observe Jewish purity regulations and feast days (1.1-8; 1.24-29; 2.1a; 2.4f; 2.16f; 2.20-23; 3.1-11; 3.12-15a; 4.2-18). A deutero-Pauline author redirected Paul’s original polemic against gnostic heretics of his day (2.1; 2.18) and composed his own anti-heretical teaching (1.13; 1.16b; 1.18c; 2.8; 2.10; 2.15; 2.18f).30 Schmithals seems to be polarizing the two elements of Judaism and Gnosticism that Lightfoot sought to combine in his Essene theory.31 He therefore divides the book between the sections that

23. E. M. Yamauchi, ‘Sectarian Parallels: Qumran and Colossae’, BSac 121 (1964), 141–52. 24. Ibid., 142–47. 25. Ibid., 151. 26. Ibid., 151. 27. W. Schmithals, ‘The Corpus Paulinum and Gnosis’, in A. H. B. Logan and A. J. M. Wedderburn (eds), The New Testament and Gnosis (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1983), pp. 107–24 (117–21). 28. Ibid., pp. 117–21. 29. Ibid., p. 119. 30. Ibid., p. 120. 31. See W. Schmithals, ‘The Corpus Paulinum and Gnosis’, pp. 117–21; cf. J. B. Lightfoot, ‘The Colossian Heresy’, pp. 13–14, where Lightfoot argues that it is not two heresies but one.

24


belong to the first edition and those that belong to the second, deuteroPauline, edition. The problem with Schmithals’ view is that there is no external evidence for two such texts. As with other theories of interpolation discussed in chapter one, it is ultimately an argument from silence. As Yates correctly asserts, ‘Schmithals is attempting to press the evidence into a mould of his own invention, one into which it will not fit’.32 c. An Evaluation of Lightfoot’s Interpretation The contribution of Lightfoot to an understanding of the Colossian philosophy is extremely significant. He located the error within the Essene sect of Judaism, and his findings have been strengthened since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. As will be seen later in this book, there is a relationship between the practices of the Essenes and some form of Jewish mysticism. It is still widely held that the philosophy was a mixture of Jewish and (proto-) Gnostic practice. Despite Lightfoot’s contribution, questions remain. What was the relationship between the Essenes and Jews of the Lycus Valley? Colossae is a long way from Qumran, and even if it is argued that one is not directly dependent on the other, there is still doubt as to whether Essene influences were felt as far north as the Lycus valley. If the Colossian errorists engaged in the worship of angels (understood as an objective genitive), why did Paul not condemn this practice as idolatry? Is it possible to date a syncretistic Gnosticism that worshipped intermediaries in the first century? The strength of Lightfoot’s interpretation is also its weakness. It gives a description of the philosophy in general terms; however, it does not allow us to identify who the errorists were. He placed the error within Judaism, within the development of later Gnosticism and with elements of mysticism. Did such a group exist within the Lycus Valley in the first century? Although it will be argued that such a group did exist, unlike Lightfoot’s conclusion, they were not those who worshipped heavenly intermediaries, but rather Jewish mystics who sought heavenly ascents. Therefore, although we do not agree with all of Lightfoot’s conclusions, we are indebted to him as his research has been an extremely useful starting point for further study.

3. Hellenism A second group of scholars has seen a Hellenistic background to the Colossian philosophy. Two earlier proponents of this view are M. Dibelius and G. Bornkamm; two recent proponents are R. DeMaris and T. Martin. a. M. Dibelius – A Hellenistic Mystery Cult Dibelius emphasized the Gnostic background of the philosophy over the Jewish. His argument largely hinges on the term e0mbateu/w (2.18) which he 32.

R. Yates, ‘Colossians and Gnosis’, JSNT 27 (1986), 49–68 (57).


25

claimed was a technical term referring to the process of initiation to the sanctuary within the practices of at least one mystery cult.33 He argued that the expression a4 e9o/raken e0mbateu/wn belonged to the language of the initiated and therefore would not be readily understood by all in the Colossian church. He arrived at this conclusion by studying inscriptions discovered in the sanctuary of Apollo at Claros. Dibelius argued that the Colossian errorists syncretized Christianity with the practice of initiation into a cosmic mystery devoted to the elements (stoixei=a tou= ko/smou 2.8,20). He equated these elements with the principalities and powers (1.16; 2.10,15), thereby identifying them as enslaved deities.34 He saw the philosophy in terms of an Isiac mystery initiation, especially as seen in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses 11.23, where the initiate is ‘ravished through the elements’ in a ceremony that brings immortality. Whereas Lucius (=Apuleius), the protagonist of the story, relied on Isis to make his way past the elements, Dibelius believed the initiate into the Colossian mystery pacified the cosmic powers by worshipping them.35 The Colossian philosophy was therefore a Gnostic mystery. Having defined the meaning of e0mbateu/w and identified the stoixei=a tou= ko/smou, the rest of the puzzle falls into place. The term musth/rion refers to the existence of a mystery cult (1.26, 27; 2.2; 4.3); para/dosij (2.8) refers to the initiation procedure; a0feidi/a (2.23) indicates the prerequisite for the initiate; and e0qeloqrhski/a (2.23) denotes the nature of the mystery cult.36 The major weakness in Dibelius’ thesis is that he underplays the presence of Jewish elements within the letter. He argues that what were originally Jewish practices such as Sabbath (2.16) had taken a new meaning in the philosophy and focused on the elements and not the law. He states: These Christians were instigators of the hybrid structures that joined the Christ-cult and the stoixei=a-worship. From the whole tenor of the second chapter … it is possible to conclude that this connection was already established. Members of the Christian congregation have joined the mysteries of the ‘elements’. But they remain Christians; neither have they been expelled from the congregation nor have they withdrawn. This combination of the cults, particularly in the mysteries is nothing unheard-of. It represents a kind of double insurance and in our case is perhaps made easier by the want of a monarchical god in the one cultus. It is certainly facilitated by the different sorts of salvation expected in the two cults. Christianity grants security in the future judgment; the cult of the elements, protection from the ei0marme/nh

33. M. Dibelius, ‘The Isis Initiation in Apuleius and Related Initiatory Rites’, in F. O. Francis and W. A. Meeks (eds), Conflict at Colossae, pp. 61–121 (89). 34. See M. Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1909) pp. 136–37, 142, 153–54; M. Dibelius, ‘The Isis Initiation in Apuleius and Related Initiatory Rites’, pp. 82–90. 35. R. E. DeMaris, The Colossian Controversy, p. 21. 36. The Gnostic element in Dibelius’ argument is stressed in later editions of Dibelius’ works: cf. M. Dibelius and H. Greeven, An die Kolosser, Epheser, an Philemon (HNT, 12; Tübingen: J. C. B Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1953), pp. 38–40.

26

Heavenly Perspective (guided by fate), the Fortuna caeca as Apuleius calls it. By opposing this combination, Paul stands both for the superiority and for the exclusiveness of his religion.37

Others, such as Eitrem 38 and Lohse,39 have followed Dibelius in seeing e0mbateu/w as a technical classification for mystery initiation. Dibelius’ reconstruction has not found universal acceptance. The Clarion Apollo was an oracle sanctuary, yet no oracle is mentioned in Colossians.40 Furthermore, Dibelius focused so strongly on e0mbateu/w as the key word that he failed to pay sufficient attention to references to a Jewish background. Although it was common among the mystery cults to synthesize different practices, and although many first century Jews were syncretistic, the Sabbath and circumcision were cherished as distinctives that distinguished Jews from Gentiles. It is unlikely that such practices would have become part of a Hellenistic mystery cult. Dibelius’ interpretation has not stood the test of time. The first edition of his commentary on Colossians appeared shortly after the initial publication of the inscriptions of the sanctuary of Apollo at Claros.41 F. F. Bruce, however, comments that ‘with the passage of the years, it has become increasingly evident that the Erlösungsmysterium was more his invention than his reconstruction’.42 b. G. Bornkamm – Jewish Gnosticism and Paganism Bornkamm, unlike Dibelius, did not underplay the Jewish elements in the Colossian philosophy. He states: ‘The letter leaves no doubt that the heresy was a variety of Jewish Gnosticism’.43 He argued that Jewish Gnosticism was also affected by Iranian-Persian elements and Chaldean astrological influences which were synthesized and linked with the Christian faith.44 Bornkamm believed that the Colossian error was being practised within the church. It was characterized by teaching about principalities and powers (a0rxai\ kai\ e0cousi/ai), who were equated with the stoixei=a tou= ko/smou45 (2.8,

37. M. Dibelius, ‘The Isis Initiation in Apuleius and Related Initiatory Rites’, p. 90. 38. S. Eitrem, ‘ 0EMBATEUW: Note sur Col. 2.18’, ST 2 (1948), 90–94 (93). 39. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, pp. 129–30. 40. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. xxxv. 41. F. O. Francis and W. A. Meeks, ‘Epilogue’, in F. O. Francis and W. A. Meeks (eds), Conflict at Colossae, pp. 209–18 (210). 42. F. F. Bruce, ‘Colossian Problems III: The Colossian Heresy’, BSac 141 (1984), 195–208 (199). 43. G. Bornkamm, ‘The Heresy of Colossians’, in F. O. Francis and W. A. Meeks (eds), Conflict at Colossae, pp. 123–45 (130). 44. Ibid., pp. 132–35. 45. ‘In view of the extensive attestation of the term’s astral, theological, and demonological use in Persian-Chaldean astrology, Oriental-Hellenistic mysteries, and gnostic speculations, it ought not to have been questioned recently that the term was idiomatic and contained a slogan of the heresy.’ G. Bornkamm, Ibid., p. 125.


27

20) and angels (2.18). These powers were identified by Bornkamm as worldruling identities46 and ‘personal, angelic powers’.47 In Gal. 4.2 these powers are clearly personal as they are compared with e0pi/tropoi and oi0kono/moi (guardians and trustees) to whom children are subject. They are also designated as fu/sei mh\ o1ntej qeoi/ (beings, not gods by nature) whom the Galatians served. According to Bornkamm, the Colossian errorists saw that the fullness (plh/rwma) of deity dwelt in these personal, angelic powers. Christ was given an integrated place among them, but their worship 48 was an integral constituent of faith in Christ.49 This stoixei=a theology was similar to Gnostic speculation about aeons. Although Bornkamm concedes uncertainty about many elements of the philosophy, he states: ‘No doubt seems possible to me, however, on one point: The Colossian doctrine of the elements belongs to the ancient mythology and speculation of the Oriental Aeon-theology, which was widespread and active in Hellenistic syncretism’.50 Bornkamm argues that the Colossian philosophy promised redemption and deification in a Gnostic sense51 as evidenced in the Mithras Liturgy and the Isis Mystery in Apuleius and Corpus Hermeticum (13.11). By initiation into a mystery cult which regarded the stoixei=a as divine, the initiate’s rebirth was achieved through their powers.52 Bornkamm also recognized Jewish factors of the Colossian philosophy such as holy days (2.16), dietary restrictions (2.16, 21) and circumcision (2.11). Furthermore, the identification of the stoixei=a cult as devotion to angels (qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn, 2.18) and the role of the elements/angels as the transmitters and guardians of the cult’s regulations marked the ‘heresy’ as Jewish, since angels and speculation about their roles figured prominently in Judaism of the first century.53 In response to the ‘heresy’ as outlined by Bornkamm, Paul argues the incompatibility of faith in Christ and stoixei=a worship. He begins with a radical juxtaposition of the stoixei=a tou= ko/smou and Christ in 2.8 which he undergirds in 2.9 by pointing out o#ti e0n au0tw~| katoikei= pa=n to\ plh/rwma th=j qeo/thtoj swmatikw=j. Bornkamm differed from Dibelius in several areas. His identification of Jewish Gnosticism made him closer to Lightfoot than Dibelius, while his approach to the practice of mystery brought his view closer to that of

46. Ibid., p. 124. 47. Ibid., p. 124. 48. As the worship of these stoixei=a involved keeping certain festival days, there was also a link with astral powers. Ibid., p. 124. 49. Ibid., p. 124. 50. Ibid., p. 126. 51. Ibid., p. 126. 52. Ibid., pp. 127–29. 53. Ibid., p. 130. Bornkamm makes the comment that the coordination of the angels with world-elements and constellations was widely attested in the documents of apocryphal Judaism.

28


Dibelius.54 He saw the stoixei=a not as tyrannical powers that demanded veneration but as part of the divine plh/rwma. Whereas Dibelius saw that redemption and deification came with initiation into the stoixei=a cult, Bornkamm saw obedience to the ritual and ascetic prescriptions of the do/gmata (2.14, 20) imposed by the stoixei=a. ‘Whoever obeys these “regulations” keeps the established festivals and seasons and satisfies certain ascetic prescriptions, has the promise that he will receive a share of the divine power that holds sway in the elements’.55 Bornkamm’s view is not without its problems. Seeing the stoixei=a as part of the divine fullness seems contradictory to divine emanation theology, which regarded the intermediate cosmic powers as hostile to the world of light.56 More significant is the question of whether a syncretistic GnosticJewish-Iranian cosmological-astrological religion actually existed. Was it integrated in the way that Bornkamm suggests? Bornkamm says the Colossians gave Christ an integrated place among the powers, but Colossians says nothing of this.57 Furthermore, as Bandstra asks, ‘ … does not such a view result from a methodology in which inferences are made from the givens of the epistle that are not actually supported by the course of the arguments in the epistle’?58 c. R. E. DeMaris – Middle Platonism R. E. DeMaris finds the roots of the Colossian philosophy in the StoicAntiochian wing of Middle Platonism. The proponents of the philosophy were ‘philosophically-inclined Gentiles drawn to the Jewish community and then to the Christian congregation by ideas and practices congenial with their view of the world’.59 The philosophers’ central issue, according to DeMaris, was the pursuit of divine knowledge or wisdom. For the philosophers, this is gained: through ascetic practices that liberated the mind; through the inspiration of angels (who are associated with Greek heroes (h#rwai) and Platonic demons (dai/monej) thereby associating Jewish angelology with Hellenistic demonology);60 through contemplation of the stoixei=a tou= ko/smou, which are the four elements that constitute the world (earth, air, water, fire) rather than celestial bodies or their rulers,61 and therefore reflect their divine source.62 54. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. xxxv. 55. G. Bornkamm, ‘The Heresy of Colossians’, p. 124. 56. R. E. DeMaris, The Colossian Controversy, p. 23. A. Moyo, however, refers to Eugnostos the Blessed and Sophia of Jesus Christ to substantiate his claim that at least some Gnostics viewed the cosmic powers positively. A. Moyo, ‘The Colossian Heresy in Light of Some Gnostic Documents from Nag Hammadi’, JTSA 48 (1984), 32–44 (34–35). 57. P. T. O’ Brien, Colossians, Philemon p. xxxvi. 58. A. J. Bandstra, ‘Did the Colossian errorists need a mediator?’, New Dimensions in New Testament Study in R. N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney (eds) (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), pp. 329–43 (330). 59. R. E. DeMaris, The Colossian Controversy, p. 16. 60. Ibid., p. 61. 61. Ibid., p. 55. 62. Ibid., pp. 16–17.


29

Through significant literary and epigraphical research, DeMaris finds similarities between the Colossian philosophy and Middle Platonism. He sees qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn as an objective genitive, pointing to a common feature of Graeco-Roman religion: the devotion to demons or heroes.63 Although the dietary and calendrical observances of 2.16 are clearly Jewish, the severe asceticism (2.16, 21, 23) goes beyond Jewish practice and points to a Middle-Platonic, Hellenistic background.64 Furthermore, a4 e9o/raken e0mbateu/wn does not refer to visions or initiation rites but can be translated ‘which has been seen upon close scrutiny’ or ‘investigating what he has seen’. DeMaris argues for this understanding of e0mbateu/w from its usage in 2 Macc. 2.30.65 DeMaris’ thesis is of great value, particularly its careful attention to literary and epigraphical evidence that bear on the relationship between Hellenistic philosophy and the Colossian philosophy. Its major conclusions, however, are flawed. The impact of Judaism upon the philosophy is devalued. Appropriate attention is not given to the Jewish distinctives of circumcision and Sabbath. Furthermore, the lack of attention given to the existence of rebellious spirits does not sufficiently take into account the Jewish literature at the time of Colossians, in particular 1 Enoch. The same is true of DeMaris’ understanding of angels in 2.18. In addition, DeMaris argues for his understanding of e0mbateu/w on one occurrence of the word in 2 Macc. 2.30, rather than giving proper attention to contextual support. d. T. Martin – Cynic Critique T. Martin argues that the church at Colossae had been infiltrated (e0mbateu/w 2.18) by Cynic philosophical thought. The Cynics saw themselves as inspectors sent by the gods, putting out false standards of currency, dispelling people’s illusions by mocking traditional piety and teaching the way of truth and virtue.66 Martin argues that they critiqued the practices of the Colossian church such as the Eucharist and observance of a ritual calendar, and their religion that was based on human tradition. Therefore, according to Martin, the Colossians were not being pressured to join an opposing religious group; they were being criticized for the beliefs they already possessed. The author of the epistle, according to Martin, is encouraging his readers not to succumb to this criticism. Although Martin’s approach is novel, it is lacking in significant exegetical evidence. His English translations are idiosyncratic, differing significantly 63. ‘While speculation about angels flourished within first-century Judaism, worship directed to angels pushes the interpreter to the edge of and even beyond this tradition. If Philo’s equating of angels with heroes or demons reflects speculation outside Judaism about messenger figures, as Anatolian evidence suggests, the interpreter may find Pagan influences even in the reference to angels.’ Ibid., pp. 58–63. 64. Ibid., pp. 56–58. 65. Ibid., p. 65. 66. A. H. Armstrong, An Introduction to Ancient Philosophy (London: Methuen, 1957), p. 118.

30


from standard renditions. An example of this can be seen in his translation of 2.20-23: If you died with Christ, are you decreeing anything for yourselves from the elements of the cosmos as if you were living in the cosmos? Are you decreeing anything for yourselves such as ‘Do not handle nor taste nor touch any of the things that are destined for destruction by human consumption?’ Are you decreeing anything for yourselves according to human commandments and teachings that are for the fulfilment of the flesh although they have a reputation for wisdom on account of will worship and humblemindedness consisting of severity to the body, not (a humblemindedness) consisting of honor to anyone?67

The translation of ti/ … dogmati/zesqe as ‘Are you decreeing anything for yourselves …?’ requires the changing of ti/ (why) to the unaccented ti (anything). There is the repetition of ‘Are you decreeing anything for yourselves’ (three times) although dogmati/zesqe appears only once in the Greek text. Similarly in 2.16-17, Martin argues that the Eucharist is in view due to what he sees as an eschatological focus within the sacrament, from the author’s use of a# e0stin skia\ tw~n mello/ntwn (which is a shadow of the things to come). Martin’s conclusions, however, rest on two unsubstantiated assumptions: the reference to food and drink in 2.16 refers to the Eucharist and not to dietary restrictions; and the notion that these are a shadow of the things to come points to their fulfilment in Christ. Therefore Martin’s conclusion that there is a Cynic critique of the Eucharist as ‘The Cynic lives from day to day without expecting anything from the future’ 68 rests on exegetically questionable presuppositions. Similarly, his argument that qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn is a genitive of source and ‘indicates the nature of the Cynic critique of … Christian worship practices (which) are inferior because they arise from human messengers’69 is flawed. In the midst of a passage that mentions terms such as stoixei=a, a0rxai/ and e0cousi/aj, it is unlikely that the first-century reader of Colossians would have understood tw~n a0gge/lwn as human messengers! There is little in Colossians that identifies Cynic opponents.70 There is a lack of specifically Cynic vocabulary.71 It appears that the Cynic who is presented by Martin is stylized to fit the specific situation addressed in Colossians.

67. T. W. Martin, By Philosophy and Empty Deceit, pp. 54–55 (emphasis his). 68. Ibid., p. 123. 69. Ibid., p. 164 (addition mine). 70. Despite the mention of Scythians in 3.11 that Martin argues enhances his argument for Cynic opponents. In 3.11 the Scythians are cited together with Barbarians as despised groups who have been reconciled by means of the work of Christ. This will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 10 of this book. There is no reference to Cynic opponents. T. W. Martin, ‘The Skythian perspective in Col. 3.11’, NovT 37 (1995), 249–61. 71. The words that are normally associated with a Cynic’s public speech include a0pa/qeia, a0skh=sij, au0ta/rkeia, e0leuqeri/a, h9donh/, ku/wn, parrhsi/a and po/noj. See F. G. Downing, Cynics, Paul and the Pauline Churches: Cynic and Christian Origins II (London: Routledge, 1988), p. 35.


31

4. Paganism a. C. Arnold – Judaism and Phrygian Folk-Religion A recent proponent of a syncretism of Jewish and Pagan practices has been C. Arnold. Arnold acknowledges the work of A. T. Kraabel who argued that the Colossian teaching has much in common with Anatolian Judaism and the local religious traditions and practices of the region.72 Arnold also recognizes the work of J. Lähnemann73 who, independently of Kraabel, argued for a syncretism of Phrygian religion, Iranian religion and Hellenized Judaism. Arnold describes the Colossian philosophy as a syncretism of Pagan and Jewish elements, with an emphasis on local Phrygian religious traditions.74 This syncretism incorporated Jewish rituals that were used for mystery initiations, that would then protect the initiate from evil spiritual powers. His thesis revolves around the understanding of three key terms: qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn, which Arnold argues is an objective genitive that refers to the invocation of angels for protection against evil spirits and therefore does not compromise monotheism;75 e0mbateu/w which points to a mystery cult,76 as outlined by Dibelius;77 stoixei=a tou= ko/smou which refers to personalized evil spirit powers that were associated with the stars and fate.78 Arnold argues that the invocation of angels resulted from Pagan magic, except the names of Jewish angels were normally substituted for Pagan deities. Despite this veneration of angels, there was still a belief in monotheism, although God became more remote, above all the angels.79 With the proclamation of the Pauline gospel in Colossae and the creation of a Christian community out of converted Jews and pagans, a controversy arose in the church a few years later over the practices and beliefs of an emerging faction within the church. This ‘philosophy’, in the strongly held opinion of the Apostle Paul, compromised too much with the surrounding environment. Paul saw this syncretistic compromise as dangerous to the health of the church because it diminished the person of Christ and the present role he has as the head of the church.80

72. A. T. Kraabel, ‘Judaism in Asia Minor under the Roman Empire with a Preliminary Study of the Jewish community at Sardis, Lydia’, (unpublished doctoral dissertation; Harvard University, 1968), pp. 139–54, esp. p.141, as referred to in C. E. Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism, p. 2. 73. J. Lähnemann, Der Kolosserbrief: Komposition, Situation und Argumentation (SNT, 3; Gütersloh: Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1971), pp. 2–3. 74. C. E. Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism, p. 3. 75. Ibid., pp. 90–102. 76. Ibid., pp. 104–57. 77. As discussed earlier in this Chapter. 78. C. E. Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism, pp. 158–94. 79. Ibid., pp. 33–60. 80. Ibid., pp. 243–44.

32


The ‘wisdom’ of this philosophy was associated with magic.81 Arnold’s method of research was to use local primary evidence wherever possible to determine the characteristics of the philosophy, although he admits that many of these papyri date from the third and fourth centuries CE.82 He presupposes that since Colossae was not a major centre, its inhabitants were more affected by local folk religion than by speculative philosophy. This method, however, is hampered by the fact that the site of Colossae remains unexcavated. Despite Arnold’s claim that there is more evidence for a Pagan angel cult in Asia Minor than most biblical scholars realize,83 his extensive work on magic at Ephesus rests on much firmer extant evidence.84 Arnold’s monograph is a very helpful addition to solving the puzzle of the Colossian philosophy, not least because it brings together a wealth of primary documents. His work will be dealt with at several stages in this monograph, and some of his findings adopted. His overall thesis, however, will be rejected. The major weakness in Arnold’s thesis is that it is more reliant on background material than on careful exegesis of the text of Colossians. He does not explain why the text of Colossians does not directly address the issues of magic, amulets, spells and charms. His association of wisdom with magic is not borne out by the text, which associates wisdom with behaviour (1.914; 3.16; 4.5). Even if such a syncretistic movement existed in Phrygia in the first century CE, it does not follow that such a movement was affecting the church. When Arnold does focus on the text of Colossians, he is too selective, defining the nature of the philosophy primarily by 2.4-8 and 2.16-23. Important sections such as 2.9-15; 1.15-20 and 3.1-4 are seen as responses to the philosophy.85 As has already been discussed in the previous Chapter, allusions to opponents, even in response, provide further information about them. More exegetical energy therefore needs to be spent on 2.9-15; 1.15-20 and 3.1-4 in not just determining Paul’s response to the error, but in determining the very nature of the error. Arnold’s conclusion on the key phrase qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn will be dealt with in Chapter 5 of this monograph, where it will be shown that an understanding of this phrase as a subjective genitive is more tenable than seeing it as an objective genitive referring to the invocation of angels. Arnold claims that ‘Paul polemicizes strongly against the teaching of the opposing group. He goes so far as to label their teaching “empty deception” and as inspired by the evil spirits of the present age’.86 This claim is not

81. Ibid., pp. 201–04. 82. Ibid., p. 17. 83. Ibid., p. 3. 84. C. E. Arnold, Ephesians: Power and Magic The Concept of Power in Ephesians in the Light of its Historical Setting (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992). 85. C. E. Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism, pp. 245–309. 86. Ibid., p. 311.


33

evidenced by the general tenor of the text. As has already been pointed out by scholars such as Hooker, the text is certainly not a strong polemic.87

5. Judaism a. S. Lyonnet – A Call for Reappraisal From the above survey, it can be concluded that the most profitable area for further research concerning the Colossian philosophy is within Judaism. If anything approaching a consensus exists as a solution to the Colossian philosophy, it is that a form of Judaism existed within it. Furthermore, the publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls has made many scholars aware of the diversity that existed in first-century Judaism. This diversity has raised doubts about whether there needs to be a second background to the philosophy. R. E. DeMaris has helpfully pointed out that there are three pillars upon which theories of multiple backgrounds are built: that the elements of the world (2.8, 20) are equated with principalities and powers (2.10, 15) and were regarded as powerful cosmic deities; that the worship of angels is an objective genitive meaning devotion to the angels; that e0mbateu/w is understood as a term for mystery initiation.88 S. Lyonnet has challenged each of these pillars, particularly in relation to a Jewish/Gnostic syncretism, and helped scholars to see that the Colossian philosophy may be derived from a form of Judaism. He pointed out that the terms a0rxai/ and e0cousi/ai had a Jewish provenance89 as did stoixei=a from its usage in Gal. 4.3, 9.90 He further rejected a Pagan Gnostic background for the vocabulary of Colossians. Words such as plh/rwma and sw~ma are vocabulary derived from common usage. They could just as easily have come from the language of the Stoics91 as from the Gnostics. Lyonnet argued that the ‘worship of angels’ denotes the honour given to the angels through whom the Mosaic law was given and who were supposed to preside over its observance.92 The Mosaic law had gained such a prominent place among the Colossian errorists that the phrase qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn ‘referred not to a cult devoted to angels but to the religious and moral practices delivered and guarded by angels’.93 Lyonnet pointed out the danger of building an understanding of the Colossian philosophy on the word e0mbateu/w: ‘ … it would be nothing less than imprudent to erect an entire theory on a unique term (author’s translation)’.94 87. M. D. Hooker, ‘Were there false teachers in Colossae?’, Ibid. 316. 88. R. E. DeMaris, The Colossian Controversy, p. 29. 89. Lyonnet refers to G. Delling, ‘a0rxh/’, in TDNT I, pp. 479–84 (483–84) and W. Foerster, ‘e0cousi/a’, in TDNT II, pp. 562–74 (571–73). S. Lyonnet, ‘Paul’s Adversaries in Colossae’, in F. O. Francis and W. A. Meeks (eds), Conflict at Colossae, pp. 147–61 (148). 90. S. Lyonnet, ‘Paul’s Adversaries in Colossae’, p. 148. 91. Ibid. 92. Ibid., pp. 149–50. 93. R. E. DeMaris, The Colossian Controversy, p. 28. 94. S. Lyonnet, ‘L’Etude du milieu littéraire et l’exegèse du Nouveau Testament’, Bib 37 (1956), 1–38 (32).

34


He did not find a correspondence between the usage of e0mbateu/w in Colossians and in the inscriptions at Claros. Indeed, he argued that the closest analogy occurs in 2 Macc. 2.30, and that it is from this context that it was introduced into the conflict.95 Lyonnet saw much in common between the Colossian philosophy and Qumran material, particularly in an emphasis on calendar, ascetic perspectives, a desire for wisdom and angelology. He did not, however, posit an historical connection between Colossians and the Dead Sea Scrolls.96 Although all Lyonnet’s conclusions have not been accepted by subsequent scholars, he did call for a reappraisal of the presupposition that a second (nonJewish) background is inherent in the Colossian philosophy. He therefore questioned the exegetical conclusions of the Jewish-Gnostic thesis and encouraged others to seek an identification of the philosophy within Judaism. This was taken up by F. O. Francis, whose understanding of the philosophy as a form of Jewish mysticism has gained many followers. b. F. O. Francis – Jewish-Christian Mystical Asceticism At the centre of Francis’ thesis is that qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn in 2.18 is a subjective genitive denoting the errorists’ access to the worship of God which is undertaken by the angelic host. He translates qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn as ‘religion of angels’.97 Therefore the philosophy’s practice was concerned with a mystical vision or journey that gave a foretaste of heaven. This vision was attained through ascetic practices which are summarized in the word tapeinofrosu/nh,98 a term that although widespread in the Hellenistic world for humility, only receives this application of ascetic practices in Jewish/Christian sources.99 This use of asceticism to prepare a person for a heavenly vision can be seen in Jewish apocalyptic literature. Francis points out that there is evidence that, having fasted, Ezra, Isaac, Abraham and Moses all entered heaven. Indeed, within the Pauline corpus, there is such an account of Paul’s own entry to heaven in 2 Corinthians 12.100 Francis sees Paul’s response to this group in terms of Christology. Although the pre-eminence of Christ is held in common by writer, readers and errorists, the errorists did not fully appreciate what Christ had achieved. As Christ had put off the body, there was no longer a need to handle the body with severity. As Christ had taken his place above all rule and authority, there was no longer a need to struggle to enter the heavenly realm. As long as the errorists

95. See S. Lyonnet, ‘L’Epître aux Colossiens (Col. 2.18), et les mystères d’Apollon Clarien’, Bib 43 (1962), 417–35, as cited in R. E. DeMaris, The Colossian Controversy, pp. 27–28. 96. S. Lyonnet, ‘Paul’s Adversaries in Colossae’, pp. 150–51. 97. F. O. Francis, ‘A Re-examination of the Colossian Controversy’, p. 76. 98. F. O. Francis, ‘Humility and Angel Worship in Col. 2.18’, in F. O. Francis and W. A. Meeks (eds), Conflict at Colossae, pp. 163–95 (168). 99. F. O. Francis, ‘A Re-examination of the Colossian Controversy’, p. 38, n. 90. 100. F. O. Francis, ‘Humility and Angel Worship in Col. 2.18’, p. 175.


35

continued in their ascetic practices they were only engaging in a shadow (skia/ 2.17) of the heavenly reality.101 ‘Overagainst (sic) this ignorance of the redemption wrought in Christ, and the consequent struggle to enter into the inheritance of the saints, the writer prayed that his readers might know the riches that were theirs and might wait with patience and joy until our life which is hid with Christ appears with him’.102 Others who have followed Francis’ lead have included C. Rowland103 who sees Jewish apocalyptic literature as the background for 2.18, and J. H. Roberts who identifies the errorists as a Jewish group of ascetic-mystics which reacted to the missionary approach of the Colossian congregation.104 In particular, T. J. Sappington refines Francis’ material by seeing the error as the ascetic-mystical piety of Jewish apocalypticism.105 Although this book will agree with Sappington in several areas, it will differ over the important identification of ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou. Furthermore, we shall view all four chapters of Colossians as an integrated piece of writing, not just the sections that directly relate to the error. c. A. Bandstra – Access to Heaven without Mediation Francis’ reappraisal of the Colossian philosophy as an ascetic/mystical strand of Judaism was followed by A. J. Bandstra, who noted in pseudepigraphal writings a polemic stressing God’s unmediated activity in Jewish apocalypses of the New Testament period. He saw the Colossian philosophy in the same light, arguing that the adherents saw no need for Christ’s mediation, as they could achieve their salvific vision independently.106 Bandstra saw in Col. 2.2-4 a claim by the philosophy to have direct access to the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. The expression ‘treasures of wisdom’, Bandstra associated with 2 Bar. 44.14; 54.13, where it is connected with the throne of God. Bandstra pointed out that at Qumran, in addition to fellowship with angels at the end-time, the members of the community believed themselves to be joined with the angels in common praise of God as part of their present experience.107 The elect therefore had direct fellowship with the angels and the heavenly world without the need of a mediator. Bandstra carried the argument further and postulated that the opponents at Colossae might have affirmed that a divine intermediary was not needed to achieve their mystical experiences, and that God, personally, by unmediated action, effected creation and gave immediate understanding of the cosmic and redemptive mysteries. Angels

101. Ibid., pp. 183–84. 102. Ibid., p. 184. 103. C. Rowland, ‘Apocalyptic Visions and the Exaltation of Christ in the Letter to the Colossians’, JSNT 19 (1983), 73–83 (75–77). 104. J. H. Roberts, ‘Jewish Mystical Experience in the Early Christian Era as Background to Understanding Colossians’, Neotestamentica 32.1 (1998), 161–89. 105. T. J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, p. 21, esp. n. 5. 106. A. J. Bandstra, ‘Did the Colossian errorists need a mediator?’, pp. 329–43. 107. Ibid., p. 333.

36


would be important in such a system as God’s messengers to give instructions concerning the requirements for and participation in the visionary experiences.108 This would then account for why Paul emphasized Christ as the Lord and mediator of creation and redemption. He is the one through whom the invisible powers were created and who is head over them. Although Bandstra’s thesis about the lack of need for a mediator has not found wide acceptance, his work on the worship of angels being a subjective genitive has been accepted by many and further developed. C. Evans followed Francis and Bandstra by locating the philosophy ‘against the backdrop of Jewish mysticism, the sort of mysticism found at Qumran, in apocalyptic and pseudepigraphal writings, and in later Rabbinic tradition’.109 He supported Bandstra’s argument that the errorists claimed to have direct access to the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2.3). Evans therefore argued that chapter 2 of Colossians is a polemic against those who claimed this wisdom through asceticism.110 d. F. F. Bruce – Merkabah Mysticism Of particular interest is the work of F. F. Bruce, who suggested the Jewish ascetic practices of the opponents at Colossae were influenced by Merkabah mysticism. Merkabah mysticism was so designated because it was concerned with the vision of the heavenly chariot (hbkrm) with God visibly enthroned above it. This is the vision granted to Ezekiel in his prophetic ministry (Ezek. 1.4-28). The chariot was apparently a kind of royal throne on wheels. In order to gain this vision, punctilious observance of the minutiae of the Mosaic law and of a period of asceticism was required, especially the laws of purification. When the heavenly ascent was attempted, the mediatorial role of angels was needed. An early description of heavenly ascent in this mystical tradition is found in 1 En. 14.8-23, where Enoch describes his upward flight to the dwelling place of God, which is described as the great glory seated on the chariot throne, attended by cherubim.111 One of the goals of the Qumran community was participation in the heavenly angelic liturgy in order to see the throne-chariot of God enter the heavenly temple.112 C. Newsom has pointed to a pre-Christian liturgical text from Qumran Cave 4, known as the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice or Angelic Liturgy. It is comprised of thirteen separate sections, one for each of the thirteen Sabbaths. The songs invoke angelic praise, describe the angelic priesthood, give a description of the heavenly temple and an account of the worship performed on the Sabbath in the heavenly sanctuary.113 The twelfth 108. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, pp. xxxvii–xxxviii. 109. C. Evans, ‘The Colossian Mystics’, Bib 63 (1982), 188–205 (204). 110. Ibid., 199–202. 111. F. F. Bruce, ‘The Colossian Heresy’, 202. 112. See J. M. Scott, ‘Throne-Chariot Mysticism in Qumran and in Paul’, in C. A. Evans and P. W. Flint (eds), Eschatology, Messianism and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), pp. 101–19 (103). 113. Ibid., p. 104.


37

Sabbath song begins with a lengthy description of the appearance and movement of the divine throne-chariot, borrowing heavily from terms in Ezekiel 1 and 10 (4Q405).114 The appearance of the Merkabah results in praise and blessing from the assembled angels (4Q405 20-22 ii 8-9). It appears that through these thirteen Sabbaths, the community that recites the songs is led through the heavenly temple until the worshippers experience the holiness of the Merkabah and the Sabbath sacrifice as it is conducted by the high priests of the angels.115 Although we have no evidence that Merkabah mysticism was practised and encouraged among Christians in the Lycus valley, we have antecedents of Merkabah practices in Enochic texts which predate Paul and were widely known in the first-century Jewish world. These texts will be discussed in more detail in the next Chapter.

6. Conclusion The diversity of opinion expressed in the views outlined in this chapter shows the lack of consensus on the nature of the Colossian error and the need for further investigation. Such an investigation will seek to avoid weaknesses of previous approaches. Many scholars have been constrained by the late date of their material, such as Gnostic texts and magical papyri. Although they argue for an oral prehistory to written material, this is ultimately an argument from silence and supposition. Although Merkabah mysticism may post-date Paul, there is written evidence of its prehistory which predates Paul. Working from written sources which both predate and are contemporary with Paul gives a more definitive guide than does the conjecture of oral prehistory. Many of the suggested backgrounds to the Jewish philosophy are unrelated geographically to what we know of first-century Phrygia. Were there Essenes in the Lycus valley? To what extent were the largely uneducated people of Colossae affected by Middle-Platonism? Were Iranian astrological religious activities practised in first-century Phrygia? We shall note, however, the geographically widespread influence of Jewish mysticism throughout the Mediterranean region. It is significant for our study that from the pages of the New Testament itself we know of heavenly visions. Paul mentions his vision of the third heaven in 2 Cor. 12.1-10, and Revelation, which is written in the context of Asia Minor and mentions cities that are as close to Colossae as Laodicea, refers to witnessing the worship rendered by angels. Few scholars have attempted to show how the paraenetic sections of Colossians are related to the correction of the philosophy. Most attempts at defining the nature of the philosophy merely deal with chapters one and two 114. C. A. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), pp. 303–21. 115. J. M. Scott, ‘Throne-Chariot Mysticism in Qumran and in Paul’, p. 104.

38


of the letter, focusing primarily on 2.8-23. This monograph will seek to show how the paraenesis of the letter relates directly to the problem addressed. A weakness of the ‘Jewish mysticism’ approach has been in its treatment of stoixei=a tou= ko/smou, a term that is used twice in 2.8, 20. As those following this approach do not see the angels of 2.18 as the object of worship, many of them depersonalize the stoixei=a tou= ko/smou,116 seeing them as principles or laws. This is an unusual conclusion if the mention of ta\j a0rxa\j kai\ ta\j e0cousi/aj (Col. 2.15) refers to personalized beings. It will be argued that Paul was addressing a situation where people lived in the fear of personalized evil spirits. This view is consistent with an understanding of the worship of angels as a subjective genitive. In particular it will be noted that in the literature of 1 Enoch, there is both the witness of angelic worship as well as the existence of evil powers. Furthermore, it has been argued that the Christology of the letter is a response to the false worship that is given to angels and the fear of the power of evil. It will be shown, however, that a subjective genitive understanding of qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn is also consistent with the Christology of the letter, as the need to gain access to heaven through asceticism denied the doctrine of the sufficiency of Christ. Much of the terminology of the letter is commonly seen as pointing to a non-Jewish (usually Gnostic) background. It will be shown that it is not necessary to look beyond Judaism to find the identity of the errorists. Even the hymn of 1.15-20 and the realized eschatology of 3.1-4 function as responses to an error that is grounded in Judaism. It will be seen that an understanding of the philosophy as a form of Jewish mysticism is the most tenable solution to the puzzle. The most obvious weakness of recent study on the Colossian philosophy is that it does not give sufficient attention to the text of the letter. There appears to be an underlying presupposition that the letter is completely exhausted and any further advances will come from background studies. Therefore, as has been seen in the survey of approaches in this Chapter, numerous ancient movements have been moulded into the appropriate shape to fill the hole called the Colossian error. Of course, correct exegesis of Colossians demands a thorough understanding of the situation of the recipients of the letter. Our aim, however, is to discuss the text of Colossians in the light of relevant background rather than the reverse. We therefore turn our attention to such background issues before a detailed exegesis of the epistle.

116. See, for example, G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (London: Duckworth, 1980), pp. 240–42; F. O. Francis, ‘Humility and Angelic Worship in Col. 2.18’, pp. 163–95.

Chapter 3

JEWISH MYSTICISM Although our study will be exegetically driven, certain background issues need to be assessed before proper exegetical conclusions can be formed. It is our thesis that the Colossian error arose from within the milieu of Jewish mysticism 1 and has some affinities with the development of Merkabah mysticism. It will be shown that there is evidence for the development of such a movement in the pre-Christian era, and that its influence was widespread. We shall therefore deal with written documents completed before the end of the second century of the Common Era.

1. The Development of Merkabah Mysticism Merkabah mysticism was a Jewish/Hellenistic movement centred around the recounting of human ascents to heaven where angelic activity was witnessed. In its fully developed forms it is later than the writing of Colossians; however, accounts of heavenly ascents which bear close affinities to this later movement go back to before the Christian era. As M. Himmelfarb comments, ‘The belief that the boundary between humanity and the divine is permeable was widespread in the Mediterranean world in the centuries around the turn of the era’.2 Merkabah mysticism is based on the belief that the Temple ritual made visible the world of the heavenly temple and that the holy of holies represented the throne of God in heaven. Therefore in Solomon’s time the Temple housed the cherub throne; in the desert tabernacle there had been the mercy seat.3 Within the Hebrew Bible there are prophets who look into the heavenly court,

1. We shall define mysticism as ‘vertical apocalyticism which supplements lineal eschatology’. J. E. Fossum, The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Christianity (NTOA, 30; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1995), p. 1. 2. M. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 4. 3. M. Barker, The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem (London: SPCK, 1991), p. 133.

40


as seen in Dan. 7.9-14 where the prophet describes God seated on his fiery throne. In 1 Kgs 22.19-28 Micaiah sees God enthroned in glory and surrounded by the heavenly court and learns the truth behind the circumstances of the day. Isaiah is given a vision of God enthroned in his glory within the heavenly court in Isa. 6.1-13.4 The fully developed Merkabah tradition focused on ascents to the heavenly court where angels revealed secrets. Ezekiel 1 is the key text with its vision of a hbkrm (chariot).5 Although Ezekiel does not describe the heavenly throne as a chariot, 1 Chron. 28.18 and Sir. 49.8 show that this is how it was remembered. The context of Ezekiel’s vision is important. The Jews were far from Jerusalem, and their question was: ‘If the Lord dwells in the temple, and the temple is destroyed, and we are far from the temple, are we far away from the presence of the Lord?’6 Ezekiel’s answer was in the vision of the chariot throne of the Lord which had travelled east from Jerusalem and appeared to him on the banks of the river Kebar (Ezek. 1.1). Therefore, Ezekiel’s vision of the chariot throne marks the beginning of a trend to dissociate God’s heavenly abode from the temple in Jerusalem.7 Ezekiel’s prophetic call-vision by the Kebar river (Ezek. 1.4-28; cf. 10.1-22; 43.1-4) shows four beasts, each with four faces (man, lion, ox and eagle), four wings and four wheels (1.5-21). Above their heads is a platform like crystal, upon which is seated an anthropomorphous manifestation of God on a lapis lazuli throne, who is described as the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord (hwhy dwbk) (1.26-28). 8 Throughout Ezekiel, l)r#y yhl) dwbk or hwhy dwbk is seen as sitting upon the throne above the cherubim (1.28; 9.3; 10.4, 18, 19; 11.22, 23) or otherwise personified (3.12, 23; 8.4; 43.2-5; 44.4).9 hwhy dwbk / l)r#y yhl) dwbk in Ezekiel is therefore a technical term for the glory of God appearing in human form or likeness, sitting upon the throne in

4. C. Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study in Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK, 1982), pp. 78–79. 5. See the recently published Qumran fragment called Second Ezekiel (4Q385-89) which forms the oldest witness at our disposal to explicit exegesis of the vision in Ezekiel 1 (i.e. late Hasmonaean or early Herodian). It already uses the term hbkrm ‘the vision which Ezeki[el] saw […] the gleam of the chariot and four living creatures’. See also D. Dimant and J. Strugnell, ‘The Merkabah Vision in Second Ezekiel (4Q385 4)’, RevQ 14 (1990), 331–48. 6. M. Barker, The Gate of Heaven, p. 152. 7. M. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, p. 11. 8. J. M. Scott, ‘The Triumph of God in 2 Cor. 2.14: Additional Evidence of Merkabah Mysticism in Paul’, NTS 42 (1996), 260–81 (266). See also C. C. Newman, Paul’s GloryChristology: Tradition and Rhetoric (NovTSup, 69; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992), pp. 157–247, for a discussion of the importance of hwhy dwbk in the theology of Paul. 9. See W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel (BKAT, 8.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1969), p. 58; A. Feuillet, ‘Le Fils de l’homme de Daniel et la Tradition biblique’, RB 60 (1953), 170–202 (181–82).

Jewish Mysticism

41

a vision.10 In Ezek. 1.26 the seer sees the reflection11 of the likeness of a human (Md) h)rmk twmd). When Ezekiel saw ‘something that looked like a human form’ (NRSV), he was describing the reverse side of Gen. 1.26 where ‘God created humankind in his image’ (NRSV) (note the same word twmd is used in each passage).12 The study of Merkabah mysticism has been undertaken by several scholars, including A. F. Segal,13 H. Odeberg,14 G. Scholem,15 M. Himmelfarb,16 M. Smith,17 A. Altmann,18 R. Lesses19 and T. Eskola.20 The results of this research have not been broadly discussed and are not well known, despite the publication of Synopse zur Hekhalot Literatur by P. Schäfer.21 In later Judaism, one of the most famous heavenly ascents within the Merkabah tradition is: ‘The Four who entered Pardes’. The story involves

10. S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) pp. 206, 230. 11. See J. Barr, ‘Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament’, VTSup 7 (1960), 31–38 (34), where Barr observes that it is ‘not so much that the deity is invisible as that it is deadly for man to see him in his holiness’. 12. S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, p. 207. Barr warns, however, about pushing this likeness to extremes: ‘I do not think we can draw any direct line from this older anthropomorphism to the later passages about the image of God. Thoughts of God appearing in human shape are by no means naturally reversible into man sharing the shape of God’. J. Barr, ‘Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament’, 38. 13. A. F. Segal, ‘Heavenly Ascent in Hellenistic Judaism, Early Christianity and their environment’, ANRW: Principat (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980) II.XXIII.II, pp. 1333–94; A. F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990); A. F. Segal, ‘Paul and Ecstasy’, in K. H. Richards (ed.), SBLSP (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986); A. F. Segal, Rebecca’s Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986); A. F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977). 14. H. Odeberg, 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928). 15. G. G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (London: Thames and Hudson, 1955); G. G. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1965). 16. M. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. 17. M. Smith, ‘Observations on Hekhalot Rabbati’, in A. Altmann (ed.), Biblical and Other Studies (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), pp. 142–60. Of particular interest is that Smith sees a link between Merkabah mysticism and Colossians 2. 18. A. Altmann, Studies in Religious Philosophy and Mysticism (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969). 19. R. M. Lesses, Ritual Practices to Gain Power: Angel Incantations and Revelation in Early Jewish Mysticism (HTS, 44; Harrisburg: Trinity, 1998). 20. T. Eskola, Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse (WUNT, 2.144; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2001). 21. P. Schäfer (ed.), Synopse zur Hekhalot Literatur (TSAJ, 2; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1981).

42


Rabbi Aqiba and three of his colleagues who ascended to heaven. Aqiba was the only one of the four to return unscathed. Of the others, one died, one went insane and the other committed apostasy.22 The apostasy (of Elisha ben Abuyah) illustrated the dangers of mystical ascent, that one ran the risk of being so unbalanced by the experience that one could no longer distinguish truth from error.23 There are two main components that need to be considered to understand Merkabah mysticism: the anthropomorphous representation of God who is often referred to as ei0kw\n tou= qeou= (the image of God); and heavenly ascent of the adept who either witnessed or was transformed to angelic functions. a. The Anthropomorphous Representation of God As has been noted, the one on the throne was in human form (Ezek. 1.26). He is the likeness of the glory of God (1.28). M. Barker says of Ezekiel 1-10: ‘This is the most remarkable piece of anthropomorphism in the Old Testament’.24 The history of this anthropomorphous designation of God, or alternatively what has been known as a second power in heaven,25 finds its roots in the Hebrew Bible where God is sometimes described in human form. There is the mention of an angel in Exod. 23.21 who had the form of a man and who carried within him ‘the name of God’26 and who became a principal mediator. This is further developed in Dan. 7.1-14 where Daniel saw a fiery throne on wheels upon which was seated the divine figure, the Ancient of Days. Daniel then saw one ‘like a son of man’ coming with the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of Days. This one ‘like a son of man’ received dominion, glory and kingdom from the Ancient of Days. Although this figure has human form, he is clearly divine, as his appearance is accompanied by the clouds, a common accompaniment for a theophany. Feuillet has noted that of approximately one hundred passages which mention clouds in the Hebrew Bible,

22. ‘Four entered the garden (Paradise): Ben Assai, Ben Zoma, the Other (Elisha) and Qaiba. One gazed and perished, one gazed and was smitten, one gazed and cut down sprouts* and one went up whole and came down whole’ (t. Hag. 2.3-4). (* To ‘cut the sprouts’ means either that he apostasized or that he dissuaded young students from studying the Torah.) See B. Z. Bokser (ed.), The Talmud: Selected Writings (New York: Paulist Press, 1989), p.126. See also b. Hag. 14b. 23. F. F. Bruce, ‘The Colossian Heresy’, 202. M. Smith sees that one of the questions that faced the later Hekhalot literature was: ‘What are the spells to be recited by a man who wishes to behold a vision of the Merkabah (the chariot throne of God, seen by Ezekiel) and to survive the experience unharmed?’ M. Smith, ‘Observations on Hekhalot Rabbati’, p. 142. 24. M. Barker, The Gate of Heaven, p. 153. 25. See, for example, A. F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven. 26. A. F. Segal, Paul the Convert, p. 41.

Jewish Mysticism

43

thirty refer to natural phenomena and the rest to theophanies.27 Some have suggested that this human figure is best understood as an angel28 but Feuillet notes that in angelophanies, clouds are absent.29 This tradition of seeing the h)rm or twmd (ei0kw/n, ei0de/a, or morfh/) of the invisible God is reflective of a Platonic world view, therefore Ezek. 1.26 (Md) h)rmk twmd) is translated in the LXX as ei]doj a0nqrw/pou. This term ei]doj has a philosophical history dating from Plato’s Parmenides 130C where it means the unchanging immortal idea of humanity that survives death. A conflation of Platonic and Jewish ideas meant that Hellenistic Jews such as Philo saw the figure of a human on the divine throne as the ideal and immortal human. This immortality and glorious appearance were things the prelapsarian Adam, who was made in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1.26), possessed in the Garden of Eden, and were lost when he sinned. The human figure on the Merkabah described by Ezekiel is called ‘that appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD’ (Ezek. 1.28 (NRSV)). From the above material, there arose a belief by some Jews of a second power in heaven. For example, Philo claimed Gen. 1.26 described the creation of the heavenly man, and Gen. 2.7 the creation of an earthly human (De opificio mundi 134; Legum Allegoria 1.31; Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesim 1.4, 2.56). He called the heavenly man the image of man (o9 kat’ ei0ko/na a1nqrwpoj), the lo/goj, a second God (deu/teroj qeo/j). ‘Why does (Scripture) say, as if (speaking) of another god, ‘in the image of God he made man’ and not ‘in His own image’? … For nothing mortal can be made in the

27. A. Feuillet, ‘Le Fils de l’homme de Daniel et la Tradition biblique’, 187–88. See also J. A. Emerton, ‘The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery’, JTS 9 (1958), 225–42 (232), who states: ‘If Dan. vii.13 does not refer to a divine being, then it is the only exception out of about seventy passages in the O.T.’. 28. M. Black refutes Feuillet: ‘… the vision itself has become the subject of the prophet’s message; and there is no doubt that Daniel intended his Son of Man to symbolize the Saints of the Most High, i.e. the purified and redeemed Israel’. M. Black, ‘The Throne Theophany Prophetic Commission and the “Son of Man”: A Study in Tradition History’, in R. Hamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs (eds), Jews, Greeks and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity (Festschrift W. D. Davies; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), pp. 57–73 (61). C. Rowland states: ‘In Dan. vii.13f. a figure, likened to a human being, comes with the clouds of heaven to God, the Ancient of Days, whose environs have already been described by the seer (v.9f). Whether we understand the author to have intended the human figure as a symbol of the saints or the Most High (vv.18, 22, 26f) or their angelic representative (and there seem to be good reasons for supposing that the latter is the case), there can be little doubt that later interpreters of Dan. vii.13 understood this figure to be a heavenly eschatological redeemer (e.g. 1 Enoch xlvi.3; Mark xiv.62; Rev. i.13). So it is apparent that the scene in Dan. vii.13f could be understood as the bestowal of the office of vice-regent on one heavenly being by another’. C. Rowland, ‘The Vision of the Risen Christ in Rev. 1.13ff: The Debt of an early Christology to an Aspect of Jewish Angelology’, JTS 31 (1980), 1–11 (2). 29. ‘ … dans la Bible la nuée est l’accompagnement très habituel des théophanies et qu’elle est réservée aux théophanies: quand ce sont des anges qui apparaissent, la nuée est absente’. A. Feuillet, ‘Le Fils de l’homme de Daniel et la Tradition biblique’, 187.

44


likeness of the most high One and Father of this universe, but (only) in that of the second God who is his Logos’ (Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesim 2.62). This second figure in heaven is given various designations: Yahoel (Iaoel), a combination of the tetragrammaton and a suffix denoting angelic stature (e.g. Apoc. Abr. 10.8),30 Melchizedek (11QMelch)31 and Metatron, which is probably not a name but comes from the Greek meta/ + qro/noj.32 This figure is distinguished from the heavenly creatures as he is seen as sharing in God’s own nature and name.33 In later Judaism, the idea of a second divinity in heaven is seen in the following literature: The outsider cut down the shoots. In this regard Scripture says: ‘Don’t let your mouth bring your flesh into guilt’ (Qoh. 5.5). What’s the point? – He saw Metatron had gotten permission to sit and write down the merits of Israel. He said: ‘We have learned as a tradition that above there is no sitting and no standing, no competition, no front or back and no weariness.’ So is it possible, God forbid, there are two divinities? So they took out Metatron and flogged him with sixty lashes of fire, saying to him: ‘How come when you saw him, you didn’t rise before him?’ (b. Hag. 15a).

The tradition is a late addition to the Babylonian Talmud34 set within the heavenly court. The fact that Metatron is seated gives the impression that he is enthroned and equivalent to God himself. The fact that Metatron is led out to be punished shows that he is not equal to God. Another text in the Babylonian Talmud related to the problem of ‘two powers in heaven’ is b. Sanh. 38b35 which states: Said R. Nahman ‘If someone knows how to refute the position of the minim (heretics) as well as does R. Idit, let him undertake to refute them, and if not, he should not reply

30. See A. F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, pp. 182–219; H. B. Kuhn, ‘The Angelology of the Non-Canonical Apocalypses’, JBL 67 (1948), 217–32. 31. Also known as 11Q13 where Melchizedek is identified with Myhwl) of Ps. 82.1. 32. Odeberg lists five possibilities for the derivation of Metatron: (1) Metatron derived from r+n (or )r+m); (2) Metatron derived from the Latin metator; (3) Metatron derived from Mithra; (4) Metatron derived from metatu/rannoj; metatorion; me/tron; mater; )tynwr+m yd); (5) Metatron derived from meta/ and qro/noj. H. Odeberg, 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch, pp. 125–42. 33. Metatron sits on a throne equal to God’s in 3 Enoch 10.1-6. 3 Enoch, however, post-dates Colossians (5th–6th century CE). For a summary of the dating of 3 Enoch see Philip S. Alexander, ‘3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch: A New Translation and Introduction’, OTP, I, pp. 223–315 (225–29). 34. A. F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p 60. 35. This passage is ascribed to R. Nahman, a Babylonian who lived in the late third century CE, who praises the skills of R. Idit who lived in Palestine in an earlier time. See G. G. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition, p. 47.

Jewish Mysticism

45

to them.’ Said a min to R. Idit, ‘It is written, “And to Moses he said, Come up to the Lord” (Ex. 24.1). Ought it not have said, “Come up to me”?’ He said to him, ‘This refers to Metatron, who is called by the name of his master, for it is written, “For my name is in him” (Ex. 23.21).’ ‘If so, let us worship him.’ ‘It is written, “Be not rebellious against him” (Ex. 23.21). “Do not exchange me for him.”’ ‘If so, what need do I have for the statement “He will not pardon your transgressions” (since Metatron has no right to do so anyhow)?’ He said to him ‘By the faith that we hold! We should not accept him even as a messenger, for it is written, “And he said to him, if you personally do not go out with us” (Ex. 33.15)’.

Without naming the heresy, the passage is reflective of the ‘two powers in heaven’ heresy, where the name of hwhy would imply that two deities are present.36 It must be noted that this tradition emanates from the third century CE and is therefore of limited value in determining the nature of the Colossian philosophy. However, if the form of mysticism practised in Colossae was part of a trajectory that began with ante-Pauline Jewish mysticism and ended with post-Pauline Merkabah mysticism, then the study of later documents is relevant, even if of limited value. In later Judaism there was a desire to protect the concept of monotheism and to oppose anthropomorphism by restricting the reading of Ezekiel 1. Therefore the Mishnah states: ‘They may not use the chapter of the chariot as a reading from the prophets’ (m. Meg. 4.10), and ‘… nor (the chapter of) the Chariot (may not be expounded) before one alone, unless he is a Sage that understands of his own knowledge’ (m. Hag. 2.1). Barker can state: ‘From the time of Isaiah right through until the Book of Revelation, there was a continuous tradition of throne visions; a divine figure in human form sat on the throne and brought judgment’.37 The difference between God and the divine figure who sat on the throne can be described in terms of the object and its image. G. Scholem asserts that ‘the texts of Merkabah mysticism that have so far come to our knowledge also display what I have called an orthodox Jewish tendency, and are in no way heretical. By this I mean that although they do expound some ideas of a highly mystical character, these texts adhere strictly to monotheistic concepts’.38 How is it possible to maintain monotheism when there is a second power in heaven? R. Bauckham has given two helpful categories to understand intermediary figures in heaven:39 (1) those figures which are included in the unique identity of God – these are personifications or hypostatizations of

36. A. F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 68. 37. M. Barker, The Gate of Heaven, p. 154. 38. G. G. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition, p. 10. 39. R. Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); R. Bauckham, ‘The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus’, in C. C. Newman, J. R. Davila, G. S. Lewis (eds), The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (JSJSup, 63; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999), pp. 43–69 (49).

46


aspects of God himself, such as his Spirit, his Word or his Wisdom; (2) figures who act as servants of God, exercising a degree of delegated authority but are not included in God’s identity.40 Divinizing the latter is seen as heresy in both the Rabbinic works and Hekhalot texts.41 Bauckham therefore dissents from the view that Jewish writers of the Second Temple period envisioned a second God in heaven.42 There is, however, worship of the former, of a hypostasis of God. When there is the worship of a figure who is distinguished from God but who is seated on God’s throne, it means that this figure is included in the unique divine identity.43 Therefore, in the New Testament when there is worship of the Lamb upon the throne (Rev. 5.1-11), it is a clear Christological statement of Jesus’ deity within a monotheistic framework. If the Colossian error has affinities with Merkabah mysticism and its antecedents, the worship of angels (Col. 2.18 (qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn – subjective genitive)) was presumably directed towards Jesus (as a second power in heaven) who is not an angelic intermediary but included in the unique divine identity and whose worship does not undermine a fundamental belief in monotheism. The figure on the throne, who is described as the image of God, has been seen as fertile soil for the early Christian understanding of the person of Christ. Some early Christian apologists read the idea of Christ back into the Hebrew Bible. For example, Justin (c. 100–165 CE) states: ‘… it was Jesus who appeared to Moses and to Abraham, and in fact to all the other prophets, and conversed with them, ministering to the will of His Father’ (Dialogue with Trypho 113.4). Hippolytus wrote at the end of the second century that the angel who appeared to Daniel (Dan. 10.5-6) was the Lord with the appearance and form of a man.44 Irenaeus attested that it had been the Word of God who had walked in the Garden of Eden (Proof 12) and that it was the ‘Son of God in human form’ (Proof 44) who had been one of the three angels who met Abraham (Gen. 18.1-2). There appears to be reference to the tradition of a second power in heaven in Col. 1.15, within a passage that is strongly monotheistic (as will be noted in Chapter 9), where Christ is referred to as the ei0kw\n tou= qeou=. It is particularly relevant for our concern that the two references in Revelation to the one o3moion ui9o\n a0nqrw/pou (Rev. 1.13; 14.14) are the only places in the New

40. See A. Chester, ‘Jewish Expectations and Mediatorial Figures and Pauline Christology’, in M. Hengel and U. Heckel (eds), Paulus und das Antike Judentum (Fetschrift Adolf Schlatter; WUNT, 58; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1991), pp. 17–89. 41. For a helpful discussion on Rabbinic opposition to the idea of two powers in heaven see A. F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, pp. 33–59. 42. R. Bauckham, ‘The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus’, p. 50, contra A. F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, pp. 186–201. 43. R. Bauckham, ‘The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus’, p. 53. 44. ‘Mais ce n’est plus cela (l’Ange Gabriel de la première vision) ici: c’est le Seigneur lui-même qu’il voit … dans l’apparence d’une figure humaine’. Antipope Hippolytus, Commentaire sur Daniel (trans. Maurice Lefévre; Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1946), p. 202.

Jewish Mysticism

47

Testament where the ‘son of man’ is not a title, which makes it more reminiscent of Daniel 7 than of the Synoptic Gospel tradition.45 In Rev. 2.18, the ‘son of man’ already referred to in Rev. 1.9-20 is reintroduced as the ‘Son of God’ (ui9o\j tou= qeou=).46 That the Colossian errorists were involved in such (proto-) Merkabah practices is not beyond the realm of possibility. This would make sense of Paul’s rebuttal using terms familiar to them such as ku/rioj, pa=n to\ plh/rwma th=j qeo/thtoj swmatikw~j, ei0kw\n tou= qeou=. That Paul would see the need to warn Colossian Christians about such a group is consistent. The possibility of the antecedents to Merkabah mysticism being the background to the Colossian philosophy is further strengthened when we study its second main component: heavenly ascent and transformation. b. Heavenly Ascent and Transformation The second main component of Merkabah mysticism is the idea that certain heroes can ascend to heaven where they witness angelic worship directed to God, and in some cases are transformed into angels. Whether these ascents actually happened is an area of continuing debate.47 Writings from the Second Temple period that are ascribed to ancient heroes such as Enoch are clearly pseudepigraphal, but does pseudepigraphy also imply deception? Did the authors believe in the historical reality of these ascents? The intent of the author, however, is not always the same as the perception of the reader. Even Himmelfarb, who sees the ascents as literary conventions that bear no relationship to reality 48 admits that they are ‘profoundly appealing to ancient Jews and Christians alike. In the midst of an often unsatisfactory daily life, they taught their readers to imagine themselves like Enoch …’49 Whatever the intention of the authors may have been, these texts were clearly perceived by some as showing the possibility of heavenly ascent and therefore became fertile soil for those who would claim to have partaken of such practices. This tradition is present in several writings from the Second Temple period which will now be examined. Within the examination of these writings we shall look first at the date of the writing. Priority will be given to those that either predate or are contemporary with Paul. It is important, therefore, that the date of Colossians be specified.

45. S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, p. 211. 46. The description of the Son of God in Rev. 2.18 as ‘… who has eyes like a flame of fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze’ is a clear identification with the vision of ‘one like the Son of Man’ in Rev. 1.12-16. See S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, pp. 214–16. 47. For a summary of the debate about whether there is historical reality behind the Merkabah texts or whether they are literary devices with no relationship to reality, see M. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, pp. 95–114. 48. Ibid., p. 5. 49. Ibid., p. 114.

48


Among those who accept Pauline authorship of Colossians (as was argued in Chapter 1), the letter is normally placed between 52 CE and 61 CE, depending on whether it was written during Paul’s incarceration at Rome (60–61 CE) or Ephesus (either 52–55 CE or 54–57 CE).50 Among those who deny Pauline authorship, the date of the first edition of the letter is normally in the second half of the first century, whether they see the final result as an interpolated text or the work of a deutero-Pauline author.51 We shall therefore classify documents from before the second half of the first century CE as ante-Pauline, those of the second half of the first century CE as contemporary literature, and documents from the second century CE as post-Pauline.

2. Survey of Jewish Mystical Texts In the following survey, we shall limit our investigations to descriptions of heavenly ascents and attendant practices such as angelic worship and asceticism. a. Ante-Pauline Texts i. 1 Enoch (Ethiopic Enoch) (Book of Watchers) It is difficult to date 1 Enoch because of the composite nature of the work. The full text of 1 Enoch is only extant in its Ethiopic translation. J. T. Milik has identified five sections within the work, which are entitled: the Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 1-36), the Book of Parables (also called the Book of Similitudes) (1 Enoch 37-71), the Astronomical Book (1 Enoch 72-82), the Book of Dreams (1 Enoch 83-91). To these Milik has added the fragmentary text of the Book of Giants.52 The Book of Watchers,53 written in Aramaic,

50. For an outline of the arguments on dating the letter see P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, pp. xlix–liv. 51. For details of these views, see Chapter 1 of this monograph. 52. J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), p. 4. Other divisions of 1 Enoch are possible. For example R. Bauckham has divided it into seven sections: (1) the Book of Watchers (chs 1–36); (2) the Parables (or Similitudes) of Enoch (chs 37–71); (3) the Astronomical Books (chs 72–82); (4) the Book of Dreams (chs 83–90); (5) the Epistle of Enoch (chs 91–105); (6) the Noah Appendix (chs 106–107); (7) another Writing of Enoch (ch. 108). R. Bauckham, ‘Apocalypses’, in D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien and M. A. Seifrid (eds), Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (2 vols; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), I, pp. 137–87. 53. The Book of the Watchers has its own prehistory. It appears that chapters 12–16 were a later addition to and commentary on the earlier traditions of chapters 6–11. For a discussion of this see D. Suter, ‘Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch 6-16’, HUCA 50 (1979), pp. 115–35 (115).

Jewish Mysticism

49

was found in Cave 4 at Qumran, and is therefore clearly ante-Pauline.54 Milik dates it in the second century BCE.55 M. E. Stone gives it a third-century BCE date, on the assumption that some time elapsed between composition and the earliest extant copies.56 For our purposes we shall only be concerned with the first two sections of 1 Enoch, namely the Book of Watchers (chapters 1-36) and the Book of Similitudes (chapters 37-71). The Book of Similitudes will be discussed later in this Chapter as ‘Contemporary Literature’. In 1 Enoch 6-9 is a story, based on Gen. 6.1-4, in which an account is given of the origin of demons. This story recounts how a group of fallen angels (watchers) under the leadership of Shemikhazah (hzxym#57) had sexual union with women resulting in the creation of an anomalous race of destructive creatures whose disembodied spirits lived on as demons after they had slaughtered each other.58 In 1 Enoch 12.1 we are taken back to ‘before these things happened’ when Enoch was taken to heaven, where he joined in with the angels who had not fallen, and with them he offered worship to God (12.3). These watchers commission Enoch to go to the fallen watchers and to declare their doom. When Enoch goes to the fallen watchers they ask him to take their plea for forgiveness to the Lord of Heaven (13.4). Enoch falls asleep while reading the petition and has a dream in which he is given the answer (13.7, 8). Forgiveness is not offered, ‘… for your prayers will not be heard throughout all the days of eternity; and judgment is passed upon you. From now on you will not be able to ascend into heaven unto all eternity, but you shall remain inside the earth, imprisoned all the days of eternity’ (14.4, 5). Enoch’s ascent to heaven is the reversal of the watchers’ fall. In his vision Enoch had to pass twice through the fiery flames,59 first when he passed through the wall (14.9) and then when he entered the house (14.10).60 When Enoch entered the house, he was overwhelmed with fright (14.14, 15) that was typical of apocalyptic and mystical visions. Enoch then saw another house that

54. See M. A. Knibb, ‘The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review’, NTS 25 (1979), 345–59. 55. J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch, p. 5. 56. M. E. Stone, ‘The Book of Enoch and Judaism in the Third Century BCE’, CBQ 40 (1978), 479–92. 57. 4Q201 3.6; 4.1; 4Q203 8.5; )[zxy]m#[l] 4Q202 4.9. Note alternate spelling in Ethiopic: Semyaza. 58. D. R. Jackson, ‘Three Defining Paradigm Exemplars of Enochic Judaism 250 BCE–70 CE’, (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney, 2001), p. 33. 59. That Enoch went into the tongues of fire without being burned is reminiscent of Isa. 43.2. 60. I. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkabah Mysticism (AGJU, 14; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980), p. 34.

50


was inside the first house (14.15-20). The second house contained the throne of God of which Enoch says: ‘its appearance was like crystal and its wheels like the shining sun, and (I heard?) the voice of the cherubim’ (14.18). From underneath the throne came fire which made it difficult for Enoch to look at the throne (14.19). From this vision of the throne, Enoch proceeded to a vision of the Godhead who is described as ‘the Great Glory’ (14.20), ‘the Excellent and Glorious One’ (14.21), ‘the Lord’ (14.24). This vision is reminiscent of Ezekiel’s vision of the glory of the Lord and of the Son of Man references in Daniel 7.61 R. Bauckham comments: ‘… the Book of Watchers is concerned with the origin and nature of evil and provides, probably for the first time in extant Jewish literature, a fully-fledged account of evil as due to supernatural beings who corrupt almost all humanity …’62 This text is therefore supplementary to Genesis 3. D. R. Jackson comments: ‘By the time the Christian paradigm was formulated and beginning to win adherents, Enochic Judaism had already completed nearly two hundred years of development.’63 The direct reference to 1 Enoch in Jude 14, 15 shows that Enochic Judaism was known in the thought world of the New Testament. ii. The Book of Jubilees The fragments of Jubilees at Qumran have confirmed the view that it is antePauline.64 According to the Book of Jubilees, Enoch received a night vision in which he saw the entire future until the Judgment Day (4.18-19). He spent six jubilees of years with the angels of God, learning everything about the heavens and the earth (4.21). He therefore became a messenger to the fallen watchers in a way that is reminiscent of the Book of the Watchers. The watchers are identified as those ‘who sinned with the daughters of men’ (4.22).65 When he finally ascends, he takes up residence in the Garden of Eden during the flood (4.23-26) and he writes many books.66

61.

D. R. Jackson, ‘Three Defining Paradigm Exemplars of Enochic Judaism 250 p. 48. 62. R. Bauckham, ‘Apocalypses’, p. 139. 63. D. R. Jackson, ‘Three Defining Paradigm Exemplars of Enochic Judaism 250 BCE–70 CE’, p. 38. 64. It is often dated at the time of John Hyrcanus. James C. VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees (Missoula, MT; Scholars Press, 1977), p. 214, dates it certainly between 161 and 140 BCE and probably between 161 and 152 BCE. 65. D. R. Jackson, ‘Three Defining Paradigm Exemplars of Enochic Judaism 250 BCE–70 CE’, p. 63. 66. Reference is made to these books in many other Pseudepigrapha – for example T. Sim. 5.4; T. Levi 10.5; 14.1; T. Jud. 18.1; T. Dan 5.6; T. Naph. 4.1; T. Benj. 9.1. BCE–70 CE’,

Jewish Mysticism

51

iii. 2 Enoch (Slavonic Enoch) 2 Enoch is extant only in two Slavonic versions, and is an extension of the Enoch legend. The dating of the book is very complex with conclusions varying from as early as the second century BCE67 to as late as between the twelfth and the fifteenth centuries CE.68 It would appear that the book has been reworked several times and ‘the core of the work is both ancient and Jewish’.69 R. H. Charles gives an earliest date of between 30 BCE and the beginning of the Common Era due to its dependence on Ecclesiasticus, the Book of Wisdom and Ethiopic Enoch,70 and its latest date as 70 CE because the Temple is still standing,71 the text is probably known to some of the writers of the New Testament,72 and it was known by the writers of the Epistle of Barnabas73 and the latter half of the Ascension of Isaiah.74 It is therefore relatively safe to assume that the text, in some form, was extant at the time Paul wrote to the Colossians. 2 Enoch commences with Enoch’s ascension through the heavens to achieve a vision of God (chs 1–34). He is transfigured into an angel. His transformation is described in the following terms in 22.8-10 (Recension A): The Lord said to Michael, ‘Take Enoch, and extract [him] from the earthly clothing. And anoint him with the delightful oil, and put [him] into the clothes of glory.’ And Michael extracted me from my clothes. He anointed me with the delightful oil; and

67. Sappington argues that because there is a trajectory from 1 Enoch 1-36 through 2 Enoch and to the later Hekhalot writings, 2 Enoch falls in the middle of this trajectory and therefore belongs to the first or second century BCE. T. J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, p. 37. 68. This is the suggestion of A. S. D. Maunder, ‘The Date and Place of Writing of the Slavonic Book of Enoch’, The Observatory 41 (1918), 309–16. Maunder was an astronomer who drew attention to the calendar in Slavonic Enoch and suggested that the knowledge of astronomical systems which such a calendar implies suggests a late date. She suggested between the twelfth and the fifteenth centuries CE. This is further supported by J. K. Fotheringham, ‘The Easter Calendar and Slavonic Enoch’, JTS 23 (1921–1922), 40–56, who suggests the earliest date as the seventh century CE. Fotheringham’s work is also supported by K. Lake, ‘The Date of Slavonic Enoch’, HTR 16 (1923), 397–98. R. H. Charles, ‘The Date and Place of Writing of the Slavonic Enoch’, JTS 22 (1920–1921), 162–63, refutes these claims. He points to similar lunar movements that are mentioned in 1 Enoch 72-82 which he dates in the second century BCE. 69. T. J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, p. 36. 70. R. H. Charles (ed.), The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896), p. xxvi. 71. 2 Enoch 59.2 (Recension J) states: ‘For a person brings one of the clean animals to make a sacrifice on account of sin …’ This implies that the Temple was still standing. (Recension A states: ‘But he who brings a sacrifice of clean beasts, it is healing, he heals … his soul …’). See R. H. Charles (ed.), The Book of the Secrets of Enoch, p. 75. 72. R. H. Charles (ed.), The Book of the Secrets of Enoch, pp. xxi–xxii, where Charles points to similarities with Mt. 5.9, 34, 35, 37; 7.20; 14.27; 25.34; Lk. 6.35; Jn 14.2; Acts 14.15; Col. 1.16; Eph. 4.25; Heb. 11.3; Rev. 1.16; 4.6; 10.5, 6. 73. R. H. Charles (ed.), The Book of the Secrets of Enoch, p. xxi. 74. Ibid., p. xx.

52

Heavenly Perspective the appearance of that oil is greater than the greatest light, its ointment is like sweet dew, and its fragrance like myrrh; and its shining is like the sun. And I gazed at all of myself, and I had become like one of the glorious ones, and there was no observable difference.

This transformation therefore takes place through a change of clothing.75 Upon his return to earth, Enoch reveals the heavenly mysteries to his children and gives them moral instruction (chs 35–68). The remainder of the book is concerned with the antediluvian priesthood, coming to its climax with Melchizedek who is assumed to heaven where he is guarded until after the flood. iv. Testament of Levi The Testament of Levi forms part of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Its date and provenance are disputed. Some see it as a Jewish document,76 others see it as a Christian document built on a prior Jewish document.77 The use of the Septuagint suggests that the document was written after 250 BCE. Syria is the last world power to be mentioned and the Hasmonaeans are not mentioned. This would imply a date of early second century BCE, before the Maccabaean uprising. However, if the reference to prophetic, priestly and

75. It is interesting to note the similarity between this statement and Paul’s account of future glorification in terms of clothing in 2 Cor. 5.1-8. Segal sees parallels between being put in the body of an angel and the Pauline term in Christ. A. F. Segal, Paul the Convert, pp. 48–49. 76. M. Philonenko virtually eliminates Christian interpolations by interpreting the messianic passages as the Teacher of Qumran: ‘Les Testaments des Douze Patriarches nous ont été transmis avec une remarquable fidélité et, tels que nous les connaissons par la tradition grecque, ils sont libres de toute interpolation chrétienne de quelque importance’. M. Philonenko, Les Interpolations chrétiennes des Testaments des Douze Patriarches et les manuscrits de Quomrân (RHPR, 35; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1960), p. 37. 77. Charles argues it is possible to remove the Christian interpolations and thereby find the original Jewish text. He divides the current text into two versions: a and b, and asserts that Paul was only acquainted with version a. R. H. Charles (ed.), The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1908), pp. liv–lxv. See also H. D. Slingerland, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical History of Research (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), pp. 34–43, who argues that the Testaments are Christian writings which utilize Jewish sources in such a way that it is impossible to distinguish that which is Christian from that which is Jewish. De Jonge dates the Testaments as a Christian document written between c.190 CE and c.225 CE. M. De Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Composition and Origin (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953), pp. 117–25; M. De Jonge, ‘Christian Influence of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs’, NovT 4 (1960), 182–235; M. De Jonge, ‘Once More: Christian Influence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs’, NovT 5 (1962) 311–19. Even if the Testaments are Christian documents, it is hard to deny their Jewish ancestry. As R. Kugler states: ‘Given the existence of the Jewish texts related to the texts associated with Levi, Naphtali, and perhaps Judah, few deny that there were Jewish predecessor documents’. R. A. Kugler, ‘Testaments’, in D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien and M. A. Seifrid (eds), Justification and Variegated Nomism, I, pp. 189–213.

Jewish Mysticism

53

kingly roles in 18.2 refers to John Hyrcanus,78 who reigned from 137–107 BCE, it could be dated as late second century BCE. Philonenko79 links the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs with the Dead Sea Scrolls due to the Testaments’ belief in a dual messiahship: an anointed king from Judah and an anointed priest from Levi. This would suggest a mid-second-century BCE date.80 DupontSommer also links the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs with the Dead Sea Scrolls.81 From the above, for our purposes, it is possible to conclude that the Testament of Levi is most probably from the second century BCE. The Testament of Levi is concerned with the ascent of Levi to the ‘throne of glory’ where he receives his priestly commission. It describes three heavens. In the highest heaven dwelt the great glory far above all holiness (3.4) where ‘praises to God are offered’ (3.8). An angel opened the gates of the third heaven for Levi who saw ‘the holy Temple and upon a throne of Glory the most High’ (5.1). v. Philo Philo’s life is normally dated as 20 BCE to 50 CE. The only known date of his life is 40 CE when as an elderly man he headed a delegation of the Jewish community in Alexandria to the Roman emperor Gaius Caligula.82 His writings therefore predate Paul’s letter to the Colossians. In Moses’ receipt of the Ten Commandments, Philo envisions an ascent up to heaven rather than just up the mountain (Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum. Supplement 2.82,83).83 In De Vita Mosis 1.155-58, Philo says that God placed the entire universe into Moses’ hands and that the elements obeyed him as their master.84 God then appointed Moses as his partner

78. R. H. Charles (ed.), The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, p. lii. 79. M. Philonenko, Les Interpolations chrétiennes des Testaments des Douze Patriarches et les manuscrits de Qoumrân. 80. For a survey of these views see H. C. Kee, ‘Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A New Translation and Introduction’, OTP, I, pp. 775–828 (775–80). 81. Dupont-Sommer asserts that the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs originated at Qumran though does not give a detailed analysis to support his theory. A. DupontSommer, Les Ecrits Esséniens Découverts près de la Mer Morte (Paris: Payot, 1968), pp. 317–18. 82. See Y. Am, ‘Philo Judaeus’, in EncJud XIII, pp. 410–16. 83. See also A. F. Segal, ‘Heavenly Ascent in Hellenistic Judaism, Early Christianity and their Environment’, p. 1358, n. 86. 84. A second century BCE document, Moses, written by Ezekiel the Tragedian, a Hellenistic Jewish author in Alexandria, depicts Moses as seeing a vision of the throne of God with a figure seated on it. Ezekiel the Tragedian relates that the man handed Moses his sceptre and summoned him to sit on the throne, placing a diadem on his head. Thereafter the stars bow to him. As stars are sometimes likened to angels (Job 38.7), Moses is being depicted as the leader of the angels. See C. R. Holladay, ‘The Portrait of Moses in Ezekiel the Tragedian’, in SBLSP (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976) pp. 447–52; P. van der Horst, ‘Moses’ Throne Vision in Ezekiel the Dramatist’, JJS 34 (1983), 21–29; A. F. Segal, Paul the Convert, p. 44.

54


(koinwno/n). In De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 8-10, Philo refers to Deut. 5.31 as proof that certain people are distinguished by God to be stationed beside himself. Moses is pre-eminent among these people. As Moses’ grave is not known, Philo deduced that Moses was transported to heaven.85 As already noted, Philo called the Logos a second God (Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesim 2.62), which Quispel suggests shows that Philo followed the minim (heretics) who argued that there were two powers in heaven.86 vi. Qumran Literature Some discoveries at Qumran have also helped us to understand Jewish mysticism. In 1960, J. Strugnell published two fragments from an angelic liturgy found among the manuscripts of the fourth Cave. Strugnell dates these manuscripts before 40 BCE,87 although the liturgy may go back to an earlier period.88 The liturgical texts are normally called Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice or Angelic Liturgy, and are comprised of thirteen separate sections, one for each of the first thirteen Sabbaths of the year. There is a description of angelic praise, of angelic priesthood, and of the heavenly temple. There is also an account of the worship performed on the Sabbath in the heavenly sanctuary.89 The twelfth Sabbath song begins with a lengthy description of the appearance and movement of the divine throne-chariot, borrowing heavily on terms from Ezekiel 1 and 10 (4Q405).90 The appearance of the Merkabah (chariot) results in praise and blessing from the assembled angels.91 The cherubim fall before Him and bless. As they rise, the sound of divine stillness [is heard] and there is a tumult of jubilation as their wings lift up, the sound of divine [stillnes]s. The image of the chariot throne do they bless (which is) above the firmament of the cherubim. [And the splendo]r of the luminous firmament do they sing (which is) beneath his golden seat. And when the wheels move, the holy angels return. They go out from beneath its glorious [h]ubs. Like the appearance of fire (are) the most holy spirits round about, the appearance of streams of fire like hashmal. And there is a radiant substance with glorious colors, wondrously hued, purely blended, the spirits of living godlike beings which move continuously with the glory of the

85. A. F. Segal, Paul the Convert, p. 44. 86. G. Quispel, ‘Ezekiel 1.26 in Jewish Mysticism and Gnosis’, VC 34 (1980), 1–10 (5). 87. J. Strugnell, ‘The Angelic Liturgy at Qumran, 4Q Serek Širot ‘Olat Haššabat’, in Congress Volume, Oxford, 1959 (VTSup, 7; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1960), pp. 318–46 (319). See also F. M. Cross, ‘The Development of the Jewish Scripts’, in G. E. Wright (ed.), The Bible and the Ancient Near East (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961), pp. 133–201. 88. See also C. A. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, p. 1, who dates the oldest manuscript (4Q400) from 75–50 BCE. B. Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry (trans. J. Chipman; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), p. 282, dates the manuscripts as late Hasmonaean or early Herodian. 89. J. M. Scott, ‘Throne-Chariot Mysticism in Qumran and in Paul’, pp. 101–19 (104). 90. C. A. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, pp. 303–21. 91. Ibid., p. 34.

Jewish Mysticism

55

wondrous chariot(s). There is a still sound of blessing in the tumult of their movement. And they praise (His) holiness as they return to their paths (4Q405 20.2.21-22).92

It appears that through these thirteen Sabbaths, the community which recites the songs is led through the heavenly temple until the worshippers experience the holiness of the Merkabah and the Sabbath sacrifice as it is conducted by the high priest of the angels.93 M. Bockmuehl links the Angelic Liturgy with other documents from Qumran: … several sectarian documents stress the community’s existence ‘without mediator’ between it and ‘the holy angels in their midst’. This conscious and direct participation in angelic worship is considerably strengthened by the redemptive role of Melchizedek in 11QMelch, by the function of Michael and other angels in 1QM, and by the Angelic Liturgy …94

vii. Conclusions from Ante-Pauline Literature It is evident that there are strong affinities between Merkabah mysticism and pre-Christian Jewish apocalyptic texts which refer to heavenly ascents. It must be noted that a debate continues about whether there is a link between pre-Christian Jewish apocalyptic texts and Merkabah mysticism. Several scholars, such as Scholem,95 see an obvious link due the similarity of subject matter and literary motifs. P. Schäfer denies such a link.96 He accuses Scholem of ‘parallelomania’ in which parallels are taken from different contexts and different writings and placed in relation to one another. He claims that there has not been sufficient inner analysis of Hekhalot literature to enable a comparison with the writing of the New Testament.97 Proof of such a link becomes an argument from silence. It is the assumption of this monograph that, due to the similarity of style and content, there is a link between earlier Jewish apocalyptic ascents and Merkabah mysticism. There is a growing number of scholars who see the importance of the apocalyptic dimension to Paul’s thought ‘based on the throne-theophany tradition of Ezek. 1 which later developed into the merkabah mysticism of rabbinic Judaism’.98 However, even if such a link cannot be substantiated, our thesis remains that the Colossian philosophy arose from pre-Christian Jewish

92. As translated in C. A. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, pp. 306–07. 93. J. M. Scott, ‘Throne-Chariot Mysticism in Qumran and in Paul’, p. 104. 94. M. Bockmuehl, ‘1QS and Salvation at Qumran’, in D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien and M. A. Seifrid (eds), Justification and Variegated Nomism I, pp. 381–414 (413). 95. G. G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, p. 42. 96. P. Schäfer, ‘New Testament and Hekhalot Literature: The Journey into Heaven in Paul and in Merkabah Mysticism’, JJS 35 (1984), 19–35. 97. Ibid., 34–35. 98. S. Kim, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), p. 175.

56


mystical movements that spoke of ascents to heaven, and that the philosophy bears close affinities with later Merkabah mysticism. Our interest remains more with the earlier Jewish writings than with the later Merkabah texts. b. Contemporary Texts i. 1 Enoch (Ethiopic Enoch) (The Book of Similitudes) The Book of Similitudes was not found at Qumran and is only extant in the Ethiopic Version of 1 Enoch. It could date from the first century CE or later, and therefore Christian influence upon it cannot be excluded.99 Himmelfarb points out that ‘most scholars date the work to the turn of the era’.100 We shall therefore include it among contemporary literature. In 1 Enoch 71101 Enoch is given a vision through which he gains access to two separate heavens. In vv.1-4 there is a description of Enoch’s journey through the first heaven, while vv.5-17 describe the journey through the second heaven. In the first heaven Enoch sees the holy sons of God, that is, the angels. Their garments are white and their faces shine like snow. This is similar to the description of the angel whom Daniel saw (Dan. 10.5, 6) and to what is found in Rev. 1.13-15; 10.1; 18.1. In 1 Enoch 71.5 Enoch enters ‘the heaven of heavens’ where he sees ‘a structure built on crystals’. The crystal-like appearance is most probably derived from Ezek. 1.22.102 Seraphim, Cherubim and Ophanim, together with countless other angels are present (71.6). There Enoch also sees the four angels: Michael, Raphael, Gabriel and Phanuel, who together with the other angels go in and out of the house (71.8). These angels, accompanied by the

99. There is no consensus regarding the Book of Similitudes (1 Enoch 37-71). For a good review see M. A. Knibb, ‘The Date of the Parables of Enoch’, pp. 345–59, who dates the Similitudes at the last quarter of the first century CE. G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1977), p. 223, says: ‘… the most suitable period for these chapters appears to be the last quarter of the first century AD’. An earlier date is suggested by R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912), p. 67, who dates it as 94–79 BCE. A later date is provided by J. T. Milik who sees the Similitudes as Christian writings and dates them around 270 CE. J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4, pp. 6, 7, 96. This view, however, has not found widespread acceptance. See also M. Black (ed.), Apocalypsis Henochi Graece (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970), p. 6; M. A. Knibb and E. Ullendorff, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), II, p. 7; E. Isaac, ‘1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,’ OTP, I, p. 6; M. E. Stone, ‘The Book of Enoch and Judaism in the Third Century BCE’, 479–92; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, ‘Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee’, JBL 100 (1981), 575–600. 100. M. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, p. 59. 101. Some have seen this chapter as an artificial addition to the main body of the book. According to Gruenwald, chapter 71 is probably a loose fragment which the editors placed at the end of the Book of Similitudes. I. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkabah Mysticism, p. 43. 102. Note especially the LXX text with its use of krusta/llou – from the Hebrew equivalent xrqh. I. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkabah Mysticism, p. 33.

Jewish Mysticism

57

other angels, escort God out of the house to welcome Enoch (71.9, 10). When Enoch sees God, his whole body and soul are mystically transformed into the figure of the Son of Man (71.11,14). Consequently Enoch sings songs of praise to God. There is a similarity between Enoch’s transformation to the figure of the Son of Man and early Christian profession. A. F. Segal points out that Enoch performs many messianic functions within the Similitudes of Enoch: he is righteous and knows divine secrets (46.3); he is victorious over the might of the earth and he judges the wicked (46.4-8; 62.9; 62.11; 69.27-29); he is designated as the ‘chosen one’ or the ‘Elect one’ or the ‘Messiah’ (49.2-4; 51.3-5; 52.4-9; 55.4; 61.4-9; 62.2-16); he judges ‘in the name of the Lord of the Spirits’ (55.4), sitting on the throne (51.3; 55.4; 61.8; 62.2-6; 70.27).103 ii. Testament of Abraham There is considerable disagreement about the date of the Testament of Abraham as there is no reference to historical events. The book survives in two recensions: A and B. M. R. James thought that the work was Christian and later than the Apocalypse of Peter and earlier than Origen. He therefore gave it a second century CE date. He believed the text received its present form by the ninth or tenth century and was probably written in Egypt.104 N. Turner’s original estimate of the book was much earlier. He dated recension B at its earliest in the second century BCE and recension A later, possibly as late as the sixth century CE.105 A. M. Denis argues for a Hebrew original behind the extant Greek texts. He dates the Hebrew original106 in the first century CE and the two Greek recensions between the third and sixth centuries CE.107 From the above, few conclusions can be drawn. It is generally held that the text is Jewish rather than Christian.108 E. P. Sanders states: ‘Despite being repeatedly copied by Christian scribes, the Testament of Abraham in both recensions remains unmistakably Jewish’.109 Sanders dates the original as c.100 CE, plus or minus twenty-five years.110 The text is therefore probably an

103. A. F. Segal, Paul the Convert, p. 46. 104. M. R. James (ed.), The Testament of Abraham: The Greek Text now first edited with an Introduction and Notes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1892), p. 29. 105. N. Turner, ‘“The Testament of Abraham”: Problem of Biblical Greek’, NTS 1 (1954/1955), 219–23. 106. ‘La langue primitive était sans doute l’hébreu’. Albert-Marie Denis, Introduction aux Pseudépigraphes grecs d’Ancien Testament (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970), p. 36. 107. Ibid., pp. 36–37. 108. See M. E. Stone, ‘Apocalyptic Literature’, in M. E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), pp. 383–441 (420). 109. E. P. Sanders, ‘Testament of Abraham: A New Translation and Introduction’, OTP, I, pp. 871–902 (875). 110. Ibid., p. 874.

58


example of Jewish apocalyptic that was contemporary with the letter to the Colossians or written a little thereafter. The events of the Testament of Abraham take place as Abraham prepares to die. God sends the angel Michael to inform him to prepare for death. Prior to his death, Abraham is given a tour of the inhabited world. In recension A ch. 11 Abraham is brought to heaven on the cherubim chariot and, outside the gates, sees a man sitting on a golden throne whose appearance is terrifying, ‘like the master’s’ (o9moi/a tou= despo/tou) (11.4),111 whom he learns is Adam. Inside the gates Abraham sees a throne which looks like fire and on it is seated a man looking like the sun, like a son of God (kai\ e0p’ au0tw~| e0ka/qhto a0nh\r qau/mastoj h9lio/ratoj o3moioj ui9w~| qeou=) (rec. A 12.5). 112 This vision is reminiscent of Ezekiel 1; Daniel 7 and 1 Enoch 14. The angel tells Abraham that the one sitting upon this throne is Abel, the son of Adam. Abel is similarly glorified and acts as judge over creation until the final judgment (chs 12–13). iii. Apocalypse of Abraham The Slavonic texts appear to be made from a Greek text which may have had a Semitic original, due to Semitisms within the text.113 The book appears to be a late-first-century CE document because of the mention of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in ways that would suggest its destruction was relatively recent (ch. 27). A terminus a quo is therefore 70 CE. R. Rubinkiewicz notes that the text of Recognitiones (second century CE) alludes to the Apocalypse of Abraham, giving a terminus ad quem of the middle of the second century.114 Within the Apocalypse of Abraham, God sends his angel Iaoel to lead Abraham up to heaven (15.4), where he sees seven visions, the third of which is a vision of the throne (18.1-14). It has clear affinities with Merkabah mysticism:

111. In Testament of Abraham (Rec. A) 13 and 16, God is repeatedly referred to as despo/thj. This appears to be a reference to one like God. S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, p. 211, n. 3. 112. M. E. Stone, The Testament of Abraham: The Greek Recensions (Missoula, MT: SBL, 1972), p. 28. 113. See G. H. Box and J. I. Landsman (eds), The Apocalypse of Abraham: Edited with a translation from the Slavonic Text and Notes (London: SPCK, 1918) p. xv. See also A. Rubinstein, ‘Hebraisms in the Slavonic “Apocalypse of Abraham”’, JJS 4 (1953) pp. 108–15 and A. Rubinstein, ‘Hebraisms in the “Apocalypse of Abraham”’, JJS 5 (1954), 132–35. 114. R. Rubinkiewicz, ‘Apocalypse of Abraham: A New Translation and Introduction’, in OTP I, pp. 681–705 (683). Rubinkiewicz argues that plagues 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 describe the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, whereas plagues 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 reflect the eruption of Vesuvius and the destruction of two Roman towns: Pompeii and Herculaneum, in 79 CE. He therefore argues that the Apocalypse of Abraham was written between 79 and 81 CE. R. Rubinkiewicz, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham en vieux slave: Introduction, texte critique, traduction et commentaire (Lublin: Société des Lettres et des Sciences de l’Université Catholique de Lublin, 1987), p. 75, esp. n.21.

Jewish Mysticism

59

And while I was still standing and watching, I saw behind the living creatures a chariot with fiery wheels. Each wheel was full of eyes round about. And above the wheels was the throne which I had seen. And it was covered with fire, and the fire encircled it round about, and an indescribable light surrounded the fiery crowd. And I heard the voice like the voice of their sanctification like the voice of a single man.

An interesting feature of this vision, when compared with the vision of Ezekiel 1, is the exclusion of an anthropomorphous representation of God on the throne.115 iv. Revelation Revelation has traditionally been seen as the work of John (the apostle of Jesus), who as an elderly man had undertaken pastoral oversight of the believers in Ephesus.116 From there he was exiled to Patmos where he wrote this book. The opposition from the Roman Empire is personified in the figure of the Beast, who represents the reigning emperor. The Beast demands universal worship and insists that all should bear his mark (13.4; 13.15-18; 14.9-11; 15.2; 16.2; 19.20; 20.4). These references clearly point to the imperial cult. The period from Nero to Domitian saw a rapid development of emperor worship into the official imperial policy and therefore most commentators date Revelation between 64 CE and 96 CE.117 For our purposes, Revelation is seen as contemporary literature, written in the second half of the first century CE. It is of particular relevance as it is written in the context of Asia Minor and it is accepted as part of New Testament canonical literature. Within the book of Revelation, there are six scenes that centre on the heavenly throne room: (1) 4.2-6.17; (2) 7.9-17; (3) 11.15-19; (4) 14.1-5; (5) 15.2-8; (6) 19.1-8.118 John’s account of his vision does not speak of means of transportation, nor of different levels of heaven, but it does mention being in the presence of God and witnessing the heavenly worship of God. The twentyfour elders in Revelation 4 and 5 perform a priestly or Levitic function as they sing songs of praise. They also perform an angelic function, as the incense they present before the Lamb is the prayers of the saints (5.8). R. H. Charles points out: ‘Thus in our text … the four and twenty Elders have definitely taken the part assigned in many circles of Judaism to the Archangels’.119 115. See C. Rowland, The Open Heaven, pp. 86–87 who compares the texts of Ezekiel 1 with the Apocalypse of Abraham, p. 18. 116. There are three major views for the authorship of Revelation: it is the work of John the apostle of Jesus; it is the work of another John (normally referred to as John the Elder); it is the work of another person using the pseudonym ‘John’. For a summary of these issues see G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC, Grand Rapids: Paternoster, 1999), pp. 34–36. 117. For helpful summaries on the dating of Revelation see D. E. Aune, Revelation 15 (WBC, 52; Dallas: Word, 1997), pp. lvi–lvii. 118. Ibid., p. 278. 119. R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (ICC, 2 vols; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1920), I, p. 144 (italics his).

60


v. Conclusions from Contemporary Literature From our study of contemporary literature, it can be observed that the concept of heavenly ascents is present in the writings that are contemporary with Colossians. The existence of the Merkabah (chariot) is seen in some of the writings, such as the Apocalypse of Abraham. It can also be seen that Jewish mysticism was active in Asia Minor in the first century CE. In the Book of Similitudes, the person who has ascended to heaven is transformed and joins in the angelic worship of God. The figure of a second power in heaven, who is sometimes equated with Adam or Abel, is seen within the heavenly ascents. If such a movement were the background for the Colossian error, it would explain why Paul gives great emphasis in Col. 1.15-20 to explaining cosmic Christology within a monotheistic framework. The ascents to heaven are normally undertaken by the ‘super-spiritual’. In the literature we have surveyed, these are either heroes from the Hebrew Bible or the apostle John. c. Post-Pauline Texts Post-Pauline texts will be studied in chronological order. Due to the vast amount of literature, we will restrict our study to the most significant texts of the first two centuries of the Common Era. i. 4 Ezra All of the extant translations of 4 Ezra120 appear to be made from a lost Greek version, and this seems to have been made from a Hebrew original.121 Most scholars date the original Jewish document of what is now chs 3–14 at about 100 CE.122 This rests on the interpretation of the opening sentence (3.1) which states: ‘in the thirtieth year after the destruction of our city …’ Although Salathiel, (who is also called Ezra) claims to be in Babylon in the thirtieth year after Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in 586 BCE, it appears to be a cryptic reference to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE (see 3.2; 6.19; 10.48).123 As it is difficult to believe that a Jewish book of this kind could find its way into Christian circles after the Bar-Kokhba124 revolt, the date of the completion of the Hebrew original cannot be placed after 120 CE.125 Therefore, for our purposes, 4 Ezra is post-Pauline.

120. 2 Esdras incorporates the document otherwise known as 4 Ezra. 121. See G. H. Box and W. Sanday (eds), The Ezra-Apocalypse: Being Chapters 3–14 of the Book Commonly known as 4 Ezra (or II Esdras) (London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, 1912), p. iii. 122. 4 Ezra in Latin manuscripts consists of chapters 3–14 of the current English translation. Chapters 1–2, 15–16 are later Christian additions. See B. M. Metzger, ‘The Fourth Book of Ezra: A New Translation and Introduction’, OTP I, pp. 517–59 (517–23). 123. Ibid., p. 520. 124. S. Abramsky, ‘Bar Kokhba’, EncJud, IV, pp. 227–39. 125. B. M. Metzger, ‘The Fourth Book of Ezra’, p. 520. See also M. E. Stone, ‘Apocalyptic Literature’, p. 412.

Jewish Mysticism

61

The main section of the book (chs 3–14) gives seven visions granted to Salathiel, also known as Ezra. The first three visions are dialogues between Ezra and an angel, the next three are symbolic visions and the last one is a narrative of the sacred books to Ezra.126 The questions raised in the dialogues (the first three visions) are to do with God’s justice in the light of the fate of Israel after the fall of Jerusalem. The three symbolic visions (visions 4-6) are the answers to the questions raised in the dialogues. In the final symbolic vision, Ezra sees one ‘like the figure of a man come up out of the heart of the sea. And I looked, and behold, that man flew with the clouds of heaven’ (13.3). This man is seen to be a messiah figure as expressed in 13.26: ‘this is he whom the Most High has been keeping for many ages, who will himself deliver his creation; and he will direct those who are left’.127 ii. Apocalypse of Zephaniah The Apocalypse of Zephaniah is preserved in three fragments:128 a short Greek quotation cited by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 5.11.77); two pages129 of a Sahidic manuscript; eighteen pages of Akhmimic text, broken by a lacuna after page twelve.130 The earliest date for the apocalypse is after the story of Susanna was circulated in Greek as part of the Book of Daniel, as in the Apocalypse of Zephaniah 6.10 there is reference to Susanna, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. Although there is doubt about when the tale of Susanna was composed, it would appear that it was known by the first century BCE . 131 The latest date is the time of Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata.132 If Clement accepted the apocalypse as by the Biblical prophet Zephaniah, it must have circulated long enough to have gained that credibility, and therefore the last quarter of the second century CE is the latest

126. M. E. Stone, ‘Apocalyptic Literature’, p. 412. 127. See M. E. Stone, ‘The Concept of the Messiah in IV Ezra’, in J. Neusner (ed.), Religions in Antiquity. Essays in memory of E. R. Goodenough (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968), pp. 295–312. 128. C. Schmidt suggests that only about a quarter of the original text is preserved. C. Schmidt, ‘Der Kolophon des Ms. Orient. 7594 des Britischen Museums: eine Untersuchung zur Elias-Apocalypse’, (SPAW, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse; Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1925) pp. 312–21. 129. Pagination is based on Schmidt’s analysis of the text: C. Schmidt, ‘Der Kolophon des Ms. Orient. 7594 des Britischen Museums: eine Untersuchung zur Elias-Apocalypse’, pp. 312–21. 130. O. S. Wintermute, ‘Apocalypse of Zephaniah: A New Translation and Introduction’, OTP, I, pp. 497–516 (497). 131. R. H. Charles believes the story of Susanna was originally written in Hebrew and ‘… appears to belong to the period 95–80 B.C.’ APOT, I, p. 644. See also O. S. Wintermute, ‘Apocalypse of Zephaniah’, pp. 497–516 (500). 132. Clement of Alexandria lived from c.155 CE to c.220 CE J. Newton, ‘Clement of Alexandria’, in J. D. Douglas and P. W. Confort (eds), Who’s Who in Christian History (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1992), pp. 163–64.

62


possibility. Thus the Apocalypse of Zephaniah can be dated between 100 BCE and 175 CE. The Apocalypse of Zephaniah is clearly in the apocalyptic tradition. The first portion of the extant text, being the fragment found in Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata, begins with a glimpse at angelic glory in the fifth heaven: ‘And a spirit took me and brought me into a fifth heaven. And I saw angels who are called “lords”, … dwelling in the temples of salvation and singing hymns to the ineffable most high God’ (Strom. 5.11.77). There are subsequent visions in which the seer journeys with the angel of the Lord (2.1; 3.1; 4.1; 5.1; 6.1; 8.1). Two ways are open to the hearers of the apocalypse: one leads to the enrolment in the Book of the Living (9.2), investiture with angelic garments (8.3) and participation in angelic worship; the other leads to eternal punishment (4.6, 7). People are judged on the basis of earthly deeds, and repentance results in the change of destiny for a person. iii. 2 Baruch 2 Baruch, also known as the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, is extant in Syriac,133 which is probably translated from the Greek, which is possibly a translation of an original Hebrew version.134 There seem to be several parallels to 4 Ezra. It may also be possible that both 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch are dependent on a third work: Biblical Antiquities.135 The chief issue of the book is theodicy arising out of the destruction of the Temple. It is therefore dated from the end of the first century CE or at the beginning of the second century CE.136 Within 2 Baruch there is the theme of angelic transformation. 2 Baruch 51.3-13 portrays a gradual transformation of all believers into angelic creatures who will be equal with the stars. iv. 3 Baruch 3 Baruch, also known as the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch is extant in both Greek and Slavonic,137 although it is generally held that the Greek is the original.138 M. R. James asserts 3 Baruch is a Christian apocalypse of the

133. In Codex Ambrosianus as well as an Arabic translation from the Syriac. There is also a Greek papyrus fragment from the fifth or sixth century CE. See M. E. Stone, ‘Apocalyptic Literature’, p. 409. 134. Ibid. 135. P. M. Bogaert, Apocalypse Syriaque de Baruch (SC, 144-45; 2 vols, Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1969), pp. 57–58, 242–57. 136. M. E. Stone, ‘Apocalyptic Literature’, p. 410. 137. There are two Slavonic versions: South Slavonic and Russian. See J.-C. Picard, Apocalypsis Baruchi Graece (PVTG, 2; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967), pp. 69–71, for the relationship between these two documents. 138. See H. E. Gaylord, ‘3 (Greek Apocalypse of) Baruch’, OTP, I, pp. 653–60 (655). ‘The Slavonic version is a translation from Greek … There is no convincing argument that the Greek is a translation from another language’.

Jewish Mysticism

63

second century CE;139 however, more recent studies have acknowledged the Jewish character of the text with later Christian additions such as 4.15; 13.4; 15.4.140 It is reasonable to conclude that it is a second century CE document. Within this book the Lord sends an angel to comfort Baruch, a scribe of Jeremiah, who is weeping over the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple. The angel then leads Baruch through five heavens. Chapters 2-10 relate what is found in the first four heavens. In the fifth heaven (chs 11–16) the angels responsible for people on earth bring the gifts of these people to Michael who presents them to God. Within this ascent there are promises that Baruch would see ‘the glory of God’ (4.2; 6.12; 7.2; 11.2; 16.4 (S1)). v. Ascension of Isaiah The Ascension of Isaiah is a composite work sometimes referred to as the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah. It falls into two parts: chs 1–5 which is known as the Martyrdom of Isaiah and chs 6–11 which is known as the Vision of Isaiah.141 The Martyrdom of Isaiah is further divided. 1.1-3.12 and 5.1-16 relate the martyr’s death which Isaiah suffered at the hands of Manasseh. A Christian addition, which is sometimes called the Testament of Husk (3.134.22) is the account of a vision which Isaiah had before his arrest. The original part of the Martyrdom of Isaiah (1.1-3.12 and 5.1-16) is normally regarded as pre-Christian, being dated around 167–164 BCE.142 The date of the Vision of Isaiah (chs 6–11) is difficult to determine. Its completed form was in circulation by the third century CE;143 however, it is probably much older than this. R. H. Charles believes that it goes back to the first century CE as 11.16 is quoted in Ignatius’ Epistle to the Ephesians 19.144 From the above it can be concluded that the Vision of Isaiah belongs to the Christian period, being dated between the first and third centuries.145

139. M. R. James, Apocrypha Anecdota (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1897), p. lxxi. 140. J. H. Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research with Supplement (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), pp. 86–87. 141. M. A. Knibb, ‘Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah: A New Translation and Introduction’, OTP, II, pp. 143–76 (149). 142. Justin Martyr refers to the tradition of Isaiah meeting his death by being sawn asunder (Dialogue with Trypho 120). Tertullian gives a similar account (On Patience 14). See also the Ascension of Isaiah 5.14; Heb. 11.37. Therefore the original section of the Martyrdom of Isaiah was composed no later than the first century CE. M. A. Knibb suggests that it was composed at the time of the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes (167–164 BCE). M. A. Knibb, ‘A New Translation and Introduction, Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah’, pp. 143–76 (149). 143. R. H. Charles lists ‘Christian heretics’ who used the works. R. H. Charles (ed.), The Ascension of Isaiah (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1900), p. xi, n. 1. 144. Ibid., p. xlv. 145. It is not known when the three sections of the current work were combined. The Greek fragment from the fifth to sixth century CE, the Latin palimpsest from the fifth to sixth century CE and the Ethiopic translation from the fourth to sixth century CE, all presuppose the existence of the completed work. See R. H. Charles (ed.), The Ascension of Isaiah, p.

64


The Ascension of Isaiah focuses on ascent and heavenly transformation, especially in the section known as the Vision of Isaiah (chs 6–11). It relates how Isaiah, who was in the court of Husk, was carried up in his mind into heaven and had a vision (ch. 6). This is reminiscent of Isaiah’s entry to the heavenly court in the canonical book of Isaiah (Isa. 6.1-13). In the Vision of Isaiah, Isaiah describes his journey up to heaven through seven heavens (7.1-9.26),146 stopping to view the glorious figure seated on the throne of each heaven. In the seventh heaven Isaiah is given a vision of the Lord and the Holy Spirit, and receives a glimpse of the glory of God, and he joins in the worship which is offered to them (9.27-10.6). He then sees the Lord being commissioned by God to descend to the world (10.7-16). He witnesses the Lord’s miraculous birth, his life, death and resurrection and ascension (11.17-33). The climax of the story is angelic transformation where Isaiah is involved in the worship rendered by the angels, but the stated purpose of the journey is theodicy: understanding the providence and justice of God in the face of evil. The journey therefore concludes with God’s providential justice for his creation through the ministry of the Lord.147 vi. Conclusions from Post-Pauline Literature Several observations can be made from the study of post-Pauline texts. It can be seen that there is a developed angelology in post-Pauline apocalyptic writings. In 4 Ezra there is an association between the ‘one like the figure of a man’ and the Messiah. There is a developed idea of the Book of the Living and eternal judgment. In 2 Baruch there is an association between angelic creatures and stars. The theme of theodicy is present in several texts, especially in the light of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE. As in earlier literature, there are different levels of heaven, usually seven.

3. Practices Associated with Heavenly Ascents Having surveyed the phenomenon of heavenly ascents in Jewish and Christian literature, it is important to synthesize from this material some of the practices associated with them, in particular those that relate to Colossians 2.

xlv. O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. P. R. Ackroyd; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965), p. 610, dates the Vision of Isaiah in the second century CE and the completed work of the Ascension of Isaiah ‘before the third or fourth century’. 146. D. Aune suggests the sevenfold understanding of heaven reflects the concentric circles that surrounded the Jerusalem Temple: (1) Jerusalem, (2) Court of the Gentiles, (3) Court of Women, (4) Court of Israelites, (5) Court of Priests, (6) Holy Place, (7) Holy of Holies. D. E. Aune, Revelation 1-5, pp. 318–19. 147. A. F. Segal, Paul the Convert, pp. 49–50.

Jewish Mysticism

65

a. The Role of Angels Revelation in Jewish apocalyptic is usually mediated by means of an angel148 such as Gabriel (Daniel), Uriel (1 Enoch, 4 Ezra), Ramael (2 Baruch), Iaoel (Apocalypse of Abraham). This continues into the New Testament as seen by angelic mediation of John’s vision in Rev. 1.1. God is transcendent and thus seen as the one who is located in a celestial palace to which the seer must ascend through various spheres of heaven.149 In 1 En. 14.18-23 the presence of angels is acknowledged before the throne which, with its fiery wheels, is reminiscent of the Merkabah of Ezekiel 1. And I observed and saw inside it (a second house) a lofty throne – its appearance was like crystal and its wheels like the shining sun; and (I heard?) the voice of the cherubim, and from beneath the throne were issuing streams of flaming fire. It was difficult to look at it. And the Great Glory was sitting upon it – as for his gown, which was shining more brightly than the sun, it was whiter than any snow. None of the angels was able to come in and see the face of the Excellent and the Glorious One; and no one of the flesh can see him – the flaming fire was round about him, and a great fire stood before him. No one could come near unto him from among those that surrounded the tens of millions (that stood) before him. He needed no council, but the most holy ones who are near to him neither go far away at night nor move away from him.

A similar example of a vision of heavenly worship is seen in 1 En. 71.8-12: And I saw countless angels – a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand, ten million times ten million – encircling that house … With them is the Antecedent of Time: His head is white and pure like wool and his garment is indescribable. I fell on my face, my whole body mollified and my spirit transformed. Then I cried with a great voice by the spirit of the power, blessing, glorifying, and extolling. And those are the blessings which went forth out of my mouth, being well pleasing in the presence of the Antecedent of Time.

Similar images of angelic worship of the one on the throne can be seen in 1 En. 60.1-4 and 61.6-13. In 2 Enoch there are visions of God in the seventh and tenth heavens (chs 20–22) in the context of angelic praise. 2 Enoch 8 also has a reference to the dwelling place of God in the context of angelic worship. This angelic worship is seen in 17.1; 18.9; 19.3, 6; 31.2 (rec. J); 42.4 (rec. J). In T. Levi 3.3-8 there is mention of heavenly worship. In Apoc. Abr. 17.8-21 the song with which Abraham and the angels praise God is recorded. In Apoc. Zeph. 8.2-4 the seer says: ‘Thousands of thousands and myriads of myriads of angels gave praise before me. I, myself, put on an angelic garment. I saw all of those angels praying. I myself, prayed together with them, I knew their language, which they spoke with me.’ Isaiah joins in angelic worship in the seventh heaven in

148. Some exceptions include 1 Enoch 14-15; 4 Ezra 14.1-26; 2 Bar. 1.2-5.4; 10.1-3; 13.2-20.6; 22.2-30.5; 41.1-43.3; 48.1-52.7. 149. T. J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, p. 56.

66


the Ascension of Isaiah 9.28-34. As has already been noted, the document from Qumran entitled Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice or Angelic Liturgy culminates in an appearance of the Merkabah and praise from the assembled angels (4Q405 20.2.21-2).150 It can be seen, therefore, that there is a keen interest within a Jewish apocalyptic movement of the first century in the worship offered by angels to God. Sappington notes: ‘The pattern is clear: when a seer ascends to receive a vision of the Merkabah, he also receives a vision of his angelic hosts and their worship – and in some cases he is constrained to join them in giving praise to the Most High’.151 Angels are not just given the roles of mediation and of worshippers, they also receive judicial roles.152 They are seen as prosecutors in Job 1.6-12; 2.17 and Zech. 3 where Satan points to the potential sin of the righteous man in the light of testing. Satan is rebuked for such angelic prosecution in Zech. 3.2. In Job 1 and 2, Satan is given control over disease and natural disasters, thereby demonstrating that his function goes beyond that of a prosecutor. Angels are also portrayed in the role of advocacy. In Zech. 3.1 the angel of the Lord appeals to the election of Jerusalem and sees Joshua as part of a remnant of his people.153 Of interest to our study is the idea of a heavenly book that is used within this angelic judicial function as seen in Ps. 56.8 and Isa. 65.6.154 The contents of this book determine the eschatological fate of humans, thereby showing a relationship between the Book of Deeds and the Book of Life.155 This is clear in 1 En. 81.2-4; 96.7; 97.5-7; 98.6-8; 104.7. In 1 En. 47.3 we read: ‘In those days, I saw him – the Antecedent of Time, while he was sitting upon the throne of his glory, and the books of the living ones were open before him. And all his power in heaven above and his escorts stood before him’. This relationship between the heavenly writings and judgment is seen in 2 En. 44.5-7; Jub. 39.6; T. Abr. (rec A) 12.17-18; Apoc. Zeph. (Akhmimic text) 3.6-9. The result of judgment is the vindication of the righteous and the 150. C. A. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, pp. 306–07. 151. T. J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, p. 94. 152. This advocacy includes both prosecution and defence. G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism, (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1972), pp. 11–42. 153. ‘Moreover it is not, in this instance, Yahweh before whom the other persons are assembled, but the angel of Yahweh, a (or the) manifestation of the Deity in human form, which might be, and according to various passages in the Old Testament, often was, called a man.’ H. G. Mitchell, J. M. P. Smith and J. A. Bewer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah, (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912), p. 148. 154. G. Schrenk, ‘bibli/on’, in TDNT, I, pp. 617–20 (620), also includes passages such as Jer. 22.30; Mal. 3.16 and Est. 6.1. 155. T. J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, p. 102, sees the Book of Deeds as a more common motif in scenes of judgment within apocalyptic literature than the Book of Life. G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism, p. 40, sees that a secondary tradition of the Book of Life supplanted the Book of Deeds that was present in earlier apocalyptic.

Jewish Mysticism

67

condemnation of the wicked. The vindication of the righteous results in their ascension and their association with the stars (Dan. 12.3; 1 En. 104.2, 4; 4 Ezra 7.97, 125). Within Paul’s letter to the Colossians, although there is no specific mention of the Book of Deeds, a similar concept of a record of human sin is seen in his reference to a xeiro/grafon (2.14), which, as will be discussed in Chapter Five, refers to an acknowledgment of humanity’s culpability before God. b. Dualism There is a contrast in Jewish mystical texts between the things above and the things below (1 Enoch 1-36; 37-71; 72-82; 2 Enoch; Apocalypse of Abraham; Testament of Levi; 3 Baruch; Testament of Abraham; Apocalypse of Zephaniah). This vertical and spatial perspective is different from a traditional horizontal and temporal Jewish eschatology. 156 P. S. Alexander states: ‘Merkavah mysticism is more concerned with the world above than the world to come, with ouranology than eschatology’.157 A. F. Segal says: ‘… it is possible to see the heavenly journey of the soul, its consequent promise of immortality and the corollary necessity of periodic ecstatic journeys to heaven as the dominant mythical constellation of later classical antiquity’.158 This dualism is clearly evident in 1 Enoch 1-36 where heaven refers to the dwelling place of God and of the children of heaven who are angels (6.2), whereas earth is the home of humans who are subject to wickedness (9.1-11). The heavenly angelic realm is seen as holy (1.2; 12.4; 15.3), therefore much must be done for the earthly seer to be purified and to be able to penetrate the barrier that separates heaven and earth (12.1-2; 19.3).159 Heavenly ascents are often portrayed as non-somatic experiences, with the visionaries going from place to place in heaven while their bodies remain upon earth where their utterances are being questioned and written down.160 It is therefore consistent with Jewish mysticism that the Colossian philosophy demanded asceticism. This spatial dualism accounts for why Paul abandons a temporal (now/not yet) eschatology that is evident in earlier writings such as 1 Thess. 4.13-5.11

156. See S. Niditch, ‘The Visionary’, in J. J. Collins and G. W. E. Nickelsburg (eds), Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980), pp. 153–79; E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1951), pp. 102–34. 157. Philip S. Alexander, ‘Comparing Merkabah Mysticism and Gnosticism: An Essay in Method’, JJS 35 (1984), 1–18 (10). 158. A. F. Segal, ‘Heavenly Ascent in Hellenistic Judaism, Early Christianity and their Environment’, p. 1388. See also J. G. Gammie, ‘Spatial and Ethical Dualism in Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic Literature’, JBL 93 (1974), 356–85. 159. T. J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, p. 58. See also J. G. Gammie, ‘Spatial and Ethical Dualism in Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic Literature’, pp. 366–72. 160. An exception to this is the Testament of Abraham where the ascent is clearly ‘in the body’ T. Abr. 9.6 (rec. A); 7.18 and 8.3 (rec. B). 1 Enoch 70-71 describes the permanent ascent to heaven of Enoch, esp. 70.1-2; 71.15-17. A. F. Segal, ‘Paul and Ecstasy’, p. 558.

68


and 1 Corinthians 15 for a spatial ouranology (above/below) expressed in statements like: ‘So if you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth’ (Col. 3.1, 2 (NRSV)). This will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter Ten. Scholem argues that the Jewish mystical apocalyptic pseudepigraphal writings were the ancestors to the later Merkabah writings. He states: If the roots in many cases go far back, they do not, necessarily go back to the orthodox rabbinic teachers of the Mishnaic period. Subterranean but effective, and occasionally still traceable, connections exist between these later mystics and the groups which produced a large portion of the Pseudepigrapha and apocalypses of the first century before and after Christ. Subsequently a good deal of this unrecognized tradition made its way to later generations independent of, and often in isolation from, the schools and academies of the Talmudic teachers.161

The focus on heavenly ascent led to a denigration of the body that is reminiscent of later Gnosticism. In the Babylonian Talmud, amidst teaching on the Merkabah we read: But do we expound the electrum (Ezek. 1.27) at all? And lo, there was a youngster who expounded the account of the electrum and fire came forth and ate him up! The case of the youngster is exceptional, for he had not yet come of age’ (b. Hag. 13a).

Abelson comments: ‘This cannot but mean that his youthful age had not given him the opportunities for the mature self-culture necessary to the mystic apprehension’.162 The means of gaining such maturity was in the purification of the body. Such asceticism led to prayer and fasting. The revelations in Daniel came after prayer (2.18-19) and fasting (10.2-3). Similar accounts are found in 4 Ezra 5.13; 6.31, 35; 9.23-28; 2 Bar. 9.2; 12.5; 20.5-6; 21.1-2; 43.3; 47.2; 54.6-7; 56.1; 76.1; 3 Bar. 1.4-5; 4.13-15; Apoc. Abr. 12.1-2. Sexual abstinence is implied in 2 En. 71.2 where Nir, the priest, has not slept with his wife, Sothonim, from the time the Lord had appointed him.163 In 1 En. 83.2 Enoch says: ‘Now, my son Methuselah, I saw two (visions) before I got married’. On the basis of this, Beer argues that virginity was a prerequisite for the prophetic office.164

161. G. G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, p. 42. 162. J. Abelson, Jewish Mysticism (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1913), pp. 37–38. 163. Recension J mentions ‘nor had he touched her’ which is an interesting addition in the light of the injunction mh\ a3yh| in Col. 2.21. 164. ‘Virginität ist die Vorbedingung zum Prophetenberuf’. G. Beer ‘Das Buch Henoch’, in E. Kautzsch (ed.), Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Altes Testaments (2 vols; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1900), II, pp. 217–310 (288). This assertion is complicated by the fact that nowhere else does 1 Enoch mention that visions occurred before the seer was married.

Jewish Mysticism

69

c. Wisdom The Hebrew Bible asserts that wisdom is to be found in heaven (Job 28; Sir. 1.1-10; Prov. 1.20-33). In Prov. 8.22-31, wisdom was with God at the time of creation. This notion is also seen in apocalypses such as 1 Enoch 42, 4 Ezra 4.5-5.13 and 2 Bar. 48.33-36, on which Sappington comments: ‘the concept that wisdom belongs to the heavenly realm literally permeates these writings’.165 The heavenly ascent in Jewish mysticism was a means of attaining wisdom, which was often in the form of heavenly secrets. An example of this can be seen in 3 Bar. 1.6-7 where an angel says to Baruch: ‘Cease irritating God, and I will disclose to you other mysteries greater than these.’ And I Baruch said, ‘As the Lord lives, if you disclose a word to me and I hear it from you, I shall speak no further. May God add to me punishment on the Day of Judgment if I speak in the future.’ And the angel of hosts said to me, ‘Come and I will disclose to you the mysteries of God’.

In 4 Ezra 14.40-46, Ezra is told about the distribution of the ninety-four books that contained wisdom.166 Of them only twenty-four were for the general public, the other seventy were for the wise. In 1 Enoch (Book of Similitudes), wisdom is depicted as a fountain before the divine throne (48.1; 49.1). The embodiment of wisdom is seen in the ‘Elect One’ who stands before the ‘Lord of the Spirits’ (49.2-3). True wisdom comes through the rejection of earthly wisdom and reliance on the revelation of the mysteries of heaven. This heavenly wisdom is a present possession for those who have access to the heavenly realm. It is not surprising, therefore, that in Paul’s response to the philosophy in Col. 1.1520, there are many allusions to wisdom. d. Orthodoxy and Orthopraxis Jewish apocalypses are hortatory in character.167 D. Hellholm sees that apocalyptic was ‘intended for a group in crisis with the purpose of exhortation and/or consolation by means of divine authority’.168 J. J. Collins writes: ‘Paraenesis occupies a prominent place in a few apocalypses (e.g. 2 Enoch, 2 Baruch) but all the apocalypses have a hortatory aspect, whether or not it is

165. T. J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, p. 59. 166. Ezra had written these books with the assistance of Sarea, Dabria, Selemia, Ethanus and Asiel (14.24, 37-42). 167. K. Koch, The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic: a Polemical work on a Neglected Area of Biblical Studies and its Damaging Effects on Theology and Philosophy (SBT, 2.22; London: SCM Press, 1972), p. 25, states: ‘The seer does not stop at the description of his own state … He draws conclusions for his readers in the form of paraenetic discourse’. C. Rowland sees that apocalypses consist of a threefold structure: ‘legends, visions and admonitions’. C. Rowland, The Open Heaven, p. 50. 168. D. Hellholm, ‘The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John’, in K. H. Richards (ed.), SBLSP (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), pp. 157–98 (168).

70


spelled out in special exhortations and admonitions’.169 Much of the hortatory nature of Jewish apocalyptic relates to obedience to the Mosaic law, especially in the Jewish diaspora where there is a heightened emphasis on Jewish distinctives. An example of this would be calendrical observance, especially that the Jews would not ‘forget the feasts of the covenant and walk in the feasts of the Gentiles, after their error and after their ignorance’ (Jub. 6.32-38, esp. v.35). In particular, Jub. 1.14 says: ‘And they will forget all of my laws and all my commandments and all of my judgments, and they will err concerning new moons, Sabbaths, festivals, jubilees and ordinances’. Jubilees seems to be concerned with people who, by their non-observance of the festivals of Israel, have denied the covenant. Therefore Jub. 6.38 says: ‘Your sons will be corrupted so that they will not make a year only three hundred and sixty-four days. And therefore, they will set awry the months and the (appointed) times and the Sabbaths and the feasts, and they will eat all of the blood with all flesh’. It is not hard to see how, if the Colossian errorists were from the tradition of Jewish apocalyptic, they would disqualify others whom they saw as not fulfilling Jewish law as outlined in calendrical observations and circumcision. Paul’s response, therefore, was to focus on appropriate Christian ethics. He prayed that the knowledge of God’s will (1.9) would lead to a life worthy of the Lord (1.10).

4. Jewish Mysticism in Asia Minor Having surveyed instances of first-century Jewish mysticism, it is possible to see how such a group could have infected the newly planted church in Colossae. Although knowledge about Judaism in Colossae is sparse, we do know that a significant Jewish population lived there.170 We also know that there were many different movements within first-century Judaism. There is no reason to believe that Jewish apocalyptic and mystical movements did not exist in the Lycus Valley. The mention of nearby Laodicea in Rev. 3.14-22 would imply that Jewish apocalyptic or mystical texts were current in the Lycus Valley. If such a group of Jewish mystics became Christians, they could have conflated Jewish mystical ideas with Christianity, such as an identification of Christ with the second power in heaven of Jewish apocalypticism. They could also have judged their Gentile fellow-Christians for not conforming to ascetic practices and legalism associated with Jewish mysticism. It is therefore

169. J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 5. 170. As established in Chapter 1 of this monograph. See also S. E. Johnson, ‘Asia Minor and Early Christianity’, in J. Neusner (ed.), Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults (Festschrift Morton Smith; 4 vols; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975), II, pp. 77–145.

Jewish Mysticism

71

understandable that Paul would correct these errorists with a positive corrective centring on Christology, rather than a negative rebuke emphasizing error. a. Paul’s Understanding of Jewish Mysticism The question that all this raises is, Was Paul acquainted with (proto-) Merkabah mysticism? M. Hengel suggests that Paul presupposes the Merkabah throne at many points in his writings.171 Paul’s earliest biographer, Luke, records ecstatic revelations in the three narrations of Paul’s conversion (Acts 9.3-12; 22.6-21 (note 22.17 e0n e0ksta/sei); 26.12-18). A. F. Segal concludes that Paul had a number of ecstatic experiences in his lifetime, his conversion being one of them.172 Even S. Kim, whose thesis is that ‘Paul received his gospel from the Damascus revelation of Jesus Christ’173 concedes ‘Paul’s continual experience of God’s revelation through the Spirit (e.g. 2 Cor. 12.1ff) which constantly deepened his understanding of the gospel’.174 Of special interest is the similarity between Luke’s portrayal of the calling of Paul with that of Ezekiel: Paul fell to the earth and heard a voice telling him to stand upon his feet because he was to be sent (Acts 9.4-6), exactly as happened to Ezekiel (Ezek. 1.28-2.1). Paul was blinded after the visions (Acts 9.9), whereas Ezekiel was dumbfounded (Ezek. 3.26). ‘As the kabod appeared to the prophet in Babylonia in 593 BC, so the kabod appeared to Saul near Damascus in AD 32’.175 On two occasions Paul claimed that his messages were not from a human source but by direct revelation of Jesus Christ: Gal. 1.12 and 2 Cor. 12.1-10.176 In Gal. 1.12 he states that his gospel was received di’ a0pokalu/yewj 0Ihsou= Xristou= (Gal. 1.12). The nature of this vision is not described although it most probably alludes to the event described in Acts 9. The other example in 2 Cor. 12.1-10 appears to be on another occasion. That referred to in 2 Corinthians disallowed disclosure, whereas that referred to in Galatians demanded proclamation.177 171. See M. Hengel, ‘“Setze dich zu meiner Rechten!”: Die Inthronisation Christi zur Rechten Gottes und Psalm 110,1’, in M. Philonenko (ed.), Le Trône de Dieu (WUNT, 69; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1993), pp. 108–94. 172. A. F. Segal, Paul the Convert, p. 37. 173. S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, p. 35. 174. Ibid., p. 335. 175. G. Quispel, ‘Ezekiel 1.26 in Jewish Mysticism and Gnosis’, 8. 176. Paul tells of his mystical ascent in 2 Cor. 12.1-10 in the third person as rhetoric demands modesty; however, most commentators agree that Paul is referring to himself. See for example C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1973), p. 307. In the Cologne Mani Codex, a parchment of the fifth century CE, the author cites three references to heavenly ascents in the Pauline corpus: Gal. 1.1; 2 Cor. 12.1-5 and Gal. 1.11-12 (CMC 60.12-62.20). 177. W. Baird, ‘Vision, Revelation and Ministry: Reflection on 2 Cor. 12.1-5 and Gal. 1.11-17’, JBL 104 (1985), 651–62 (652). A. F. Segal also argues that Gal. 1.11-17 and 2 Cor. 12.1-10 refer to different experiences because of mathematical incompatibility. In Galatians, Paul refers to a three year hiatus between his conversion and his first visit to

72


W. Baird lists similarities and differences between 2 Cor. 12.1-10 and other heavenly ascents.178 It appears from the context of 2 Corinthians 12 that this experience was not sought by the apostle and there was no ascetic preparation. Furthermore, it is interesting that Paul carried for the rest of his life a memento of his ascent into heaven in the form of a recurring ‘thorn in his flesh’ (2 Cor. 12.7). Paul accepted this thorn in the flesh as ‘a prophylactic against the spiritual pride that was prone to beset those who had made the heavenly ascent’. 179 It comes within the section of 2 Corinthians often identified as the ‘severe’ or ‘sorrowful’ letter, namely 10-13, where Paul boasts in things that show his weakness. The theme of boasting, which is repeated throughout this section of correspondence (10.8, 13, 15, 16, 17; 11.12, 16, 18, 30) is taken up again in 12.1-5.180 With such a background, it is possible to see how Paul would have condemned any form of boasting associated with such a heavenly ascent. From the above it is possible to conclude that Paul was associated with the concept of heavenly ascents in first-century Judaism. Indeed, G. Scholem has argued that Paul’s rapture to paradise in 2 Corinthians 12 should be understood against the background of the Rabbinic story of the ‘Four who entered Pardes’.181 Although Betz sees Paul’s visionary experience as merely a literary device,182 the text of Corinthians shows that Paul did not doubt its reality; the

Jerusalem, and that fourteen years passed before his second visit to Jerusalem which was made at the direction of another revelation (Gal. 2.2). The years may be counted inclusively, with a fraction of a year being counted as an entire year. Therefore Paul’s ministry must begin 14–17 years before the writing of Galatians. Segal concludes that if 2 Corinthians was written after Galatians, the reference in 2 Cor. 12.2 to ‘fourteen years ago’ does not refer to his conversion. A. F. Segal, Paul the Convert, pp. 36–37. D. A. Carson comments: ‘The second canonical epistle to the Corinthians was apparently written about A.D. 55 or 56. Whether we reckon up the “fourteen years” inclusively or not, this puts the visionary experience into the silent decade of Paul’s ministry, roughly A.D. 35–45, years about which we know almost nothing save that he spent them in Syria and Cilicia (Gal. 1.21)’. D. A. Carson, From Triumphalism to Maturity: A New Exposition of 2 Corinthians 10-13 (Leicester: IVP, 1984), p. 136. 178. W. Baird, ‘Vision, Revelation and Ministry: Reflection on 2 Cor. 12.1-5 and Gal. 1.11-17’, pp. 657–58. 179. F. F. Bruce, ‘The Colossian Heresy’, 202. 180. E. A. Judge, ‘Paul’s Boasting in Relation to Contemporary Professional Practice’, AusBR 16 (1968), 37–50. 181. G. G. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition, pp. 14–19. This understanding of 2 Cor. 12.2-4 having a Hekhalot background has been questioned. See P. Schäfer, ‘New Testament and Hekhalot Literature: The Journey into Heaven in Paul and in Merkabah Mysticism’, 19–35. See also a response to Schäfer by C. R. A. Morray-Jones, ‘Paradise Revisited (2 Cor. 12.1-12): The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul’s Apostolate. Part 1: The Jewish Sources’, HTR 86 (1993), 177–217; C. R. A. Morray-Jones, ‘Paradise Revisited (2 Cor. 12.1-12): The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul’s Apostolate. Part 2: Paul’s Heavenly Ascent and Its Significance’, HTR 86 (1993), 265–92. 182. See H. D. Betz, Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition (BHT, 4; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1972) p. 89.

Jewish Mysticism

73

‘thorn in the flesh’ (12.7) was a constant reminder to the apostle of the reality of this experience.183 As Barnett summarizes: Through ‘visions and revelations’ from the Lord, Paul had been transported to paradise, where he had heard words that he was not permitted to utter (12.1-6). But God’s ‘gift’ to him of a protracted and debilitating ‘weakness’ pinned him to the earth in humility and dependence on the Lord … The message is clear. Through their ‘visions and revelations’ the newcomers are uplifted in religious pride; they are, indeed ‘superlative’ apostles. In the unremoved ‘thorn’ Paul exercises his ministry in humility and patience; lacking power of his own, utterly dependent on the Lord. God’s power is made perfect in weakness.184

5. Conclusion The study of Jewish mysticism shows that heavenly ascents were a real part of the world-view of some Jews in the first century. The danger that such people posed to the harmony of the church was that those who claimed such ascents could also claim a superior spirituality. This super-spirituality was grounded in a dualistic worldview that led to ascetic practices. Boasting of such practices showed a faith that was more dependent on human effort than divine grace, and was thereby a denial of Paul’s gospel. We will attempt to show how Paul’s letter to the Colossians is a response to such a movement. This response points to errors of theology and resultant practice which arose from an inadequate Christology. If the Colossian errorists saw the angels and even themselves as worshipping Jesus, whom they identified as a second power in heaven and included within the divine identity, they did not realize the ramifications of their belief. If this Jesus was truly God (as the angelic worship presupposed), then he had dominion over the forces of evil. If he was truly God, it negated the errorists’ need for asceticism for access to heaven, for now there was a mediator who was no less than God himself, who had opened the way to heaven through his death and resurrection. No further works of mediation were required. If Jesus was the only mediator to God, all conceited claims to super-spirituality based on esoteric mystical experiences were nullified. It is to this response to this movement that we now turn our attention, as we seek to understand from the text of Colossians Paul’s correction of theology and practice.

183. A. T. Lincoln, ‘“Paul the Visionary”: The Setting and Significance of the Rapture to Paradise in II Corinthians XII 1-10’, NTS 25 (1979), 204–20 (209–10). See also M. E. Thrall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (ICC; 2 vols; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), II, pp. 772–809. 184. P. W. Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), pp. 555–56.

Chapter 4

THE LORDSHIP OF CHRIST: COLOSSIANS 2.6-8 It is our intention to test the thesis that the Colossian error arose from a Jewish mystical movement that focused on heavenly ascents. We shall do this by the best means available to us: a detailed study of the text of the Colossian letter. We will therefore deal with those sections of Colossians which refer to the error, and from this we will seek to better appreciate Paul’s response to it. As has been pointed out in Chapter 1, the passages that give the clearest and most explicit references to the error will be given priority. We shall therefore begin our study with a detailed exegesis of Col. 2.6-23.

1. The Tradition Received from Epaphras: Colossians 2.6-23 Paul begins his rebuke of the errorists with a positive note, reminding the Colossians of the lordship of Christ as the centre of the message proclaimed to them by Epaphras (1.7). The authority of Epaphras’ message is reinforced by the subordinate clause in 2.6: w9j ou]\n parela/bete to\n Xristo\n 0Ihsou=n to\n ku/rion. Of particular significance is parela/bete. Paralamba/nw and its twin paradi/dwmi are technical words that correspond to the Rabbinic concepts lbq and rsm which are used to describe the reception and transmission of tradition.1 Therefore ‘Moses received (lbq) the Law on Sinai and committed it (hrsmw) to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets,

1. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 93, n. 1. F. F. Bruce, Tradition: Old and New (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1970), p. 36, states: ‘This “tradition of Christ” had regard to doctrine and practice alike: on the side of doctrine, it was calculated to guard them against every “human tradition” (Col. 2.8) and perversion of gospel like the Colossian heresy which was infiltrating their midst; on the side of practice, it is spelt out in the ethical directions of Col. 3.5-4.6’. On the topic of tradition see O. Cullmann, ‘The Tradition’ in A. J. B. Higgins (ed.), The Early Church (London: SCM Press, 1956), pp. 59–99. J. I. H. McDonald, KERYGMA and DIDACHE: The Articulation and Structure of the Earliest Christian Message (SNTSMS, 37; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1980), pp. 124–25, states: ‘Paradosis transmits Christ (cf. Col. 2.6) and does so even when it does not enshrine a specifically dominical utterance or action. Its substance or focus is never “man made” (cf. Col. 2.8)’.

The Lordship of Christ: Colossians 2.6-8

75

and the prophets committed it to the men of the Great Synagogue’ (m. ’Abot 1.1). This association of paralamba/nw with authority and tradition can be seen in contemporary Greek literature (e.g. Plato, Theaetetus 198B) and other Pauline passages (e.g. 1 Cor. 11.23; 15.1, 3; Gal. 1.9, 12; Phil. 4.9; 1 Thess. 2.13; 4.1; 2 Thess. 3.2). Paul defines this tradition in v.6 as the lordship of Christ – to\n Xristo\n 0Ihsou=n to\n ku/rion. The definite article to/n before ku/rion gives emphasis to the concept of lordship. The proclamation of the lordship of Christ is mentioned about 230 times in the Pauline corpus,2 and can therefore be seen as an early credal confession and as the content of Paul’s preaching (2 Cor. 4.5). It is safe to assume that the lordship of Christ summarizes the initial tradition delivered to the Colossians by Epaphras. This tradition has already been emphasized as the centre of God’s mystery (1.27; 2.2), expressed in Christ as the lord of both creation and reconciliation (1.15-20). As will be shown, this lordship is being undermined by the Colossian philosophy. Whereas this message of Christ’s lordship was received (paralamba/nw) as divine tradition, the Colossian philosophy has no such status. Paul moves from the indicative to the imperative – e0n au0tw|~ peripatei=te.3 The metaphor of walking is used by Paul elsewhere (Gal. 5.16; Rom. 14.15; 2 Cor. 4.2).4 Note that peripatei=te is in the present tense, indicating the need to continue in the light of the lordship of Christ. This interrelationship between theology and resultant activity will be noted throughout the letter. It would appear, therefore, that the Colossian philosophy sought to undermine the ongoing lordship of Christ in some way, and, if successful, would result in aberrant ethical behaviour. Paul reinforces the point made in v.6 by a sequence of metaphors. Four participles are employed to indicate what it means to walk in the light of the lordship of Christ. Three of these participles employ the passive voice emphasizing divine activity.5 The first participle e0rrizwme/noi is from the verb r9izo/w (be/become firmly rooted/fixed).6 It appears in the New Testament only here and in Eph. 3.17. The perfect tense is significant as it emphasizes the effect of sowing that results in a well-formed plant. The result of the preaching/teaching ministry of Epaphras is presumably emphasized. The image of deep roots is familiar to Jewish tradition (Jer. 17.8; Ezek. 31.7; Sir. 40.15).7 The second participle, e0poikodomou/menoi, from the verb e0poikodome/w (to build something on something already built, build on to), is in the present

2. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 139–40. 3. Although peripatei=te could be either indicative or imperative, it is clear from the context that the imperative is meant. 4. H. Seesemann, ‘pate/w and compounds in the N.T.’, in TDNT, V, pp. 944–45; G. Ebel, ‘peripate/w’, in NIDNTT, III, pp. 943–45. 5. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, pp. 106–07. 6. s.v. ‘r9izo/w’, BDAG, p. 906. 7. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 142.

76


tense and passive voice;8 it emphasizes the importance of the foundation. In other Pauline usage in 1 Cor. 3.10-14 and Eph. 2.20 it refers to the importance of the founding tradition. Note again the use of e0n au0tw|~ as a reference to Christ, and to the founding tradition given by Epaphras. bebaiou/menoi is a present passive participle implying ongoing activity. bebaio/w is a term denoting the legal guarantee required for the transfer of goods,9 which in this instance is th|= pi/stei. It is possible that the dative has a subjective and instrumental sense (by your faith), although this context, dealing with Christian tradition, implies an objective sense, referring to the doctrines of the Christian faith.10 Dunn suggests: ‘… the emphasis falls on the tradition which the Colossian Christians first received and their acceptance of it as providing the basis and guarantee of the transfer they made in baptism to Christ as Lord (Rom. 10.9)’.11 The fourth participle, perisseu/ontej, is a present active participle showing that the Colossians were to abound in thankfulness for what God had done in and through Christ. The theme, therefore, of this introductory section is the need for the Colossians to stand firm in the tradition they received from Epaphras. In particular, Paul emphasizes the lordship of Christ. Having reminded his readers of these foundational features, Paul now turns his focus to the nature of the Colossian philosophy that sought to undermine this foundation that Epaphras had laid.

2. The Threat of the Philosophy The threat posed by the Colossian philosophy is seen in the opening construction of v.8: ble/pete (imperative) followed by mh/. In other Pauline usage this points to a specific danger (e.g. 1 Cor. 8.9; 10.12; Gal. 5.15 and Phil. 3.2). Whether the threat was real or potential has been an issue among scholars.12 The use of the indefinite tij coupled with e1stai (future) could 8. s.v. ‘e0poikodome/w’, BDAG, p. 387. 9. G. A. Deissmann has shown how be/baioj has a technical sense for a legal guarantee. He therefore states that this gives the idea of greater surety. See G. A. Deissmann, Bible Studies: Contributions chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the History of the Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901), pp. 104–09. 10. The difficulties of interpretation are compounded by a textual variant. The reading bebaiou/menoi th|= pi/stei is attested by B, D*, H, and twelve minuscules and is given an [A] rating by UBS4. bebaiou/menoi e0n th=| pi/stei is found in A, C, I, Y and four minuscules. As the former reading would give more of an objective and locative sense ‘confirmed in the faith’ as opposed to a more instrumental and subjective understanding for e0n th=| pi/stei ‘by your faith’, the former has more internal contextual support. Coupled with the external textual evidence, it is to be preferred. See J. Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Colossians (ed. W. Young; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), pp. 124–25. 11. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 142. 12. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of the views of M. Hooker.


77

suggest that a possibility was being envisaged rather than a reality.13 Moulton therefore sees it as referring to the possibility of an indefinite person presenting a threat.14 Lightfoot, however, points out that ‘this indefinite tij is frequently used by St. Paul when speaking of opponents whom he knows well enough but does not care to name’.15 Masson suggests that both writer and reader would have been able to recognize the person concerned. He points to the emphasis that is placed on tij through its prominent position in the sentence and that it is given a definite force by its association with the articular participle o9 sulagwgw~n.16 If specific people were in mind, why did Paul not name them? In 1 Tim. 1.20 he names opponents of the gospel, and in Phil. 4.2 he names Euodia and Syntyche. It must be remembered, however, that Paul was not the original evangelist to the Colossians; the implication of Col. 2.1 is that Paul had not yet visited the Colossian church.17 If, as we intend to argue, there was a movement of Jewish mysticism which was affecting the Colossian church, it seems most likely that the threat was real and present from a group of Jewish Christians within the Colossian church. Paul does not name these errorists as he does not personally know them. This, however, does not negate the present reality of the threat. The activity of the errorists is seen in the present participle sulagwgw~n which is best taken as a conative present ‘who tries to, who wants to …’18 The word is used only here in the New Testament and means ‘carry off as booty or captive’.19 The thought is in terms of capturing the minds of the Colossians through rhetoric, and thereby enslaving again those who had been liberated by the Christian gospel that was preached by Epaphras. Lightfoot comments: ‘The Colossians had been rescued from the bondage of darkness; they had been transferred to the kingdom of light; they had been settled there as free

13. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 146. 14. See J. H. Moulton, W. F Howard and N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, I, p.193, where Moulton translates ble/pete mh/ tij e1stai o9 sulagwgw~n as ‘take heed! perhaps there will be someone who …’ 15. Lightfoot quotes Ignatius, Smyrn. 5 : o3n tinej a0gnoou=ntej a0rnou=ntai … ta\ de\ o0no/mata au0tw~n, o1nta a1pista, ou0k e1doce/ moi e0ggra/yai. He also compares the use of tij in 2.8 with that of tine/j in Gal. 1.7. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 176. 16. ‘Ne pourrait-on inférer de ce tij fortement accentué par sa position et déterminé par le participe accompagné de l’article (o9 sulagwgw~n) que Paul vise ici quelqu’un qu’il ne veut pas nommer mais qui est bien connu des Colossiens?’ C. Masson, L’Epître de Saint Paul aux Colossiens, p. 121, n. 4. 17. For an alternate view (that Paul had visited Colossae during his third missionary tour) see B. I. Reicke, ‘The Historical Setting of Colossians’, RevExp 70 (1973), 429–38. 18. ‘Inasmuch as the description of the occurrence in the durative present is bound up with the notion of incompleteness, the present in itself can denote an attempt but incomplete action.’ If the conative sense is not adopted, the participle would be translated as ‘while being carried off’. BDF, §319. 19. For other usage see E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 94, who cites Heliodorus 10.35 (307).

78


citizens (1.12,13); and now there was danger that they should fall into a state worse than their former slavery, that they should be carried off as so much booty’.20 a. filosofi/a Paul uses the word filosofi/a to describe the teaching of the opponents. filosofi/a appears only here in the New Testament, but has a history in Hellenistic thought. O. Michel traces its history back to the sixth century BCE where philosophy was seen as the underlying force behind the being who was responsible for the multiplicity of things.21 filosofi/a was not restricted to the Hellenistic world. Jewish philosophers also made use of the term, often with religious overtones. Therefore 4 Maccabees begins by commending philosophy as ‘a subject necessary to everyone for understanding’ (1.1-2), and later defines the value of our (Jewish) philosophy as teaching the virtues of sound judgment, self-control, manliness, justice and godliness (5.22-24). Furthermore, Josephus referred to each of the different sects within Judaism (Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes) as filosofi/a (Ant. 18.11). Philosophic schools concerned themselves with questions that had religious implications.22 Even those who used spells and magic called themselves philosophers. Therefore Stobaeus referred to how philosophy and magic work for the nurture of the soul (Excerpts 23.68). Initiations that unlocked the doors to hidden sources were considered gateways to philosophy.23 G. Bornkamm points out the development in the term filosofi/a by stating: ‘Without doubt (filosofi/a) … has long since ceased to designate rational learning, but has become equivalent to revealed doctrine and magic’.24 In the magical papyri, sofisth/j (=philosopher) ‘denotes one who possesses secret knowledge and secret power, the magician’.25 C. Arnold shows how the concept of philosophy is well illustrated by the translation of the Hebrew of Dan. 1.20:

20. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 176. If the philosophy is synagogue-based, there may be a pun on sunagwgh/ / sulagwgw~n. See N. T. Wright, The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC, Leicester: IVP, 1986), p. 100. 21. O. Michel, ‘filosofi/a’, in TDNT, IX, pp. 172–88 (173); H. Weigelt, ‘filosofi/a’, in NIDNTT, III, pp. 1034–36. 22. For an extended study on the interrelationship of religion and philosophy see D. Babut, La Religion des Philosophes Grecs: de Thalès à Stoïciens (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1974). 23. th\n filosofi/an mu/hsin fai/h tij a2n a0lhqou=j teleth=j kai\ o1ntwn w(j a0lhqw~j musthri/wn para/dosin. Theonis Smyrnaei, Philosophi Platonici: Expositio Rerum Mathematicarum (ed. E. Hiller; Lipsiae: B. G. Teubneri, 1878), p. 14. 24. G. Bornkamm, ‘The Heresy of Colossians’, p. 139, n.12. 25. R. Reitzenstein, Hellenistic Mystery Religions (PTMS, 15; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1978), p. 297.


79

Myp#)h Mym+rxh (the magicians and enchanters (NRSV)) LXX u9pe\r tou\j sofista\j kai\ tou\j filoso/fouj Theodotian para\ pa/ntaj tou\j e0paoidou\j kai tou\j ma/gouj26 The semantic range of filosofi/a is therefore quite broad. It can refer to magical and esoteric knowledge. It can refer to revealed doctrine. It need not be equated with the modern English word ‘philosophy’ to designate rational knowledge. Ultimately, the meaning of filosofi/a in this context will be determined by identifying the nature of the philosophy through an exegesis of Colossians 2. Provided such a definition falls within the semantic range of filosofi/a, such a meaning shall be applied. It must be noted that revealed knowledge as seen in Jewish mysticism certainly falls within this range. Although filosofi/a does not have an inherently negative connotation, Paul is probably using a word of his opponents and sets it aside with kai\ kenh=j a0pa/thj (2.8). It should also be noted that Paul does not set forth Christianity as a filosofi/a, even if Christianity is a distinctive form of sofi/a (1 Cor. 2.6). The description of the philosophy as kenh=j a0pa/thj is doubly condemnatory. keno/j means ‘being devoid of intellectual, moral, or spiritual value, empty’27 and a0pa/th ‘deception, deceitfulness’.28 The two nouns, filosofi/aj and a0pa/thj, are governed by the same preposition dia/, and there is no definite article with kenh=j a0pa/thj, which shows that kenh=j a0pa/thj qualifies the definite th=j filosofi/aj. Therefore Paul means: ‘Beware lest anyone attempt to enslave you by the philosophy which is empty deceit’. Paul is not making a comment on philosophy in general.29 This philosophy is further defined as kata\ th\n para/dosin tw~n a0nqrw/pwn. The same phrase th\n para/dosin tw~n a0nqrw/pwn occurs in Mk 7.8 as Jesus denounces the pharisaic traditions. In Gal. 1.14, Paul refers to his Jewish past when he describes himself as zhlwth\j u9pa/rxwn tw~n patrikw~n mou parado/sewn.30 The source of the philosophy is therefore shown to be human (tw~n a0nqrw/pwn) which is juxtaposed to the divine source of the tradition delivered by Epaphras, as outlined in v.6. Even if the proponents of the

26. C. E. Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism, p. 205. See A. Rahlfs (ed.), Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes (2 vols; Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935), II, p. 873 for variant readings. See also O. Michel, ‘filosofi/a’, pp. 172–88 (179–80) and J. Gnilka, Der Kolosserbrief, p. 122, who states: ‘Besondere Aufmerksamkeit verdient der Zusammenhang von Philosophie und Magie. Nach LXX Dan. 1.20, der einzigen Stelle, wo Philosophen (neben Sophisten) in der griechischen Bibel genannt werden, ist ihre Fähigkeit, Zeichen zu deuten und wahrzusagen, vorausgesetzt’. 27. s.v. ‘keno/j’, BDAG, p. 539. 28. s.v. ‘a0pa/th’, BDAG, p. 99. See Mk 4.19: the deceitfulness of wealth; Heb. 3.13: the deception of sin; 2 Thess. 2.10: wicked deception generally. 29. This observation was made by Clement of Alexandria: e0pei\ kai\ Pau=loj e0n tai=j e0pistolai=j ou0 filosofi/an diaba/llwn fai/netai … (When Paul, not condemning philosophy openly in his letter …) (Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. 6.8.62). 30. s.v. ‘para/dosij’, BDAG, pp. 762–63.

80


philosophy boast of supernatural experiences, they are really proclaiming something of human origin that is more concerned with empty deceit than with true spirituality. This would appear to support the thesis that the proponents of the philosophy were a group claiming super-spirituality on the basis of their experience. b. ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou The philosophy is further described as kata\ ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou. This phrase has incited much debate due to its importance in determining the nature of the Colossian philosophy. Some, including Dibelius, have seen it as central to the Colossian philosophy,31 and therefore it is vital to understand this significant phrase.32 There are three basic meanings of stoixei=a: basic principles; the basic elements of the universe (earth, water, air and fire); and astral powers. i. Basic Principles The term stoixei=a was used for objects standing in a row33 and can thus stand for the letters of the alphabet.34 This appears to be the meaning in Heb. 5.12 where the rudiments of God’s Word are referred to as stoixei=a. Such an interpretation for stoixei=a has resulted in it being understood as ‘the rudimentary religious teachings possessed by our race’35 as seen in the law. This understanding of stoixei=a tou= ko/smou was expounded by the Reformers. Luther’s 1545 translation of the New Testament translates stoixei=a tou= ko/smou in Col. 2.8 as ‘welt Satzungen’.36 He saw that the meaning of stoixei=a was the same in both Galatians and Colossians, and in each occurrence meant the Mosaic law.37 Calvin understood stoixei=a in Gal. 4.3 as rudiments,38 which is illustrated in Gal. 4.10 with the observance of days as an example of observance of the law39 and in Colossians 2 with the lessons used for the instruction of

31. M. Dibelius, ‘The Isis Initiation in Apuleius and Related Initiatory Rites’, p. 82. 32. For a survey of the interpretation of ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou see A. J. Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of the World (Kampen: Kok, 1964), pp. 5–30. 33. s.v. ‘stoi=xoj’, BDAG, p. 946. See also G. R. Beasley-Murray, ‘The Second Chapter of Colossians’, RevExp 70 (1973), 471. 34. s.v. ‘stoixei=on’, BDAG, p. 946. 35. E. de W. Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Galatians (ICC, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921), p. 518. 36. ET: ‘worldly statutes’. M. Luther (ed.), Die Gantze Heilige Schrifft Deudsch (Wittenburg: 1545 = Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1973), p. 2375. 37. M. Luther, A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (ed. P. S. Watson; trans. P. S. Watson; London: James Clark and Co., 1953), pp. 349–53. 38. J. Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians (eds. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance; trans. T. H. L. Parker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), p. 73. 39. Ibid., p. 77.


81

children, which Calvin saw as external ceremonies such as circumcision.40 Others who have seen the reference in Col. 2.8 as referring to basic principles or law include: H. A. W. Meyer,41 B. Weiss,42 J. B. Lightfoot,43 W. L. Knox,44 R. M. Grant,45 C. F. D. Moule,46 A. J. Bandstra,47 E. D. Burton,48 F. O. Francis,49 W. Carr,50 T. J. Sappington51 and G. B. Caird.52 Those who understand stoixei=a as law disagree about whether the term should be identified with the Mosaic law or with the basic religious principles that are phenomenologically shared by both Jews and Gentiles and which form the basis for all religions.53 An example of interpreting stoixei=a as basic principles expressed in law has been developed by G. B. Caird, who compares the four occurrences of stoixei=a in the Pauline corpus (Gal. 4.3, 9; Col. 2.8, 20). He notes that Paul’s use of stoixei=a in Galatians 4 focuses on both the Jews and the Gentiles. In Gal. 4.3-5, ‘we’ (all Christians) were in bondage to the elements and therefore to the law. In Gal. 4.8, 9, Paul uses the personal pronoun ‘you’ which Caird sees as a reference to Gentile Christians.54

40. Ibid., p. 330. 41. H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians and to Philemon (ed. W. P. Dickson; trans. J. C. Moore; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1983), p. 292. 42. B. Weiss, Biblical Theology of the New Testament (trans. D. Eaton; 2 vols; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1882), I, pp. 358, 372–73. 43. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 178–79. 44. W. L. Knox, St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939), pp. 108–09. 45. ‘We turned and became as children. Now however, we have completed our elementary education. We have learned our spiritual alphabet and can proceed from milk to meat’. R. M. Grant, ‘Like Children’, HTR 39 (1946), 71–73 (72–73). 46. ‘… it seems reasonable to take it (stoixei=a) here to mean simply “elementary teaching” – teaching by Judaistic or pagan ritualists … and contrary to the freedom of the Spirit’. C. F. D. Moule, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 92. 47. Bandstra understands the term as unregenerate human nature, as seen in the basic forces of law and flesh, which held both Jew and Gentile, deliverance from which is available through Christ. A. J. Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of the World, pp. 69–70. 48. E. de W. Burton understands stoixei=a tou= ko/smou as ‘the rudimentary religious teachings possessed by the race’. E. de W. Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Galatians, p. 518. 49. F. O. Francis, ‘Humility and Angel Worship in Col. 2.18’, pp. 163–95. 50. W. Carr, Angels and Principalities: The Background, Meaning and Development of the Pauline Phrase HAI ARCHAI KAI EXOUSIAI (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 75. 51. T. J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, pp. 164–70. 52. G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible, pp. 239–42. 53. G. Delling, ‘stoixei=on’, in TDNT, VII, pp. 666–87 (685); W. Wink, Naming the Powers (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), p. 72; C. F. D. Moule, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 92. 54. G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible, p. 240.

82


In the case of Gentile Christians the elements were the ‘not gods’ of their pagan religions. For some reason, these Gentile converts wanted to revert to these pagan gods from which they had been delivered. It is easy to see how Paul could have spoken of deliverance from the pagan ‘not gods’, but it is harder to see how Paul would liken the law to pagan ‘not gods’ from which the (Jewish) Christians had been delivered. Caird points out that, in the same way as Gentile ‘not gods’ are subordinate to God, and thereby in worshipping them the Gentiles have become slaves to an idolatrous illusion, so too the Jews have given such a status to the law. Torah is not God, nor is it designed to be God’s final revelation. God’s eternal purpose was disclosed in his promise to Abraham, to which the law was added as a secondary codicil (Gal. 3.15-18).55 In exalting the law to absolute significance, the Jews had committed the same mistake as Gentile idolatry, resulting in the same sort of slavery.56 In the light of Caird’s discussion, it is interesting that in Col. 2.8 Paul refers to kata\ ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou thereby showing that the elements are earthly. They stand for the structures or powers of the old world order which Paul believed to be obsolete. Therefore Caird would argue that when Paul talks about disarming these powers and triumphing over them (2.15), he is talking of earthly realities.57 ii. The Elements of the Universe E. Schweizer believed that Paul used ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou to refer to the elements of earth, water, air and fire (and possibly heaven): the components of the universe.58 He argued that this was the first century contemporary usage, citing texts from Empedocles, Cicero, Alexander Polyhistor, Ovid, Philo, Josephus, Plutarch and Hippolytus.59 There was a belief that when these elements’ harmony was turned to disharmony, there resulted earthquakes, inundations, storms and the eruptions of volcanoes.60 The harmony between the elements can be seen in Philo, who saw that although these elements seem to perish as they change, yet in truth they are imperishable. Earth is liquefied and becomes water, water vaporizes into air and air rarefies into fire (Philo, De Aeternitate Mundi 109-110; Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres 134). Philo pointed out that these elements could be personified as spirits or given the names of deities (De Decalogo 53; De Vita Contemplativa 3). Plato also spoke of the primary elements of which everything is made (Theaetetus 201e). Schweizer continued to argue that by the time Colossians was written, this understanding of harmony among the elements had changed in emphasis.

55. Ibid., p. 241. 56. Ibid., p. 241. 57. Ibid., p. 242. 58. E. Schweizer, ‘Slaves of the Elements and Worshippers of Angels: Gal. 4.3, 9 and Col. 2.8, 18, 20’, JBL 107 (1988), 455–68 (456). 59. Ibid., 456. stoixei=a in 2 Pet. 3.12 appears to refer to these natural elements. 60. Ibid., 466.


83

There was now a ‘fear that the soul might not be able to pierce through the elements to heaven after death or might be captivated in them again after falling down’.61 It was therefore necessary to free the soul from the earthly entanglements of the elements. Against this background, Paul is suggesting that Christ is the one through whom believers may find deliverance from the elements of the world. Therefore for Schweizer, the elements of the world are not worshipped, but feared; they were not deities or spirits but earth, water, air and fire. The means of deliverance was asceticism and the worship of angels.62 iii. Astral Powers The idea of stars controlling the fate of the cosmos goes at least as far back as Babylon in the second millennium BCE.63 Plato could speak of the deity of the stars (Timaeus 40a-41a). Josephus could describe the Pharisees and the Essenes as believers in fate (Ant. 13.172), and could even claim that with their ascetic lifestyle, the Essenes prayed to the sun (War 2.128). In the Testament of Solomon, which is normally dated between the first and third century CE,64 although having a prehistory that may span back to an earlier date, there is an identification between astral powers and stoixei=a. Seven bound spirits appear before Solomon and reveal their identity as the heavenly bodies, the rulers of the world of darkness: oi9 de\ ei]pon h9mei=j e0smen stoixei=a kosmokra/torej tou= sko/touj (T. Sol. 8.2). Their identity is further associated with the stars when they say that their stars in heaven look small but they (the spirits) are named like gods: kai\ ta\ a1stra h9mw~n e0n ou0ranw~| fai/nontai mikra\ kai\ w9j qeoi\ kalou/meqa (T. Sol. 8.4). Diogenes Laertius called the twelve signs of the zodiac ta\ dw&deka stoixei=a (Diogenes Laertius 6.102). He testified that the sun, moon and stars are gods as they possess the element of warmth, an essential characteristic of life (Diogenes Laertius 8.28). Dunn points out that this is a natural extension of the understanding of the four elements, as stars were understood to be composed of one of the four primal elements: fire.65 Therefore we read in Wis. 13.1-2, ‘Surely vain are all men by nature, who are ignorant of God, and could not out of the good things that are seen know him that is: neither by considering the world did they acknowledge the workmaster; but deemed either fire or wind or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the violent water, or the lights of heaven, to be the gods which govern the world’.

61. Ibid., 467. 62. D. G. Reid, ‘Elements/Elemental Spirits of the World’, in G. F. Hawthorne and R. P. Martin (eds), Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (Leicester: IVP, 1993) pp. 229–33 (231). 63. See F. Rochberg-Halton, ‘Astrology in the Ancient Near East’, in ABD I, pp. 504–07. 64. For a summary of the dating of the Testament of Solomon see D. C. Duling, ‘Testament of Solomon: A New Translation and Introduction’, OTP, I, pp. 935–58. 65. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 149.

84


It is therefore possible to conceive of a Jewish philosophy that drew on these traditions in such a way as to commend their religious practices.66 It is not difficult to assume that Jews living in the Lycus valley would have been affected by such beliefs. Nock states that ‘in the stoixei=a Jewish and planetary ideas meet’.67 He points out an analogy between bondage to the stoixei=a and bondage to the planetary powers, in other words to fate. From these powers, according to the first tractate in the Corpus Hermeticum, human beings can escape by receiving the knowledge of the truth.68 In Galatians 4 stoixei=a is mentioned in association with the observation of days and months and seasons and years. These divisions of time, according to Gen. 1.14, were regulated by the lights placed by God in the firmament of the heavens. When these lights, or the forces that were behind them, were given independent status, and the calendar which they controlled was treated as a binding element in divine worship, the allegiance due to the Creator alone was in danger of being paid to his creation. Paul did not accept that there were lords of the planetary spheres, but he knew that those who believed in them could become enslaved to their forces.69 c. Who/What are ta\ stoixei=a tou~ ko/smou? It can be seen from the above survey that stoixei=a is a multi-faceted word. Most scholars have therefore chosen one of the above understandings of stoixei=a and argued for it in Colossians 2. Although such a decision needs to be made, it may be helpful initially to focus less on the differences and more on similarities. The common thread that goes through each of the above understandings of ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou is that each of these elements is in some way related to angelic powers. i. Angels and Basic Principles/Law In recent studies where scholars have emphasized the Jewish mystical interpretation of the problem at Colossae, describing a mystical ascent and witnessing of the angels worshipping God (i.e. qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn (2.18) as a subjective genitive), stoixei=a has normally been seen as depersonalized ‘basic principles/elementary teaching’. This is particularly the case in the studies by F. O. Francis,70 W. Carr71 and T. J. Sappington.72 Such a view,

66. Ibid., p. 151. 67. A. D. Nock, Early Gentile Christianity and its Hellenistic Background (New York: Harper and Row,1964), p. 98, n.4. 68. Note especially that knowledge leads to divinization: tou=to/ e0sti to\ a0gaqo\n te/loj toi=j gnw~sin e0sxhko/si, qewqh=nai (This is the happy ending for those who have knowledge: becoming God) (Corpus Hermeticum 1.15.19-26). 69. This is similar to his argument where he states that an idol is nothing to a believer, but could however become an instrument of demonic oppression to pagans (1 Cor. 8.4,7; 10.19-21). See F. F. Bruce, ‘The Colossian Heresy’, 205. 70. F. O. Francis, ‘Humility and Angelic Worship in Col. 2.18’, pp. 163–95. 71. W. Carr, Angels and Principalities, p. 75. 72. T. J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, pp. 164–70.


85

however, fails to appreciate that the expression ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou comes amidst several references to supernatural powers: e0cousi/a tou= sko/touj (1.13); ta\ a0or / ata (1.16); qro/noi (1.16); kurio/thtej (1.16); a0rxai\ kai\ e0cousi/ai (1.16; 2.10; 2.15); tw~n a0gge/lwn (2.18). As C. Arnold points out, this is an ‘extraordinary concentration of references to angelic powers in the span of just 52 verses’.73 Just as the meaning of ta\ stoixei=a in Heb. 5.12 can be seen from its context to refer to ‘mere rudiments/first principles’, so too the context of supernatural beings in Colossians 1 and 2 must be taken seriously. This relationship between personalized forces and the law can be seen by Paul’s use of vocabulary. On the one hand he mentions these personalized forces with terms like stoixei=a, a0rxai/, a!ggeloi, e0cousi/ai, while on the other hand he refers to resultant laws/regulations: para/dosij a0nqrw/pwn, peritomh/, to\ kaq’ h9mw~n xeiro/grafon, do/gmata. 74 There is therefore a relationship between the basic principles and the powers behind them. B. Reicke75 identifies the stoixei=a in Galatians 4 with the angels in Gal. 3.19. He points out that Paul builds this proposition on the first-century idea of angels being the founders and the guardians of the law.76 When Paul states in Gal. 3.19 that the law was ‘ordained through angels’ he may be suggesting that the Judaizers, by putting Christians back under the law, were indeed putting them back under the intermediate superintendence of an angelic power.77 E. Percy also makes this identification, showing that angels were not only the ordainers of the law, but also the guardians of the cosmos and its laws.78 C. Masson identifies the stoixei=a with the angelic powers of Col. 1.16, 20 rather than with Gal. 3.19.79 ii. Angels and the Elements of the Universe Although Schweizer’s understanding of the worship of angels will be rejected when we look at 2.18, the relationship between angels and the elements of the universe within his thesis is instructive. As has already been noted, he sees the angels as the forces that rule the elements. The relationship between the elements and the stars is well attested.80 Josephus refers to the woven veil that separated the holy of holies from the vestibule; this veil represented the universe and its four colours signified the four elements (War 5.212-214).

73. C. E. Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism, p. 159. 74. B. I. Reicke, ‘The Law and this World According to Paul’, JBL 70 (1951), 259–76 (276). 75. Ibid., 261–63. 76. See Heb. 2.2. 77. D. G. Reid, ‘Elements/Elemental Spirits of the World’, p. 232. 78. E. Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosser und Epheserbriefe, pp. 160–67. 79. ‘… les “Eléments du monde” étaient pour Paul les Puissances angéliques mentionnées 1.16 et 20, et qui, selon les croyances juives, régissaient le monde et son histoire …’ C. Masson, L’Epître de Saint Paul aux Colossiens, p. 122. 80. E. Schweizer, ‘Slaves of the Elements and Worshippers of Angels’, 456–64.

86


iii. Angels and Astral Powers It was commonplace within Judaism to view the stars as living beings (Judg. 5.20; Job 38.7; Dan. 8.10; 1 En. 86.1-6; Philo;81 Rev. 1.20; 9.1). Stephen in Acts 7.42 points to Israel’s worship of heavenly hosts (th|= stratia|= tou= ou0ranou=) and refers to Amos 5.25-27 where star worship resulted in Israel’s exile.82 Judaism did not ascribe divine dignity to the stars; however, stars were related to angels who ruled over them, or who were indeed a distinct class of angel.83 H. Schlier suggests the terms a0rxai/, e0cousi/ai, duna/meij, khrio/thtej, qro/noi, o0no/mata, a1rxontej, ku/rioi, qeoi/, a1ggeloi, daimo/nia/dai/monej, pneu/mata and stoixei=a ‘to a large extent, are interchangeable’.84 They all may refer to manifestations of evil in the world (depending on the context),85 and are all beings that are conceived of as personal. It is a part of their nature to influence people. Their main characteristic is their hiddenness. Therefore behind the elements such as stars are powers who lie hidden (in these elements) and operate from their own concealment. The superficial mind perceives them as natural elements, but behind these elements are angelic powers.86 From Second Temple Judaism there is evidence of the heavenly bodies being related to the angels. The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries in 1 Enoch 72-82 (dating from perhaps the second century BCE)87 testifies to Jewish astrological ideas and the association of an angel, Uriel, with the stars. Tertullian sees that stoixei=a refers to those physical and natural elements which were the basis of much pagan superstition, namely heavenly bodies.88 The Greek fragment of Jub. 2.8 links the placing of stars with the elements: kai\ ta\j tw~n a1strwn qe/seij kai\ ta\ stoixei=a. Toussaint, writing in 1921 without the benefit of the discoveries at Qumran and the Nag Hammadi collection, wrote in terms of astral spirits.89

81. Philo, De opificio mundi 73 states: w#sper oi9 a0ste/rej: ou[toi ga\r zw~|a te ei]nai le/gontai kai\ zw~|a noera/ … (Such are the heavenly bodies; for these are said to be not only living creatures but living creatures endowed with mind …). See also Philo, De plantatione 12. 82. D. G. Reid, ‘Elements/Elemental Spirits of the World’, p. 231. 83. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, pp. 96–99. 84. H. Schlier, Principalities and Powers in the New Testament (London: Burns and Oates, 1961), p. 14. 85. Terms such as a1ggeloi may refer to either ‘fallen’ or ‘non-fallen’ angels, and therefore will have a negative or positive moral value, respectively. 86. H. Schlier, Principalities and Powers in the New Testament, pp. 11–14. 87. For a summary of the dating of the different sections of 1 Enoch including the Book of Heavenly Luminaries (also known as the Book of Astronomical Writings), see E. Isaac, ‘1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch: a New Translation and Introduction’, pp. 5–12. See also R. H. Charles, ‘The Book of Enoch’, in APOT, II, pp. 163–281 (170–71). 88. Quis enim parvulus, utique sensu, quod sunt nationes, non elementis subiectus est mundi, quae pro deo suspicit? (For what young child – young in mind, at least, as the Gentiles are – is not subject to those elements of the world which he looks up to instead of God?) (Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 5.4.1). 89. C. Toussaint, L’Epître de S. Paul aux Colossiens (Paris: Emile Nourray, 1921), p. 139.


87

3. Conclusion It can therefore be concluded that any understanding of stoixei=a needs to take into account personalized angelic powers. The recipients of Colossians would not have had a strong delineation between the three possible meanings of stoixei=a. The law was not viewed in isolation from the angels through whom the law was given. Stars were seen as angels and determiners of fate. The stars were not seen in isolation from fire, one of the four primal elements, from which they were made. There is even an interrelationship between the law and stars, as N. T. Wright has shown. He claims that when the Judaizers in Galatians were insisting that Gentile Christians submit to the works of the law, namely circumcision, dietary laws and Sabbath, they were in effect regarding the triumph of Christ as the victory of one national deity over all others. This is based on the idea that each nation had its own special star/angel assigned to it, the illegitimate worship of which constituted idolatry.90 We reject the idea that ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou in Col. 2.8, 20 refers merely to depersonalized principles. In the world-view of the first century these stoixei=a were perceived as powerful and determinative in people’s lives. Although Sappington argues for a depersonalized view from the parallelism between kata\ th\n para/dosin tw~n a0nqrw/pwn and kata\ ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou,91 this is not the only comparison Paul makes. He also juxtaposes kata\ ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou with kata\ Xristo/n. Hence there is a comparison between two types of personalized beings who stand behind two ways of living: one that is built on the traditions of humans and that enslaves the participant to elemental spirits, and the other that is based on Christ and results in freedom. The lordship of Christ has liberated the Colossian Christians not only from these elemental spirits that seek to determine the fate of the cosmos, but also from associated rules and regulations which are often dressed in the guise of Judeo-Christian syncretism. When the Colossians revert to Jewish or ascetic practices as outlined in 2.16-23, they are not just reverting to the law, they are also allowing themselves to be dominated by the powers that stand behind these regulations: ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou. Therefore stoixei=a and ko/smoj do not have a neutral physical meaning in Col. 2.8, but a negative and theological sense as they stand in opposition to God and his saving grace. They are connected to the fallen world, the flesh and corruptibility.92 As long as the errorists submitted themselves in fear to the regulations of these elemental spirits, they denied the lordship of Christ, in particular his lordship over all cosmic powers. It is logical, therefore, that before continuing to address the beliefs of the philosophy per se in 2.16-23, that Paul should deal with the very issue of the cosmic rule of Christ. He does this in 2.9-15, to which we now turn our attention.

90. 91. 92.

N. T. Wright, The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 101–02. T. J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, p. 169. B. I. Reicke, ‘The Law and this World according to Paul’, 265.

Chapter 5

THE SUFFICIENCY OF CHRIST: COLOSSIANS 2.9-15 As a movement that was fuelled by Jewish mysticism, the Colossian philosophy was particularly concerned with angelic (including demonic) activity. As has been seen in the previous chapter, the adherents to the Colossian philosophy had not properly appreciated how the lordship of Christ had liberated Christians from elemental spirits and their attendant rules and regulations. This liberation is further explicated in 2.9-15, where Paul gives a vivid image of the triumph of Christ over the powers of evil. The means of this victory is the death and resurrection of Jesus, which the believer appropriates by being ‘in Christ’. This section therefore clarifies that the philosophy was concerned with the existence of evil spirits, as has been argued in the previous chapter, and that allegiance to, or fear of these powers, is a denial of the lordship and victory of Christ.

1. Poetic Structure The structure of Col. 2.9-15 exhibits two main sections, each showing a semi-poetic quality. Colossians 2.9-12 is structured around four e0n au0tw|~/e0n w|{ statements, each of which refers to Christ, as seen in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 o3ti katoikei= pa=n to\ plh/rwma th=j qeo/thtoj swmatikw~j, kai\ e0ste\ peplhrwme/noi, o3j e0stin h9 kefalh\ pa/shj a0rxh=j kai\ e0cousi/aj,

e0n au0tw~| au0tw~| e0n w{|

kai\ perietmh/qhte peritomh=| a0xeiropoih/tw| e0n th=| a0pekdu/sei tou= sw/matoj e0n th=j sarko/j, e0n th=| peritomh=| tou= Xristou=, suntafe/ntej au0tw~| e0n tw~| baptismw~|,

e0n w{|

kai\ sunhge/rqhte dia\ th=j pi/stewj th=j e0nergei/aj tou= qeou= tou= e0gei/rantoj au0to\n e0k nekrw~n:

The Sufficiency of Christ: Colossians 2.9-15

89

In vv. 13-15 there is a sequence of five participles, as shown in Table 5.2. Table 5.2 kai\ u9ma=j nekrou\j

o1ntaj

[e0n] toi=j paraptw/masin kai\ th=| a0krobusti/a| th=j sarko\j u9mw~n, sunezwopoi/hsen u9ma=j su\n au0tw~|, h9mi=n pa/nta ta\ paraptw/mata.

xarisa/menoj e0calei/yaj

to\ kaq’ h9mw~n xeiro/grafon toi=j do/gmasin o4 h]n u9penanti/on h9mi=n, kai\ au0to\ h]rken e0k tou= me/sou au0to\ tw~| staurw~|:

proshlw&saj a0pekdusa/menoj

ta\j a0rxa\j kai\ ta\j e0cousi/aj e0deigma/tisen e0n parrhsi/a|, qriambeu/saj au0tou\j e0n au0tw~|.

Due to the stylized nature of this section, there have been several suggestions of a Christian hymn or hymnic confession underlying it. Schille argues that a hymn is found in vv.9-15.1 Deichgräber and Lohse thought that some hymnic background was evident in vv.13c-15, on the basis of the first person plural in v.13, the repetition of participles and the large number of hapax legomena.2 K. Wengst argues for a baptismal liturgy in vv.13-15,3 while R. P. Martin sees traditional material in vv.14-15.4 Due to the number of interpretations and the lack of textual support for these theories, it is prudent to be cautious in determining the history of this section; however, there is evidence of stylized prose.

2. Christology: the Remedy to the Error Paul saw that the remedy to the Colossian error was in a correct appreciation of Christology. The Colossian Christians were already incorporated into the

1. G. Schille, Frühchristliche Hymnen (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1965), pp. 31–37. 2. R. Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit: Untersuchungen zu Form, Sprache und Stil der frühchristlichen Hymnen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1967), pp. 167–69; E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, pp. 106–07. 3. K. Wengst, Christologische Formeln und Lieder (Gütersloh: Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1972), pp. 186–94. 4. R. P. Martin, ‘Reconciliation and Forgiveness in Colossians’, in R. Banks (ed.), Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology presented to L.L. Morris on his 60th Birthday (Festschrift L. L. Morris; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 104–24 (116).

90


fullness of Christ (vv.9-10), therefore the means by which they appropriated this fullness was not in any of the practices or regulations of the philosophy, but by incorporation into the death and resurrection of Christ (vv. 11-12), who had brought not only forgiveness of sins (v. 14) but had conquered the powers and authorities (v. 15). a. The ‘Fullness’ of Christ: Colossians 2.9 In Col. 2.9 Paul focuses on the concept of the sufficiency of Christ with an explanatory o3ti to convey to his readers why the philosophy is not according to Christ (ou0 kata\ Xristo/n).5 He reiterates what has already been said in 1.19, as seen from the following comparison. Table 5.3 Col. 1.19 Col. 2.9

o3ti e0n au0tw~| eu0do/khsen pa=n to\ plh/rwma katoikh=sai o3ti e0n au0tw~~| katoikei= pa=n to\ plh/rwma th=j qeo/thtoj swmatikw~j

The similarities and differences between these verses are instructive. A similarity is the mention of plh/rwma, which is the key concept in each verse. The differences are seen in two words in 2.9 that do not appear in 1.19: qeo/thtoj and swmatikw~j, both hapax legomena. These three words will therefore be investigated to better ascertain Paul’s corrective to the philosophy. i. plh/rwma The major thrust of 2.9 is on the fullness (to\ plh/rwma) that dwells in Christ. This is the direct opposite of the emptiness and deceit of the philosophy (kenh=j a0pa/thj) expressed in 2.8. The word plh/rwma bore a significant sense in Gnostic terminology among the Valentinians of the second century CE, who referred to plh/rwma as the fullness of the emanations (aeons) that come forth from God.6 There is, however, no reason to believe that the same sense is borne here, for the following reasons: the world of the emanations was separated from the cosmos, whereas in 2.9 the plh/rwma dwells in bodily form (swmatikw~j);7 in later Gnosticism, God was separated from the emanations,

5. G. Schille, Frühchristliche Hymnen, pp. 31–37 (esp. 31), argues that the o3ti is recitative introducing a hymnic piece, however this is criticized by R. Deichgräber who says: ‘Das o3ti in V.9 ist kein o3ti-recitativum, sondern ein ganz gewöhnliches begründendes o3ti’. R. Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit, p. 168. 6. C. F. D. Moule, ‘“Fulness” and “Fill” in the New Testament’, SJT 4 (1951), 79–86 (79–80); G. Filoramo, A History of Gnosticism (trans. A. Alcock; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990), pp. 54–72. 7. See J. Ernst, Pleroma und Pleroma Christi: Geschichte und Deutung eines Begriffs der paulinischen Antilegomena (BU, 5; Regensburg: Pustet, 1970), pp. 41–50; E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 57.


91

whereas in 2.9 there is a reference to the ‘fullness of deity’ (pa=n to\ plh/rwma th=j qeo/thtoj); the Gnostic writings are much later than Colossians. We may therefore conclude with Overfield ‘that there is no integral relationship between the so-called technical or gnostic use of the word plh/rwma as it is found in the second-century Christian heretical sects and the use of the word in the New Testament’.8 As Dunn states: ‘In Colossians, we are at the beginning of the development in the use of this term, but only the beginning. It would be quite unjustified on the basis of the evidence to conclude that the usage here is “Gnostic”’.9 There is therefore no need to speculate on the idea of Gnostic intermediaries who were worshipped and to equate this with the worship of angels in 2.18. It would appear that Paul was writing polemically, as emphasized in the tautolgical pa=n to\ plh/rwma. The term may be of significance if the errorists were Jewish mystics. As has been discussed in Chapter 3, the purpose of a heavenly ascent was to worship the ei0kw\n tou= qeou= (cf. 1.15) who was the embodiment of God’s glory (hwhy dwbk). In the light of this, it is significant that plh/rwma and cognates are used in the LXX to talk of the glory of God filling the universe. Therefore in Jer. 23.24: ‘“Do I not fill (plhrw~) heaven and earth?” says the Lord’, and Ps. 72.19 (LXX 71.19): ‘may his glory fill (plhrwqh/setai) the whole earth’; cf. Isa 6.3; Ezek. 43.5; 44.4.10 If this is the sense of plh/rwma used here, it would appear that Paul is countering the need of a heavenly ascent to view the glory of God. Indeed, God in all his fullness has appeared in bodily form through the incarnation.11 ii. th~j qeo/thtoj Paul shows that the fullness seen in Christ’s incarnation is a divine fullness by the use of qeo/thtoj, which is derived from the noun qeo/j. ‘… they were no mere rays of divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up his person for a season and with a splendour not His own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the Apostle uses qeo/thtoj to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son’.12 The polemic intent of this claim of deity can be seen from the syntax: pa=n is pleonastic, with plh/rwma and e0n au0tw~| emphatic by position.13 The present tense of katoikei= shows that the whole fullness of God continues to reside in the resurrected and exalted Christ,14 with the adverb swmatikw~j describing the manner of the residing. Lohse therefore 8. P. D. Overfield, ‘Pleroma: A Study in Content and Context’, NTS 25 (1979), 384–96. 9. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 100. 10. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 52. 11. This verse would therefore function in a similar way to Jn 1.14. 12. R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner and Co., 1890), p. 8. See also J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 179–80, for a distinction between qeo/thj and qeio/thj in which Lightfoot illustrates the difference from Plutarch’s Moralia. 13. M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon, p. 99. 14. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 112.

92


paraphrases: ‘Under no circumstance whatsoever can entrance to the “fullness” be attained by submissive worship of the “elements of the universe” and fearful observance of their “regulations”’.15 Furthermore, Christ is not to be identified as merely a reflection of the deity, as proposed by some Jewish mystical movements; he is God in all his fullness. iii. swmatikw~j Paul’s use of the adverb swmatikw~j is also polemical as he seeks to counter a movement that focused on heavenly ascent and ‘out of body’ experiences attained through asceticism, although it is difficult to determine that to which swmatikw~j refers. Swmatikw~j has been interpreted in the following ways:16 (1) corporately not corporally, as an organized ‘body’; i.e. the totality of the Godhead is ‘not distributed through a hierarchy of beings’.17 This view, however, presupposes a Gnostic understanding of plh/rwma which has already been dismissed. (2) ‘ … expressing itself through the body (of Christ, i.e. the church)’. For example, Masson argues that ‘In an epistle where the body of Christ is the Church (1.18, 24 and 2.19), it is obvious to think that the adverb “bodily” means this “body” …’ (author’s translation).18 In 1.18, 24, however, Paul explicitly equates sw~ma with e0kklhsi/a, and in 2.19 the metaphor of the church being a body is clear. Such clarity, however, is not present if 2.9 identifies swmatikw~j with the church. (3) ‘actually’ – in concrete reality, not in mere seeming. This is advocated by Caird, who sees Paul not combating docetism associated with Gnosticism, but ‘in the light of v.17, where sw~ma (“body”) is used to denote the solid reality of the new age in contrast with the shadowy anticipations of it in the legal systems of the age that is past’.19 This is also followed by Jervell, who argues that since sw~ma in 2.17 is synonymous with ei0kw/n, swmatikw~j in 2.9, it indicates the highest form of reality.20 This view is also followed by Lohse.21 15. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 100. 16. C. F. D. Moule, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 92–94. 17. C. H. Dodd, ‘Colossians’, in F. C. Eiselen, E. Lewis and D. G. Downey (eds), The Abingdon Bible Commentary, pp. 1250–62. 18. C. Masson, L’Epître de Saint Paul aux Colossiens, p. 124. E. Best concludes: ‘… we thus see no reason to suppose that in 2.9, 10 Paul has the body of Christ metaphor in mind’. E. Best, One Body in Christ: A Study in the Relationship of the Church of Christ in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul (London: SPCK, 1955), p. 120. 19. G. B. Caird, Paul’s Letters from Prison (London: Oxford University Press, 1976), p. 192. 20. J. Jervell, Imago Dei: Gen. 1,26f im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulinischen Briefen (FRLANT, 58; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht,1960), pp. 223–24. 21. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 100, n. 48.


93

Therefore the reality currently exists that whoever has been transferred to the kingdom of Christ ‘is free from the powers that rule the cosmos and which want to force their enslaving yoke upon men’.22 (4) ‘in essence’. This is the view of John Calvin,23 although Moule dismisses it as ‘improbable, if intelligible at all’.24 (5) ‘assuming a bodily form’, which is attested by Lightfoot as a reference to the incarnation: ‘the indwelling of the pleroma refers to the Eternal Word, and not to the Incarnate Christ: but swmatikw~j is added to show that the Word, in whom the pleroma thus had its abode from all eternity, crowned His work by the Incarnation’.25 It is difficult to choose between views (3) and (5). As F. F. Bruce states: ‘The adverb (meaning “corporeally”) at the end of v.9 no doubt implies his incarnation, but probably carries something of the sense which the noun “body” bears in v.17 – the substance as opposed to the shadow’.26 As P. T. O’Brien points out: ‘the author chose the word “bodily” in order to relate his statement to the term “body” (sw~ma). But which “body”? That referred to in chapter 2.17, the “body” as opposed to the “shadow”, or the incarnate “body”, cf. chapter 1.22, for example?’27 It is hard to be too dogmatic on the interpretation of swmatikw~j. However, due to the already mentioned references to supernatural beings and their place within the Colossian philosophy, swmatikw~j most likely refers to the incarnate body of Christ. The somatic character of this indwelling meant that God could be directly encountered through this particular human being, Christ.28 Whether this view or that of (3) is adopted, the emphasis is on the sufficiency of Christ’s mediation and the present reality of fullness in Christ, without the need for asceticism, regulations or other contemplations on the celestial realm. There is therefore no need to espouse a philosophy that is kata\ ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou kai\ ou0 kata\ Xristo/n. b. The ‘Fullness’ of Christians: Colossians 2.10 Paul proceeds from the statement about the fullness of Christ to show that the fullness of the deity that dwells in Christ in bodily form results in the infilling of the Colossian Christians. There is a link between plh/rwma in v.9 22. Ibid., p. 101. 23. J. Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, p. 331. 24. C. F. D. Moule, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 93. 25. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 180. 26. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians (NICNT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), p. 101. 27. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 113. 28. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 152.

94


and peplhrwme/noi in v.10. Note that e0ste\ … peplhrwme/noi is a periphrastic construction with a perfect passive participle, emphasizing that the filling is an action with ongoing significance, and the passive voice implying that the Colossian Christians were filled by God. The fullness that the Colossian Christians can experience is due to Christ’s headship (kefalh/) over the cosmos. This headship has ramifications for everyday life, in that the forces mentioned in 2.8 (stoixei=a tou= ko/smou) no longer control human destiny. The Colossians have emancipation from the world of these elemental spirits, who are here expressed as pa/shj a0rxh=j kai\ e0cousi/aj.

3. The Cross of Christ: Victory over the stoixei=a tou~ ko/smou Paul now moves from his discussion of the person of Christ to the work of Christ by showing how Christians can participate in Christ’s fullness and share in the victory of the cross. Of particular interest is how this victory is applied to different understandings of stoixei=a tou= ko/smou, as can be seen in Table 5.4. Table 5.4 ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou Religious Ritual The bondage of the law (personal) stoixei=a

The Victory of the Cross The cross is the true circumcision (vv.11, 12) The cross liberates through forgiveness (v.14) The cross defeats powers and authorities (v.15)

The shadow of religious ritual has found its fulfilment in Christ. The demands of the law are fulfilled in Christ. The evil spirits of the universe are defeated in Christ’s death. a. Religious Ritual The fullness that Christians possess in Christ is explained by means of religious rites that are thought to bring about this fullness. Instead of just focusing on the rites of circumcision (v.11) and baptism (v.12), Paul focuses on that to which these rites point. i. Circumcision Circumcision designates the Jewish nature of the error. Although others practised the rite,29 circumcision was seen as particularly Jewish, even by 29. Herodotus states: ‘Colchians, Egyptians and Ethiopians, are the only nations of the world who, from the first, have practised circumcision. For the Phœnicians and the Syrians in Palestine, acknowledge that they learnt the custom from the Egyptians …’ (Herodotus 2.104). Strabo comments: ‘One of the customs most zealously observed among the Aegyptians is this, that they rear every child that is born, and circumcise the males, and excise the females, as is customary among the Jews, who are also Aegyptians in origin, as I have already stated in my account of them’ (Strabo 8.17.2.5).


95

outsiders. Therefore Tacitus writes of the Jews: ‘That they may be known by a distinctive mark, they have established the practice of circumcision’ (History 5.5.2). This distinction can be seen in Paul’s designation of Jews and Gentiles who were described in categories of circumcision and uncircumcision (Rom. 2.25-27; 3.30; 4.9-12; Gal. 2.7-8). Furthermore, the frequency with which circumcision is referred to in Colossians (2.11, 13; 3.11; 4.11) is indicative that it was a factor in the philosophy. Beyond these points unanimity disappears. Disagreement hinges on whether e0n th|= peritomh=| tou= Xristou= is to be taken as a subjective or an objective genitive. If e0n th=| peritomh|= tou= Xristou= is a subjective genitive, it would mean the circumcision which belongs to Christ (and metaphorically, by which Christ circumcizes). G. Vermes suggests that the association with baptism in 2.12 would mean baptism is the ‘Christianizing’ of a Jewish sacrament.30 The blood of circumcision is related to the blood of the covenant. Therefore the ‘conjunction of baptism and sacrifice was not due to Paul’s own insight, but sprang directly from a traditional Jewish belief. Just as Paul’s Jewish contemporary entered into the Covenant by means of circumcision, so also the Christian, by means of baptism, entered into the New Covenant concluded by the death and resurrection of Christ’.31 This would conclude that Paul was asserting that circumcision, as a part of the Jewish ceremonial law, had been replaced with baptism. This view may fit well if stoixei=a in 2.8 is understood as ceremonial law. Although the possible parallelism between circumcision and baptism is not denied,32 Paul’s major emphasis is not that baptism has replaced circumcision. When Paul wants to take issue with those who continue to demand circumcision, he does so with much more clarity and fervour, as can be seen in Galatians 5 and in Philippians 3. Paul’s major purpose is to show how the death of Christ has wrought a victory over the stoixei=a tou= ko/smou. If th|= peritomh=| tou= Xristou= is an objective genitive, it would refer to something that happened to Christ, in particular his death. In the act of dying, Christ ‘stripped himself of the flesh and therein shook off that through which the powers of evil had been able to attack him, and by rising again in a new condition of life, triumphed over them openly … Circumcision made with hands meant the removal of a portion of the flesh, the “circumcision of Christ not made with hands” was the complete putting off of the flesh effected

30. G. Vermes, ‘Baptism and Jewish Exegesis: New Light from Ancient Sources’, NTS 4 (1958), 308–19 (319). 31. Ibid. Vermes argues from the Jewish application of Exod. 4.24-26. 32. G. W. H. Lampe points out that nowhere in the New Testament are baptism and circumcision compared, and therefore claims that circumcision and baptism are not paralleled. G. W. H. Lampe, The Seal of the Spirit (London: Longman, 1951), p. 83. For the opposite view, see J. Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, (trans. D. Cairns; London: SCM Press, 1960), pp. 39–40; O. Cullmann, Baptism in the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1950), pp. 58–59.

96


upon the Cross, and in this circumcision believers were also partakers’.33 In contrast to the circumcision done by hands which is only partial and symbolic, in the death of Christ the putting aside of the body is both real and complete.34 This understanding fits the context of Colossians 2. As G. R. Beasley Murray states: ‘bluntly it appears to say that instead of stripping off a little piece of flesh, as in circumcision, the Christian has stripped off his whole body of flesh, and this happened because Christ was “circumcised”, that is, killed on the cross; the Christian shares so completely in that event, it is as if he himself had suffered that appalling bloody death’.35 It is therefore more helpful to look at the reference to circumcision as not primarily concerned with an initiation rite, but as a metaphor for death as seen through the expression th|= a0pekdu/sei. The emphatic double prefix a0pek- denotes a complete putting off and laying aside as the whole body is cast aside in death.36 This putting aside of the flesh in death is not only repeated in 2.15 with a0pekdu/samenoj, but also appears in 2 Cor. 5.2-4. Christians have already received the true circumcision in the putting off of the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ.37 No further ascetic practice, as a means of putting off fleshly desires, can enhance this. There is therefore a further reminder here of the sufficiency of Christ. This view is developed by the adjective a0xeiropoi/htoj which refers to the circumcision in the hearts (Deut. 10.16; Jer. 4.4; Rom. 2.28-29; 2 Cor. 3.3; Phil. 3.3; Jub. 1.23; Odes 11.2), thereby showing that the perietmh/qhte probably refers to the point of conversion.38 ii. Baptism The teaching on the effects of the crucifixion and Resurrection is continued in 2.12 with its reference to baptism and the resultant victory over the stoixei=a tou= ko/smou. As with the image of circumcision, the main thrust of the verse is the death and Resurrection of Christ. As noted above, in vv.9-12 there are four occurrences of e0n au0tw~|/e0n w||{, each of which refers to Christ. Therefore in v.12 e0n w|{ refers to Christ, and in particular his death and Resurrection, and not to its direct antecedent, baptism.39 The emphasis in v.12b falls on the incorporation into Christ’s Resurrection as is seen by the finite verb sunhge/rqhte which is mediated dia\ th=j pi/stewj. As Schnackenburg states: ‘ … faith rivets together the death and resurrection 33. C. A. A. Scott, Footnotes to St Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935), pp. 203–04. 34. C. A. A. Scott, Christianity According to St. Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932), p. 36. 35. G. R. Beasley-Murray, ‘The Second Chapter of Colossians’, RevExp 70 (1973), 469–79 (474). 36. R. Yates, ‘Colossians 2.15: Christ Triumphant’, NTS 37 (1991), 573–91 (588). 37. Ibid., 587. 38. See J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 153–58. 39. For the alternate view of e0n w{| referring to baptism, its immediate antecedent, see G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1962), pp. 153–54.


97

of Jesus into an inseparable event, and understands both as the one salvationevent, faith, namely, in the God who, by His unlimited might and majesty, can call the dead to life, and most powerfully revealed His might and majesty in the raising of His Son’.40 This is not a reference to the future Resurrection of the body spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15, but is indicative of the life currently in Christ. This concept of having been raised with Christ is further explained in 3.1-4. Unlike Romans 6 where there are ethical implications for having been raised with Christ, in Colossians the emphasis is liberation. The recipients are no longer to allow themselves to be led astray by the false teachers who are in the service of the stoixei=a tou= ko/smou.41 Through ‘baptism’ (incorporation into the death of Christ) the Colossians have died to the practices that the false teachers prescribed in connection with the worship of angels (2.18). These practices include the abstention from foods and drinks and the participation in feasts and festival days (vv.16, 21). These are but a shadow of the future reality (2.17). They are part of the human order and not the divine (v.22). The Colossians have died to all these things in baptism and have been raised with Christ.42 Paul therefore shows how religious rituals, whether circumcision or baptism, point to the death and Resurrection of Christ. They point to a new life that is lived in the fullness of Christ and imply release from the bondage of the stoixei=a tou= ko/smou. This focus is a corrective for those involved with the religious rituals of the Colossian philosophy, in that it disarms any desire to boast of super-spirituality based on human achievement. b. The Bondage of the Law and the Forgiveness of Sins Of particular interest in the light of the stoixei=a philosophy already mentioned in 2.8 and its attendant legalism as outlined in 2.16-23, is that there is forgiveness of sins and therefore release from the powers of the law. This shows a vital connection in the mind of the apostle between the forgiveness of sins and victory over the powers and principalities.43 This issue of guilt and the related issue of the law is shown in 2.14 by the expression: xeiro/grafon toi=j do/gmasin . Xeiro/grafon means a document written by a responsible person, therefore a ‘receipt’ (which is its use in the LXX: Tob. 5.3; 9.5). BDAG gives the specific meaning as ‘a handwritten document specif. a certificate of indebtedness, account, record of debts’.44 In this context it is a metaphor drawn from the legal world. This sense of indebtedness is found in the T. Job 11.11.

40. R. Schnackenburg, Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul (trans. G. R. BeasleyMurray; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964), p. 68. 41. Ibid., p. 71. 42. Ibid., pp. 71–72. 43. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, pp. 106–07. 44. s.v. ‘xeiro/grafon’, BDAG, p. 880 (emphasis theirs). See also E. Lohse, ‘xeiro/grafon’, in TDNT, IX, pp. 435–36; N. Walter, ‘xeiro/grafon’, in EDNT, III, p. 464.

98


Rabbi Akiba compared God to a shopkeeper who lent money and goods and recorded the amounts on a ledger. God through the angels demands of people what they owe. Just judgment is kept on the ledger (m. Abot 3.20). It is this record that is destroyed. The metaphor is adapted to the earlier Jewish idea of a heavenly book of the living (Exod. 32.32-33; Ps. 69.28; Dan. 12.1; Rev. 3.5), a book wherein deeds of good and evil were recorded with a view to the final judgment. In the light of the designation here of kaq’ h9mw~n (against us), this document has become one of condemnation.45 It is important to note that the idea of a heavenly book of deeds is closely related to Jewish apocalypticism. G. W. E. Nickelsburg,46 beginning with Dan. 12.1-3 and considering the Ass. Mos. 10, Jub 23.27-31 and T. Jud. 20, 25, discovers the following common features in apocalyptic judgment scenes: angelic witnesses; the heavenly book of deeds; the post mortem judgment; the consequences of judgment.47 It is therefore not inconsistent to find such a reference in relation to a group of errorists who were engaged in a form of Jewish mysticism. Several interpretations are offered for what is written on the xeiro/grafon. Lohmeyer48 sees the term as a Schuldschein (promissory note, I.O.U.) which Adam gave to the Devil in paradise at the time of the fall. The evidence for this view is much later than Paul49 and is largely rejected by modern scholars. As Sappington comments: ‘The view that xeiro/grafon represents a covenant made between Adam and the devil is regarded today as eccentric’.50 Abbott sees xeiro/grafon as referring to ‘the Mosaic Law, which being unfulfilled is analogous to an unpaid “note of hand”’.51 It is difficult to see, however, how Paul could refer to the Mosaic law as something to be erased and nailed to the cross. As Huby states: ‘it hardly seems Pauline to represent God as crucifying this “holy” thing (Rom. 7.12) that was the Mosaic Law’ (author’s translation). 52 The essential concept of xeiro/grafon is an autograph,

45. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 164–65. See also I En. 89.61-64, 70-71; 108.7; Apoc. Zeph. 7.1-8. 46. G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism, pp. 11–42. 47. Nickelsburg points out that each of these components of Jewish apocalypticism is found in Revelation: the angelic witnesses: 12.7-9; 20.2; the book: 20.12; post mortem judgment: 20.12; consequences of judgment: 21.1-7; 20.15; 21.8; 20.4-6; 21.22-25; 22.5. G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism, pp. 11–42. 48. E. Lohmeyer, Die Briefe an die Philipper, Kolosser und an Philemon (KEK, 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1954) pp. 116–17. See also G. Megas, ‘Das xeiro/grafon Adams: Ein Beitrag zu Kol 2, 13-15’, ZNW 27 (1928), 305–20. 49. See G. Megas, ‘Das xeiro/grafon Adams’, 305–20. 50. T. J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, p. 214. 51. T. K. Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians and to the Colossians (ICC, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1897), p. 255. 52. J. Huby, Saint Paul: les Epîtres de la captivité (VS, 8; Paris: Beauchesne et ses Fils, 1947), p. 73.


99

something that one has written by one’s own hand.53 A third view is that the xeiro/grafon is Christ himself. This has gained support through the work of J. Daniélou54 and O. Blanchette.55 Daniélou refers to the Judeo-Christian idea of a celestial book. Early Christians, knowing Christ to be the new revelation of the Father, took over the idea of the ‘celestial book’ and applied it to Christ. The thesis turns on the Odes of Solomon 23, where there is mention of such a book in relation to the cross.56 Other support comes from the Gos. Truth 19.35-20.25 and Rev. 5.1-14. Blanchette has modified Daniélou’s insights, and identifies xeiro/grafon as the celestial scroll which ‘represents our body and our flesh which he (Christ) took upon himself, and in which our sins were condemned’.57 As Blanchette states, ‘for it was Christ who was literally nailed to the cross’.58 Blanchette’s view rests on the premise that Paul’s recipients at Colossae would have been familiar with these Jewish-Christian categories. Blanchette’s work was further elaborated by Bandstra. Bandstra saw the xeiro/grafon as an indictment presented at the heavenly court. He talked of heavenly ascent and referred to the book held by an accusing angel in which the seer’s sins are recorded. Bandstra agreed with Blanchette that xeiro/grafon referred to Christ, with Christ taking upon himself our body of flesh in order to blot out our sins on the cross.59 This view is also followed by R. P. Martin, who sees that xeiro/grafon is not a document of human guilt in respect to the Mosaic law, but an angelic indictment brought against humanity and presented at the heavenly court.60 It refers to Christ’s human body which died on the cross.61 Both Bandstra and Martin tie this understanding to the term a0pekdu/omai (2.15; 3.9; cf. 2.11). Martin appeals to the Gospel of Truth62 and concludes:

53. W. Carr, Angels and Principalities, p. 53. 54. J. Daniélou, Théologie du judéo-christianisme (Bibliothèque de Théologie, Paris: Desclée, 1958), pp. 151–63. 55. O. A. Blanchette, ‘Does the Cheirographon of Col. 2,14 represent Christ Himself?’, CBQ 23 (1961) 306–12. 56. J. H. Bernard (ed.), ‘The Odes of Solomon’, in J. Armitage Robinson (ed.), Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature (10 vols; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912), VIII, pp. 1–131 (100–01). See also J. Labourt and P. Battifol, Les Odes de Salomon: Traduction Française et Introduction Historique (Paris: Lecoffre, 1911), pp. 81–85. 57. O. A. Blanchette, ‘Does the Cheirographon of Col. 2,14 Represent Christ Himself?’, 312. 58. Ibid., 309. 59. A. J. Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of the World, pp.158–63. 60. R. P. Martin, ‘Reconciliation and Forgiveness in Colossians’, pp. 120–22. 61. Ibid., p. 121. 62. Gos.Truth 10.22-28 reads: ‘This is why, Jesus appeared (and) took that Book. He was nailed to a (cross of) wood (and) he attached the deed of disposition (dia/tagma) of the Father to the Cross (stauro/j). Oh great sublime teaching!’

100


By taking xeiro/grafon as a personalized allusion to the charge-list of guilt which Christ assumed in his body we are now in a position to understand why these evil powers attacked him. They accused him as though he were a sinner – or, as the gnostic would put it, because he was fleshly and obviously out of harmony with the divine because he was suffering – and indicted him. But he repelled this charge first by receiving the full force of their malevolence and ‘wearing’ the charge as he took responsibility for it and then, by rejecting it as he discarded his ‘body of flesh’, now a dead thing and so fit to be abandoned on the cross.63

The major problem with this thesis is that if the xeiro/grafon is Christ, how can it be said to be kaq’ h9mw~n (against us)? Blanchette seeks to show the answer to this in Paul’s other allusions where Christ becomes sin for us (2 Cor. 5.21), a curse for us (Gal. 3.13); so too in Col. 2.14 he becomes the bond for us.64 It is unlikely, however, that xeiro/grafon refers to Christ, for not only is its normal meaning ‘a signed certificate of indebtedness’, but ‘the transition of thought from the Heavenly Book to Christ and thence to the abolition of the book is too severe; it makes impossible demands upon the reader’.65 The most prominent view held today is that the xeiro/grafon is a promissory note (I.O.U.) from humankind to God. This is based on the commonly held premise in Judaism that God keeps an account of human debt; that according to the account he calls in the debt through angels and that he imposes the penalty.66 This view is held by Percy,67 Masson,68 Lohse69 and Chrysostom.70 It fits with what is known of the word in contemporary Greek. The picture of humankind in debt to God would have been understandable to a Gentile congregation. This has raised the issue, Who wrote the xeiro/grafon? J. A. T. Robinson has argued that our subscription to the ordinance of God, which as people we have signed, is erased. Although it was not written by us, kaq’ h9mw~n means that it was written in our name. Robinson understands the term as our written agreement to keep the law, our certificate of debt to it … This which stood in our name (kaq’ h9mw~n) since the day when the people of Israel first made their solemn act of assent to the commandments (Exod. 24.3; Deut. 27.14-26), has since proved a bond held up against us (u9penanti/on h9mi=n) to prove our guilt. It is this bond,

63. R. P. Martin, ‘Reconciliation and Forgiveness in Colossians’, pp. 122–23. 64. O. A. Blanchette, ‘Does the Cheirographon of Col. 2,14 Represent Christ Himself?’, 311. 65. W. Carr, Angels and Principalities, p. 54. 66. E. Lohse, ‘xeiro/grafon’, in TDNT, IX, pp. 435–36. 67. E. Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe, p. 89. 68. C. Masson, L’Epître de Saint Paul aux Colossiens, pp. 127–29. 69. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, pp. 108–09. For early Church Fathers who held this view see G. Megas, ‘Das xeiro/grafon Adams’, 305–20. 70. J. Chrysostom, ‘Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Colossians Homily VI’, in P. Schaff and H. Wace (eds), A Select Library on the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (14 vols; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.), XIII, pp. 284–88 (286).


101

representing the power which the law has over us, rather than the law itself, which Paul now sees as ‘nailed’.71

The difficulty of interpreting the xeiro/grafon is compounded by the lack of specific background for its usage in a Christian environment. From extrabiblical usage, it is discernible that the notion of a personal autograph needs to be central. Furthermore, the signature must be condemnatory.72 W. Carr argues for penitential stelae as the background to xeiro/grafon. He points out that during the Roman period there is evidence of public confession of guilt in the East.73 A. D. Nock points to a private shrine of the goddess Agdistis, found in Philadelphia, Lydia, from the beginning of the first century BCE, which demanded a public stele for the confession of sin.74 Carr lists five characteristics of penitential stelae:75 they are all cultic; the key concept is a9marti/a; the emphasis is upon publicity for the crime; the deity has demonstrated acceptance of the confession, with forgiveness involving suffering; the stele is set up as a record of the event and as a warning to others and to demonstrate the majesty of the god concerned. In several examples the word gra/fw occurs (usually sthlografe/w). The word xeirografe/w is not found. Although all of the above characteristics are not found in each inscription, there is one from Sardis that does include each. Table 5.5 . . . . . . . w]n Arist[ ) .... . . . . . . . ] qei/j kai_ a(m[arth/saj ka]tapi/ptw ei0j [a0sqeneia/n k]ai\ o9mologw~ t[o\ a9ma/rth]ma Mhni\ Aziw[t0 thnw|~ kai\ sthl]og[rafw~.76

71. J. A. T. Robinson, The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology (SBT, 5; London: SCM Press, 1952), p. 43, n.1. 72. O. Roller, ‘Das Buch mit sieben Siegeln’, ZNW 36 (1937), 98–113. 73. See R. Pettazzoni, ‘Confessions of Sin and the Classics’, HTR 30 (1937), 1–14. See also H.-J. Klauck, ‘Die kleinasiatischen Beichtinschriften und das Neue Testament’, in H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger and P. Schäfer (eds), Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion (Festschrift Martin Hengel; 3 vols; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996), III, pp. 63–87. 74. A. D. Nock, Essays on Religions and the Ancient World (2 vols; Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press 1972), I, pp. 65–66. 75. W. Carr, Angels and Principalities, p. 55. 76. F. Steinleitner, Die Beicht im Zusammenhange mit der sakralen Rechtspflege in der Antike: ein Beitrag zur näheren Kenntnis kleinasiatisch-orientalischer Kulte der Kaiserzeit (Leipzig: Theodor Weicher 1913), p. 46.

102


These stelae were placed in the temple area of the cult that had been infringed, most of which come from the second and third centuries CE.77 It would not be impossible that these confessions were being used in Lydia and Phrygia during the first century CE.78 It is also possible that Paul was aware of them through his encounter with churches in Asia, and that the Colossians would have understood a reference like xeiro/grafon without explanation.79 From the above, the likely meaning of xeiro/grafon is a signed acknowledgment of culpability before God. The Jews were culpable because of their agreement to obey the law (Deut. 27.14-26; 30.15-20); the Gentiles were guilty for disobedience to their moral law (Rom. 2.14, 15). As neither group had discharged its responsibilities, the bond continued kaq’ h9mw~n (against us).80 This also agrees with our understanding of stoixei=a. As already noted, there is a relationship between an understanding of stoixei=a as personal beings and regulations. It is not until there is liberation from law-breaking that there can be emancipation from the power of the stoixei=a. There is therefore a connection between forgiveness of sins and freedom from the powers and principalities; this relationship between forgiveness of sins and emancipation from the ‘powers of darkness’ has already been outlined by Paul in 1.12-14.81 This idea of liberation from regulations is further brought out by toi=j do/gmasin; however, what toi=j do/gmasin adds is unclear. The issues that need to be resolved are: (1) to what does toi=j do/gmasin refer, and (2) what is meant by the dative case? Lightfoot states: ‘the word do/gma is here used in its proper sense of a “decree”, “ordinance”, corresponding to dogmati/zesqe below in ver. 20. This is its only sense in the NT e.g. Lk. ii.1, Acts xvii.7, of the emperor’s decrees; Acts xvi.4 of the Apostolic ordinances. Here it refers especially to the Mosaic law’.82 In Hellenistic Judaism these decrees that were ‘against us’ were the commandments of Moses.83 In the only other Pauline use of do/gma in Eph. 2.15, Paul points out how the division between Jews and Gentiles was removed by Christ through the abolition of the law.84 In Colossians Paul gives further details concerning the content of the do/gmata as ascetic practices (vv.16-23) which include Mosaic laws such as dietary restrictions, circumcision and Sabbath observance. There seems, therefore, to be an emphasis on ceremonial aspects of the law, especially in so far as they undermine Christian unity. 77. W. Carr, Angels and Principalities, p. 55. 78. See W. M. Ramsay, The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, I, pp. 134–38. 79. W. Carr, Angels and Principalities, pp. 55–56. 80. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 125. 81. T. J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, pp. 211–13. 82. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 185. Lightfoot cites Josephus, Ant. 15.5.3 ta\ ka/llista tw~n dogma/twn kai\ ta\ o9siw/tata tw~n e0n toi=j no/moij; Philo Leg. All. 1.16 diath/rhsij tw~n a9gi/wn dogma/twn; 3 Macc. 1.3 tw~n patri/wn dogma/twn. 83. Philo refers to tw~n a9gi/wn dogma/twn in Leg. All. 1.55. There is a clear identification between do/gma and Moses in Philo, De Gigantibus 52. Josephus, Contra Apionem 1.42 refers to Scripture as qeou= do/gmata. 84. See A. T. Lincoln, Ephesians, pp. 142–43.


103

The dative case of toi=j do/gmasin presents several possibilities of interpretation. (1) toi=j do/gmasin can be taken with e0calei/yaj as an instrumental dative: the law was abrogated by means of the precepts of the gospel. Although this view was popular among some Greek commentators,85 it must be rejected for contextual reasons, as this interpretation is not consistent with the related verb dogmati/zesqe in v.20 which is juxtaposed with union with Christ. (2) toi=j do/gmasin can be taken with kaq’ h9mw~n as: either an instrumental dative, ‘the bond that was against us by its ordinances’, which is the view of the translators of the RV;86 or as a causal dative, the writing that witnesses against humankind ‘in virtue of the ordinances’.87 This interpretation makes good contextual sense in the light of the list of regulations that are outlined in vv.16-23, however it does not account for the phrase o4 h]n u9penanti/on h9mi=n, which in this instance would be awkward tautology. (3) toi=j do/gmasin can be taken with o4 h]n u9penanti/on h9mi=n as a causal dative: ‘which was against us because of the decrees’, which, similar to the view above, would make kaq’ h9mw~n tautological.88 (4) toi=j do/gmasin can be taken with xeiro/grafon.89 The dative can be taken in either of two ways.

85. Lightfoot points out that this was the view of Greek commentators such as Chrysostom, Severianus, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 186. Chrysostom states: ‘“Having forgiven us”, he saith, “all our trespasses”, those which produced that deadness. What then? Did he allow them to remain? No, He even wiped them out. He did not scratch them out merely; so that they could not be seen. “In doctrines” [ordinances = toi=j do/gmasin], he saith. What doctrines? The Faith. It is enough to believe. He hath not set works against works, but works against faith.’ J. Chrysostom, ‘Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Colossians, Homily VI’, p. 286. 86. ‘having blotted out the bond written in ordinances against us, which was contrary to us …’ 87. J. Schneider, ‘stauro/j’, in TDNT, VII, p. 577. 88. Lohse tries to solve the problem of tautology by suggesting that toi=j do/gmasin is a later addition to the text. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, pp. 109–10. 89. Two views which relate toi=j do/gmasin with xeiro/grafon are discounted as they rely on inserting words that do not have textual support. These views are: (a) ‘What Paul is saying is now erased in our subscription to the ordinances’. J. A. T. Robinson, The Body, p. 43, n. 1; (b) a locative dative after an implied gegramme/non: ‘The dative is perhaps best explained as governed by the idea of gegramme/non involved in xeiro/grafon …’ J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 185. See also T. K. Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, p. 255, – but gegramme/non does not appear in the text.

104


(a) It could be a dative of accompanying circumstances: ‘the written code, with its regulations’.90 The problem with this view is that it implies that the regulations were written on the xeiro/grafon. The fact that human sin needed atonement through capital punishment by being nailed to the cross makes good sense. However, regulations that include the Mosaic law, which is holy (Rom. 7.12) and spiritual (Rom. 7.14) needing atonement and erasure, resulting in them being nailed to a means of capital punishment, that justice might be wrought, is an image that is foreign to the Pauline understanding of law. That which was nailed to the cross was not the regulation broken but the offence committed; the xeiro/grafon is a list of indictments rather than a list of regulations. (b) It could be read as epexegetical of xeiro/grafon. Kittel states: ‘the usage of Hellenistic Judaism would thus refer the toi=j do/gmasin to the Mosaic law and its commands as the content of the xeiro/grafon and its hostility to man’.91 This epexegetical reading is followed by the NASB: ‘having canceled out the certificate of decrees against us, and which was hostile to us …’ If Paul had intended to make toi=j do/gmasin epexegetical of xeiro/grafon, however, it would have been simpler for him to use the same case as xeiro/grafon. (5) toi=j do/gmasin can be taken with both kaq’ h9mw~n and o4 h]n u9penanti/on h9mi=n as a causal dative. This would mean the regulations were against us and stood opposed to us. The advantage of this view is that both kaq’ h9mw~n and o4 h]n u9penanti/on h9mi=n convey meaning. The former phrase (kaq’ h9mw~n) emphasizes the fact of indebtedness, while the latter (o4 h]n u9penanti/on h9mi=n) refers to the active hostility produced by this indebtedness.92 Although it is hard to be emphatic when such an array of meanings is possible, the most likely view is that toi=j do/gmasin is to be taken with both kaq’ h9mw~n and o4 h]n u9penanti/on h9mi=n as a causal dative. The image that is given in v.14 (proshlw/saj au0to\ tw~| staurw|=) is the practice within the Roman Empire of attaching the indictment of a crucified man to his cross (Mark 15.26). Through the crucifixion, justice is wrought and atonement procured and thereby the indictment is destroyed. Note also the use of the perfect tense for h]rken e0k tou= me/sou, which points to the permanent and ongoing nature of the effects of the removal. 90. See BDF §198. This view is adopted by the NIV: ‘the written code, with its regulations’. 91. G. Kittel, do/gma, dogmati/zw’, in TDNT, II, pp. 230–232 (231). 92. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 126 and M. J. Harris ‘Appendix: Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament’, in NIDTT, III, pp. 1171–1215 (1199). Note also J. A. Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament (eds. M. E. Bengel and J. C. F. Steudel; 5 vols; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1877) IV, pp. 172–73: ‘To be against kaq’ h9mw~n and to be our adversary or inimical (u9penanti/on h9mi=n), differ, as a state of war and an actual engagement. The handwriting was against us, but God blotted it out. The handwriting was an enemy to us but God took it out of the way’.


105

The indictment that was pinned to the cross of Christ was the xeiro/grafon: a signed acknowledgment of culpability of both Jews and Gentiles before God. This indictment had made the Colossians enslaved to the powers of darkness (1.12-14). With the removal of the indictment there was also liberation from the powers of darkness, the stoixei=a tou= ko/smou. It is not that the law per se was erased, but its ‘hostility’ to us. Therefore e0calei/fw denotes the erasure of an entry on the indictment rather than the laws themselves, as is seen in Exod. 32.32-33; Ps. 69.28; 1 En. 108.3; Apoc. Zeph. 7.8; Rev. 3.5. As Dunn points out: The expunging of the record confirms that none of these transgressions is any longer held ‘against us’. That does not mean, however, that the underlying decrees or regulations cease to have force, that is, that the law no longer functions as God’s yardstick of right and judgment … It is simply that the record of the transgression has been erased.93

Having referred to the removal of the indictment that stood opposed to the Colossians, the greatest weapon of the stoixei=a had been destroyed. Paul now addresses the issue of the principalities and powers themselves in v.15. c. Victory over the Powers and Authorities: Colossians 2.15 The climax to Paul’s reply to the problem of the philosophy as outlined in v.8 comes in v.15 where we read of Christ’s victory over the evil forces of the universe. This verse, however, is fraught with difficulties, both at the level of translation and exegesis. F. Prat writes: ‘There are few texts of Scripture about which the Greek and Latin commentators, ancient and modern, are in more thorough disagreement. Not only is the meaning of all the words without exception disputed, but there does not exist any foundation of agreement either as a whole or in detail’.94 Due to the difficulties of exegesis we will begin with the finite verb in the verse, together with any adverbial qualification. Having established the meaning of the finite verb we will need to determine its subject. We will then deal with the direct object and then see how the participles enhance the meaning of the sentence. i. e0deigma/tisen e0n parrhsi/a| Edeigma/tisen is the aorist, active indicative form of deigmati/zw. The meaning of deigmati/zw as given by BDAG is ‘expose, make an example of, disgrace tina/ someone’.95 The only other New Testament usage of this word is in Mt. 1.19 where Joseph does not wish to disgrace Mary publicly because of her pregnancy. Schlier comments that ‘it almost always has the sense of “to expose”’.96 Therefore Schlier says that in Col. 2.15 ‘the sense is “to make a 93. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 166. 94. F. Prat, The Theology of St. Paul (trans. J. L. Stoddard; 2 vols; London: Burns, Oates and Washbourne, 1945) II, p. 169, n. 8. 95. s.v. ‘deigmati/zw’, BDAG, p. 214. 96. H. Schlier, ‘deigmati/zw’, in TDNT II, pp. 31–32 (31).

106


public exhibition”, not by a proclamation of the Kyrios but by the public display of the vanquished forces before the cosmos, possibly in a triumphal procession’.97 Having determined the meaning of the finite verb, we need to ascertain the meaning of the adverbial phrase e0n parrhsi/a|. There are two possible interpretations of this phrase: ‘openly’ or ‘boldly’.98 Although both meanings make sense within the context, the idea of openly exposing ta\j a0rxa\j kai\ ta\j e0cousi/aj makes better sense contextually. Ultimately the difference between the two renderings is slight and has little impact on the overall exegesis of the passage. As Dunn states: ‘The addition of e0n parrhsi/a| “openly, in public” simply reinforces the note of public shame, though the phrase could also mean “boldly” ’.99 ii. The Subject of the Verb The subject of this verb is not clear. In v.13, God is clearly the subject of the verb sunezwopoi/hsen, as he is the one who gives life to the Colossians. Several commentators, however, see a change of subject mid-sentence, and make Christ the subject of h}rken in v.14 and e0deigma/tisen in v.15.100 The reason for the change of subject is to give the middle force to a0pekdusa/menoj (which agrees with the subject of h]rken). If God is the subject, a0pekdusa/menoj must be given an active sense, as it is untenable to apply a reflexive, middle sense to God, as if God were stripping powers off himself. It is argued that there is no evidence for this use of a0podu/w, e0kdu/w and a0pekdu/w in a middle voice with an active meaning.101 Those who see a change of subject give various interpretations. Dunn suggests that the image is to be understood as an extension of the cosmic vision of the earlier hymn (1.15-20) and a further variation on the ‘body’ metaphor. The spiritual powers spoken of there … could be likened to a kind of garment draped over the cosmos, lying upon it and dominating it … the cosmos could also be likened to the body of Wisdom-Christ, so that the cross could be likened in turn to a stripping off of that garment from Christ’s body in order to discard it. The image is certainly grotesque, but so was the image of the cross as a kind of circumcision, a discarding of the body of flesh.102

97. Ibid. See also J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 189. 98. s.v. ‘parrhsi/a’, BDAG, pp. 781–82. 99. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 168. For an example of ‘boldly’, see J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 189–90. 100. See for example J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 187–89. 101. A. Lukyn Williams, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928), pp. 99–100. 102. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 167–68. Dunn refers to Philo De fuga et inventione 108-110 and De vita Mosis 2.117-135.


107

C. F. D. Moule also sees a change of subject. He states: ‘it is questionable whether this verb could be so used in the middle voice … It is better, therefore, to accept that Christ is the subject and to translate it “divesting himself”’.103 J. B. Lightfoot points out that if Christ is the subject, then accepting the middle voice can mean ‘stripping off from himself’ or divesting himself.104 If Christ is the subject, of what did he divest himself? Two possibilities are offered: the principalities and powers, at which point G. B. Caird asks, ‘could he really have depicted Christ celebrating a triumph over a cast off suit of clothes?’105; or the flesh of Christ’s earthly body. J. A. T. Robinson argues for the latter by saying: ‘It is through the sa/rc that death and its forces have control over human nature. The dying Jesus, like a king, divests Himself of that flesh, the tool and medium of their power, and thereby exposes them to ridicule for their Pyrrhic victory’.106 R. Yates points out that a0pekdusa/menoj is a metaphor for the death of Christ, as already seen in 2.11.107 The absence of th\n sa/rka or to\ sw~ma, however, weakens the certainty of Robinson’s and Yates’ view. The change of subject, therefore, although it helps with the problem of the middle voice of a0pekdusa/menoj, raises other questions. Lohse, commenting on those who see a change of subject, states: It is a peculiarity of this latter explanation that it assumes that Christ once must have been clothed with the ‘principalities’ (e0cousi/ai) and ‘powers’ (a0rxai/). This would have been a clothing in an alien garment, namely the powers of evil. At his ascension he stripped off this clothing and thus emerged victorious and leads the way to heaven for his own. However, this interpretation faces the difficulty that there is no change of subject from v.14 to v.15. Therefore most exegetes rightly maintain that God is the subject of the section. It is he who has destroyed principalities on the cross of Christ. The word a0pekdusa/menoj which thus must be taken in an active sense means that he stripped them and completely divested them of their power.108

The preferred rendering is to take God as the subject, for: there is no change of subject in the sentence; it is possible in New Testament Greek for a middle voice to have an active meaning;109 it eliminates the problem of Christ being clothed in some way with the principalities and powers during his

103. C. F .D. Moule, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 101. 104. Lightfoot argues that Jerome replaced ‘exuens se’ with ‘expolians’ in his revised version, and was thus responsible for this error, and that Hilary who read ‘exuens’ for ‘exuens se’ in his text. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 187. 105. G. B. Caird, Paul’s Letters from Prison, p. 196. 106. J. A. T. Robinson, The Body, p. 41. 107. See R. Yates, ‘Colossians 2.15: Christ Triumphant’, 585–86. 108. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, pp. 111–12. See also P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, pp. 127–28; M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon, pp. 110–11; A. Oepke, ‘a0pekdu/w’, in TDNT, II, pp. 318–19 (319). 109. BDF §316.1 states: ‘NT authors in general preserve well the distinction between middle and passive. The middle is used, however, where an active is expected’. The specific example of a0pekdusa/menoj ta\j a0rxa/j in Col. 2.15 is given.

108


earthly ministry; the middle voice is not totally lost, as the action is performed for the subject’s own interest. Moulton and Howard comment on this word saying: ‘a0pekdu/omai like its noun a0pe/kdusij connotes complete stripping, of oneself or another in one’s own interest’.110 iii. qriambeu/saj ta\j a0rxa\j kai\ ta\j e0cousi/aj The next issue raised by this verse is the identification of ta\j a0rxa\j kai\ ta\j e0cousi/aj111 and how they relate to the concept of qriambeu/saj? Qriambeu/w means to lead in triumph; in particular, a victorious general leading his army with his defeated enemies in his train.112 In contemporary usage, its direct object is those over whom the triumph was celebrated.113 Therefore, traditionally this verse has been understood as Christ leading the malevolent principalities and powers whom he has conquered through his death on the cross. The background to qriambeu/w is found in writings dealing with the history of Rome (e.g. Plutarch, Aemilius Paulus 32-34), with its development going back to Etruria in the sixth century BCE. Orosius indicates that 320 triumphs were celebrated between the founding of Rome and Vespasian (Paulus Orosius 7.9.8). It was the highest accolade that Rome could bestow on one of its citizens. In origin it was not a victory ceremony, but an invocation of the deity to manifest himself.114 For the purpose of interpreting Col. 2.15, it is significant to understand that the captives who were led in triumph were being led to their death (Josephus, War 6.415).115 Josephus recounts the fate of those who had held out against the Romans within Jerusalem when Titus entered the city in 70 CE. He gives a detailed description of Titus’ return to Rome and the triumphal ceremonies, including the execution that took place at the end of the procession (War 7.119-157). 110. J. H. Moulton, W. F. Howard and N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, II, p. 310. 111. It is unclear whether ta\j a0rxa\j kai\ ta\j e0cousi/aj is the direct object of e0deigma/tisen or a0pekdusa/menoj. N. Turner points out that e0deigma/tisen is normally transitive, although he raises the possibility that this may be a transitive verb used in an absolute sense, apparently intransitive, the object understood from the context. J. H. Moulton, W. F. Howard and N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, III, p. 51. If this is the case, it would seem that ta\j a0rxa\j kai\ ta\j e0cousi/aj is the direct object of a0pekdusa/menoj and the implied object of e0deigma/tisen. 112. G. Delling, ‘qriambeu/w’, in TDNT, III, p. 160. 113. See for example Strabo 12.3.35: Kai=sar qriambeu/saj to\n 0Adiato/riga meta\ pai/dwn kai\ gunaiko/j (Caesar, after leading Adiatorix in triumph together with his wife and children) and Plutarch, Comparatio Thesei et Romuli 4.4.3: e1qnh proshga/geto pole/mw| kai\ po/leij katestre/yato kai\ basilei=j e0qria/mbeuse kai\ h9gemo/naj (but he subdued nations in war, laid cities low, and triumphed over kings and commanders). 114. For a summary of the triumphal procession, see H. S. Versnel, Triumphus: An Inquiry into the origin, development and meaning of the Roman Triumph (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970), p. 1. 115. H. S. Versnel, Triumphus, p. 95.


109

From his study of the Roman triumphal procession, S. Hafemann argues that the purpose of the triumphal procession was twofold: to render thanks to the deity who granted the victory in battle, and to glorify the general or consul who had achieved it. These two aspects were interwoven so that the political and religious aspects formed an indistinguishable unity. The triumphal procession was a well-known and well-established Roman institution and the use of ‘to lead in triumphal procession’ with prepositional phrases to indicate its object or with a direct object alone always refers to the one who has been conquered and is subsequently led in procession, and never to one who has conquered or those who have shared his victory.116 Lightfoot lists three possibilities for the accusative: the person over whom the triumph is celebrated;117 the spoils of victory exhibited in the triumph;118 more rarely, of the substance of the triumph.119 In each of these references, the object of qriambeu/w refers in some way to the one who has been conquered, not to the conquering army.120 The role of those who are led in triumph is to reveal the might of the victor. There is therefore an illustration of the strength of those who had conquered. This normally culminated in death. It is important to realize that qriambeu/w does not refer to the actual triumph over the vanquished foes; the triumph is presupposed. In Col. 2.15 the temporal distinction between the victory over the principalities and powers and the demonstration of that victory is brought out in the use of the aorist participle a0pekdusa/menoj (having stripped) and the aorist finite verb e0deigma/tisen (he made a public exhibition [of them]). L. Williamson argues that it is not appropriate to translate qriambeu/saj au0tou/j by ‘triumphing over them’ (AV), as this conveys the idea of winning the victory. Qriambeu/w followed by a direct object means ‘to lead as a conquered enemy in a victory parade’. Until another setting is established, it must be assumed that qriambeu/w refers to the triumphal entry of a military hero into the city of Rome.121 The above interpretation of the triumphal procession fits well with our interpretation of stoixei=a tou= ko/smou in 2.8. As has been noted, however, different exegetes read stoixei=a tou= ko/smou in different ways. It is not surprising, therefore, that these different interpretations affect their exegesis of qriambeu/saj ta\j a0rxa\j kai\ ta\j e0cousi/aj in 2.15. Alternate views fall into

116. S. J. Hafemann, Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit: Paul’s Defense of his Ministry in II Corinthians 2.14-3.3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), pp. 29–31 (italics Hafemann’s). 117. e.g. tou=ton Ai0mi/lioj e0qria/mbeuse (Plutarch, Aratus 54.4). 118. e.g. pau/sasqe lo/gouj a0llotri/ouj qriambeu/ontej kai/, w{sper o9 koloio/j ou0k i0di/oij e0pikosmou/menoi pteroi=j (Tatian, Oratio ad Graecos 26.1). 119. e.g. o9 de\ Ka/milloj e0qria/mbeuse … to\n a0polwlui/aj swth=ra patri/doj geno/menon (Plutarch, Camillus 30.1). 120. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 190; J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 169. 121. L. Williamson, ‘Led in Triumph: Paul’s Use of THRIAMBEUO’, Int 22 (1968), 317–22.

110


two broad categories: those who see the expression referring to benevolent spirits; and those who see the expression referring to depersonalized powers. Some exegetes have seen ai9 a0rxai/ kai\ ai9 e0cousi/ai as benevolent personalized spirits. T. K. Abbott linked them with the angels responsible for the giving of the law;122 A. L. Williams argued that they represent the spiritual powers that attended Christ to help him, as, in accordance with Jewish belief, spiritual powers helped all who did good.123 R. B. Egan, reviving the work of G. G. Findlay124 and F. Field125 suggested that the image is of Dionysian derivation and that qriambeu/w meant ‘to lead in festal or choral procession’126 as exultant worshippers rather than as captives. He pointed out that there is no suggestion of enmity between ta\j a0rxa\j kai\ ta\j e0cousi/aj and Christ in the broader context; indeed in 1.15-16, Christ is seen as their creator and in 2.10 he is their head.127 He argues that qriambeu/w has the meaning of ‘manifest, publicize, display, divulge, noise abroad, etc.’.128 There is therefore no hostility between God and the principalities and powers; the principalities and powers, once shrouded in secrecy, are openly revealed as they are in Christ.129 Carr argues that the reference to qriambeu/w is a non-Jewish metaphor derived from the Roman triumph. The significant point is not the winning of

122. T. K. Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, p. 261. 123. A. L. Williams, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 110. 124. Findlay sees that qriambeu/w means ‘to lead in festal or choral (dithyrambic) procession, to lead in triumph, but as the inspiring Deity his exultant worshippers, not as the Roman conqueror his wretched captives’ (italics his). G. G. Findlay, ‘St Paul’s Use of qriambeu/w’, Expositor 10 (1897), 403–21 (416). A. S. Peake comments on Findlay’s work: ‘Findlay thinks the reference in this verb … is not to the Roman military triumph, but to the festal procession (qri/amboj) of the worshippers of Dionysus. In this case God is represented as leading the angels in procession in His honour in other words, bringing them to acknowledge His greatness and the revelation of Himself in Christ’. A. S. Peake, ‘The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians’, in W. Robertson Nicoll (ed.), The Expositor’s Greek Testament (5 vols; London: Hodder and Stoughton, n.d.) IV, p. 530. 125. F. Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899), pp. 181–82. 126. R. B. Egan, ‘Lexical Evidence on Two Pauline Passages’, NovT 19 (1977), 34–62 (35). 127. Ibid., 39. 128. Ibid., 40. 129. The weight of Egan’s case rests on his claim to have found a pre-Pauline (14 BCE) example of the use of the verb qriambeu/w. The pertinent portion of the text reads as follows: peri\ w{n kai\ e0n au0th=i th=i (sic) Sinaru\ paredo/qhsan kai\ pro\j to\ mh\ e0kqriambisqh=nai to\ pra/gma a0pe[lu/qhsan] (BGU 4.1061) (‘For which crimes they were delivered up in Sinary itself and they were released in order that the matter not be noised abroad’ – Egan’s translation). Egan concludes, ‘The papyrus, then, not only demonstrates that our meaning was current more than seventy years before the composition of the Epistles, … and without any hint of an association with the Roman institution or anything resembling it’. R. B. Egan, ‘Lexical Evidence on Two Pauline Passages’, 42.


111

the victory, but the ensuing celebration. Part of the symbolism is putting off the clothes of the victor and putting on the ceremonial dress of triumph. Hence a0pekdusa/menoj would refer to the victor divesting himself of his battle dress. For Christ, this battle dress is probably to be taken as the flesh that he had in life and in which he achieved victory in death.130 Carr therefore suggests that the use of ai9 a0rxai\ kai\ ai9 e0cousi/ai need not refer to malevolent powers, but indeed refers to the angelic host of God. Therefore when in 2.15 we have a picture of Christ leading his triumphal armies, they are the same heavenly hosts mentioned in 1.16 and 2.10. They are those who worship the victor after his struggle in the public celebration of his splendour. The concept of angelic host attached to Christ without any reference to them being directly involved in the struggle is not unknown to the first century.131 Carr therefore reconstructs the entire Colossian situation avoiding the whole dimension of cosmic dualism within the philosophy.132 This view of Carr’s is also followed by R. Yates whose understanding of qriambeu/w is largely determined by its occurrence in 2 Cor. 2.14, where Paul sees himself as part of the triumphal procession. In Yates’ view, Paul would be one of the victorious soldiers rather than an enemy who had been captured. Therefore the picture of Col. 2.15 when viewed in this light is of Christ leading his triumphant army as they follow him crying ‘Io triumphe’.133 Yates ties his interpretation to a subjective genitive for the worship of angels in 2.18: If, as we propose, the Colossians have been engaging in mystical and ascetical practices with the object of witnessing the worship of the angels in heaven, there is no need for a reference to powers of evil to be read into the ‘principalities and powers’ of 2.15. The object of the reference could then be to show that the celebrations of the angel host can be experienced, not just by an esoteric minority, but by all believers in Christ.134

G. B. Caird is among those who see the expression as referring to depersonalized powers. He argues that the author of Colossians is using mythical language to indicate ‘the political, social, economic and religious structures of power’ that enslave humanity.135 Caird believes that when Paul claims that ‘on the cross Christ has disarmed the powers and triumphed over them, he is talking about earthly realities, about the impact of the crucifixion on the corporate life of men and nations. He is using mythical language …’136 Caird’s attempt to depersonalize Paul’s reference to principalities and powers, and Carr’s and Yates’ suggestion that principalities are good not evil, must be rejected for the following reasons. 130. See W. Carr, Angels and Principalities, pp. 61–66. 131. Rev. 19.14. Cf. 1 Thess. 4.14-17 where the accompanying host consists of believers not angels. See also 1QM 7.6. 132. W. Carr, Angels and Principalities, pp. 47–85. 133. R. Yates, ‘Colossians 2.15: Christ Triumphant’, 578. 134. Ibid., 583. 135. G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible, p. 242. 136. Ibid.

112


(1) Paul is not talking about impersonal political powers, but personal beings. This can be seen by the change of gender from the feminine in ta\j a0rxa\j kai\ ta\j e0cousi/aj to the masculine personal pronoun au0tou/j. This is an example of constructio ad sensum where the masculine pronoun is used to express their personal qualities.137 (2) Carr’s work in particular denies the broader Biblical context. There is a strong theme of holy war in Scripture. This begins in the Hebrew Bible with its many battles, and develops to the ministry of Jesus who is confronted with demonic powers in his ministry. This is further developed by Paul in his understanding of principalities.138 (3) One wonders how many of the current Western presuppositions that deny malevolent supernatural forces have been inadvertently read into the text because of a materialistic Western world view that has little to do with the world view of first-century inhabitants of the Lycus valley, who would have seen their world as ordered by the existence of malevolent spirits. (4) Colossians 2 is not the only Pauline reference to principalities and powers. They are mentioned three times in Ephesians (1.20-21; 3.10 and 6.10-12). Each of these references makes mention of the heavenly places, which can be regarded as an unseen world of spiritual reality. This is not the first time that there is reference in Colossians to malevolent supernatural powers. In 1.13 Paul states that God has delivered us e0k th=j e0cousi/aj tou= sko/touj. This usage is also seen in Lk. 22.53, where Jesus refers to the supernatural forces of evil marshalled against him as h9 e0cousi/a tou= sko/touj. Paul understands his mission in Acts 26.18 as being sent to the Gentiles for tou= e0pistre/yai a0po\ sko/touj ei0j fw~j kai\ th=j e0cousi/aj tou= Satana= e0pi\ to\n qeo/n.139 (5) Carr’s work does not adequately deal with other occurrences of principalities and powers in the Pauline corpus. This is particularly evident in his treatment of Eph. 6.12 where he states: ‘ai9 a0rxai\ kai\ ai9 e0cousi/ai are undoubtedly malevolent, hostile powers here, and no alternative view is possible’.140 Then he wishes to excise this verse from the text, suggesting that it is an interpolation added in the first half of the second century.141 Although Eph. 6.12 is not without textual problems, there is no textual evidence for either the excision of the text nor for the removal of the expression pro\j ta\j a0rxa/j, pro\j ta\j e0cousi/aj. Indeed, Carr admits this lack of textual support

137. See BDF §134 [3]. 138. P. T. O’Brien, ‘Principalities and Powers: Opponents of the Church’, in D. A Carson (ed.), Biblical Interpretation and the Church. Text and Context (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1984), pp. 110–50 (128). 139. T. J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, p. 213, n. 3. 140. W. Carr, Angels and Principalities, p. 104. 141. Ibid., p. 110.


113

for his theory as he states: ‘It is only with the greatest hesitation that one would suggest interpolation, especially without any strong textual support’.142 We must therefore conclude that ta\j a0rxa\j kai\ ta\j e0cousi/aj are supernatural powers over whom Christ, has triumphed. God made a public display of them by means of the work of Christ as shown in the final e0n au0tw~| (the fifteenth ‘in him’ in the letter and the fifth since 2.9), which retains the focus of what has been done in Christ through his death and crucifixion. This final picture of triumph therefore becomes a climactic image for the work of Christ on the cross. As Dunn states: Paul and Timothy wanted to end the sequence of metaphors on a note of triumph and to build up to this climax as a way of preparing the ground for the practical advice to follow. The force of the sequence of images of what happened on the cross is powerful: a spiritual circumcision achieved and body of flesh stripped off, a burial with Christ and resurrection with Christ, a being made alive with Christ from a state of death and a wiping out of the record of transgression and destruction of that record. But the final one is boldest of all: a stripping off of the rulers and authorities as discarded rags, putting them to public shame and triumphing over them in him … To treat the cross as a moment of triumph was about as huge a reversal of normal values as could be imagined …143

4. Conclusion In Col. 2.9-15 Paul presents a response to the philosophy introduced in 2.8. Christ, in whom dwells all the fullness of God in bodily form, has done all that is required for Christians. He is juxtaposed with the insufficiency of the elemental spirits and any means they may use. Thus, inasmuch as religious rituals and even the law can become an inappropriate centre of faith, they can also become tools of the powers of evil. Within the Colossian philosophy, there was a fear of the determinative nature of cosmic evil powers. Paul’s message, however, was that Christ had already overcome the powers of evil in the earthly realm through the historical realities of his death and Resurrection. It is through these events, rather than an allegorical death expressed in asceticism and a mystical Resurrection experienced in a heavenly ascent, that true freedom is found. Forgiveness of sins cannot be separated from the concept of victory over the powers of evil whose major weapon was the accusation of guilt. It was guilt that drove the adherents of the philosophy to legalism and asceticism. These practices undermined the unity of the church, as they ‘elevated’ one group who saw themselves as spiritually superior because of their adherence to (Jewish) religious practices. Paul therefore counters this argument by showing how sins have been forgiven and the xeiro/grafon has been nailed to the cross. The evil powers are therefore disarmed as guilt is removed. 142. Ibid. 143. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 169–70.

114


The antidote to the Colossian error is therefore a true appreciation of Christology. Religious ritual is fulfilled in him, forgiveness of transgressions is obtained in him, and ultimately the defeat of the powers of evil is demonstrated in him. All these are obtained by means of the crucifixion and Resurrection. In the light of the errorists’ preoccupation with celestial powers, it is not surprising that they not only feared the powers of evil, but also longed for deliverance from the present world by means of a heavenly mystical ascent based on ritual, law and asceticism. It is to this practice that Paul now turns his attention.

Chapter 6

THE SHADOW OF ASCETICISM: COLOSSIANS 2.16-19 Within our reconstruction of the Colossian philosophy, we have looked at Paul’s focus on the sufficiency and the dominion of Christ who has triumphed over the powers of evil. Paul now continues his correction of the errorists as he addresses their claims of heavenly ascent(s) in order to escape the dominion of ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou. The errorists believed that such an ascent required participation in ascetic practices and was therefore only available to an elite group. Such elitism, however, has the danger of one group claiming spiritual superiority within a Christian community, thereby creating division. Paul therefore points out that through their beliefs and practices, the errorists were being enslaved to the very powers from whom they desired liberation. These mystical beliefs and practices also arose from a poor comprehension of the dominion and sufficiency of Christ.

1. Jewish Rituals: Colossians 2.16-17 It appears likely that the recipients of the letter knew who the errorists were. Although the tij (v.16) could be indefinite, it is more likely there were actions encouraged by a specific group as evidenced by mh/ and the present imperative krine/tw.1 The first issue discussed in 2.16 concerns dietary restrictions (mh\ ou]n tij u9ma=j krine/tw e0n brw/sei kai\ e0n po/sei). One of the few areas of agreement among scholars concerning the Colossian philosophy is that it did demand dietary or fasting restrictions.

1. It has been argued on the basis of the grammatical ‘rule’ that mh/ + present imperative demands the termination of an action, that a real threat was envisioned at Colossae. See BDF § 336 [3]; C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), p. 135. This rule has recently been questioned by S. E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (New York: Peter Lang, 1993), pp. 351–52. Even if Porter’s approach is adopted, the imperative itself indicates an incomplete action.

116


a. Dietary Restrictions Dietary laws are at the centre of the strict Jews’ expression of their identity, with the distinction between clean and unclean food given in Lev. 11.1-23 and Deut. 14.3-21. During the Maccabaean period, observance of these dietary laws became an issue of ethnic identity (1 Macc. 1.62-63). Heroes of Judaism were those who refused to eat the food of the Gentiles (Dan. 1.3-16; 10.3; Tob. 1.10-12; Jdt. 12.2, 19; Joseph and Asenath 7.1; 8.5). There was the further restriction that blood be drained from an animal (Lev. 7.26-27; Deut. 12.16, 23-24).2 The issue of dietary laws was more pronounced in the diaspora with the risk of eating food that had been offered to idols (see 1 Cor. 8-10). It seems likely that the Colossian philosophers went beyond the Mosaic regulations as can be seen by the reference to drink. The repeated e0n before po/sei implies that the issues of eating and drinking were viewed separately. There is little reference to restrictions on drink in the Hebrew Bible. Percy argues that the prohibition concerning drink lacks Jewish precedent.3 O’Brien and Bruce refer to the Nazarite vow.4 Dunn notes that scrupulous Jews were known to refuse wine because of the possibility that it had been offered to a pagan idol (Dan. 1.3-16; 10.3; Add Est. 14.17; Joseph and Asenath 1.10; T. Jud. 8.5; m. ‘Abod. Zar. 2.3; 5.2).5 Wink states that the Essenes regarded drink as more susceptible to contamination than food.6 S. Lyonnet refers to the practices of dietary abstinence at Qumran, as well as the practices of John the Baptist and his disciples (Mt. 9.14; 11.18; Mk 1.6; Lk. 1.15).7 Through fasting, a person could come closer to the deity or was prepared for the reception of a divine revelation and ecstatic or magical powers.8 Eusebius says of James, the brother of Jesus, oi]non kai\ si/kera ou0k e1pien ou0de\ e1fagen (Hist. eccl. 2.23.5). Behm remarks that a striking feature of fasting in Graeco-Roman antiquity was that there was ‘no close connection with ethos and ethics … The fasting of the Graeco-Roman world is not asceticism. It is a rite which is observed for the sake of relations to the spirits and the gods’.9 The basis for these practices often arose from a dualistic understanding of reality.10 The idea of preparation for a divine encounter is also present in the idea of fasting. Moses spent forty days and nights fasting before receiving the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai (Exod. 34.28; Deut. 9.9). Daniel fasted prior

2. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 172. 3. E. Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe, p. 140. 4. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 138; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians, p. 114. 5. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 173. 6. W. Wink, Naming the Powers, p. 8, n. 91; H. K. Harrington, ‘Purity’, in EDSS, pp. 724–28. 7. S. Lyonnet, ‘Paul’s Adversaries in Colossae’, 151–52. 8. J. Behm, ‘nh=stij’, in TDNT, IV, pp. 924–35 (926–27); J. Zmijewski, ‘nhstei/a’, in EDNT, II, pp. 465–67. 9. J. Behm, ‘nh=stij’, pp. 924–35 (927). 10. See E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 115.

The Shadow of Asceticism: Colossians 2.16-19

117

to his visions (Dan. 9.3; 10.2, 3, 12). More broadly, the fast was a desire for divine blessing, often in times of difficulty. Therefore individuals fasted when they hoped that God would liberate them from torment (2 Sam. 12.16-17; 1 Kgs 21.27; Ps. 35.12; Ps. 69.10). In times of calamity the whole people fasted in order to receive the Lord’s blessing (1 Sam 7.6; Neh. 9.1; Jon. 3.5-10). Fasting is accompanied by prayer (Jer. 14.12; Neh. 1.4; Ezra 8.21, 23; Est. 4.16). The only fast prescribed by the law was on the Day of Atonement, being a day of national repentance (Lev. 16; 23.26-32; Num. 29.7-11).11 Fasting was clearly a practice of first-century Judaism, as seen by Jesus’ discussion of the issue in the Gospels (Mt. 6.16-18). It is not inconsistent that the errorists were asking for special divine revelation through their fasting, especially as the issue is addressed again in vv.18 and 21. b. Festivals and Celebrations The second ritualistic practice referred to in vv.16-17 is the celebration of festivals. Paul uses e0n me/rei (+ genitive) as a stylistic variation from the previous e0n. This breaks the succession from the five previous datives.12 The festivals referred to: e9orth/, neomhni/a, sa/bbata are respectively celebrated annually, monthly and weekly. All people celebrate festivals of national and ethnic significance, but these festivals appear to be clearly Jewish. They appear in the LXX in this combination, albeit in the reverse order, in passages such as 1 Chron. 23.31; 2 Chron. 31.3; Ezek. 45.17; Hos. 2.11 to designate special days dedicated to God.13 Although e9orth/ appears only here in the Pauline corpus, the word is commonly used in Johannine literature for annual festivals such as Tabernacles and Passover (e.g. Jn 6.4; 7.2; 13.1). Neomhni/a was celebrated in many ancient societies, including Israel (e.g. Num. 10.10; 2 Kgs 4.23; Ps. 81.3; Isa. 1.13; Ezek. 46.3, 6)14 as is seen by the Jewish prayer of the new moon: ‘Blessed art thou, O Lord, who renewest the new moon’ (b. Sanh. 42a). The Hebrew Bible forbids the veneration of the moon (Deut. 4.19), such worship being punishable by death (Deut. 17.3-5). The Jewish nature of the philosophy is confirmed by the third term ta\ sa/bbata. The Sabbath, together with dietary laws, marked out Jews as a people who were separate from Gentiles. Sabbath observance was an indication of covenant membership as seen in Exod. 31.16-17, Deut. 5.15 and Isa. 56.6. Josephus identifies the violation of the Sabbath and the breaking of food laws as the two chief marks of covenant disloyalty (Ant. 11.346).

11. J. Zmijewski, ‘nhstei/a’, pp. 465–67 (465). 12. M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon, p. 118. 13. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 115. See also J. N. Aletti, Saint Paul: Epître aux Colossiens: Introduction, traduction et commentaire (EBib, 2.020; Paris: Gabalda, 1993), p. 193, n. 112. The combination also appears in 1 Esd. 5.52; Jdt. 8.6 and 1QM 2.4-6. 14. It is not necessary to see this as a form of expression of worship of the elements of the universe, as claimed by E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 115, nor does it show that the Colossians philosophy was an offshoot from the teaching of the Qumran community, as proposed by W. D. Davies, ‘Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls’, pp. 157–82 (167–68).

118


Sabbath law was emphasized as a distinctive of Judaism after the Maccabaean crisis (Jub. 2.17-33; 50.6-13) as is attested in the Gospels (Mk 2.23-3.5). Although there were Gentile groups who found the habit of resting one day in seven attractive (Philo, De vita Mosis 2.21; Josephus, Contra Apionem 2.282), a critical attitude on the subject as displayed in this verse was much more likely to express a Jewish background. It is clear, therefore, that the errorists were judging members of the Colossian church for their lack of adherence to Jewish festivals and practices. The fact that no/moj is not mentioned does not deny the attack is based on Jewish legalism as part of the philosophy. Circumcision, food laws and Sabbath were recognized by both Jew and Gentile as the most distinctive features of the Jewish law. All the elements in this verse bear Jewish characteristics. c. Shadows and Reality In 2.17 Paul utilizes dualistic Platonic categories that were current in firstcentury Hellenism. The Jewish distinctives of food laws and Jewish festivals are mere shadows. Reality belongs to the realm of ideas and not the shadows that are cast in this world, which our senses perceive. This is normally expressed in the contrast between skia/ and ei0kw/n.15 At times, however, sw~ma is substituted for ei0kw/n.16 The contrast between shadow and reality is modified in two ways in this verse. Tw~n mello/ntwn introduces a temporal contrast based on Jewish eschatology into a spatial Platonic dualism between heaven and earth. The new age was described as o9 ai0w\n me/llwn (Isa. 9.6 [LXX]; Mt. 12.32; Eph. 1.21). Therefore it is a blending of Hebraic (promise/fulfilment) eschatology with a Hellenistic (appearance/reality) thought form,17 and refers to the reality that is found in Christ to which Jewish ordinances like food laws and the Sabbath pointed. The other modification is Christological. The Christ is the fulfilment of Jewish eschatological hope. This is similar to Rom. 5.14 where Adam is presented as tu/poj tou= me/llontoj. The Christological application here echoes the hymn of 1.15-20. The Christ is the heavenly reality who lies beyond and sustains the world. The Christ is also the reality when compared with the shadow of Jewish food laws and feasts.18 Since the reality has appeared, there is no need to delight in the shadows that are cast by that reality.

15. See for example Heb. 10.1 Skia\n ga\r e1xwn o9 no/moj tw~n mello/ntwn a0gaqw~n, ou0k au0th\n th\n ei0ko/na tw~n pragma/twn. 16. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 116. See examples of this in Philo, De Confusione linguarum 190; Philo, De Migratione Abrahami 12; Josephus, War 2.28. 17. S. Schulz, ‘skia/’, in TDNT, VII, pp. 394–98 (398). 18. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 177; S. Schulz, ‘skia/’, pp. 394–98 (398).


119

2. Heavenly Visions and the Worship of Angels Paul now turns his attention in v.18 to the purpose of the Jewish practices of festivals and asceticism: heavenly visions. Ernst Percy says of 2.18: ‘One could legitimately describe this verse as one of the most controversial in the entire New Testament. It poses extremely great difficulties with regard to both language and content (author’s translation)’.19 R. Yates describes Col. 2.18 as ‘one of the most elusive verses in an epistle crowded with problems of interpretation and rare words’.20 It appears that the Colossian errorists were boasting in their superior spirituality. The verb katabrabeu/w is extremely rare, meaning ‘to decide against (as umpire), and so rob of a prize, condemn tina/’.21 The term retains the primary sense of the simple verb brabeu/w which means: ‘“award prizes in contests”, then gener. be in control of someone’s activity by making a decision, be judge, decide, control, rule’.22 Brabeu/w therefore means to act as a brabeu/j (umpire) awarding the brabei=on (prize).23 The force of the verb with the kata- prefix is to deprive, to disqualify.24 This makes sense here as it is similar to krine/tw (v.16), yet even more emphatic. It is drawn from the context of the arena. It would appear that some at Colossae were judging others who did not follow certain practices and who were thereby deemed to be not worthy of the prize.25 Paul describes these practices in a series of four participial phrases which we will exegete to determine the content of the errorists’ judgments. a. qe/lwn e0n tapeinofrosu/nh| kai\ qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn This participial phrase will be examined in two sections.

19. E. Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe, p. 143. 20. R. Yates, ‘“The Worship of Angels” (Col. 2.18)’, ExpTim 97 (1985), 12–15 (12). 21. s.v. ‘katabrabeu/w’, BDAG, p. 515. Many commentators take it to be equivalent to katakri/nw. See for example P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 141. Although the term is synonymous with katakri/nw as can be seen from the structural parallelism between vv 16 and 18 (as discussed above), the differences of meaning should not be overlooked. 22. s.v. ‘brabeu/w’, BDAG, p. 183 (emphasis theirs). 23. See T. K. Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, p. 265, for contemporary examples (cf. 1 Cor. 9.24; Phil. 3.14). 24. This interpretation is followed by J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 193; C. F. D. Moule, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 103–04; J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 177. See also F. O. Francis, ‘Humility and Angelic Worship in Col. 2.18’, pp. 163–64. 25. See J. N. Aletti, Saint Paul: Epître aux Colossiens, p. 195, who points out the irony that those who prized humility acted as judges over others to disqualify them.

120


i. qe/lwn e0n tapeinofrosu/nh| Abbott states of this phrase, ‘These words are very difficult’.26 There are at least five different ways they can be understood.27 (1) qe/lwn can be understood in an adverbial sense modifying katabrabeue/tw.28 This would render the phrase: ‘let no one disqualify you intentionally/as (s)he pleases/in regard to …’ This meaning, however, does not show why Paul would have used the phrase. The errorists were not disqualifying Colossian Christians intentionally or as they pleased. They felt constrained, even if mistakenly, by Jewish ceremonial practice. McClellan (who takes katabrabeue/tw as meaning condemn) therefore translates the verse ‘let no one condemn you at his will’.29 (2) Others have taken qe/lwn in an adverbial/adjectival sense linked to either e0mbateu/wn30 or e0n tapeinofrosu/nh|.31 This would then mean (respectively) ‘let no one disqualify you by a voluntary entering/ voluntary humility’. This sense seems unlikely. If Paul wanted these concepts to be taken together, it would be expected that e0n … would precede qe/lwn. (3) Some have understood qe/lwn as a participle of attendant circumstances providing the infinitive poiei=n (tou=to), rendering the phrase ‘wishing to do it (the disqualification) in’.32 As the implied infinitive (and its object) does not appear in the text, it is unlikely that this is Paul’s original meaning. (4) M. J. Harris33 follows Zerwick and Grosvenor34 in understanding qe/lwn in a modal sense meaning ‘order, require, insisting on’. This meaning, however, must be rejected. Qe/lw means to desire or wish or will. Harris does not cite any example of qe/lw meaning ‘insist’.35 The RSV and NRSV are therefore 26. T. K. Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, p. 266. 27. M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon, pp. 120–21. 28. BDF § 148 [2] which gives the meaning ‘intentionally’. 29. J. B. McLellan, ‘Colossians II.18: A Criticism of the Revised Version and an Exposition’, Expositor 9 (1910), 385–98 (388). 30. This is followed by Tyndale’s translation: ‘Let no man make you shoot at a wrong mark, which after his own imagination walketh in the humbleness and holiness of angels …’ W. Tyndale (ed.), Tyndale’s New Testament (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1534 =1989), p. 297. 31. This is followed by the RV which translates as follows: ‘Let no man rob you of your prize by a voluntary humility and worshipping of the angels …’ 32. This is followed by Calvin who states: ‘Desiring in humility. Something must be supplied; hence I have inserted in the text to do it.’ J. Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, p. 338. 33. M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon, p. 121. 34. M. Zerwick and M. Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981), p. 607. 35. M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon, p. 121.


121

misleading in their translation ‘insisting on self-abasement’. BDAG does not list a meaning of qe/lw as ‘insists on’.36 (5) The most likely meaning is that proposed by Lightfoot in seeing qe/lw e0n as a Hebraism meaning ‘delight in’. He points out that b Cph is represented by qe/lwn e0n in the LXX in 1 Sam. 15.26; 1 Kgs 10.9; 2 Chron. 9.8; Pss. 111.1; 146.10; and in T. Ash. 1.6.37 This is the consensus of the majority of modern scholars, being advocated by Moule,38 Schrenk,39 Percy,40 Bruce,41 O’Brien,42 and Dunn.43 What is referred to, therefore, is not the Galatian situation where one group is compelling the whole congregation to follow its legalistic practices. Rather, there was a group which was delighting in its higher spirituality. The members of this group saw Christians outside their group as defective or even disqualified because they did not share the same experiences. These experiences, we will see, were reflective of first-century Jewish mysticism, as can be seen from the ‘catchwords’ of the sect that Paul now outlines. Tapeinofrosu/nh is normally regarded as a positive virtue, but is here used in a negative sense. It refers to a false humility, its meaning being associated with the subsequent expression qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn (worship of angels), as can be seen by the one e0n governing both expressions. In the LXX tapeino/w often means ‘to mortify oneself’ (Lev. 16.29, 31; 23.27, 29, 32) and more specifically ‘to fast’ (Ps. 35.13; Isa. 58.3,5; Jdt. 4.9; Ps. 69.10). 44 Therefore some scholars see the term as a technical expression for fasting or asceticism.45 The reference in the surrounding verses to food and drink, the prohibition against tasting and severity to the body all point to fasting.46 This sense of self-mortification, including fasting, is seen in the Shepherd of

36. s.v. ‘qe/lw’, BDAG, pp. 447–48. 37. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 193. 38. C. F. D. Moule, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 104. 39. G. Schrenk, ‘qe/lw, qe/lhma, qe/lhsij’, in TDNT, III, pp. 44–62 (45). 40. E. Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe p. 145–47. 41. F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians, p. 118, n. 115, who translates qe/lwn e0n tapeinofrosu/nh| as ‘through delight in humility’. 42. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 142. 43. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 178. 44. Ibid. 45. See for example C. F. D. Moule, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 104 who states: ‘tapeinofrosu/nh “humiliation”, “humility” is a technical term for “fasting” in Hermas V. iii. 10. 6, S. v. 3. 7 (so Dibelius); and cf. the verb of fasting in Lev. xxiii.29, Ezra (LXX II Esdras) viii.21. This fits the present context well and is supported by the addition, in v.23, a0feidi/a| sw/matoj’. See also T. Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, (3 vols; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1909), I, pp. 477–79. 46. F. O. Francis, ‘Humility and Angelic Worship in Colossians 2.18’, p. 168.

122


Hermas (Hermas, Vis. 3.10.6, also Hermas, Sim. 5.3.7). It should be noted, therefore, that tapeinofrosu/nh refers to asceticism that includes fasting. Of significance for our thesis is the relationship between fasting and heavenly worship. Philo refers to the fact that Moses fasted for forty days on the mountain in Deut. 9.9, 18 (De Somnis 1.35-37; De vita Mosis 2.67-69). There is a relationship between asceticism and entrance into the heavenly realm in passages such as Dan. 10.2-3; Apoc. Abr. 9.7-10; 12.1-2; T. Isaac 4.1-6; 5.4; Ezra 5.13; 6.35; 2 Bar. 5.7. In the apocryphal romance of Joseph and Asenath there is a detailed account of Asenath’s ascetic humility and the subsequent appearance of Michael. In the Apocalypse of Ezra, Ezra is taken up to heaven (1.7) following his request for divine secrets (1.2). Ezra is told to fast (1.3) and he fasts for twice the required period (1.5). Furthermore, the dominant themes of the Testament of Isaac are Isaac’s fasting and his entrance to heaven.47 The Apocalypse of Abraham makes the revelation to Abraham contingent upon abstinence from meat and wine (Apoc. Abr. 9.7-10). Abraham is said to go forty days without food or drink, after which he is taken on a heavenly journey (Apoc. Abr. 12.110). In his edition of 3 Enoch, Hugo Odeberg cites a fragment of an ascension of Moses contained in MSS B and L which states that Moses partook of 121 fasts until the highest heaven was opened to him.48 In the Ascension of Isaiah 2.7-11, Isaiah and a band of prophets withdraw to a desert where they adopt an ascetic lifestyle, including fasting. Tapeinofrosu/nh therefore clearly has the connotation of fasting, and this fasting can be associated with heavenly ascent. Fasting formed part of the ascetic lifestyle of the Colossian errorists and thus needs to be examined in connection with the other expression in the same participial phrase in 2.18: qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn. ii. qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn The expression qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn in Col. 2.18 has been at the centre of the debate about the Colossian philosophy. The debate largely hinges on whether this expression is to be taken as an objective genitive (i.e. worship offered to the angels) or a subjective genitive (the worship offered by the angels). Those who adopt an objective genitive understanding of qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn fall into three main groups. They see it referring either to Hellenistic syncretistic practice: to angels as mediators of the law or to angels as mediators of magic.

47. F. O. Francis, ‘Humility and Angelic Worship in Colossians 2.18’, p. 169. 48. ‘And when Moses ascended on high, he fasted 121 fasts, till the habitation of the chasmal were opened to him … and he saw the innumerable companies of the hosts round about him. And they desired to burn him. But Moses prayed for mercy first for Israel and after that for himself: and He who sitteth on the Merkaba opened the windows that are above the heads of the Kerubim’ (3 Enoch 15b.2). H. Odeberg, 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch, pp. 40–41.


123

J. B. Lightfoot concluded that Paul was attacking an angelolatry of a Jewish-Gnostic type with strong affinities to Essenism, in which angels functioned as intermediaries.49 He saw them as agencies involved with both cosmogony and with religion. Christ himself is given a place among these intermediaries. The Colossian errorists worshipped these beings as their link to God.50 Lightfoot states: ‘The successive grades of intermediate beings were as successive steps, by which man might mount the ladder leading up to the throne of God. This carefully woven web of sophistry the Apostle tears to shreds’.51 The problem with Lightfoot’s view, however, is that the apostle does not tear it to shreds! It is only necessary to compare Galatians with Colossians to see the difference between an error that is torn to shreds, as in the case of Galatians, and an error that receives at best a nuanced disapproval, in the case of Colossians. J. Eadie also argued that qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn is an objective genitive.52 He suggested that the Colossian Christians venerated angels as mediators and protectors, and pointed out that in the days of Theodoret, the archangel Michael was worshipped at Colossae in a nao\j a0rxaggeliko/j. Eadie believed that although this refers to a post-apostolic period, it testifies to the remnants of earlier practice.53 Similarly, T. K. Abbott suggests that the Colossians held such a transcendent view of God that the mediation of angels was needed to approach him.54 Such a view could be consistent with an over-developed Jewish angelology of the time. E. Schweizer argued that qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn refers to offering worship to souls, who are identified as angels as they ascend to heaven.55 He cites contemporary literature for how the ancient worship of demons or heroes is connected with the ascent of the soul beyond death. The fear that the soul of a deceased person might not be able to pierce through elements (understood as the four traditional elements) to heaven was widespread. It was therefore necessary to engage in asceticism and the worship of the angels to ensure the

49. J. B. Lightfoot, ‘The Colossian Heresy’, p. 30. 50. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 194; J. B. Lightfoot, ‘The Colossian Heresy’, pp. 29–30. 51. J. B. Lightfoot, ‘The Colossian Heresy’, p. 30. 52. ‘Qrhskei/a is often followed by the genitive of object (Herodian, v.7, 3. Joseph. Antiq. iv. 4, 1; iv. 8, 44 etc. etc. Wisdom xiv. 27; Clement, Strom. vi. 566. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 4.)’. J. Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Colossians, p. 180. 53. Ibid., p. 182. 54. T. K. Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, p. 268. 55. E. Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians: A Commentary (EKKNT, London: SPCK, 1982), pp. 131–33, 160. See also E. Schweizer, ‘Slaves of the Elements and Worshippers of Angels’, 465, where Schweizer cites contemporary understanding of ‘demons’ or ‘heroes’ in connection with the ascent of souls.

124


transmigration. This homage is supplemented with purificatory baths, fasting and abstinence from sexual intercourse.56 R. DeMaris contends that the passage refers to a devotion to demons or heroes. Using Philonic precedents57 he suggests the author of Colossians may have equated Jewish angelology with Hellenistic demonology. It might reflect an early stage of Anatolian pagan speculation. Therefore the source of the philosophy can be seen as beyond Judaism.58 S. Lyonnet argues that qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn points to giving honour to the angels who assisted in giving the law and now watch over its observance. In first-century Judaism a special place was given to angels both as agents of creation and in the giving of the law, as seen in Acts 7.53; Gal. 3.19 and Heb. 2.2. Some scholars have therefore postulated that in the Colossian philosophy these angels were to be placated by keeping strict legal observances. Lawbreaking brought the transgressor into bondage to them (cf. Col. 2.12-15). He states: In reality, that with which Paul seems to reproach the Gnostics at Colossae is not at all that they worship the angels or offer them sacrifices, but that, instead of honoring God as he wanted to be, they multiply observances ‘which are inspired by a tradition altogether human’ (2.8; …) and intended rather to render honor to the angels who assisted in the promulgation of the Mosaic law and are supposed to preside over its observance.59

A. L. Williams60 suggests that qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn is an objective genitive that has its roots in the fringes of Judaism, in particular Essenism, together with Phrygian, Persian and Syrian characteristics.61 Therefore the philosophy stems from syncretistic Judaism. C. E. Arnold agrees with the major thrust of Williams’ thesis, seeing 2.18 as a ‘magical invocation of angels, especially for apotropaic purposes’.62 Arnold looks at local (Phrygian and Carian) attitudes towards angels and comes to the conclusion of angelic mediation. A distinctive trait of magic63 was the invocation of angels to

56. See E. Schweizer, ‘Slaves of the Elements and Worshippers of Angels’, 467. 57. In De Plantatione 14 Philo equates the unseen spirits, whom the Greeks called heroes, with what Moses refers to as angels. See also Philo, De Gigantibus 16. 58. R. E. DeMaris, The Colossians Controversy, pp. 58–63. 59. S. Lyonnet, ‘Paul’s Adversaries in Colossae’, pp. 147–61 (149–50). 60. A. L. Williams, ‘The Cult of the Angels at Colossae’, JTS 10 (1909), pp. 413–38. 61. Williams states: ‘There is almost no evidence for the worship of them [angels] being recognized in early times by thoughtful Jews, save indeed in connexion with exorcism and magic’. A. L. Williams, ‘The Cult of the Angels at Colossae’, 432. 62. C. E. Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism, p. 10. 63. ‘… magic is defined as that form of religious deviance whereby individual or social goals are sought by means alternate to those normally sanctioned by the dominant religious institution … goals sought within the context of religious deviance are magical when attained through the management of supernatural powers in such a way that results are virtually guaranteed’. D. E. Aune, ‘Magic in Early Christianity’, in ANRW:Principat (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980), II.XXIII.II, pp. 1507–57 (1515).


125

perform several functions. These functions include providing protection from harmful spirits, being agents of revelatory magic through dreams and light divination, providing aphrodisiacs and love potions, being powerful assistants. They are also associated with stars and planets and therefore seen to be active in influencing one’s fate and susceptible to magical manipulation.64 Arnold therefore sets the philosophy in ‘the milieu of a magical understanding of spirituality and human existence, namely, the domain of folk belief’.65 E. E. Urbach also argues for the widespread influence of Jewish magic. He claims that even the sages of the Talmud and Midrash, despite their belief that there is none beside God, could not ignore the facts that broad masses of the people believed and made use of these practices.66 The major problem with the objective genitive understanding of qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn is that Paul does not strongly condemn the practice. Paul is concerned that only God, the Creator, be worshipped (Rom. 1.18-25). Furthermore, most of the views, whether seeing the background for the angelic worship as Hellenism or paganism, depend on post-Pauline extraBiblical support. Although they argue that a written document has a prehistory, there is little ante-Pauline written evidence. The significant contribution of C. Arnold to this debate needs particular attention. Arnold points out: ‘A survey of the usage of qrhskei/a fails to turn up one example of a divine being, or a typical object of worship (e.g. an “idol”), related to qrhskei/a in the genitive case that should be taken as a subjective genitive’.67 Yet Arnold’s conclusions are the natural result of his own parameters. An object of worship in the genitive related to qrhskei/a| will always be taken as an objective genitive. To use Arnold’s example of an idol, an idol is inanimate and therefore not normally the subject of any activity. The prior question is who are angels? Are they ‘divine beings or a typical object of worship’ or are they created beings and therefore engaged in the worship of God? The testimony of Scripture is clear. Angels are part of creation, not divine beings. They are therefore not an object of worship, but those who worship God. When people mistakenly make angels the object of worship, they are rebuked in a way that is much more direct than Col. 2.18 (e.g. Rev. 22.8, 9). Although there was great diversity within first-century Judaism, one of the common features of all its branches was monotheism.68 Within a Hellenistic and pantheistic world, the Jews grounded their identity in the worship of the

64. C. E. Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism, p. 21. 65. Ibid., p. 10. 66. E. E. Urbach, The Sages: Their concepts and beliefs (trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975), p. 101. 67. C. E. Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism, p. 91. 68. For a helpful study on the interrelationship of angel veneration and monotheism see L. T. Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John (WUNT, 2.70; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1995).

126


one true God. The centrality of this can be seen in key Jewish texts such as the Shema (Deut. 6.4) and the first commandment (Exod. 20.3; Deut. 5.7). When Jews transgressed this monotheistic cornerstone, the correction was both sharp and direct. This can be seen in the many denunciations of idolatry in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Exod. 32.1-35). Therefore, if the Colossian philosophy finds its source in a form of Judaism, as the text would indicate, and if ‘the worship of angels’ is an objective genitive, it represents a group that is so heterodox that it denies the cornerstone of Judaism. In the light of Paul’s response to the error, which is neither direct nor sharp, it appears that the errorists reflected a Jewish belief in a jealous God who forbade the worship of His creation. It is therefore more preferable that qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn be taken as a subjective genitive. If we accept qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn as a subject genitive, it would imply that the Colossian philosophy emanated from a form of mysticism wherein adherents engaged in practices in order to participate with or at least observe angelic worship. The most significant modern scholar to propose this view is F. O. Francis.69 Francis found the use of qrhskei/a with a subjective genitive in 4 Macc. 5.7 and Josephus, Ant. 12.253. In both these cases qrhskei/a is modified by Ioudai/ 0 wn and therefore understood as worship by the Jews rather than worship directed to the Jews. From this Francis argued that qrhskei/a followed by a genitive could be either objective or subjective, and the context should determine which.70 The fact that angels worship God can be seen in passages such as the Apocalypse of Abraham 17-18 where Abraham, following his ascent, learns to recite a celestial song, and together with an angel worships God; and T. Levi 3.4-871 which gives the liturgical climax of Levi’s entry into heaven. In T. Job 48-50 the three daughters of Job speak in the language of angels, praising and worshipping God. In Apoc. Zeph. 8.3-4 the seer, having put on an angelic garment, sees the angels praying and prays with them in their language. In the Ascension of Isaiah 7-9 Isaiah, on his ascent, sees the angels of each of the seven heavens praising God. He participates in the worship of the fifth (Asc. Isa. 7.37), sixth (Asc. Isa. 8.17) and seventh heavens (Asc. Isa. 9.28-34). Participation in angelic worship is seen at many points in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In 1QSa 2.8-9 the rules for the congregation of the Last Days would be strict ‘for the Angels of Holiness are [with] their [congregation]’. The implication of other references is that these rules were already in operation, indicating that the Qumran community saw itself as a priestly community 69. F. O. Francis, ‘Humility and Angelic Worship in Col. 2.18’, pp. 163–95. 70. Ibid., p. 180. 71. Note in particular T. Levi 3.5: 0En tw~| met’ au0to\n oi9 a0ggeloi/ ei0si tou= prosw/pou Kuri/ou oi9 leitourgou=ntej (and in [the heaven next to] it are the angels of the presence of the Lord, who minister). Note this is one variant (b, Ab, S1). It should be noted, however, that all variants mention either angels or archangels ministering. See R. H. Charles (ed.), The Greek Version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs edited from nine mss. together with the variants of the Armenian and Slavonic versions and some Hebrew Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1908), p. 34.


127

whose holiness was defined by the presence of angels.72 Indeed, they saw the angels as heavenly priests.73 Even within canonical scripture, such ‘worship of angels’ is seen in Isa. 6.23; Dan. 7.9,10; at the incarnation in Lk. 2.14; in Rev. 4.1-5.14 with its picture of heavenly worship; and in Phil. 2.10-11. It can be seen, therefore, that there is much literature that would support a subjective genitive for qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn. b. a4 e9o/raken e0mbateu/wn The next expression we shall seek to understand is a4 e9o/raken e0mbateu/wn.74 'Embateu/wn is one of three participles that modify katabrabeue/tw and give the attendant and temporal circumstances for the disqualification. It has been translated variously. H. Preisker renders it: ‘to investigate closely’.75 R. DeMaris translates a4 e9o/raken e0mbateu/wn as: ‘which he has seen upon close scrutiny’ or ‘investigating what he has seen’.76 A. D. Nock states: ‘… e0mbateu/wn governs the implied antecedent of a4 e9o/raken and the only translation which I can offer is “entering at length upon the tale of what he has seen (in a vision)”’.77 These scholars cite two passages: 2 Macc. 2.30 and Philo, De plantatione 80. In each of these passages, however, e0mbateu/ein simply means to ‘enter (deeply) into a subject’.78 Therefore the sense of entering is still maintained. W. M. Ramsay suggests that the background to e0mbateu/wn can be deduced from the inscription from the temple of Apollo at Claros from the second century CE. He argues that the word’s background was the final stage of initiation into the mystery cults, when the initiate entered the inner sanctuary to the presence of God. He argues this largely on his understanding of e0mbateu/wn as a technical term.79 He concludes concerning e0mbateu/w: ‘The climax of the 72. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 181. Dunn refers to examples from the Dead Sea literature such as 4Q321 and 1QM 7.4-6 with Lev. 21.1721, 1QH 3.21-22 and 1QH 11.10-13. In 1QSb 4.25-26, one of the blessings of the priest is: ‘May you be as an Angel of the Presence in the Abode of Holiness to the glory of the God of [hosts] … May you attend upon the service in the Temple of the Kingdom and decree destiny in company with the Angels of the Presence’. 73. C. A. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, p. 59. 74. There are textual variants that insert mh/ or ou0k after a3. These variants are to be rejected. The reading of simply a3 is attested by p46 and a good representation of Alexandrian and Western texts including )*, A, B, D*, I, 33, 1739. It would appear that the negative was added to enhance the polemic of the following ei0kh|= fusiou/menoj. It is easier to explain the editorial insertion of the negative, especially if e0mbateu/wn was not properly understood, than its deletion. For a fuller explanation see B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition) (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), p. 556. 75. H. Preisker, ‘e0mbateu/w’, in TDNT, II, pp. 535–36. 76. R. DeMaris, The Colossians Controversy, p. 66. 77. A. D. Nock, ‘The Vocabulary of the New Testament’, JBL 52 (1933), 131–39 (133). 78. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 183. 79. W. M. Ramsay, ‘Religious Antiquities in Asia Minor’, The Annual of the British School at Athens 18 (1911–1912), pp. 37–79 (44–48); William M. Ramsay, The Teaching of Paul in Terms of the Present Day (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1913; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), pp. 283–305.

128


“tradition and reception” is called 0Embateu/ein. This is the word that Paul caught up and uses as preeminently suitable for his purpose in Colossians ii, 18, where he is writing against one of the Colossian Christians who was introducing into the teaching of the church ideas caught from the Mysteries’.80 The effect of the verb is that it ‘depends on the fact that it was a religious term familiar to his Phrygian readers’.81 As has already been discussed in Chapter 2, Martin Dibelius, after studying inscriptions discovered in the sanctuary of Apollo at Claros (which is near Ephesus), developed Ramsay’s contention of a mystery cult as the key to the Colossian error. He believed that Colossian Christians were joining in the worship of the powers. Dibelius therefore dismissed the possibility of Jewish influence at Colossae, but emphasized the Gnostic background of the philosophy. This view hinged on the term e0mbateu/w (2.18), which he claimed was a technical term that belonged to the language of the initiate, referring to the process of initiation to the sanctuary within the practices of at least one mystery cult.82 The work of Dibelius and Ramsay, however, is not convincing. If the Colossian philosophy talks of initiation into a mystery cult, then a single reference (e0mbateu/wn) is a very limited base upon which to build the theory. The oracle of Apollo at Claros does not use the term e0mbateu/ein alone. It is always linked with another term (muei=sqai or paralamba/nein ta\ musth/ria) so that e0mbateu/ein is the second, final and consummating act.83 Furthermore, e0mbateu/ein takes place within a sanctuary; this is not seen in Colossians 2.18.84 In addition to this, terms such as stoixei=a (2.8) and being buried with Christ (2.11) do not suggest a mystery cult.85 Francis makes the significant point that Aristides, in the second century, had consulted the oracle at the time of the inscriptions; however, on at least four occasions, Aristides used the term e0mbateu/ein in a non-technical sense with no reference to the oracles.86 Not everyone who came to consult the oracle was initiated.87

80. W. M. Ramsay, ‘Religious Antiquities of Asia Minor’, pp. 37–79 (45–46). 81. W. M. Ramsay, The Teaching of St. Paul in Terms of the Present Day, p. 300. 82. M. Dibelius, ‘The Isis Initiation in Apuleius and Related Initiatory Rites’, p. 89. 83. H. Preisker, ‘e0mbateu/w’, pp. 535–36 (535). Nock states: ‘ … in the inscriptions e0mbateu/ein is always the sequel of muei=sqai and not part of it’. A. D. Nock, ‘The Vocabulary of the New Testament’, 132. 84. H. Preisker, ‘e0mbateu/w’, pp. 535–36 (536). 85. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 182–83. 86. Francis lists the occasions as: (1) the entry of a mob into a temple, (2) the entry of muses and graces into a city, (3) when Philip entered into the possession of Greek things, (4) when Athena, metaphorically, indwells and possesses the head of men. F. O. Francis, ‘The Background of EMBATEUEIN’, in F. O. Francis and W. A. Meeks (eds), Conflict at Colossae, p. 203. 87. ‘… la myèse n’est pas obligatoire à tous les consultants de l’oracle. Les consultants ordinaires n’ont pas été initiés, à ce qu’il semble’. S. Eitrem, ‘EMBATEUW’, ST 2 (1948), 91.


129

A more plausible understanding of e0mbateu/wn, that maintains the sense of entering, is that of F. O. Francis who argues that e0mbateu/wn implies the entry into legal possession of property and inheritance. He cites other legal terms such as xeiro/grafon in 2.14 as a ‘property related’ term.88 Just as the tribe of Levi was not given a portion of the land upon entry into Canaan, but ‘the offerings by the fire to the Lord God of Israel are their inheritance’ (Josh. 13.14 [NRSV]), so too with the unexpressed object of e0mbateu/ein in Colossians, the idea is entry into the worship of the Lord. The association of e0mbateu/ein with entry to a holy place should not be lost. W. Carr points out how in classical usage, the term has association with the sacred presence upon a place to which both the gods and mortals relate. Therefore in Aeschylus’ Persae e0mbateu/ein is used for Pan haunting an isle near Salamis: h3n o9 filo/xoroj Pa=n e0mbateu/ei (Persae 449). In Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus the term is used for Dionysus treading the ground in the company of his divine nurse: i3n’ o9 baxiw/taj a0ei\ Dio/nusoj e0mbateu/ei qei/aj a0mfipolw~n tiqh/naij (Oedipus at Colonus 678-680). In Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus e0mbateu/ein is used to refer to Oedipus’ inability to set foot again on his native land: mhd’ e0mbateu=sai patri/doj (Oedipus Tyrannus 825). In Euripides’ Rhesus Apollos is addressed: Qumbrai=e kai\ Da/lie kai\ Luki/aj na/on e0mbateu/wn Apollon 1 (Rhesus 225). In Euripedes’ Electra the chorus prays: tu/xa| soi tu/xa| kasi/gnhton e0mbateu=sai po/lin (Electra 595).89 Carr concludes: ‘in his use of e0mbateuein Paul is not quoting some catch word of the errorists but is using a term derived from the language of religion and keeping its essential meaning of “to tread upon a sacred place”’.90 The place entered is the heavenly sanctuary which is implicit in the term qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn.91 C. Rowland translates a4 e9o/raken e0mbateu/wn as ‘what he has seen on entering’, thereby making it a reference to the experience of the visionary who enters the heavenly realm. Although it cannot be claimed that e0mbateu/ein is a technical term for entry into heaven, there are examples of the visionary entering heaven in 1 En. 14.9;92 2 En. 3; 3 Bar. 2.2; 3.1-2; T. Levi 2.5-7; Rev. 4.1-2. In the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, heaven is seen as a temple where the angelic worship takes place, with prominence given to doorways of the temple, possibly on the basis of Ezekiel 40-41 (4Q405 14-15). With the 88. Francis also points out that the only extant papyrological instance of katabrabeu/ein appears in litigation concerning the matter of entry into property. F. O. Francis, ‘The Background of EMBATEUEIN’, pp. 198–99. 89. See W. Carr, ‘Two Notes on Colossians’, JTS 24 (1973), 492–500 (498), where Carr also shows parallels between Col. 2.18 and Euripides’ Bacchae. 90. Ibid., 498–99. 91. Carr offers this translation of 2.18: ‘Let no one judge you unfit to be a Christian with his personal wishes about religious excess and his haunting the courts of heaven at worship with the angels, his so-called visions, puffed up by his private earthly imagination …’ Ibid., 499. 92. C. Rowland, ‘Apocalyptic Visions and the Exaltation of Christ in the Letter to the Colossians’, 76.

130


backdrop of both Josh. 19.49, 51 and Col. 1.12, there were those among the Colossian Jews who thought of heaven as a promised land into which they should aspire even now to enter, or particularly as the temple of God into which they should now enter by means of appropriate spiritual disciplines in order to share the worship of the angels. Therefore it is their delight to enter Sabbath by Sabbath.93 G. Scholem94 has shown that these ideas were current in mainstream Judaism, and were not just limited to non-conformist fringe groups. Paul himself may have been involved in such mystical visions (2 Cor. 12.1-10).95 This may account for why Paul is not concerned with condemning more strongly the Colossians who were engaged in this activity. He perceived, however, that activity like this could lead to divisions within the Colossian church between those who had been involved and those who had not. Furthermore, access to this heavenly, visionary experience was gained by obeying a collection of the minutiae of regulations at the neglect of Christ, in whom the fullness of God dwells. Therefore the problem was in the area of boasting of this visionary experience.96 If participation in heavenly worship was to be regarded as an essential part of Christian worship, this would present a challenge to Paul’s gospel of complete salvation in Christ.97 A9 e9o/raken has usually been taken as the object of e0mbateu/wn. The most natural way to take the relative pronoun a3 is as referring back to tapeinofrosu/nh| kai\ qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn, which is to be seen as one unit governed by a single e0n. Another example of a neuter plural relative pronoun following feminine nouns can be seen at Col. 3.6.98 If this is the case, and if qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn is taken as a subjective genitive referring to a mystical ascent to the sanctuary of heaven, then a4 e9o/raken e0mbateu/wn refers to the things that the person who has received the heavenly vision has seen, in particular the worship performed by the angels. c. ei0kh| fusiou/menoj u9po\ tou= noo\j th=j sarko\j au0tou~ If the above exegesis is correct, then the expression containing the third participial phrase, ei0kh|= fusiou/menoj u9po\ tou= noo\j th=j sarko\j au0tou=, becomes Paul’s negative response to these mystical ascents. The major concern was that those who claimed such ascents had become conceited. Fusio/w, here used in the passive, is a word that Paul uses regularly in Corinthian correspondence (1 Cor. 4.6, 18, 19; 5.2; 8.1; 13.4; 2 Cor. 12.20). ‘Such claims to 93. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 184. 94. G. G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. 95. See J. W. Bowker, ‘Merkabah Visions and the Visions of Paul’, JSS 16 (1971), 157–73, who suggests that the visions of 2 Cor. 12.1-10 and the Damascus Road experience of Acts 9, 22 and 26 arose from a base of Merkabah contemplation. 96. See A. T. Lincoln, ‘“Paul the Visionary”: The Setting and Significance of the Rapture to Paradise in II Corinthians XII 1-10’, 204–20. 97. R. Yates, ‘“The Worship of Angels” (Col. 2.18)’, 14. 98. See J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 182; and C. Rowland, ‘Apocalyptic Visions and the Exaltation of Christ in the Letter to the Colossians’, 77.


131

enter into the very presence of God and hymn him in the company of angels was [sic] an idle self-deceit. Anyone who made such a claim was “puffed up with conceit, putting on airs”’.99 This conceit is further qualified by u9po\ tou= noo\j th=j sarko\j au0tou= which, with its combination of mind and flesh, is an ‘impossible combination for the Greek mind’.100 Robinson sees that Paul is applying a typical Hebraic usage. He is not comparing nou=j with sa/rc as two distinct parts of humanity; nou=j refers to one aspect of a person’s relationship to God, in particular a person’s capacity to recognize and respond to divine claims upon his life.101 BDAG renders nou=j in this instance as ‘way of thinking, mind, attitude’.102 Therefore the nou=j is the part of human nature that can recognize the claims of God as used in Rom. 7.21-26; 12.2.103 u9po\ tou= noo\j th=j sarko\j au0tou= therefore refers to the former unregenerate nature of the flesh. O’Brien suggests: ‘Perhaps the proponents boasted (ei0kh=| means “without cause”) they were directed by the mind (u9po\ tou= noo/j); Paul’s answer is, yes. But a mind of the flesh! (th=j sarko/j is a possessive or characterizing genitive)’.104 The irony of this passage shows that boasting of ‘heavenly’ visions was, in fact, worldly. d. ou0 kratw~n th\n kefalh/n Kratw~n is the fourth in a series of participles (following qe/lwn, e0mbateu/wn, fusiou/menoj) which all refer back to the imperative mhdei\j u9ma=j katabrabeue/tw. Kai\ ou0 kratw~n th\n kefalh/n refers to the Colossian errorists who delighted in the worship of angels and who were thereby puffed up with pride. Krate/w means ‘to adhere strongly to, hold’.105 Due to their conceit, these Colossians errorists were not holding fast to their head, which is clearly a reference to Christ, as can be seen from previous occurrences (e.g. 1.18; 2.10).106 Paul then explicates his image of the head in relationship to the understanding of the body that is drawn from ancient physiology. Dia\ tw~n a9fw~n is a medical term meaning through the joints/ligaments.107 The metaphor is not to be pushed too far. The joints and ligaments are not to be understood

99. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 184. 100. J. A. T. Robinson, The Body, p. 25, n. 2. 101. Ibid. 102. s.v. ‘nou=j’, BDAG, p. 680. 103. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians, p. 122, n. 137. 104. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 146. 105. s.v. ‘krate/w’, BDAG, p. 565. 106. It should also be noted that the participle kratw~n is negated by ou0 rather than mh/. Robertson says of this construction: ‘In general it may be said of the koinh/ that the presence of ou0 with the participle means that the negative is clear-cut and decisive’. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of Historical Research (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1914), pp. 1137–38. 107. See J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 197–199, for a description of ancient beliefs about physiology.

132


as church officers.108 It is only as Christians are united to their head, who is Christ, that the church will grow. There is complete dependence on the head for nourishment and growth.109 Au1cei is in the present tense, showing the continual nature of the growth. This process of growth is qualified by the genitive tou= qeou=. This genitive is best understood as a genitive of source.110 Paul is therefore appealing to the sufficiency of Christ who is the source of nourishment for the body. This growth of the church is dependent on a correct understanding of the person of Christ, not on ecstatic heavenly ascents. The individual Christian is to be more concerned for the unity of the body than for boasting in heavenly experiences.

3. Conclusion As has already been noted, most commentators who identify the stoixei=a and the principalities and powers as personal spiritual beings see the ‘worship of angels’ as an objective genitive. Similarly, most scholars who argue for a subjective understanding of the ‘worship of angels’ see the stoixei=a as impersonal forces; examples of this include F. O. Francis,111 W. Carr,112 and T. J. Sappington.113 Our exegesis, however, has seen the elemental spirits and the principalities and the powers as personal beings; yet we have also seen the ‘worship of angels’ as a subjective genitive. These findings are not inconsistent. The Colossian Christians were very aware of the reality of the heavenly realm and its interaction with the earthly realm. It was because the spiritual realm had been subjugated by the victory of Christ on the cross that they were able to participate in the worship of heaven. What Paul is attacking, however, is not their world view, but the ironic practical result of this heavenly worship. Humility was resulting in boasting. Ascetic practices were resulting in pride. Heavenly worship was little more than the worship of self. The defeat of the elemental spirits, that should have produced unity in the worship of God, was actually producing pride and division. Indeed, the Colossian philosophy was empty deceit, as it was giving the principalities and powers a means of

108. R. Schnackenburg, ‘Christus, Geist und Gemeinde (Eph. 4.1-16)’, in B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley (eds), Christ and Spirit in the New Testament. Studies in Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule (Festschrift C. F. D. Moule; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), pp. 279–313 (290). 109. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 185–86. 110. Other alternatives are: a qualitative genitive describing the type of growth (for example, P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 148); or a genitive of reference/relation according to God’s design (for example, C. F. D. Moule, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 107). The genitive of source, however, seems to be preferable as it compares two sources of growth: one from mystical ascent and asceticism, the other from Christ, the head. 111. F. O. Francis, ‘Humility and Angel Worship in Col. 2.18’, pp. 163–95. 112. W. Carr, Angels and Principalities, p. 75. 113. T. J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, pp. 164–70.


133

enslaving the Colossian Christians again through asceticism and rituals. The proclamation of the victory of the cross was undermined. Paul therefore turns his attention to the need of the Christian to identify with the humility and self-mortification as seen in the death of Christ. He does this in 2.20-23.

Chapter 7

THE IMPOTENCE OF THE ERRORISTS’ MESSAGE: COLOSSIANS 2.20-23 As has been seen in the previous chapter, those who espoused the Colossian philosophy claimed a superior spirituality. In Col. 2.20-23 Paul refutes this claim by denying the value of some of their practices. Major themes from 2.819 are picked up in this section, such as: elemental spirits (2.8), regulations (2.14), food restrictions (2.16), human traditions (2.8), self-chosen worship and humility (2.18). Such beliefs and practices are shown to be of no value in the light of the death of Christ. What is significant is incorporation into the crucifixion, which is itself reminiscent of the theme of dying with Christ (2.12). The bringing together of these themes in such a way helps show that the Colossian philosophy was an integrated package, and this section gives the conclusion to Paul’s explicit references to it.

1. The Basis of Liberation: the Death of Christ Paul begins his conclusion by showing that a true appreciation of the death of Christ will lead to liberation from the elemental spirits and their enslaving regulations. He begins with the clause ei0 a0peqa/nete su\n Xristw~| a0po\ tw~n stoixei/wn tou= ko/smou. Ei0 followed by the aorist indicative a0peqa/nete points to a present reality.1 The reality of having died with Christ resumes the idea of being baptized into Christ’s death as discussed in 2.12. The verse echoes Rom. 6.8: ei0 de\ a0peqa/nomen su\n Xristw|=, and is a summary of the Pauline gospel expressed in the words ‘Christ died for …’ (Rom. 5.6, 8; 14.15; 1 Cor. 8.11; 15.3; 2 Cor. 5.15; 1 Thess. 5.10; 1 Pet. 3.18; see also Rom. 8.34; 14.9; Gal. 2.21; 1 Thess. 4.14).2 The construction is unusual as one would expect a dative to follow a0peqa/nete su\n Xristw|=; however here it is followed by a0po/ and the genitive. The intention is to show that from which death has released the Christian.3

1. See BDF § 372 [1] which discusses ei0 with the indicative of reality. 2. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 189. 3. BDF § 211: ‘ 0Apo/ denotes alienation in some expressions, especially in Paul, which cannot be directly paralleled from the classical languages’.

The Impotence of the Errorists’ Message: Colossians 2.20-23

135

a. Liberation from Evil Spirits The first result of the death of Christ is liberation from tw~n stoixei/wn tou= ko/smou, which recalls ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou in 2.8.4 In the same way as death dissolves a slave’s bondage to a master, so death with Christ severs the Christian’s bondage to the stoixei=a.5 J. A. T. Robinson translates the clause: ‘Ye died with Christ out from under the elements of the world’.6 The victory of Christ was therefore a victory of cosmic proportions. The lordship of Christ means that the Colossian Christians need no longer be enslaved to any other power. The elemental spirits have been so significantly defeated in Christ that they have no power over those who are su\n Xristw~|. Liberation from the powers of evil also means liberation from ascetic practices that are grounded in a dualistic world view that is associated with these elemental forces. There is therefore an association between elemental spirits and regulations. b. Liberation from Regulations As a result of the liberation from elemental spirits, Paul asks ti/ w9j zw~ntej e0n ko/smw| dogmati/zesqe? The combination of w9j and zw~ntej clearly shows that the concessive sense is intended: ‘as though’.7 0En ko/smw| is definite though anarthrous, giving the sense ‘as though you were living in the world’. Paul is not denying the Colossians’ earthly existence, he is addressing their worldly orientation.8 Furthermore, the mention of ko/smoj reminds Paul’s readers that ta\ stoixei=a are tou= ko/smou. There is an obvious connection between dogmati/zesqe and do/gmasin in 2.14. This gives a further association between a0po\ tw~n stoixei/wn tou= ko/smou of this verse and ta\j a0rxa\j kai\ ta\j e0cousi/aj of v.15. It is unclear whether dogmati/zesqe is middle or passive. If it is middle it may have the reflexive sense of ‘why do you subject yourselves to ordinances?’ If it is passive it probably has a permissive sense: ‘why do you allow yourselves to be dictated to with rules?’9 The latter of these has stronger contextual support in the light of a group of errorists dictating rules to Colossian Christians. It is important to note that the use of the present tense suggests a real and current situation.10 These ordinances are then outlined in the following verse: Mh\ a3yh| mhde\ geu/sh| mhde\ qi/gh|j.

4. W. Wink sees different meanings for stoixei=a in 2.8 and 2.20. See W. Wink, Naming the Powers, pp. 76–77. His assertion is not argued satisfactorily. In the context of 2.8-23 it would be very awkward to introduce two different understandings of stoixei=a. 5. M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon, p. 128. 6. J. A. T. Robinson, The Body, p. 43. 7. M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon, p. 128. See also NIV: ‘Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules?’ See BDF §425 [3]. 8. M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon, p. 128. See also G. B. Caird, Paul’s Letters from Prison, p. 200, who renders the expression ‘worldly’. 9. For the permissive passive see BDF §314. 10. Contra M. D. Hooker, ‘Were there false teachers in Colossae?’, p. 317, who argues that the Colossians had not yet submitted to regulations.

136


The command mh\ a3yh| denotes a concern for purity, with fear of impurity being transferred by physical contact (cf. Lev. 5.2-3; 7.19, 21; 11.8, 24-28). As there is no direct object with a3ptomai, it could forbid touching food,11 or touching a dead body, or sexual intercourse (cf. Gen. 20.6; Prov. 6.29; 1 Cor. 7.1; cf. 1 Tim. 4.3).12 It is unlikely that Paul means sexual relations as there is no mention of sexual or marital prohibition in the letter (cf. 1 Tim. 4.3). Furthermore the immediate context of mhde\ geu/sh|, as well as the earlier context of 2.16, suggests that food is the implied object of a3ptomai. The second prohibition concerns purity from unclean foods, hence the use of geu/omai, a word that is used in Mt. 27.34; Lk. 14.24; Jn 2.9; Acts 10.10; 20.11; 23.14; but only here in Pauline epistles. The third prohibition, mhde\ qi/gh|j, is from qigga/nw, of which Liddell and Scott say: ‘To touch lightly, just touch, less strong than a3ptomai’.13 According to the Jewish law, one became impure by touching that which was impure, e.g. a corpse (Num. 19.11-13), a menstruating woman (Lev. 15.19-33) or a leper (Lev. 13.45-46).14 The need for purification from defilement is seen by the many miqva’ot (immersion pools for ritual purification) in pre-70 CE Jerusalem and Judea.15 The community at Qumran was particularly concerned with ritual purity.16 It is interesting, in the light of 2.18, that at Qumran we see the combination of purity concerns and heavenly worship, as evidenced in 11QT col. 47: And their cities [will be] pure and […] for ever. And the city which I will sanctify to make dwell my name and [my] temp[le within it] shall be holy and shall be clean from any cause of whatever impurity with which they could be defiled. Everything that there is in it shall be pure and everything that goes into it shall be pure: wine, and oil, and all food and all drinks shall be pure.

The emphasis on purity is also strong in Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: [Of the Instructor. Song for the sacrifice] of the first [Sabba]th, the fourth of the first month. Praise [the God of …] you, gods of all the most holy ones; and in {his} the divinity [of his kingdom, rejoice. Because he has established] the most holy ones among the eternal holy ones, so that for him they can be priests [of the inner sanctum of the temple of his royal kingship,] the servants of the Presence in his glorious sanctuary … There is [n]o impurity in their holy offerings (4QShirShabbf frag. 1 col.1).

11. s.v. ‘a3ptw’, BDAG, p. 126. 12. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 190. See also s.v. ‘a3ptw’, BDAG, p. 126. 13. s.v. ‘qigga/nw’, LSJ, p. 707. 14. E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (London: SCM Press, 1990), pp. 137–39. 15. Ibid., pp. 214–27. 16. See for example the Community Rule in 1QS 6-7. M. Newton, The Concept of Purity at Qumran and the Letters of Paul (SNTSMS, 53; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 10–26.


137

These regulations are concerned with Jewish purification that not only made them distinct from surrounding nations but also gave them entry into the heavenly temple in their worship. The implication is that Gentile Christians were being enticed to join with Colossian Jews in their ritualistic purity rules in order to share their access to heaven.17 i. The Futility of Regulations The transience and futility of these regulations is emphasized in v.22. a3 e0stin pa/nta ei0j fqora\n th=| a0poxrh/sei means ‘… things that are all destined to perish with use’. Paul is referring to the natural process of the consumption of food, and that ultimately food is nothing. Furthermore, these rules are according to human regulations and teaching (kata\ ta\ e0nta/lmata kai\ didaskali/aj tw~n a0nqrw&pwn). Dunn points out the parallelisms of Col. 2.22 with Mk 7.7 and Mt. 15.9, all of which echo Isa. 29.13 (LXX).18 Table 7.1 Isa. 29.13 Mk 7.7/ Mt. 15.9 Isa. 29.13 Mk 7.7/ Mt. 15.9 Col. 2.22

ma/thn de\ se/bontai/ me dida/skontej ma/thn de\ se/bontai/ me dida/skontej e0nta/lmata a0nqrw/pwn kai\ didaskali/aj didaskali/aj e0nta/lmata a0nqrw/pwn ta\ e0nta/lmata kai\ didaskali/aj tw~n a0nqrw/pwn

This parallelism seems to be intentional. Entalma ) only appears three times in the New Testament, in the above verses. Didaskali/a appears in the New Testament outside the Pauline corpus only in Mk 7.7 and Mt. 15.9. Furthermore, Isa. 29.13 is quoted in the Synoptic Gospels in the context of the dispute between Jesus and the Pharisees about purity (Mk 7.1-23//Mt. 15.1-20).19 It therefore comes as a stark reminder that it was Jesus who showed that purity laws, especially in regard to food, were of no importance, indeed, irrelevant. Dunn is correct in seeing here a deliberate allusion to the rebuke of Isaiah, which again shows the Jewish character of the threat.20 Furthermore, the reference in Isa. 29.13 to ‘their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men’ (NIV) has similarities with 2.8 and its reference to th=j filosofi/aj kai\ kenh=j a0pa/thj kata\ th\n para/dosin tw~n a0nqrw/pwn. ii. The Futility of Asceticism Paul gives his final conclusion in 2.23. This verse is a sequence of unusual terms, most probably cited from the Colossian philosophy. The combination

17. 18. 19. 20.

J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 192. Ibid., p. 193; C. Masson, L’Epître de Saint Paul aux Colossiens, p. 137, n.3. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 194. Ibid., p. 193.

138


of these unusual terms with a difficult and disputed syntax makes the verse ‘hopelessly obscure’.21 Some have sought to change the text on the assumption of early corruption. F. J. A. Hort, writing of Col. 2.23 says: ‘The Epistle, and more especially its second chapter, appears to have been ill preserved in ancient times; and it may be that some of the harshness which we have left unmarked are (sic) really due to primitive corruption’.22 Therefore several suggested changes to the text have been offered.23 These views must be rejected as not only is there a lack of textual evidence, but even if textual evidence were found, it would not explain the evolution of the current, more difficult, text. The meaning of 2.23 rests largely on the punctuation that is adopted. a3tina/ e0stin is a neuter plural subject followed by a singular verb. This subject could be complemented in one of three ways, depending on the placement of the commas. (1) The most common view is the punctuation of UBS4: a3tina/ e0stin lo/gon me\n e1xonta sofi/aj e0n e0qeloqrhski/a| kai\ tapeinofrosu/nh| [kai\] a0feidi/a| sw/matoj, ou0k e0n timh=| tini pro\j plhsmonh\n th=j sarko/j. This view combines e0stin with e1xonta to form a periphrastic present, which is largely argued for reasons of distance from e0stin to either ou0k (view 2) or pro/j (view 3).24 This would result in the translation of v.23 as ‘such rules have …’ (as seen in most English translations). The problems with this punctuation are that there is no de/ to correspond with the me/n,25 and me/n is not in its normal position of the second word in the clause, immediately after the word to which it pertains. If me/n pertains to a3tina, there is no reason why it could not have been put immediately after it. (2) a3tina/ e0stin, lo/gon me\n e1xonta sofi/aj e0n e0qeloqrhski/a| kai\ tapeinofrosu/nh| [kai\] a0feidi/a| sw/matoj, ou0k e0n timh=| tini pro\j plhsmonh\n th=j sarko/j. This is argued by J. B. Lightfoot who states: ‘In this sentence lo/gon e1xonta sofi/aj is best taken as a single predicate, so that e0stin is disconnected from e1xonta’.26 He accounts for the omission of de/ by stating: ‘the corresponding member, which should be introduced by de/, is suppressed;

21. C. F. D. Moule, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 108. 22. B. F. Wescott and F. J. A. Hort, ‘Appendix 1: Notes on Selected Readings’, in B. F. Wescott and F. J. A. Hort (eds), The New Testament in the Original Greek: Introduction and Appendix (Cambridge: Macmillan and Co., 1882), pp. 1–140 (127). 23. B. G. Hall, ‘Colossians II.23’, ExpTim 36 (1924–1925), 285, suggests e0pilh/smwn (‘forgetting’) was original: therefore ‘(asceticism) is of no value to the forgetting of the flesh’. P. L. Hedley, ‘Ad Colossenses 2.20-3.4’, ZNW 27 (1928), 211–16, inserts a line that he suggests may have been present in the original: [xrh=sqe ou]n au0toi=j a0ll’] ou0k e0n timh|= … ( [therefore use them but] not as having value …). 24. See, for example, M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon, p. 131. 25. This would make it an anacoluthon. See BDF § 447. 26. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 203.


139

the opposite clause being postponed and appearing later in a new form, ou0k e0n timh|= tini k.t.l.’.27 Therefore the meaning would be ‘these regulations are … not of any value’. Lightfoot’s view, however, must be rejected. Although he claims that classical writers, in particular Plato, follow the same construction,28 he does not give a satisfactory explanation for why the de/ is omitted. Furthermore, if a comma is placed between e0stin and lo/gon, it is necessary to determine where the sentence would resume. There are only two real options: with pro/j (discussed below) or with ou0k, which is Lightfoot’s suggestion. The sentence resuming with ou0k raises two problems: if ou0k continues from e0stin, its position is unusual, as we would have expected ou0k to precede e0stin; and the meaning of timh/ is obscure as there is no precedent for e0n timh|= as the complement of e0stin, nor of timh/ occurring with a following pro/j,29 nor of interpreting timh/ in the sense of ‘usefulness’ or ‘effectiveness’ as some have tried.30 (3) a3tina/ e0stin, lo/gon me\n e1xonta sofi/aj e0n e0qeloqrhski/a| kai\ tapeinofrosu/nh| [kai\] a0feidi/a| sw/matoj, ou0k e0n timh=| tini, pro\j plhsmonh\n th=j sarko/j. This view would make a3tina/ e0stin … pro\j plhsmonh\n th=j sarko/j the principal clause, which would mean: ‘these things (regulations) lead to the gratification of the flesh’. In this punctuation, lo/gon me\n e1xonta sofi/aj e0n e0qeloqrhski/a| kai\ tapeinofrosu/nh| [kai\] a0feidi/a| sw/matoj would be a subordinate concessive clause, with the clause ou0k e0n timh=| tini subordinate to it.31 The advantage of this understanding is that me/n occurs in its usual post-positive position. Hollenbach has surveyed the sixty occurrences of me/n in the epistles that are traditionally associated with Paul and concludes ‘that virtually every occurrence of me/n, regardless of its function, is immediately after the first word of the grammatical unit to which the me/n pertains’.32 In addition to this, there is a satisfactory explanation for the omission of de/, as ‘by the time the me/n was uttered (or written) the proper place to insert de/ was already past’.33 Hollenbach concludes: ‘Paul’s readers would have known from reading me/n that the initial clause was broken off after e0stin and would have been anticipating its eventual completion’.34

27. Ibid. 28. Ibid. 29. B. Hollenbach, ‘Col. II.23: Which things lead to the fulfilment of the flesh’, NTS 25 (1978–1979), 254–61 (258). 30. Ibid., 258, n. 2. 31. Ibid., 254. 32. Ibid., 255. 33. Ibid., 260. 34. Ibid., 251.

140


Having worked out the syntax, the meaning of the verse can be deduced. Atina # (such things) refers to the things that have the reputation of wisdom as illustrated in 2.21. There is no need to restrict the reference to mh\ a3yh| mhde\ geu/sh| mhde\ qi/gh|j. These are illustrations of the ordinances by which the Colossian errorists allowed themselves to be regulated (dogmati/zesqe).35 The result of adherence to these regulations is not a matter of indifference. The submission to these ordinances does not lead to heavenly liberation; indeed it leads to a gratification of the flesh which puts the adherent under the forces of the flesh, who in this context are identified with the elemental spirits (tw~n stoixei/wn tou= ko/smou)). Lo/gon me\n e1xonta sofi/aj is best translated: ‘having a reputation for wisdom’.36 As already discussed, e1xonta is not connected with e0stin and therefore does not form part of a periphrastic construction. O’Brien comments that lo/gon e1xein ‘is employed to denote that which has no substance to it and stands in contrast to a0lhqei/a’.37 It is helpful to note that sofi/a is related to filosofi/aj in 2.8. This reputed wisdom of 2.23 is in contrast to true wisdom referred to in 2.3; 1.9, 28; 3.16, which is found in Christ who is the wisdom of God.38 In the phrase e0n e0qeloqrhski/a| kai\ tapeinofrosu/nh| [kai\] a0feidi/a| sw/matoj, Paul uses terms that are reminiscent of 2.18. There are three datives in this phrase that are all governed by the preposition e0n. These datives may be: instrumental, showing the means of having the reputation of wisdom; locative, showing the sphere of this reputation; or causal, ‘as a consequence of’. It is difficult to choose between these uses. The context would suggest that the voluntary worship, humility and bodily severity all resulted in the appearance of wisdom, thereby favouring the causal use. The above interpretation raises a significant question for our exegesis of a subjective genitive for the worship of angels in 2.18. E 0 qeloqrhski/a is reminiscent of qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn in v.18; however, e0qeloqrhski/a in 2.23 refers to the activity of people, whereas qrhskei/a| tw~n a0gge/lwn in v.18 refers to the activity of angels. Furthermore, Paul refers to the former with a negative sense.39 Rowland gives a plausible explanation for this: ‘A difference in the personnel referred to in 2.18 and 23 need not be a difficulty if we assume that there may have been a tendency for the Colossian teachers to have imitated the behaviour of the angels which they had seen in their visions’;40 the goal of heavenly ascents was not just to witness the activity of angels, but to join them. It does not follow that angels were the object of this worship

35. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 152. 36. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 203; Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 126, n. 96. 37. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 152. 38. Ibid., p. 153. 39. C. Rowland, ‘Apocalyptic Visions and the Exaltation of Christ in the Letter to the Colossians’, 76–77. 40. Ibid., 77.


141

in v.23. In the light of the fact that e0qeloqrhski/a does not appear in extant Greek texts before the first century CE, Paul is probably borrowing the language of his opponents.41 The term that brings the discussion of asceticism to a crescendo is a0feidi/a| sw/matoj. The kai/ before this term is in dispute, not appearing in several significant texts, including p46, B, 1739. The level of doubt concerning the inclusion of the kai/ is shown by its inclusion in brackets within the UBS4 text.42 If the kai/ is omitted, a0feidi/a| sw&matoj becomes an epexegetical phrase in apposition to tapeinofrosu/nh|.43 The kai/ is probably original, the omission of which arose accidentally, as confirmed by the geographical diversity of the witnesses that testify to its presence. 44 This would then make a0feidi/a| sw/matoj the third in a series of phrases governed by e0n. Therefore the severe treatment of the body, again, had nothing more than a reputation or an appearance of wisdom. The apostle then uses the subordinate clause ou0k e0n timh|= tini to show that the practices of voluntary worship, humility and severe treatment of the body, which appear to result in wisdom, are indeed of no value at all. Paul ends his attack on the Colossian errorists with a word play on sa/rc by stating: a3tina/ e0stin … pro\j plhsmonh\n th=j sarko/j. The idea that ascetic practices, including fasting and harsh treatment of the body, would lead to the gratification of the flesh is clearly ironic.45 Paul’s irony is further seen in the contrast between sw~ma and sa/rc. They are not to be regarded as synonymous46 as sa/rc is to be understood in its secondary meaning of sinful fleshly nature (cf. Rom. 13.14; Gal. 5.16-17). Therefore the asceticism of the body leads to the gratification of the fleshly sinful nature.47 This is the sort of fullness that the Colossian errorists experience. Such ‘fullness’ is indeed ‘emptiness’ and contrary to God’s purposes.

41. ‘e0qeloqrhski/a looks like a sarcastic borrowing from his opponents’ language’. W. L. Knox, St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles, p. 171, n. 1. 42. See B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament, p. 624. 43. Lightfoot argues for the omission of kai/ but sees the function of a0feidi/a| sw/matoj as an instrumental dative qualifying lo/gon e1xonta sofi/aj. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 204. 44. See B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament, p. 624. 45. Plhsmonh/ is rendered by BDAG as: ‘process of securing complete satisfaction, satiety esp. w. food and drink but also with other types of enjoyment…’ s.v. ‘plhsmonh/’, BDAG, p. 830. It is particularly used of food and drink. Examples in the LXX include Exod. 16.3, 8; Lev. 25.19; 26.5; Ps. 77.25; Hag. 1.6, where the term is used in a positive sense of the satisfaction of nourishment. See also Ezek. 39.19; Hos. 13.6, where it refers to excesses that lead to apostasy. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 155. 46. See G. Delling, ‘plhsmonh/’, in TDNT, VI, pp. 131–34 (133). 47. Dunn suggests that kata\ sa/rka may refer to Jewish ethnic identity. He cites many examples where Paul uses sa/rc to refer to his ethnic identity (Rom. 1.3; 4.1; 9.3, 5, 8; 1 Cor. 10.18; Gal. 4.23, 29) and in particular Gal. 6.12-13 where Paul talks of ‘boasting in the flesh’ and Phil. 3.3-4 where he speaks of ‘confidence in the flesh’. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 197.

142

Heavenly Perspective 2. Conclusion

Paul has now come to the conclusion of his direct references to the Colossian errorists. He has shown in this concluding section how their desire to attain heavenly realities has made them subject to the flesh. Their desire to associate with heavenly angelic beings has resulted in servitude to fallen angels. Their desire to liberate themselves from the desires of the flesh through ascetic practices actually leads to the gratification of the flesh. The basis of their error is that they continue to trust in their own adherence to regulations rather than the benefits of the death of Christ.

Chapter 8

WHAT WAS THE COLOSSIAN PHILOSOPHY? We have now come to the end of the exegesis of Col. 2.6-23, the section within the epistle that gives the most direct references to the nature of the philosophy. Most studies of the Colossian error have ended at this point with their respective reconstructions of the Colossian error. Our task, however, is also to see how Paul’s response to the error is applied in Christological teaching in 1.15-20 and in practical exhortations. Before doing this, it is helpful to summarize the outcomes of our exegetical work. The following points can be made about the nature of the error. (1) One of the clearest results from our exegetical study is the Jewish nature of the philosophy. Whether it emanated from a synagogue or from Christians within the Colossian congregation is difficult to determine, although the trouble Paul takes to argue against it points to the latter. (2) Although the background of the Colossian error was clearly Judaism, it was also affected by Hellenism and even Paganism. In particular, it demonstrated a dualism where the celestial world is seen as determinative for earthly practices. (3) The world of evil elemental spirits was both recognized and feared. This fear of the powers of evil led Jews to participate in legalism. The philosophy stressed distinctively Jewish practices such as circumcision, Sabbath observance and dietary restrictions as means whereby the adherents could release themselves from the powers of evil. Such ‘good’ practices would help the errorists overcome the ‘evil’ forces. These practices, however, inasmuch as they were centred upon human obedience rather than divine grace, actually enslaved the Colossians to the very forces from which they wanted to be liberated. Furthermore, submission to such practices denied the sufficiency of the atonement by Christ and his lordship over creation, especially over the elemental spirits. (4) Within a world view that was dominated by the presence of evil spirits, a dualism that deprecated the physical world was seen in the philosophy. This world view resulted in ascetic practices that longed to mortify the flesh in order to have release from the bondage of the world and entry to heaven. At

144


the time of Paul there were extra-Biblical texts within Judaism which described heavenly ascents where the participants could either witness or join in heavenly worship. Therefore it is consistent that a belief in the determinative power of the evil spirits would lead some Jews to long for a mystical heavenly ascent whereby they could witness (and possibly participate in) the worship that angels directed towards God. (5) It is inconsistent, from what we know of the monotheistic cornerstone of first-century Judaism, to consider that the error consisted of participants worshipping angels. Such a practice would be seen as idolatry (worship of creation) and condemned in much stronger terms than what is seen in the epistle. (6) The irony within Paul’s attack on the errorists is apparent throughout the text. The errorists are not associating with heavenly angelic beings but with fallen angels. Fullness is found in Christ alone, whereas the philosophy is empty deceit. This fullness does not depend on a heavenly ascent but on a divine descent. Asceticism results in bondage to regulations that thereby makes the participant subject to the flesh. Within a world dominated by Platonic categories, it is ironic to say that those who partook of practices associated with a heavenly ascent were not entering into the reality, but a shadow. Reality is found in Christ alone. (7) Paul centres his response to the Colossian philosophy on the cross and Resurrection. The crucifixion is referred to as the true circumcision and baptism. It is the cross, and not rituals, that gives significance and fullness. It is through the work of the cross that the powers of evil are conquered and sins are forgiven (2.14). The xeiro/grafon is destroyed. Therefore at the crucifixion the powers of evil were conquered and their arsenal destroyed. This arsenal consisted of the accusation of guilt, the fear of the powers of evil and the regulations that enslave. The victory is clearly displayed in the picture of a triumphal procession over the evil powers and authorities of the celestial world. (8) The basic cause of the problem expressed in the philosophy was a lack of understanding of Christology. Paul expresses the Christian’s identification with the work of Christ with a series of e0n au0tw|~ / e0n w{| statements which make the work of Christ the ground of the Christian’s victory over the powers of evil and the forces of sin. Incorporation into Christ’s work releases the Christian from the bondage to the forces of this world. Even if a person claims to have had a mystical ascent to heaven and participated in angelic worship, liberation and forgiveness are only available to the person who is ‘in Christ’. (9) Within Colossians, there are strong similarities with other Pauline letters, and a contextualization of the gospel that is appropriate to the Colossian hearers. Issues such as the forgiveness of sins, release from legalism

What was the Colossians Philosophy?

145

and the centrality of the cross show strong affinities with earlier letters such as Romans and Galatians. There is, however, a stronger emphasis in Colossians on the source of this bondage which is identified as the powers of darkness (1.13), the elemental spirits (2.8) and the rulers and authorities (2.15). Similar teaching can be seen in Ephesians, whose final chapter looks at the issue of spiritual warfare. It can be deduced from Colossians and Ephesians that Christians in Asia Minor were very aware of their enslavement to the powers of evil. (10) In a world view that was dominated by a belief in the powers of evil, the primary concern of the hearers was the victory of Christ over those powers. Until this was understood, the message of forgiveness of sin did not interact with their world view. The cross thereby becomes as much a declaration of victory as a means of forgiveness. (11) The lordship of Christ does not only have ramifications in the celestial realm, but also in the earthly. Christians are to conduct their lives in the light of liberation from the powers of evil and cosmic reconciliation. This reconciliation is to be seen primarily within the church. (12) Paul’s major concern is to disarm members of a group who were claiming a superior spirituality because of their claims of heavenly ascents where they witnessed the worship of angels. He counters this claim by showing how those who boasted of such an ascent were, through their dependence on their own activities rather than the work of Christ, enslaved to ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou. It can be seen, therefore, that Paul was not correcting Gnosticism or Paganism but a form of Jewish mysticism that was prevalent in the first century. Such a belief led to pride among some members of the Colossian church, which led to division within the congregation. Paul gives correction to this error in his teaching on Christology in Col. 1.15-20, and in practical exhortations.

Chapter 9

CHRISTOLOGY – THE ANTIDOTE TO ERROR: COLOSSIANS 1.15-20 The Colossian error centred around an insufficient appreciation of Christology. The person of Christ was not properly appreciated, as he was associated with the second power in heaven of Jewish mysticism. The work of Christ was not fully comprehended, as the errorists continued to boast in their own spirituality, particularly in the area of asceticism, and continued to fear ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou. It is therefore not surprising that even before dealing with the Colossian philosophy, the first issue that Paul addresses after his greetings, prayer and thanksgiving of 1.1-14 is Christology, in 1.1520. He thereby lays the groundwork for his correction of the Colossian error. As Käsemann says: ‘The Colossian community is threatened by false teaching. This teaching must be repelled. This is done by anticipating antithesis by thesis, polemic and paraenesis by the confession of the community’.1 The highly stylized nature of Col. 1.15-20 has received much attention by scholars. There are elements within the passage that suggest Paul was using traditional material, possibly of his opponents. If Paul was using material from his opponents, it is necessary to determine its source and whether it bears any relationship to the Colossian error. Some have argued that a study of structure, form and prehistory of Col. 1.15-20 bears little upon the Colossian philosophy.2 Such matters, however, cannot be dismissed so easily. In a carefully crafted and integrated piece of writing, the reader would expect the declaration of Christian belief of 1.15-20 to bear some relationship to the error discussed in Colossians 2. Therefore some scholars, on the assumption that the prehistory and structure of the text give insights into the nature of the Colossian error, make judgments that impinge upon their understanding of the Colossian situation. Many have argued from the strophic structure of the passage that it is a Hellenistic response to what was in effect a Hellenistic

1. E. Käsemann, ‘A Primitive Christian Baptismal Liturgy’, in E. Käsemann (ed.), Essays on New Testament Themes (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), pp. 149–68 (165–66). 2. For example Sappington says: ‘Precise determination of the history of this hymnic material, however, impacts this study very little, since presumably it has Paul’s imprimatur …’ T. J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, pp. 171–72.

Christology – The Antidote to Error: Colossians 1.15-20

147

problem.3 Others have seen a Jewish structure as a reflection of a Jewish problem.4 It is important, therefore, that the form of Col. 1.15-20 be given significant attention in order to understand better the Colossian philosophy.

1. Form and Prehistory of Colossians 1.15-20 The development of modern theories concerning Paul’s use of traditional material in Col. 1.15-20 can be traced back to 1913 when E. Norden published a study entitled Agnostos Theos, which was a comparison of Hellenistic, Jewish and Christian liturgical forms.5 Within this study, Norden looked at both the form and the content of Col. 1.15-20, and concluded that it was composed of traditional material which came from Jewish circles that were influenced by Hellenistic ideas. 6 These findings of Norden were developed by Lohmeyer in his 1930 commentary, where he argued Col. 1.1329 was the order of a primitive Christian worship service.7 Since Norden and Lohmeyer, the growing consensus has been that Col. 1.15-20 is traditional and hymnic material. By 1949, E. Käsemann could claim: ‘… the hymnic character of Col. 1.15-20 has long been recognized and generally acknowledged’.8 Therefore, in 1952 E. Schweizer could state: ‘It is no longer a matter for dispute that we have in these verses a hymn which has been taken over by the author’.9 Despite this supposed consensus on the hymnic character of the passage, there has been no agreement on the way the lines should be broken into verses, nor on how much of the final text belongs to a non-Christian text, a pre-Pauline Christian tribute and/or a Pauline redaction.10 There are three possibilities for the prehistory of this passage: either Paul adopted the hymn in its current form; or what we have is a Pauline redaction of traditional material;11 or the hymn is Paul’s own composition. a. A Pre-Christian Hymn Hymnic elements are certainly present in Col. 1.15-20. R. P. Martin sees the determining criteria for a hymnic structure as: 3. For example E. Käsemann, ‘A Primitive Christian Baptismal Liturgy’, pp. 149–68. 4. For example C. F. Burney saw that Col. 1.15-20 was a Pauline midrash derived from Prov. 8.22ff as a commentary on Gen. 1.1 and applied to Christ. C. F. Burney, ‘Christ as the ARXH of Creation’, JTS 27 (1925–1926), 160–77. Burney’s views will be discussed later in this chapter. 5. E. Norden, Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte Religiöser Rede (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1913), pp. 250–54. 6. Ibid. 7. E. Lohmeyer, Die Briefe an die Philipper, Kolosser und an Philemon, pp. 40–47. 8. E. Käsemann, ‘A Primitive Christian Baptismal Liturgy’, p. 149. 9. E. Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians, p. 55. See the contrary view in L. R. Helyer, ‘Colossians 1.15-20: Pre-Pauline or Pauline?’, JETS 26 (1983), 167–79. 10. R. P. Martin, Colossians and Philemon, p. 62. 11. See B. Vawter, ‘The Colossian Hymn and the Principle of Redaction’, CBQ 33 (1971), 62–81.

148


a certain rhythmical lilt ascertainable when the passage is read aloud, a correspondence between words and phrases which are placed in the sentences in an obviously carefully selected position, not always ad sensum; the use of parallelismus membororum (i.e. an arrangement into couplets); and traces of rudimentary metre and the employment of rhetorical devices such as homoeoteleuton, alliteration, antithesis and chiasmus.12

Several of these criteria are seen in Col. 1.15-20. Benoit concludes, concerning hymnic style: The expression is not bad if one takes it in a broad sense, understanding by this a bit of the poetic style, of the calculated rhythm, of the words and of the intention; without rigorously insisting upon the exact number of syllables nor the assonance of the rhymes which normally characterizes ancient and modern hymns. The balance of the phrases which we have seen permits us to call this piece a ‘hymn in a broad sense’ (author’s translation).13

The following hymnic features can be seen within the passage. (1) The section commences with the relative pronoun o3j which is consistent with other Pauline Christological hymns (Phil. 2.6; 1 Tim. 3.16).14 R. P. Martin says: ‘the clearest sign that a hymn-like passage is being quoted is that a relative clause marks its opening and is continued by the use of participles in preference to main verbs’.15 This opening presupposes an object of praise who in this case is tou= ui9ou= th=j a0ga/phj au0tou= (v.13). (2) The repetition of the personal pronoun au0to/j eleven or twelve times. These pronouns refer to the o3j of v.15, which in turn refers to e0n w|{ in v.14 and tou= ui9ou= th=j a0ga/phj au0tou= in v.13. (3) The clear parallelism is seen in the following motifs in Table 9.1. Table 9.1 v.15 o3j e0stin… prwto/tokoj v.16 o3ti e0n au0tw~| v.16 e0n au0tw~| … di’ au0tou= … ei0j au0to/n v.16 ta\ pa/nta di’ au0tou= kai\ ei0j au0to/n v.16 e0n toi=j ou0ranoi=j kai\ e0pi\ th=j gh=j

v.18b o3j e0stin… prwtoto/koj v.19 o3ti e0n au0tw~| v.19 e0n au0tw~| … di’ au0tou= … ei0j au0to/n v.20 di’ au0tou= … ta\ pa/nta ei0j au0to/n v.20 e0pi\ th=j gh=j … e0n toi=j ou0ranoi=j

12. R. P. Martin, Carmen Christi: Philippians ii.5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the setting of Early Christian Worship (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), pp. 12–13. 13. P. Benoit, ‘L’Hymne Christologique de Col. I,15-20: Jugement critique sur l’état des recherches’, in J. Neusner (ed.), Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, I, pp. 226–63 (230). 14. See J. F. Balchin, ‘Colossians 1.15-20: An early Christian Hymn? The Arguments from Style’, Vox Evangelica 15 (1985), 65–94 (68–70). 15. R. P. Martin, ‘Aspects of Worship in the New Testament Church’, Vox Evangelica 2 (1963), 17.


149

(4) The presence of an unusually large number of words not used elsewhere in Paul, which could reflect either a stylized composition by the apostle or authorship by another hand. The choice of words could be dictated by the number of syllables in each word to create rhythm and an artistic structure. This rare terminology includes expressions such as ei0kw\n tou= qeou= (v.15), which appears elsewhere in Paul only in 2 Cor. 4.4; o9rato/j (v.16), a hapax legomenon in the New Testament; a0o/ratoj (v.15, 16) which is also found in Rom. 1.20, 1 Tim. 1.17, Heb. 11.27, but does not appear elsewhere in opposition to o9rato/j; qro/noi which appears only here in Paul; and kurio/thj (v.16) which appears in Paul only here and in Eph. 1.21.16 The intransitive sunesthke/nai (v.17) appears only here in Paul. In Christological contexts, Paul uses a0parxh/ but not a0rxh/ (v.18); prwteu/ein (v.18) and ei0rhnopoiei=n (v.20) are hapax legomena in the New Testament. The expression ai3ma tou= staurou= au0tou= (v.20) is unique.17 (5) The lack of conjunctions such as ga/r, ou]n, dio/, which Paul typically uses when mounting an argument. In this passage the connectives are relative and personal pronouns.18 (6) The passage appears to be an insertion in an otherwise coherent chapter; vv.13-14 and vv.21-23 function as transitional verses in order to incorporate the passage within the flow of the chapter. This is different from the Christological hymn of Phil. 2.6-11, which flows naturally from the verses that precede it. Masson comments that ‘ … the insertion of the hymn of Colossians 1.15-20 appears to have been laborious. It was necessary to develop the prayer of verses 9-12 and the transition of verses 13 and 14 in order to give a place to the strophes of the hymn of verses 15-20, before connecting them with the remainder of the epistle in verses 21-23’ (author’s translation).19 (7) There is a change of person from the more personal first and second person (‘we/you’) constructions of the surrounding verses to the third person.20 Despite these poetic and hymnic characteristics, the possibility of Paul adopting a pre-Christian hymn in its current form has not received much support. J. C. O’Neill, for example, argues that the passage in its present form cannot be classified as a hymn, as it does not show sufficient parallelism. He explains: ‘We expect a liturgical text either to eschew parallelism or to use

16. J. M. Robinson, ‘A Formal Analysis of Colossians 1.1-20’, JBL 76 (1957), 270–87 (283). 17. S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, p. 145. 18. N. T. Wright, ‘Poetry and Theology in Colossians 1.15-20’, NTS 36 (1990), 444–68 (446). 19. C. Masson, L’Epître de Saint Paul aux Colossiens, p. 106. 20. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 84.

150


parallelism, but this passage falls between the two stools’.21 He sees Paul neither creating a theology nor citing a hymn or a piece of liturgy. O’Neill suggests that Paul ‘put together a great number of distinct but related statements which already existed in his sacred traditional sources’.22 There is no extant evidence of a pre-Christian hymn, and those who argue for such a hymn usually excise specifically Christian words such as th=j e0kklhsi/aj (v.18) and dia\ tou= ai3matoj tou= staurou= au0tou= (v.20) from the text. At this point they are already admitting to a Pauline redaction. b. A Pauline Redaction The most widely held view is that Col. 1.15-20 is a Pauline redaction23 of an existing pre-Christian hymn.24 Opinions concerning the source and the content of this original hymn vary. E. Käsemann saw Col. 1.15-20 as a ‘pre-Christian hymn [that] has been worked over by Christian hands’,25 and converted into a baptismal liturgy.26 He identified the source of this pre-Christian hymn as a Gnostic redeemer myth.27 Benoit argued for the adaptation of a hymn that was already in circulation in Colossae.28 If Paul Christianized an existing hymn, the implication is that there are Pauline deletions and additions to that text. In the pursuit to reconstruct the original hymn, many conclusions have been reached. Benoit surveyed the conclusions of twenty scholars and the only consensus he could find among them was that 1.15-16a and 1.19-20a were part of the original hymn!29 J. F. Balchin surveyed seventeen scholars (some of whom overlap with those studied by Benoit) and found the only consensus was the inclusion of 1.1516a and 1.19. The combined results of their study is seen in Table 9.2.30

21. J. C. O’Neill, ‘The Source of the Christology in Colossians’, NTS 26 (1979), 87–100 (87–88). 22. Ibid., 87. 23. ‘Pauline Redaction’ is used in a loose sense for ease of expression. Not all the scholars mentioned see Paul as the author of Colossians, nor as the redactor of Col. 1.15-20. 24. For example, J. M. Robinson, ‘A Formal Analysis of Colossians 1.15-20’, 287. 25. E. Käsemann, ‘A Primitive Christian Baptismal Liturgy’, p. 154. 26. Ibid., pp. 149–68. 27. Käsemann suggests that if th=j e0kklhsi/aj (v.18) and dia\ tou= ai3matoj tou= staurou= au0tou= (v.20) are removed, the hymn no longer displays any specifically Christian characteristic. Ibid. 28. P. Benoit, ‘L’Hymne Christologique de Col. I,15-20’, pp. 259–60. See also H. J. Gabathuler, Jesus Christus. Haupt der Kirche – Haupt der Welt. Der Christushymnus Colosser 1, 15-20 in der theologischen Forschung der letzten 130 Jahre (Zürich: Zwingli, 1965), pp. 11–124. 29. P. Benoit, ‘L’Hymne Christologique de Col. I, 15-20, p. 238. 30. Ibid. and J. F. Balchin, ‘Colossians 1.15-20: An Early Christian Hymn?’, 79.


151

Table 9.2 Verse 15a 15b 16a 16b Bammel Beasleyx Murray Bornkamm Burger x Conzelmann Deichgräber Eckhart x Ernst Gabathuler Harder Hegermann x Jervell Käsemann Lähnemann Lohse Masson Pöhlmann Robinson Schattenmann Schenke Schweizer Vawter von Soden

16c 16d 16e 16f 17a 17b 18a 18b 18c 19 20a 20b 20c (x) x x x x x x x

x x x x x

x

x

x

x x x x x x

x x x x x x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x

x x

x

x

x x

x x

x

x x

x

x x (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) x (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) x (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x)

x

x x x

x

(x) x x (x) (x) (x) x x (x)

x x x x

(x) x (x) x

x

x x

x x

(x) x x x (x)

x

x signifies an omission. 18a (x) signifies the omission of th=j e0kklhsi/aj only, 20b (x) the omission of dia\ tou= ai3matoj tou= staurou= au0tou= only)

In the light of the fact that no overall agreement is found in the reconstruction of a pre-Pauline version of the text, it is necessary to be cautious about conclusions of Pauline omissions or additions.31 As S. Kim says: ‘Any attempt to reconstruct the original hymn on the basis of supposed rhythm, parallelism, scheme or even theological motif is bound to be subjective and may result in imposing an alien structure upon the hymn’.32

31. J. G. Gibbs, Creation and Redemption: A Study in Pauline Theology (Leiden; E. J. Brill, 1971), pp. 98–99, concludes: ‘No single reconstruction is fully persuasive’. 32. S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, p. 147.

152


c. A Pauline Composition The appearance of rare terminology should not be determinative of a prePauline history.33 It is ‘possible that Paul himself became lyrical at the thought of all that Christians owed Christ (1.13-14)’.34 It is reasonable to see that Paul would have used rare words in this passage, as the subject matter dictated.35 Helyer points out that the terminology may be dictated by the theme under discussion, resulting in an elevated style that contains a high percentage of hapax legomena. He makes the further point that ‘when the argument is turned around and it is inquired whether there is anything in the section that Paul could not have written, one can scarcely return an affirmative verdict’.36 d. Conclusion From the above material, it is difficult to determine the prehistory of the hymn. The road of looking at additions and deletions to an Urhymnus (underlying hymn behind the present hymn) leads to subjective and therefore varied results. We shall not proceed along this unproductive path. If an Urhymnus were used, the best we can expect to glean from it is a reflection of the philosophy that Paul was combating, on the assumption that he was using the material of his opponents. If the section is a Pauline composition, its unusual vocabulary would also be reflective of the Colossian philosophy. On balance, due to the difficulty in recreating an Urhymnus, it seems more likely that the section is a Pauline composition using the words and concepts of the errorists. In our exegetical study, therefore, special attention needs to be paid to these ‘catchwords’ of the philosophy, such as ei0kw\n tou= qeou=, o9rato/j/a0or / atoj, qro/noi and kurio/thj. We will note that such terms are clearly reflective of heavenly realities and so not inconsistent with Jewish mysticism being the background to the philosophy. Due to the stylized nature of this passage, the overall structure of the passage will impinge upon the meaning of individual expressions. We shall see how the structure is reflective of a Jewish, monotheistic world view and how this syntax helps determine exegetical conclusions.

33. See A. Feuillet, Le Christ: Sagesse de Dieu; d’Après les Epîtres Pauliniennes (Paris: Gabalda, 1966) pp. 246–73; L. R. Helyer, ‘Colossians 1.15-20: Pre-Pauline or Pauline?’, 167–79; W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 342–43; G. B. Caird, Paul’s Letters from Prison, pp. 174–75; J. F. Balchin, ‘Colossians 1.15-20: An early Christian Hymn?’, 65–87; S. M. Baugh, ‘The Poetic Form of Col. 1.15-20’, WTJ 47 (1985), 227–44; E. Lohmeyer, Die Briefe an die Philipper, Kolosser und an Philemon, pp. 41–47; E. Percy, ‘Zu den Problemen des Kolosser- und Epheserbriefes’, ZNW 42 (1949), 178–94 (183–87); M. Dibelius and H. Greeven, An die Kolosser, Epheser, an Philemon, pp. 10–12; C. F. D. Moule, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 60–62. 34. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 84. 35. E. Percy, ‘Zu den Problemen des Kolosser- und Epheserbriefes’, 186. See also S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, pp. 145–46. 36. L. R. Helyer, ‘Colossians 1.15-20: Pre-Pauline or Pauline?’, 170–71.


153

2. The Structure of Colossians 1.15-20 As we have already concluded, the only text that can be investigated with any degree of certainty is the final form of Col. 1.15-20. In recent years there has been a synchronic approach that has concentrated on the final form of the passage and discerned its function in the letter.37 As Pierre Benoit says: ‘Before examining the structures that one wishes to impose on this piece, the amputations or the transpositions that one wants to inflict upon it, it will not be bad to first consider it simply as it presents itself, to let it speak by itself in order to first hear its own vindication and to only correct it if necessary’ (author’s translation).38 From an examination of the literary motifs of 1.15-20, most scholars conclude that there is either a two strophe structure, a three stanza structure or a four section chiastic structure. Other proposals, such as that of C. Masson who divides the passage into five strophes of four lines each (vv.15-16b, v.16c-f, vv.17-18, vv.19-20b and v.20c-f), have gained little support.39 Table 9.3 A o3j e0stin ei0kw\n tou= qeou= tou= a0ora/tou, prwto/tokoj pa/shj kti/sewj, o3ti e0n au0tw~| e0kti/sqh ta\ pa/nta B C e0n toi=j ou0ranoi=j kai\ e0pi\ th=j gh=j, ta\ o9rata\ kai\ ta a0o/rata, ei1te qro/noi ei1te kurio/thtej ei1te a0rxai\ ei1te e0cousi/ai: ta\ pa/nta di’ au0tou= kai\ ei0j au0to\n e1ktistai: kai\ au0to/j e0stin pro\ pa/ntwn kai\ ta\ pa/nta e0n au0tw~| sune/sthken, kai\ au0to/j e0stin h9 kefalh\ tou= sw/matoj th=j e0kklhsi/aj: A1 o3j e0stin a0rxh/, prwto/tokoj e0k tw~n nekrw~n, i3na ge/nhtai e0n pa=sin au0to\j prwteu/wn, B1 o3ti e0n au0tw~| eu0do/khsen pa=n to\ plh/rwma katoikh=sai C1 kai\ di’ au0tou= a0pokatalla/cai ta\ pa/nta ei0j au0to/n, ei0rhnopoih/saj dia\ tou= ai3matoj tou= staurou= au0tou=, (di’ au0tou=) ei1te ta\ e0pi\ th=j gh=j ei1te ta\ e0n toi=j ou0ranoi=j:

Several scholars divide Col. 1.15-20 into two strophes, each of which begins with the words o3j e0stin … prwto/tokoj (vv.15 and 18b). Proponents

37. C. E. Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism, p. 249; S. E. Fowl, The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul: An Analysis of the Hymnic Material in the Pauline Corpus (JSNTSup, 36; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), pp. 31–45. 38. P. Benoit, ‘L’Hymne Christologique de Col. 1.15-20’, p. 226. 39. C. Masson, L’Epître de Saint Paul aux Colossiens, p. 105. See a critique in P. Ellingworth, ‘Colossians i.15-20 and its Context’, ExpTim 73 (1962), 252–53.

154


of this view include E. Norden,40 J. Robinson,41 E. Bammel,42 J. Dunn43 and E. Lohse.44 The passage is therefore divided as in Table 9.3. The major problem with the two strophe structure is that the parallelism disappears in vv.17-18a (kai\ au0to/j e0stin pro\ pa/ntwn kai\ ta\ pa/nta e0n au0tw~| sune/sthken, kai\ au0to/j e0stin h9 kefalh\ tou= sw/matoj th=j e0kklhsi/aj:). Some scholars have therefore sought to solve this problem by suggesting three stanzas, with vv.17-18a standing as an independent stanza between the two strophes. E. Schweizer is a leading proponent of this view. He divides the text at vv.15-16, 17-18a and 18b-20. These sections present Christ as creator, preserver and redeemer respectively. For Schweizer, the middle strophe acts as a bridge.45 Similar views are held by E. Lohmeyer,46 J. T. Sanders,47 R. P. Martin,48 W. McCown,49 P. Beasley-Murray50 and F. F. Bruce.51 Within the centrepiece of vv.17-18a there is the repetition of kai\ au0to/j at the beginning of v.17a and v.18a to show parallelism, which Benoit refers to as: ‘A small literary cell at the centre of a description, between two relative propositions’ (author’s translation).52 The centrepiece functions to summarize the two major themes of the hymn: v.17 affirms the priority of Christ in creation, v.18a talks of the priority of Christ in the community of the redeemed: the Church. This structure of the hymn can be seen in Table 9.4.

40. E. Norden, Agnostos Theos, p. 252. 41. J. M. Robinson, ‘A Formal Analysis of Colossians 1.15-20’, 270–87. 42. Bammel sees chiastic structures within each of the strophes. See E. Bammel ‘Versuch zu Col. 1.15-20’, ZNW 52 (1961), 88–95. For an English presentation and defence of Bammel’s view see J. L. Houlden, Paul’s Letters from Prison: Philippians, Colossians, Philemon and Ephesians (Hammonsworth: Penguin, 1977), pp. 160–62. 43. J. D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making, p. 188. 44. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, pp. 44–45. 45. Schweizer omits four phrases: ‘thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities’ (v.16), ‘namely of the church’ (v.18), ‘that in everything he may be pre-eminent’ (v.18) and ‘making peace by the blood of his cross’ (v.20). E. Schweizer, ‘The Church as the Missionary Body of Christ’, NTS 8 (1961), 1–11 (8). 46. E. Lohmeyer, Die Briefe an die Philipper, Kolosser und an Philemon, pp. 41–47. 47. J. T. Sanders, The New Testament Christological Hymns: Their Historical Religious Background (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), pp. 12–14. 48. R. P. Martin, Colossians: The Church’s Lord and the Christian’s Liberty: An Expository Commentary with a Present-Day Application (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1972), p. 64. See also R. P. Martin, ‘Reconciliation and Forgiveness in the Letter to the Colossians’, pp. 109–12. 49. W. McCown, ‘The Hymnic Structure of Colossians 1.15-20’, EvQ 51 (1979), 156–62, sees vv.17-18a as a refrain between the two strophes. 50. P. Beasley-Murray, ‘Colossians 1.15-20: An Early Christian Hymn Celebrating the Lordship of Christ’, in D. A. Hagner and M. J. Harris (eds), Pauline Studies; Essays Presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on his 70th Birthday (Festschrift F. F. Bruce; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), pp. 169–83 (169–70). 51. F. F. Bruce, ‘Colossian Problems II: The Christ-Hymn of Col. 1.15-20’, BSac 141 (1984), 99–111. 52. P. Benoit, ‘L’Hymne Christologique de Col. 1.15-20’, p. 227.


155

Table 9.4 A o3j e0stin ei0kw\n tou= qeou= tou= a0ora/tou, prwto/tokoj pa/shj kti/sewj, B o3ti e0n au0tw~| e0kti/sqh ta\ pa/nta e0n toi=j ou0ranoi=j kai\ e0pi\ th=j gh=j, ta\ o9rata\ kai\ ta a0o/rata, ei1te C qro/noi ei1te kurio/thtej ei1te a0rxai\ ei1te e0cousi/ai: ta\ pa/nta di’ au0tou= kai\ ei0j au0to\n e1ktistai: D kai\ au0to/j e0stin pro\ pa/ntwn kai\ ta\ pa/nta e0n au0tw~| sune/sthken, D1 kai\ au0to/j e0stin h9 kefalh\ tou= sw/matoj th=j e0kklhsi/aj: A1 o3j e0stin a0rxh|/, prwto/tokoj e0k tw~n nekrw~n, i3na ge/nhtai e0n pa=sin au0to\j prwteu/wn, B1 o3ti e0n au0tw~| eu0do/khsen pa=n to\ plh/rwma katoikh=sai C1 kai\ di’ au0tou= a0pokatalla/cai ta\ pa/nta ei0j au0to/n, ei0rhnopoih/saj dia\ tou= ai3matoj tou= staurou= au0tou=, [di’ au0tou=] ei1te ta\ e0pi\ th=j gh=j ei1te ta\ e0n toi=j ou0ranoi=j:

The above structure of two strophes with a middle stanza divided into two sections has led some to see a chiastic structure of four sections in 1.15-20. This chiastic structure sees the passage as reflecting a Jewish literary genre. It would also negate the need to see later additions to a pre-Christian hymn, as the chiasm in its current form is symmetrical and complete. N. T. Wright,53 based on the work of C. F. Burney, divides the passage as in Table 9.5.54 This ‘ABBA’ structure preserves the parallelism between the two ‘A’ sections (vv.15-16 and vv.18b-20) with their respective themes of creation and redemption. N. T. Wright argues that this basic structure reflects ‘Jewish monotheistic confessions’55 where Israel’s God is portrayed as both redeemer and creator, as seen in passages such as Ps. 146.5-6.56 Wright argues that within Judaism: ‘Israel’s monotheism and her awareness of election are two sides of the same coin, and the joining of the two is a matter of celebration, a stimulus to prayer, a reason to hope, within the whole Hebrew Bible and on into the Intertestamental literature as a whole’.57 This Jewish interrelationship between creation and redemption can be clearly seen in Revelation 4 and 5 where God is worshipped for creation in ch. 4 and the Lamb is worshipped for redemption in ch. 5. It is also evident in the Dead Sea Scrolls.58 It is neither pantheism where God is identified with the world, nor dualism where he is detached from it. Therefore, although the hymn is written in Greek, it is within the ‘broad and rich tradition of Jewish psalmody’.59 53. N. T. Wright, ‘Poetry and Theology in Colossians 1.15-20’, 444–68. 54. C. F. Burney, ‘Christ as the ARXH of Creation’, 160–77. 55. N. T. Wright, ‘Poetry and Theology in Colossians 1.15-20’, 452. 56. Ibid. 57. Ibid. 58. It can be seen, for example in the incomplete Psalm Scroll from Cave 11 (11QPsa) and the poem of The Community Rule of Cave 1 (1QS 10-11). 59. N. T. Wright, ‘Poetry and Theology in Colossians 1.15-20’, 458.

156

Heavenly Perspective Table 9.5

A vv.15-16 o3j e0stin ei0kw\n tou= qeou= tou= a0ora/tou, prwto/tokoj pa/shj kti/sewj, o3ti e0n au0tw~| e0kti/sqh ta\ pa/nta e0n toi=j ou0ranoi=j kai\ e0pi\ th=j gh=j, ta\ o9rata\ kai\ ta\ a0o/rata, ei1te qro/noi ei1te kurio/thtej ei1te a0rxai\ ei1te e0cousi/ai: ta\ pa/nta di’ au0tou= kai\ ei0j au0to\n e1ktistai: kai\ au0to/j e0stin pro\ pa/ntwn kai\ ta\ pa/nta e0n au0tw~| B v.17 sune/sthken, B1 v.18a kai\ au0to/j e0stin h9 kefalh\ tou= sw/matoj th=j e0kklhsi/aj: A1 vv.18b-20 o3j e0stin a0rxh/, prwto/tokoj e0k tw~n nekrw~n, i3na ge/nhtai e0n pa=sin au0to\j prwteu/wn, o3ti e0n au0tw~| eu0do/khsen pa=n to\ plh/rwma katoikh=sai kai\ di’ au0tou= a0pokatalla/cai ta\ pa/nta ei0j au0to/n, ei0rhnopoih/saj dia\ tou= ai3matoj tou= staurou= au0tou=, [di’ au0tou=] ei1te ta\ e0pi\ th=j gh=j ei1te ta\ e0n toi=j ou0ranoi=j:

A chiastic structure of the poem negates the need to determine omissions and additions. The most likely background to the chiasm is a midrashic exposition of Gen. 1.1.60 It is a play on the first word of the Hebrew Bible: ty#)rb. The b prefix is represented in the prepositions e0n (au0tw|), di’ (au0tou=) and ei0j (au0to/n) (in v.16 and repeated in vv.19, 20).61 Furthermore, there is an identification between ty#)r and each section of the chiastic structure of the hymn. ty#)r can be rendered as prwto/tokoj (first-born) (v.15); as pro\ pa/ntwn (before all things) (v.17); as kefalh/ (head) (v.18); and as a0rxh/ (beginning) (v.18). Therefore the one who is the image of God (o3j e0stin ei0kw\n tou= qeou=) is described in four ways. Hence Burney concludes: ‘Here we have an elaborate exposition of bereshith in Gen. i.1 in the Rabbinic manner. Three explanations are given of the preposition be; then four explanations of the substantive reshith; and the conclusion is that in every possible sense of the expression, Christ is its fulfiller’.62 Table 9.6 A He is the firstborn ty#)r (v.15)

B He is before all things ty#)r (v.17)

B He is the head ty#)r (v.18)

A He is the beginning ty#)r (v.18).63

Burney’s thesis, as modified by N. T. Wright, has not been universally accepted; however, it is a possible structure for 1.15-20. If accepted, it confirms the Jewish background of the text. Another scholar who places the

60. F. Manns, ‘Col. 1,15-20: Midrash chrétien de Gen. 1,1’, RevScRel 53 (1979), 100–10 (110). 61. N. T. Wright, ‘Poetry and Theology in Colossians 1.15-20’, (456. 62. C. F. Burney, ‘Christ as the ARXH of Creation’, 175. 63. ty#)r is rendered by a0rxh/ in the LXX translation of Gen. 1.1 and of Prov. 8.22.


157

section within Judaism is W. D. Davies,64 who postulates that no Hellenistic source is needed for Paul’s Christology in 1.15-20, as it reflects the wisdom tradition evidenced in Prov. 8.22. This tradition would then be applied to Christ.65 It is concluded that attempts to determine the ancestor of the current text on structural arguments, such as that of Schweizer, must be rejected as speculations. As has already been noted, the only text that can be examined is the final form. The two stanza approach does not solve the problem of where vv.17-18a belong. The three stanza solution ends up with a structure that is itself a more detailed chiasmus. In the light of the Jewish nature of the Colossian philosophy, the most likely structure is a chiasmus that is reflective of Jewish monotheistic confessions. There is therefore no need to speculate concerning an Urhymnus behind the current text. A chiastic structure is also significant for the meaning of the text in the following ways: (1) The ‘Jewish monotheistic confessions’66 base redemption within the work of creation as seen in Gen. 1.1. It is because Christ is the ty#)r, the first-born of all creation and above all things, that there is no need to fear ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou. Those who are ‘in Christ’ are therefore redeemed from the fear of these forces. The (ideal) church becomes a reflection of this reality, a re-creation of the prelapsarian Eden. It is because Christ is the ty#)r, the head of his body, the church, and the first-born from the dead, that salvation and Resurrection are to be found in him, negating the need for ascetic regulations and heavenly ascents. The work of Christ is sufficient to take his people back to Eden. (2) Burney’s reconstruction would imply that if a pre-Pauline hymn existed, this hymn was in Hebrew to allow for the parallelism of ty#)r. The translation to Greek and adaptation of this hymn to the Colossian situation could explain the traces of hymnic material, despite lacking other hymnic traits. (3) The crowning point of the second ‘B’ section is the word th=j e0kklhsi/aj, a word that is normally dismissed as not belonging to the original hymn.67 Those who see a Hellenistic background to the Colossian philosophy normally equate body with cosmos.68 As Benoit concludes: According to them (the majority of critics), the original text of the hymn spoke of the body of the cosmos, following the Hellenistic theme known since Plato and spread

64. W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), p. 172. 65. See T. E. Pollard, ‘Colossians 1.12-20: A Reconsideration’, NTS 27 (1981), 572–75, which links ty#)r to wisdom, Torah, Adam and Israel, and shows how Christ is the first-born of the new Israel. 66. N. T. Wright, ‘Poetry and Theology in Colossians 1.15-20’, 452. 67. See Table 9.2 above. 68. This will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter when dealing with v. 18.

158


notably by Stoïcism, which conceived of the world as an intelligent being, a living organism, a body having for a head a divine principle, which is more or less assimilated by syncretism with the Word, Wisdom, the Image, the Primordial Man (author’s translation).69

However, as will be noted later in this chapter, it is not necessary to equate ‘body’ with the cosmos. Its most natural meaning is the church itself where the work of re-creation is evidenced. This emphasis that is given to the church not only shows Paul’s concern for divisions within congregational life, but will also be the focus of the paraenetic sections of the letter. (4) There is no need to see a pre-Pauline hymn. Col. 1.15-20 is poetic, it has a calculated rhythm and repetition of words, expressions and concepts. It parallels Christ’s work of creation and of redemption. In comparison with 2.6-23, it would appear that the hymn introduces a response to the issues that are to be developed in the following chapter. It affirms the sufficiency of Christ in all time and space. Although this section may appear to be lacking in polemic in comparison with a passage like Gal. 1.6-9, this may signify that Christ’s status and significance were being devalued rather than denied.70 (5) The concepts and vocabulary of Col. 1.15-20 are integral to the rest of the letter, as is seen by verbal links: (a) the use of ei0kw/n to describe Christ and the goal of Christians (1.15; 3.10); (b) the reference to creation (with respect to Christ 1.15, 16a, 16c; the gospel, 1.23; and the Christian’s renewal 3.10); (c) the use of e0n au0tw~| (1.16 and 2.10, 15); (d) the description of Christ as kefalh/ (1.18, 2.10, 19); (e) Christ’s relationship to the sw~ma (1.18, 22, 24; 2.9, 19; 3.15), particularly the link between tou= sw/matoj th=j e0kklhsi/aj in 1.18 and tou= sw/matoj au0tou= o3 e0stin h9 e0kklhsi/a in 1.24; (f) the use of nekro/j (1.18 and 2.12; cf. 2.13 and 3.5); (g) the similar clauses o3ti e0n au0tw~| katoikei= pa=n to\ plh/rwma th=j qeo/thtoj swmatikw~j (2.9) and o3ti e0n au0tw~| eu0do/khsen pa=n to\ plh/rwma katoikh=sai (1.19); (h) the unusual verb a0pokatalla/ssw (1.20 and 1.22); (i) e0pi\ th=j gh=j (1.16, 20 and 3.2, 5, especially when linked with e0n toi=j ou0ranoi=j); (j) the centrality of the stauro/j (1.20 and 2.14); (k) the use of the word group plhro- (1.9, 19, 24; 2.2, 9, 10; 4.12, 17).71 (6) Due to the parallelism in the two ‘A’ sections, it is unlikely that we are dealing with a Gnostic redeemer myth. Such a structure would affirm what Gnosticism sought to deny, namely that creation and redemption are to be traced to the same beneficent divine origin. Gnosticism saw creation as inherently wicked and thus saw redemption as rescue from it, not renewal of it.72

69. P. Benoit, ‘L’Hymne Christologique de Col. 1, 15-20’, p. 244. 70. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 86. 71. H. Van Broekhoven, ‘The Social Profiles in the Colossian Debate’, JSNT 66 (1977), 73–90 (75, n. 6). 72. N. T. Wright, ‘Poetry and Theology in Colossians 1.15-20’, 452.


159

(7) The critical point that is made in the hymn in 1.15-20, in the light of the rest of the letter, is that Christ is the head of all cosmic powers. These powers are therefore unable to thwart God’s plan of redemption for those who are ‘in Christ’. The victory achieved through Christ is sufficient to ensure the salvation of all who are ‘in him’, apart from special revelatory experiences and ascetic practices.73 As has already been seen in our exegesis of Col. 2.6-23, this again confirms that the Colossian philosophy was primarily concerned with the effects of other-worldly powers (whether good or evil) upon the everyday life of Colossian Christians.

3. Exegesis of Colossians 1.15-20 We now turn our attention to an exegesis of the passage, and in particular an understanding of some of the ‘catchwords’ of the Colossian philosophy. We shall follow the chiastic structure as outlined by Burney and Wright. a. The Supremacy of Christ in Creation: Colossians 1.15-16 The passage begins with a celebration of Christ’s work in creation. In the light of the Colossian philosophy, Paul wants to stress the supremacy of Christ in the heavenly realm before he introduces the philosophy in 2.8 which is kata\ ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou. Therefore, terms that are used of Christ, such as ei0kw\n tou= qeou= and prwto/tokoj, reflect his supremacy in cosmic terms. i. ei0kw\n tou= qeou= Paul affirms that Christ is the image of the invisible God (v.15 o3j e0stin ei0kw\n tou= qeou= tou= a0ora/tou=). As has been seen, ei0kw\n tou= qeou= is a term that was used to refer to the glory of God seated in heaven upon the throne-chariot. It is therefore highly suggestive of some form of Jewish mysticism being the background to the philosophy Paul is addressing. Within Judaism, the idea of the ei0kw\n tou= qeou= complements the fact that God is invisible (v.15 tou= qeou= tou= a0ora/tou). The adjective a0o/ratoj (invisible) occurs five times in the New Testament, and on four of these occurrences refers to God.74 Although in modern Western logic it seems inconsistent for something that is invisible to have an image, this inconsistency would not have been evident in first-century Colossae. As Kleinknecht comments, image was not understood as ‘alien to the reality and present only in the consciousness. It has a share in the reality. Indeed it is the reality. Thus ei0kw/n does not imply a weakening or a feeble copy of something; it implies the illumination of its inner core and essence’.75 The idea of a visible image

73. W. T. Wilson, The Hope of Glory, p. 39. 74. Rom. 1.20; Col. 1.15; 1 Tim. 1.17; Heb. 11.27. The only occurrence of a0o/ratoj that does not refer to God occurs in the following verse (1.16) which refers to the creation of ‘invisible things’. 75. H. Kleinknecht, ‘ei0kw/n’, in TDNT, II, pp. 388–90 (389).

160


of the invisible God is reminiscent of the Platonic distinction between the world of the ideal and that of form; therefore in the conclusion of Timaeus (92c), the world (rather than just humanity) is seen as the image of the ‘intelligible’. Although the influence of Hellenism is not denied, the background for the usage of the expression in Col. 1.15 is clearly Jewish.76 As seen in Chapter 3 of this monograph, within Merkabah mysticism a heavenly ascent was deemed a ‘success’ if the mystic witnessed the divine throne upon which was seated the image of God who was also known as the divine glory (dwbk). It is consistent that Paul’s use of terminology such as ei0kw\n tou= qeou=, could indicate the possibility of a form of Jewish mysticism being practised by the Colossian errorists. The first Biblical reference to the ei0kw\n tou= qeou= is when Adam was made in the image of God (Gen. 1.26). As discussed previously, Philo believed this image of God to be the prototype from whom all other humans were made. He was also identified with the lo/goj and even called a second God. As has already been noted, in Jewish mystical circles this figure would have been understood as referring to the one seated upon the throne, who is the heavenly image of God, the ideal Adam. There would therefore be a clear association for the readers of Colossians from ei0kw\n tou= qeou= to Adam. As Feuillet comments: ‘ … a Christian, whose thoughts are principally supplied by the Bible, can hardly speak of the image of God without thinking of the first pages of Genesis’ (author’s translation).77 Christ is therefore being identified with Adam, an association that is found in other Pauline passages (Rom. 5.14; 1 Cor. 15.45-48).78 Of importance to an understanding of Col. 1.15-20 is the association between the ei0kw\n tou= qeou= and divine wisdom. It appears that both Paul and his opponents had appropriated the wisdom cosmology of early Judaism from Proverbs, Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon, even though the text does not explicitly equate Christ with wisdom.79 In Wis. 7.26, wisdom is described as the ei0kw\n th=j a0gaqo/thtoj au0tou=. The association between the ‘image of God’ and divine wisdom is seen most clearly in the writings of Philo. In Legum Allegoriae 1.43 Philo says the sublime and heavenly wisdom (th\n meta/rsion kai\ ou0ra/nion sofi/an) is known by many names: beginning (a0rxh/n), image (ei0ko/na) and vision of God (o3rasin qeou=); terms that are all 76. For the alternate view, that ei0kw/n is reflective of a Greek background, see F.-W. Eltester, Eikon im Neuen Testament (BZNW, 23; Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1958). 77. A. Feuillet, Le Christ: Sagesse de Dieu, p. 167. 78. C. Masson, L’Epître de Saint Paul aux Colossiens, p. 98. 79. J. N. Aletti, Colossiens 1, 15-20: Genre et Exégèse du Texte: Fonction de la thématique sapientielle (AnBib, 91; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981), p. 149; J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 86. There is broad consensus on the wisdom character of the hymn. See for example E. Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosserund Epheserbriefe, pp. 70–71; T. J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, pp. 172–74; J. S. Lamp, ‘Wisdom in Col. 1.15-20: Contribution and Significance’, JETS 41 (1998), 45–53.


161

reflected in Col. 1.15-20. In Second Temple Jewish theology there was a hypostatizing of wisdom (hmkx), who was said to have an independent existence in the presence of God, and, based on Prov. 8.22, was the first ‘thing’ created.80 In the light of the allusions to wisdom, it is significant that Col. 1.15-20 is preceded and followed by references to wisdom. In 1.9, Paul’s prayer for the Colossians is that they ‘may be filled with the knowledge of God’s will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding’ (NRSV). Similarly, there is an association between Christ and wisdom in 2.2-3 where Paul expresses: ‘I want their hearts to be encouraged and united in love, so that they may have all the riches of assured understanding and have the knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge’ (NRSV). The association of the concepts of wisdom, treasure, knowledge, understanding and discernment is found in several Jewish wisdom texts (Prov. 2.1-6; Sir. 1.4-6; Bar 3.14-15; Wis. 7.14).81 In contrast to this understanding of divine wisdom that is found in Christ, the Colossian philosophy only appears to be wisdom (2.23). Worldly wisdom, as evidenced among the Colossian errorists, is evidenced in boasting of ‘super-spirituality’. True wisdom does not boast in one’s own achievements but aligns itself with the wisdom of God: the crucified and risen Lord.82 It can be concluded that ei0kw\n tou= qeou= is reflective of a Jewish tradition of an anthropomorphous hypostatic representation of God. The use of the term in Col. 1.15-20, however, takes it further. Whereas Wis. 7.26 describes wisdom as the ei0kw\n th=j a0gaqo/thtoj au0tou= (the image of God’s goodness), Christ is seen in more direct terms as the ei0kw\n tou= qeou (the image of God).83 Although wisdom is seen as the very first thing created, wisdom is never identified as the goal of creation as is Christ (ei0j au0to/n v.16). This designation is normally reserved for God (Rom. 11.36; 1 Cor. 8.6).84 As R. P. Martin states: ‘The final part in the verse states that Christ is creation’s goal … No Jewish thinker ever rose to these heights in daring to predict that wisdom was the ultimate goal of all creation. Yet this is Paul’s claim as he anticipates the finale of the hymn (v.20) which hails the crucified Lord as the great unifier of heaven and earth’.85 Paul therefore uses terms that were current in first-century Judaism, that are reflective of the invisible world of God and the invisible world of creation, and applies them to Christ, thereby taking them to new heights. The term ei0kw\n tou= qeou= would certainly attract the attention of Paul’s readers if the

80. See J. D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (London: SCM Press, 1980), pp. 168–76. 81. J. S. Lamp, ‘Wisdom in Col. 1.15-20’, 51. 82. Ibid., 52. 83. See J. E. Fossum, ‘Colossians 1.15-18a in the Light of Jewish Mysticism and Gnosticism’, NTS 35 (1989), 183–201 (187). 84. J. N. Aletti, Colossiens 1,15-20: Genre et Exégèse du texte, pp. 148–49. 85. R. P. Martin, Colossians and Philemon, p. 58.

162


opponents in Colossae were propagating some form of Jewish mysticism. The identification of the ei0kw\n tou= qeou= with the one who descended to earth would show the folly of religious ritual to gain a heavenly ascent. God has revealed himself through his image, and this revelation is sufficient. This is not the first time that Paul has referred to Christ as the ei0kw\n tou= qeou=. In 2 Cor. 4.4 Paul refers to the ‘image of God’ in the context of ‘the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ’, language that is also reminiscent of witnessing the Lord’s glory enthroned on the Merkabah. This is most probably a reference to the Damascus road revelation of Jesus Christ.86 Therefore Col. 1.15 refers to Christ as the image of the invisible God; he is the physical and therefore visual embodiment of God.87 ii. prwto/tokoj pa/shj kti/sewj In addition to being the image of God, which refers to Christ’s relationship to the Father, Christ is also described as the first-born of all creation (v.15 prwto/tokoj pa/shj kti/sewj), which refers to his relationship to the created order.88 To read this as Christ being the first created being is to run counter to the context, where Christ’s supremacy over creation is stressed, and where he is both the author and end of creation (v.16). Prwto/tokoj with the genitive has the same force as prw~toj and the genitive which is used in Jn 1.15, 30 where John the Baptist declares that Jesus prw~to/j mou h}n, denoting priority and primacy.89 Prwto/tokoj is used frequently in the LXX,90 usually within genealogies to show priority, but it also shows primacy and a special relationship, as seen in Exod. 4.22 where Israel is referred to as ui9o\j prwto/toko/j mou. In Ps. 88.28 (LXX) the Davidic king is seen as having supremacy over earthly kings: ka0gw\ prwto/tokon qh/somai au0to/n u9yhlo\n para\ toi=j basileu=sin th=j gh=j. The word prwto/tokoj in relation to creation is also reminiscent of wisdom. In Prov. 8.22 wisdom is described as having been with God in the beginning, before the creation of the earth. This verse is commented upon by Philo in De Ebrietate 30-31. In Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesin 4.97 Philo says: ‘And who is to be considered the daughter of God but Wisdom, who is the first-born mother of all things …’ (c.f. Philo, De Virtuibus 62). It must be noted, however that the term prwto/tokoj does not designate wisdom in either the LXX or Hellenistic Judaism.

86. See S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, pp. 137–62. 87. J. E. Fossum, ‘Colossians 1.15-18a in the Light of Jewish Mysticism and Gnosticism’, 188. 88. J. G. Gibbs, Creation and Redemption, p. 103. 89. D. A. Carson says of this usage in John: ‘The peculiar expression means “because he was first with respect to me”. It includes not only temporal priority … but also absolute primacy’. D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester: IVP, 1991), p. 131. See also F. F. Bruce, ‘The Christ Hymn of Col. 1.15-20’, 101. 90. 130 times, of which 74 are in Genesis to Deuteronomy and 29 in 1 Chronicles. W. Michaelis, ‘prwto/tokoj’, in TDNT, VI, pp. 871–81 (872).


163

As has already been argued, ei0kw\n tou= qeou= is reminiscent of the first Adam who was made in the image of God. The association between Adam and the second power in heaven in Jewish mysticism is pervasive. In this light, an Adamic background to Christ being the prwto/tokoj pa/shj kti/sewj should not be excluded. We have already noted that Col. 1.15-20 may be built around the word ty#)r which forms the basis of a midrashic exposition of Gen. 1.1. Although Adam was not created until the sixth day of creation, he was the first human created and was seen as the crowning point of creation. Hence he had priority, and more importantly primacy, as seen in God giving him dominion over creation. As the prwto/tokoj Christ has priority and primacy. His dominion is even greater than that of the first Adam because he is separated from creation: he is the creator. His dominion extends even to cosmic beings. As will be seen in v.18 where prwto/tokoj is mentioned again, Christ has priority and primacy as the second and ideal Adam in his dominion over death (prwto/tokoj e0k tw~n nekrw~n). Whereas death entered by the first Adam, Resurrection entered by means of Christ, the second Adam, whereby death is destroyed and the eternity of Eden recaptured. It can be seen, therefore, that the term prwto/tokoj is being used to show that the one who is the image of God has priority over creation and is supreme in the work of redemption. This priority and supremacy is going to be particularly applied within the realm of heavenly beings in v.16. An appreciation of this shows the folly of Christians following a philosophy that feared ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou, or of seeking a heavenly ascent by means of human merit. iii. The Sphere of Christ’s Supremacy The sphere and the reason for Christ’s supremacy in creation is given in v.16 with a causal o3ti. Christ is shown to be prwto/tokoj because ta\ pa/nta were created e0n au0tw~|. The aorist passive e0k0 ti/sqh is probably a divine passive, thereby showing God’s activity in history with reference to Christ (e0n au0tw~|).91 The e0n au0tw~| is the beginning of a sequence of prepositional phrases: e0n au0tw~| v. 16, di’ au0tou= v. 16, ei0j au0to_n v. 16, pro\ pa/ntwn v. 17, e0n au0tw~| v. 17, e0n au0tw~| v. 19, di’ au0tou= v. 20, ei0j au0to_n v. 20. It is important, therefore, not to treat one prepositional phrase in isolation from the others. It would be incorrect to see Christ as merely the agent of creation (di’ au0tou= v.16) without also seeing him as the goal of creation (ei0j au0to_n v. 16). Christ is also seen as the instrument of creation and/or creation’s sphere of operation (e0n au0tw~|).92 Paul’s major concern is to show Christ’s supremacy over the entire created realm, and in particular the heavenly realm that was feared. The entirety of creation is therefore expressed in ta\ pa/nta, which is further explicated in a chiastic structure to show that this includes both the heavenly and the earthly spheres. 91. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 45. 92. As argued by P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 45, contra E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 50, n.129, who argues that e0n au0tw~| has simply an instrumental meaning.

164

Heavenly Perspective Table 9.7

A

e0n toi=j ou0ranoi=j

B

kai\ e0pi\ th=j gh=j,

B

ta\ o9rata/

A

kai\ ta\ a0o/rata

A true appreciation of the relationship of Christ to the created realm, and in particular the realm of cosmic beings, would disarm the philosophy, whether this is applied to the elemental spirits (powers and authorities) who sought to thwart Christ’s work in the world, or to the angels who worshipped God in heaven. The folly of concentrating on such created beings, rather than the Creator, is shown. This application is stressed within the inclusio by the reference to ei1te qro/noi ei1te kurio/thtej ei1te a0rxai\ ei1te e0xousi/ai. Therefore, as Fowl states: ‘The Colossians themselves could never stand in the same relationship to the powers and to fulness as Christ does. They do, however, stand in a similar sort of relationship to the powers and to fulness by virtue of their incorporation in Christ’.93 Most scholars will read qro/noi ei!te kurio/thtej ei!te a0rxai\ ei!te e0xousi/ai through the lens of their understanding of the Colossian philosophy. Those who see ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou in Col. 2.8 as a reference to earthly powers, whether law or civil authority, normally see a depersonalized reference here. Therefore Wink gives the following translation: ‘whether seats of power or seats of spheres of influence, whether incumbents-in-office or the legitimations and sanctions that keep them there’.94 W. Carr sees references to heavenly angelic beings. He concludes ‘that the terms qro/noi, kurio/thtej, a0rxa/i, and e0cousi/ai far from conveying to the Colossians the ideas of hostile forces of the universe or of the malevolent spirits, would have at most described beings whose status was neutral’.95 He further states: ‘It is clear, however, that the principalities and powers are angels, figures of the heaven of God, not demonic beings or fallen angels. Neither are they hostile to men. Indeed in this epistle they scarcely relate to men, their sole function being godward’.96 This view is also followed by Yates.97 This argument from Yates and Carr has already been dealt with in the occurrence of ta\j a0rxa\j kai\ ta\j e0cousi/aj in 2.15. From our exegesis of that verse, the triumphal procession was clearly celebrating the victory over malevolent powers. It would be expected that a similar meaning would apply in 1.16. Furthermore, the study of occurrences of the pair a0rxai/ and e0cousi/ai in other Pauline passages (1 Cor. 15.24; Col. 2.10, 15; Eph. 1.21; 3.10; 6.12)

93. S. E. Fowl, The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul, p. 153. 94. W. Wink, Naming the Powers, p. 66. O. Cullmann argues that Col. 1.16 and Rom. 13.1 refer to the state and the angel powers which stand behind it. O. Cullmann, The State in the New Testament, (London: SCM Press, 1957), p. 114. 95. W. Carr, Angels and Principalities, p. 52. 96. Ibid., p. 77. 97. R. Yates, The Epistle to the Colossians (London: Epworth, 1993), pp. 24–25.


165

leads one to concur with C. Arnold ‘that the a0rxai/ and e0cousi/ai are consistently portrayed as evil beings in Paul’.98 Arnold comes to the opposite conclusion from that of Carr and Yates. He sees the list of angelic powers as an expansion of a0o/rata99 and that these beings are ‘evil and hostile to the purposes of God … The author of this letter conceives of the powers as angelic beings in league with the authority of darkness (1.13) … They oppose God’s purposes in the church and are now instigating conflict in the Colossian community through “the philosophy”’.100 The most tenable position is that the four terms refer to angelic beings, both heavenly and demonic.101 A study of each of these terms will help clarify this. (a) qro/noi Apart from this verse, when qro/noj is used absolutely in the New Testament, it refers exclusively to the throne of God or of Christ.102 When it is qualified it can refer to the thrones of the twenty-four elders in Rev. 4.4, the throne of the dragon in Rev. 13.2 and of the beast in Rev. 16.10. The plural and absolute usage of qro/noi in 1.16 is therefore unusual. The word is best understood as a metonymical reference to angelic powers who sit in the council of God.103 Personalizing qro/noj is found in Jewish mystical texts and therefore relevant to our thesis that Paul is refuting a form of Jewish mysticism. In the study of these texts, therefore, it needs to be determined whether qro/noj refers to heavenly angels or to fallen angels. In 2 En. 20.1, upon entry into the seventh heaven, Enoch sees supraterrestrial powers: ‘ … and they carried me up to the seventh heaven. And I saw there an exceptional great light, and all the fiery armies of the great archangels, and the incorporeal forces and the dominions and the origins and the authorities, the cherubim and the seraphim and the many-eyed thrones …’ In T. Levi 3.8 there is a reference to thrones who are heavenly angelic beings who offer worship to God: ‘There with him are thrones (qro/noi) and authorities (e0cousi/ai); there praises to God are offered eternally’.104 The reference to thrones (qro/noi) in heaven in Dan. 7.9 (LXX) is instructive, as it comes within a chapter that was of particular importance in the development of

98. C. E. Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism, p. 255. 99. Ibid. 100. Ibid. 101. For a hypothesis that a double chiastic structure exists here referring to both things in heaven and things on earth, see E. Bammel ‘Versuch zu Kol. 1.15-20’, 88–95. See also J. L. Houlden, Paul’s Letters from Prison, p. 163. Bammel’s reconstruction is unlikely. It splits phrases such as a0rxai\ kai\ e0cousi/ai which are found together elsewhere. For a critique see W. Carr, Angels and Principalities, pp. 48–49. 102. See the discussion in O. Schmitz, ‘qro/noj’, TDNT, III, pp. 160–67. 103. See W. Carr, Angels and Principalities, p. 49 who sees qro/noi as referring to ‘the angels of God’s presence’. 104. Found in versions a, b, Ab, S1. See R. H. Charles (ed.), The Greek Version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs edited from nine mss. together with the variants of the Armenian and Slavonic versions and some Hebrew Fragments, p. 34.

166


Merkabah mysticism.105 We can conclude that the term is used here as metonomy for heavenly angelic beings. (b) kurio/thtej It is difficult to determine whether kurio/thtej refers to heavenly or demonic powers. In the only other Pauline reference in Eph. 1.21 it is listed with pa/shj a0rxh=j kai\ e0cousi/aj, which in the light of other Pauline references would imply demonic spirits.106 In 1 En. 61.10 and 2 En. 20.1, however, there seems to be a clear identification with heavenly angels. Due to the Ephesian reference, it is more likely a reference to heavenly powers and therefore a synonym for qro/noi. (c) a0rxai/ and (d) e0cousi/ai need to be viewed as a pair due to their close association in Pauline writings (1 Cor. 15.24; Eph. 1.21; 3.10; 6.12). The terms also appear in Col. 2.10 and 2.15 where they refer to the evil powers who were led in triumphal procession through the victory of the cross. In each of these occurrences they refer to demonic powers. Care should be taken not to draw too much from the individual words at the expense of the broader syntax. By listing these angelic beings, each introduced by the same word, ei1te, Paul is pointing out that even within a developed angelology, with different grades of heaven and different classes of supernatural beings, whether evil or good, Christ is the creator of all, and therefore pre-eminent. All cosmic powers, whether good or bad, are subject to him. Therefore the triumph over evil powers that is expressed in Col. 2.15 as a result of the work of the cross is presupposed in Col. 1.15-20.

4. The Centrepiece If we adopt the chiastic structure of C. F. Burney and N. T. Wright, vv 17 and 18a are the focus of the chiastic structure, where the two major themes of Christ’s supremacy in creation and Christ’s supremacy in redemption are brought together. a. Christ’s Work in Creation: Colossians 1.17 The teaching of vv.15 and 16 is reiterated in v.17 where the major point is Christ’s supremacy over the created order. In the light of the context, it would appear that au0to/j e0stin is emphatic, pointing out that Christ and no other spiritual force has dominion over creation. This dominion is seen in the expression pro\ pa/ntwn, an expression that is reflective of Jewish wisdom (Sir. 1.4 – prote/ra pa/ntwn e1ktistai sofi/a). There is uncertainty about whether

105. See Chapter 3. 106. A. T. Lincoln, Ephesians, pp. 62–63. See also C. E. Arnold, Ephesians: Power and Magic, p. 54.


167

pro/ should be taken as temporal priority107 or superiority in status.108 A middle position, offered by Harris, is that Paul was deliberately including an ambiguity, choosing to exclude neither sense.109 Christ is not only the locus, instrument and goal of creation, he is also the one who sustains it (note the perfect tense of sune/sthken). In the light of a belief in a relationship between demonic powers and tragedy or natural disasters, Arnold’s comment on this verse is correct as he states: ‘Not only does Christ keep the world from falling apart as a result of earthquakes, floods, plagues, and cosmic disturbances, he maintains a check on the baleful and multifarious workings of the hostile powers’.110 Even the angelic powers are not beyond Christ’s control, therefore to focus on them in order to prevent such tragedy is futile. b. Christ’s Work in Redemption: Colossians 1.18a At this point the structure of the passage, as discussed earlier in this chapter, impinges upon meaning. Those who see a two strophe structure, due to the parallelism between v.18b and v.15, see v.18a (kai\ au0to/j e0stin h9 kefalh\ tou= sw/matoj, th=j e0kklhsi/aj) as still belonging to the first strophe and therefore referring to creation. Those who see a three stanza structure or a chiastic structure normally see this as the introduction to the second major theme of Christ’s role in redemption. These two approaches therefore need to be surveyed. Those who see v.18a as the crowning section of the first strophe equate sw~ma with ko/smoj. This then assumes that th=j e0kklhsi/aj is a later interpolation, not found in the original hymn. The association of sw~ma with ko/smoj finds its roots in the presupposition that an Urhymnus was reflective of a Hellenistic world view. In Plato’s Timaeus 32c Plato speaks of God creating the world in terms of the birth of a body (to\ tou= ko/smou sw~ma e0gennh/qh). The Orphic fragment describes Zeus as the kefalh/ of the cosmos (Orphicorum Fragmenta 168). The idea of the world being seen in terms of a body is evident in several texts in Philo such as Quis rerum divinarum heres 155. Furthermore, precedence to Christ’s headship of the world can be seen in Quaestiones in Exodum 2.117, where Philo responds to the question, Where is the head of the world?, by saying: ‘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’. The

107. For example, C. F. D. Moule, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 66–67; J. N. Aletti, Saint Paul: Epître aux Colossiens, p. 103; P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 47. 108. For example, C. Masson, L’Epître de Saint Paul aux Colossiens, p. 101, n. 3, who says: ‘Pro\ pa/ntwn ne doit pas s’entendre du temps, mais du rang’. 109. M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon, pp. 46–47. 110. C. E. Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism, p. 258.

168


passage then goes on to identify Christ as the eternal Logos, showing a Christian interpolation.111 There are, however, difficulties with this view. Arguments from a two strophe structure should not be conclusive. As has already been seen, it is difficult to fit vv.17-18a into such a structure. Within a three stanza structure or a chiastic structure, however, there is no need to equate sw~ma with creation. The view is dependent on an understanding of a Hellenistic Urhymnus. Our study on the structure of this hymn has shown that the identification of an Urhymnus is not only subjective and unreliable, but if a (more probable) chiastic structure is adopted, the existence of an Urhymnus becomes unnecessary. Furthermore, although the interplay between Hellenism and Judaism in the first century is not denied, our exegetical studies have placed the background for the Colossian philosophy more under the influence of Judaism than of Hellenism.112 Arguing from the absence of th=j e0kklhsi/aj is without basis. The only authoritative document we have is the final form of the hymn, and it equates tou= sw/matoj with th=j e0kklhsi/aj. There is no parallel in Paul’s writings for sw~ma meaning ko/smoj. There are other Pauline examples of the church being referred to as a body, such as 1 Cor. 12.12-30 and Rom. 12.4, 5.113 Therefore we concur with F. F. Bruce’s comment: ‘The cosmos is not called his body, and to envisage an earlier form of the hymn in which the cosmos, and not the church, was so called is an unwarranted exercise of the imagination’.114 It is best to see v.18b as beginning the second major theme, which refers to Christ’s work of redemption. The equation between tou= sw/matoj and th=j e0kklhsi/aj is retained and the idea of Christ’s headship in the redeemed community is emphasized.115 The section begins with the parallel expression

111. C. Colpe, ‘Zur Leib-Christi-Vorstellung im Ephesersbrief’, in E. Eltester (ed.), Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche (BZNW, 26; Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1964), pp. 172–87 (180, n. 22); C. E. Arnold, ‘Jesus Christ: “Head” of the Church (Colossians and Ephesians)’, in J. B. Green and M. Turner (eds), Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ. Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 346–66 (348–49). 112. For the interrelationship of Hellenism and Judaism see M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the early Hellenistic Period (2 vols; London: SCM Press, 1981). 113. In 1 Corinthians and Romans, the head is one part among many of the body. In Colossians, however, the metaphor is changed as Christ is the head of the church. Some (for example, E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 55) see this as an argument against Pauline authorship; this conclusion, however, is unnecessary. Paul is at liberty to change his metaphors, and as F. F. Bruce has pointed out, the change of metaphor may be governed by the nature of the Colossian philosophy. F. F. Bruce, Paul the Apostle of the Free Spirit, p. 421. 114. F. F. Bruce, Paul the Apostle of the Free Spirit, p. 420. 115. Arnold sees the source of this image of headship from medical writers of the day who saw the head as not only the ruling part of the body, but also as the supply centre. There are therefore the ideas of leadership of the church and source of the church’s life energy for its growth to maturity. C. E. Arnold, ‘Jesus Christ: “Head” of the Church (Colossians and Ephesians)’, pp. 346–66.


169

from v.17: kai\ au0to/j e0stin, which gives an emphatic claim that Christ himself, and none other, is the head of the church. Paul’s use of e0kklhsi/a here is different from his earlier references (Rom. 16.1, 4, 5, 16; 1 Cor. 1.2; 4.17; 11.16, 22; 12.28; 1 Thess. 2.14), where the word denotes a local assembly (although the reference in 1 Cor. 15.9 may have a broader meaning). In Col. 1.18, it would appear the church referred to is the heavenly church.116 Similar references are also seen in Col. 1.24 and Eph. 1.22-23. In the light of the Colossian philosophy which claimed access to heaven through mystical ascent, and Paul’s response in 3.1-4 that the Christians are already raised with Christ, the image is of a present gathering around Christ in heaven. The Colossian Christians therefore have dual citizenship of an earthly church and of a heavenly church. This membership of a heavenly gathering can be found in other Pauline writings such as Gal. 4.25-27, with its references to the ‘present Jerusalem’ and the ‘Jerusalem above’; Phil. 3.20, where the Christian’s ‘citizenship is in heaven’; and Ephesians, where the Christian is blessed in ‘the heavenly places’ (1.3) and is ‘seated with Christ in heavenly places’ (2.6). It is therefore consistent that what Paul is referring to in Col. 1.18 is the church as it gathers around Christ in heaven.117 Earthly assemblies are to be reflections of this heavenly reality. There is to be unity in earthly churches just as there is in the heavenly church and therefore there is no room for one party claiming super-spirituality. This reconciliation between Christians is to be reflected in every area of life, as will be outlined in 3.5-4.1. All that the Colossian Christians needed to do to be in the presence of Christ was to be in the local assembly of the body of Christ, dependent on the merits of the victory of Christ expressed in the cross and Resurrection. The heavenly church is therefore an example of God’s purpose for the cosmos, ‘the greenhouse in and by means of which the green shoots of God’s purposes in and for creation are brought out’.118

5. Christ’s Supremacy in Redemption: Colossians 1.18b-20 The final section of this hymn (in all of the structures discussed) begins in 18b with o3j e0stin a0rxh/|, prwto/tokoj e0k tw~n nekrw~n. This expression would seem to support an original Christian document, rather than a pre-Christian

116. It is preferable in this context to use the term ‘heavenly church’ rather than ‘universal church’ which, in modern debates, refers more to the sum total of Christians rather than a heavenly gathering. For an understanding of the arguments for ‘heavenly church’ see P. T. O’Brien, ‘Church’, in G. F. Hawthorne and R. P. Martin (eds), Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (Leicester: IVP, 1993), pp. 123–31. For an understanding of the arguments for ‘universal church’ see K. Giles, What on Earth is the Church? (Melbourne: Dove, 1995). 117. See P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, pp. 57–61, for a helpful discussion on the uses of e0kklhsi/a in Pauline writings. 118. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 96.

170


hymn, with its clear allusion to Resurrection.119 Christ’s supremacy over supernatural potentates is seen, therefore, not only in his role in creation, but also in his defeat of the powers’ chief weapon: death. There is liberation from the powers of darkness (1.13), the stoixei=a (2.8), and the principalities and authorities (2.15). The purpose of Christ’s death and Resurrection (note the i3na clause) was that Christ might become (ge/nhtai) pre-eminent. By virtue of his redemption and Resurrection, Christ regained what was always his by virtue of creation. The victory of Christ that will be shown in the light of the Colossian philosophy is established through the Resurrection. The assertion of v.18 is explained in v.19. As has already been discussed in our exegetical study of 2.9, many scholars see plh/rwma as an indication of a Gnostic background to the philosophy, with plh/rwma referring to the totality of the emanations of God, as seen in Valentinian Gnosticism. Such a background, however, is unlikely. Valentinian Gnosticism was significantly later than the writing of Colossians and Christ is here presented as the creator of the invisible powers, which is inconsistent with the Gnostic concept of emanations.120 Furthermore, it is unlikely that plh/rwma is the subject of eu0do/khsen. The verb eu0doke/w presupposes a personal subject, who in this context would be God.121 It would be unlikely that Paul expects the reader to just supply the subject ‘God’ arbitrarily, for the last verse where God is clearly the subject is v.13, and as Moule correctly says, ‘some renewed mention might, therefore, be expected if this were intended’.122 What is more likely is that pa=n to\ plh/rwma should be taken as a periphrasis for ‘God in all his fullness’ because of the subsequent masculines (ei0j au0to/n, ei0rhnopoih/saj v.20) which ‘may be explained as a construction according to sense – masculine because, on this showing plh/rwma stands for a masculine’.123 Plh/rwma, therefore, need not refer to a later Gnostic designation of supernatural beings who required appeasement through worship, but to the sufficiency of Christ, as all the fullness of God was well pleased to dwell in him. It is a clear claim to deity, as evidenced through the Resurrection.

119. This is now generally recognized. See, for example, J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 97. Lohse says: ‘the phrase “first-born from the dead” cannot be explained as coming from the Gnostic redeemer myth’. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 56, n. 174. Note similar arguments in N. Kehl, Der Christushymnus im Kolosserbrief: Eine motivgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Kol 1, 12-20 (SBM, 1; Stuttgart: Katholische Bibelwerk, 1967), pp. 88–93; R. Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit, p. 153; J. Gnilka, Der Kolosserbrief, p. 70. 120. C. E. Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism, p. 248, n. 4. See also J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 255–71. 121. G. Schrenk ‘eu0doke/w’, in TDNT, II, pp. 738–51 (738, 741, n.16). 122. C. F. D. Moule, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 70. 123. Ibid.


171

This then leads to the climax of v.20. The verse is still governed by the o3ti at the beginning of v.19 and is therefore a continuation of why the risen Christ has pre-eminence in all things.124 His pre-eminence is a result of his work of reconciliation on the cross. Paul uses an unusual word to describe this work of reconciliation: a compound a0pokatalla/cai, which in literary Greek is used only here, 1.22 and Eph. 2.16.125 It may therefore be a term especially coined by Paul, with the a0po/ prefix intensifying the emphasis of the simple form.126 The fact that Paul refers to the reconciliation of all things, whether on earth or in heaven (1.16; 1.20), presumes that something has happened to these arenas since creation. This rupture brought the cosmos under the dominion of evil cosmic powers. C. K. Barrett comments: … no one reconciles or triumphs over what is not opposed to him; i.20 and ii.15 make no sense unless we may suppose that powers that were created for subordination to the heavenly Man have rebelled, and deserted their appointed rank. As rebels, they have been overcome and reconciled in the cross; overcome and reconciled, yet not finally destroyed or appeased, since it is evident that they continue to be inimical to man and his interests.127

This ongoing crisis, alluded to in 2.8 with the mention of the stoixei=a, is resolved through the work of the cross as mentioned in 2.15. Therefore, what is on view here is cosmic reconciliation. God is portrayed as the peacemaker (ei0rhnopoih/saj) of the universe, which is a common Jewish theme (Isa. 11.6-9; 65.17, 25; Jub. 1.29; 23.26-29; 1 En. 91.16-17). The means of this ‘peacemaking’ is through the death of Christ (dia\ tou= ai3matoj tou= staurou= au0tou=). Such a means of reconciliation would have been unthinkable in later Gnosticism. In the light of the Colossian philosophy, it is understandable that Paul is very specific in explaining the sphere of this reconciliation. It includes everything (ta\ pa/nta) which is further qualified as ei1te ta\ e0pi\ th=j gh=j ei1te ta\ e0n toi=j ou0ranoi=j. Paul thought of the saving work of Christ as denuding hostile spiritual powers of all vitality and potency.128 The principalities and powers as depicted in Col. 2.15 are compelled to submit to a power greater than their own. Everything in the universe has been made subject to Christ, just as everything was created in him and through him and for him. Therefore the disruption that has happened to the created order has been overturned and on the cross there has been an act of re-creation. As Lohse states: the ‘universe has been reconciled in that heaven and earth have been brought back into their

124. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 102. 125. F. Büchsel, ‘katala/ssw’, in TDNT, I, pp. 254–58 (258). 126. See S. E. Porter, katalla/ssw in Ancient Greek Literature with Reference to the Pauline Writings (EFN, 5; Cordoba: Ediciones El Almendro, 1994), pp. 163–89. 127. C. K. Barrett, From First Adam to Last: A Study in Pauline Theology (London: Adam and Charles Black 1962), p. 86. 128. F. F. Bruce, ‘The Christ-Hymn of Col. 1.15-20’, 109.

172


divinely created and determined order … the universe is again under its head and thereby cosmic peace has returned’.129

6. Conclusion The ‘hymn’ clearly raises issues that directly relate to the Colossian philosophy and are indicative of some form of Jewish mysticism that focused on ‘otherworldly’ beings. The passage appears to be Jewish in its origin, and was either in use by the errorists or, more probably, a free composition by the apostle using terminology and concepts utilized in the Colossian error. It is not necessary to find a Hellenistic Urhymnus behind Col. 1.15-20. The passage is reflective of a Jewish monotheistic confession where creation and redemption are each applied to Israel. This would be especially relevant in the context of a Jewish-based attack on the Colossian congregation. The Christology of the passage is particularly applied to cosmic powers, whether good or evil. Paul’s discussion of heavenly realities shows that the philosophy was not primarily concerned with earthly regulations such as the ongoing significance of the law. The philosophy centres on how ‘otherworldly’ presuppositions affect a person’s world view. A correct understanding of Christology, in particular the work of Christ in creation and redemption, would liberate the Colossian Christians from their bondage to and fear of the spiritual realm. The Christian’s status is secure through the work of Christ. Redemption is secured by the crucifixion and Resurrection. Christ is shown as not only the creator of the cosmic realm, but also the one who maintains it (sune/sthken – v.17). The present existence of all cosmic powers, whether heavenly or demonic, depends on him. Therefore when tragedy or natural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods and volcanoes occur, these are not beyond Christ’s control. Focusing on demonic powers to prevent such tragedy is futile. The centrepiece of the hymn refers to the body of the church which is the place where the work of re-creation is evidenced. The final climax of the hymn concerns reconciliation. This theme of reconciliation is continued by Paul in 1.21-23 and becomes the focus of the paraenetic sections in 3.5-4.1. This is consistent with our claim that Paul’s major concern was division within the congregation caused by one party claiming super-spirituality. Paul’s image of the church in 1.18 (and 1.24) is a heavenly assembly. It is through this assembly that God is present with his people when they gather in earthly manifestations of this assembly. There is no need to seek a special heavenly ascent or revelation.

129. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 59.

Chapter 10

THE BRIDGE TO EXHORTATION: COLOSSIANS 3.1-4 Most attempts to define the Colossian philosophy have focused on ch. 2 of the epistle, with some supporting reference to ch. 1, in particular 1.15-20. The final two chapters of the letter have been seen as Paul’s practical remarks, and therefore little scholarly work has been done on their relationship to the Colossian error. M. Dibelius has even claimed: ‘The hortatory sections of the Pauline letters are clearly differentiated in material from what Paul otherwise wrote. In particular they lack an immediate relation with the circumstances of the letter’.1 This conclusion is consistent with his understanding of the Colossian error; it is hard to see how Colossians 3 and 4 are exhortations given in the light of a mystery cult at Colossae. It is our thesis that the letter to the Colossians is an integrated piece of writing whose paraenesis is directly related to its theology. The paraenesis is largely concerned with one issue: the Colossian philosophy. It will be shown in this chapter how Col. 3.1-4 forms a transition between the response to the error in 2.6-23 and the practical applications that work out from this in 3.54.1. It will be seen that throughout the letter Paul closely links exhortation to doctrine and therefore demands both cognitive and ethical correction.

1. The Relationship of Colossians 3.1-4 to Colossians 2.6-23 The relationship of Col. 3.1-4 to Paul’s instructions concerning the Colossian error can be seen in the use of vocabulary and concepts from 2.6-23: sunhge/rqhte (3.1) picks up from sunhge/rqhte and sunezwopoi/hsen (2.12, 13); a0peqa/nete (3.3) reminds the reader of a0peqa/nete su\n Xristw~| a0po\ tw~n stoixei/wn tou= ko/smou (2.20) and that the Christian is buried with Christ in baptism (2.12); the exhortation for the Colossians to ‘seek the things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God’ (3.1) is a clear allusion to the errorists’ desire for heavenly ascent to participate in the angelic worship of

1. M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (trans. B. L. Woolf; London: Ivor Nicholson and Watson, 1934), p. 238.

174


the one who is seated upon the heavenly throne (2.18); the incorporation of the believer into the glory of Christ (o3tan o9 Xristo\j fanerwqh=| … to/te kai\ u9mei=j su\n au0tw~| fanerwqh/sesqe e0n do/xh|) and the identification between Christ and this glory (3.4), is reminiscent of the ‘in Christ’ teaching of 2.915 and the emphasis on glory within Jewish mysticism; ta\ a1nw (3.1, 2) reminds the reader of the heavenly powers referred to in 1.16, the focus on heaven that formed a significant part of the Colossian philosophy and is possibly a summary expression for the lordship of Christ (1.15-20; 2.6, 10); ta\ e0pi\ th=j gh=j (3.2) refers back to the regulations of the false teachers as outlined in 2.20-23.2 It is clear that Col. 3.1-4 picks up vocabulary and concepts already discussed in the letter and functions as a bridge3 from the instructions concerning the false teachers in 2.6-23 to the practical exhortations based on these instructions. The pivotal place of this section which emphasizes ta\ a1nw shows the centrality of the heavenly realm to the problems at Colossae.4

2. Spatial Eschatology as Motivation for Ethics: Colossians 3.1-2 Paul begins this section with a positive presentation of the Christian gospel. The ei0 ou}n shows that the argument here is resumptive of ei0 in 2.20 where Paul talks of having died with Christ.5 He now proceeds to talk of that which complements death: the Resurrection. This Resurrection is seen as a reality as shown by the use of ei0 and the indicative.6 As in 2.12, Paul is not referring to the future general Resurrection at the Parousia of Christ, he is speaking metaphorically of the need to appropriate the values of the resurrected life of heaven. He is therefore calling for a change of perspective. It has been suggested that in Col. 3.1-4 Paul adopts a Hellenistic world view or that he sees the Resurrection of believers as having already taken place. Gräßer, for example, argues that ‘the problem is the clash of two heterogeneous eschatological concepts, one Hellenistic and mystic, the other an early Christian-apocalyptic’ (author’s translation).7 This, however, ‘drives an unnecessary wedge between “apocalyptic” and Graeco-Roman concepts by ignoring 2. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 158. 3. J. Lähnemann sees the section as ‘ … dem Übergang von der Belehrung (gegen die Irrlehrer) zur Paränese des Briefes’. J. Lähnemann, Der Kolosserbrief, p. 30. 4. A. T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to his Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), p. 110; J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 199–201. 5. O’Brien states: ‘the ei0 [= “since”] no more suggests doubt here than it did in the earlier reference’. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 159. 6. See BDF §371: ‘Ei0 with the indicative of all tenses denotes a simple conditional assumption with emphasis on the reality of the assumption (not of what is being assumed); the condition is considered a real case’. 7. E. Gräßer, ‘Kol 3, 1-4 als Beispiel einer Interpretation secundum homines recipientes’, ZTK 64 (1967), 139–68 (160), (Emphasis Gräßer’s).

The Bridge to Exhortation: Colossians 3.1-4

175

the rhetoric of Col. 3.1-4 (with the exhortation to “seek things above” based explicitly upon the hidden-revealed scheme) which requires an identification rather than a bifurcation of these concepts’.8 Furthermore, due to his overrealized eschatology, Gräßer claims that through baptism, Resurrection has already taken place9 and sees Paul’s (temporal) eschatological perspective as having been replaced by a transcendent perspective.10 The future Resurrection is therefore denied: ‘Anyone who has already been raised with Christ will not rise again’ (author’s translation).11 Due to the difference from Rom. 6.1-14, where Paul sees Resurrection with Christ as a future reality, some have seen this as a reason to deny Pauline authorship of Colossians.12 Although Gräßer is correct to see an association from this verse to baptism, as sunhge/qhte is the same word as in 2.12, where baptism is shown to signify the death and Resurrection of Christ, he fails to see how through this initiation (or, more correctly, that which is signified), the Christian shares in the Resurrection of Christ which has future implications.13 Gräßer thus overemphasizes the ‘already’ dimension of baptism understood as ascension to heaven.14 By denying the future aspect of Paul’s eschatology, Gräßer comes to the false conclusion that sunhge/rqhte is advocating perfectionism, as he fails to see how death with Christ severed the bond to the old order and Resurrection established links to the new heavenly order that will be fully realized at the Parousia.15

8. J. R. Levison, ‘2 Bar. 48.42-52.7 and the apocalyptic dimension of Colossians 3.16’, JBL 108 (1989), 93–108 (98). 9. E. Gräßer, ‘Kol 3,1-4 als Beispiel einer Interpretation secundum homines recipientes’, 150–53. 10. ‘ … die Dialektik der eschatologischen Existenz bei Paulus ist ersetzt durch die Dialektik der transzendenten Existenz’. E. Gräßer, ‘Kol 3,1-4 als Beispiel einer Interpretation secundum homines recipientes’, 165 (emphasis Gräßer’s). 11. Ibid., 161. 12. e.g. H. Koester, ‘The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment: Philippians III’, NTS 8 (1962), 317–32 (329, n. 2). 13. There have been several comparisons between the baptismal terminology of Rom. 6.5, 8 which uses the future tense, and Col. 2.12, 13; 3.1 which all use the aorist tense. Some conclude that this points to different authors for the two books. See, for example, R. C. Tannehill, Dying and Rising with Christ: A Study in Pauline Theology (BZNW, 32; Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpelmann, 1967), pp. 47–54; E. Käsemann, ‘On the Topic of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic’, in R. W. Funk (ed.), Apocalypticism (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), pp. 99–133 (118–133); E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, pp. 104, 134, n. 13, 180; J. Gnilka, Der Kolosserbrief pp. 171–72. 14. E. Gräßer, ‘Kol 3,1-4 als Beispiel einer Interpretation secundum homines recipientes’, 150–53. Lincoln, however, points out that ‘in both passages there are two poles to Paul’s thinking about resurrection life. That life has been entered on by the believer in union with Christ yet its consummation still lies in the future’. A. T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, p. 122. 15. E. Gräßer, ‘Kol 3,1-4 als Beispiel einer Interpretation secundum homines recipientes’, 159–66.

176


Paul does not deny the future (temporal) hope of Christians in the Resurrection in Col. 3.1-4. He does not use spatial terminology because of a Hellenizing of his own eschatology, but in response to and redefinition of the particular problems caused by the Colossian error. Gräßer has ignored the hiddenness of glory in Jewish apocalyptic (‘the completely unapocalyptic reservation in the wording of verses 3 and 4’ (author’s translation))16 that allows Paul to speak of a current unveiling of that glory and access to heavenly realities without also denying the future reality of the physical Resurrection.17 The future reality is clearly seen in the reference to future glory which will be revealed (fanerwqh/sesqe 3.4) and the wrath of God which is coming (e1rxetai 3.6). This relationship between the hiddenness of glory and the future unveiling of that glory is seen by the use of ga/r in 3.3.18 A connection between the present hiddenness of divine glory and the future manifestation of that glory is seen in Jewish apocalyptic writings, especially 2 Bar. 48.42-52.7. In 2 Bar. 51.8-10 the reality of an invisible and hidden world is identified by means of a parallelismus membrorum: ‘For they shall see that world which is now invisible to them, and they will see a time which is now hidden to them. And time will no longer make them older. For they will live in the heights of that world and they will be like angels and equal to the stars …’ Therefore Levison points out that when Paul commands the Colossians to concentrate on the things above, for that is where their glory is now hidden, awaiting its future revelation, this command is similar to 2 Baruch 48-52, where eschatology serves as the basis for exhortation. In 2 Baruch the readers are exhorted to place their hope not upon the earth but upon the ‘glory which is kept’ for the righteous (48.49), ‘the reward which is preserved’ for them (52.7) and the revelation of immortal life in the world above which is presently invisible to them (5.8-10).19 The interplay between a temporal and spatial eschatology is evident throughout Colossians. The world-view of the things above in 3.1 (ta\ a1nw) is the same as the things to come expressed in 2.17 (tw~n mello/ntwn).20 Although this may show Hellenistic and Platonic influences, it does not lead to a Hellenistic or Gnostic background for the Colossian error. Similar interplays between the present age and the age to come can be seen in Jewish apocalyptic writings where the ages are referred to in spatial terms of lower and upper worlds, respectively. In the Mishnah, within the context of talking about the chariot (Merkabah), the same interplay is seen: The forbidden degrees may not be expounded before three persons, nor the Story of Creation before two, nor [the chapter of] the Chariot before one alone, unless he is

16. 17. 18. 19. 6’, 97. 20.

Ibid., 65. A. T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, p. 132. J. Gnilka, Der Kolosserbrief, p. 174. J. R. Levison, ‘2 Bar. 48.42-52.7 and the apocalyptic dimension of Colossians 3.1See J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 205.


177

a Sage that understands of his own knowledge. Whosoever gives his mind to four things it were better for him if he had not come into the world - what is above? what is beneath? what was before hand? and what will be hereafter? And whosoever takes no thought for the honour of his Maker, it were better for him if he had not come into the world (m. Hag. 2.1 (author’s emphasis)).

The Hebrew Bible itself uses spatial terminology of heaven and earth, as seen in ascending and descending (Gen. 11.5; 28.12; Exod. 19.20; 24.9, 10; Ps. 14.2; Ezek. 1.26; Dan. 7.13).21 The temporal eschatological perspective has not been abandoned in Colossians as can be clearly seen in 3.4 ‘… you will be revealed (fanerwqh/sesqe) with him in glory’, and 3.24 ‘ … since you know that from the Lord you will receive (a0polh/myesqe) the inheritance as your reward’. In the light of the Jewish mystical background to the Colossian philosophy, however, it is appropriate that Paul also uses spatial eschatology to argue for the need of a present heavenly-mindedness. As Lincoln correctly points out: ‘Instead of arguing from the history of God’s dealings with Israel as he does, for example, in Galatians, in Colossians where the major area of concern was the heavenly dimension, Paul changes tactics’.22 The things that are above (ta\ a1nw) within the context of Colossians clearly denote an apocalyptic perspective. This is the only place in Pauline literature where a1nw is used substantively,23 a periphrasis for the noun ou0rano/j which has already been used in 1.5, 16, 20, 23.24 Lincoln suggests that this may point to it being another catchword of the philosophy.25 Paul wanted to refute a wrong sort of heavenly-mindedness, as practised by the Colossian errorists and that resulted in boasting and division, for a correct sort of heavenly-mindedness that resulted in wisdom, humility and unity. In the light of the Colossian error which emphasized heavenly ascents, Paul’s command in 3.1 is very pointed. The Colossian Christians should seek the things which are above (ta\ a1nw zhtei=te) in a way that reflects heavenly realities in their lifestyle. Zhte/w in this context is particularly addressed to the person’s will.26 The present imperative zhtei=te implies the ongoing nature of the seeking, thereby implying that the Colossians had not yet reached perfection.27 The use of the second person plural can be seen as a common

21. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 161. 22. A. T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, p. 131. 23. Although see Gal. 4.26 (h9 de\ a1nw 'Ierousalh\m) and Phil. 3.14 (th=j a1nw klh/sewj) where a1nw is used attributively. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of Historical Research, p. 547; A. T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, p. 123. 24. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 160. 25. A. T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, p. 123. 26. H. Greeven, ‘zhte/w’, in TDNT II, pp. 892–93 (893). 27. See F. Zeilinger, Der Erstgeborene der Schöpfung: Untersuchungen zur Formalstruktur und Theologie des Kolosserbriefes (Wien: Herder, 1974), p. 149, (contra Gräßer).

178


plural, having both a corporate and an individual application. It is not unreasonable that the force of this imperative was to counter the activity of the false teachers who sought the things above through visionary experiences. Christ is described as e0n decia=| tou= qeou= kaqh/menoj, which echoes Ps. 110.1, a passage that is alluded to more often in the New Testament than any other text from the Hebrew Bible.28 This reference is significant due to the lack of other specific allusions to the Hebrew Bible in Colossians, an unusual phenomenon in Pauline writings. Due to the importance of Ps. 110.1 in the New Testament, we need to investigate whether there is a relationship between it and the belief in a second power in heaven within Jewish mysticism, and whether it bears any specific relationship to the Colossian situation. In its original context, ‘The Lord said to my lord, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool”’, Ps. 110.1 is an enthronement oracle addressed to the Davidic king, which laid open the possibility of a later application to the Messiah.29 The reference to the king being at the right hand of God may have been an allusion to the physical situation of the king’s throne to the right (or south) of Solomon’s Temple where God was believed to be enthroned.30 Although we have no firm evidence that this psalm was applied to the Messiah before the time of Christ,31 both Hay32 and Loader33 assert that it was already used in this way before the arrival of Christianity. This theory is strengthened by the reference in Mk 14.61, where in response to the question: ‘Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?’ there is an identification of the one on the right hand of God with the Son of Man of Daniel 7: ‘Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power”; and “coming with the clouds of heaven”’ (NRSV). This association shows not only the possibility of messianic expectation from Ps. 110.1 but also an association between this psalm and the eschatological figure of the Son of Man of Daniel 7, who was of significant importance to Jewish mystical movements. When Ps. 110.1 is used in the New Testament, it clearly refers to the heavenly rule of Jesus.34 In 1 Cor. 15.25 this rule is applied particularly to the

28. D. M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS, 18; Nashville: Abingdon, 1973), p. 15; D. H. Juel, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), pp. 135–50; J. Daniélou, ‘La Session à la droite du Père’, in K. Aland et al. SE I, (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1959), pp. 689–98; W. R. G. Loader, ‘Christ at the Right Hand – Ps. CX.1 in the New Testament’, NTS 24 (1977), 199–217. 29. W. R. G. Loader, ‘Christ at the Right Hand – Ps. CX.1 in the New Testament’, 199. 30. W. Grundmann, ‘decio/j’, in TDNT, II, pp. 37–40 (39, n. 9). 31. W. R. G. Loader, ‘Christ at the Right Hand – Ps. CX.1 in the New Testament’, 199. 32. Hay says: ‘The universal opinion of early Christians that the psalm is messianic is readily explained if Jews of that period commonly took that view’. D. M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand, p. 30. 33. W. R. G. Loader, ‘Christ at the Right Hand – Ps. CX.1 in the New Testament’, 199. 34. See W. R. G. Loader, ‘Christ at the Right Hand – Ps. CX.1 in the New Testament’, 202–08.


179

subjection of foes. In Heb. 1.3-4, the heavenly session of Christ at the right hand of God is seen as a mark of Christ’s superiority to the angelic realm. In 1 Pet. 3.22, Christ’s session at the right hand of the Father is an indication that angelic powers (a0gge/lwn kai\ e0cousiw~n kai\ duna/mewn) are subjected to him. D. M. Hay concludes his monograph with the following comment on Psalm 110: … all the functions can be readily grouped into four major categories: expressions of the idea that Jesus or Christians sit at God’s right hand, the use of the psalm to support particular christological titles, its use to affirm the subjection of powers to Christ, and its employment regarding his heavenly intercession or priesthood. Further, all these functions can be collapsed into one: early Christians chiefly employed the psalm to articulate the supreme glory, the divine transcendence, of Jesus, through whom salvation was mediated. It was primarily used as a symbol not of his saving work but of his ultimate status.35

From the New Testament’s usage of Ps. 110.1, the injunction to ‘seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God’ (Col. 3.1 (NRSV)) would carry with it certain implications in the light of the Colossian philosophy. Of primary importance is that Christ’s session at the right hand of God means that the angelic realm, whether heavenly or demonic, has been subjected to him. This is shown by the proximity of Christ’s throne to that of God, and that it occupies the place of highest honour: the right hand side. In the light of this, in Col. 3.1 the motivation for seeking the things above is to be Christologically driven, rather than motivated by a concern for angelic beings. The practical implication of this is that the orientation of the Christian’s life should be directed to Christ, not to angelic beings. Paul focuses the attention of his readers on the fact that heaven is the place where Christ is (ou[ o9 Xristo/j e0stin). ‘Thus the motivation for the upward direction and heavenly orientation of the believer’s life is Christological’.36 Since heavenly life is resurrection life, the way to engage in this life is by being ‘in Christ’ and living accordingly. This follows the normal Pauline pattern of an imperative being based on an indicative. As Lincoln correctly summarizes: the imperative zhtei=te in this context is to provide a counterpart to the Colossians’ energetic activity in achieving visionary experience … This injunction is addressed to all the community. It is not just a special group of initiates who by their own techniques have access to the heavenly realm, but all those who, through faith and as proclaimed in baptism, have been raised with Christ.37

The exhortation of v.1 is repeated in v.2, again in the present tense (ta\ a1nw fronei=te, mh\ ta\ e0pi\ th=j gh=j). Frone/w means to ‘set one’s mind on, be intent on’.38 The force of the verse is an ‘injunction to be heavenly-minded instead of 35. 36. 37. 38.

D. M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand, p. 155. A. T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, p. 124. Ibid. s.v. ‘frone/w’, BDAG, pp. 1065–66.

180


earthly-minded’.39 It is clear that the use of fronei=n indicates something more than visionary experiences.40 As Dunn states: ‘ … what is commended is not an apocalyptic or mystical preoccupation with the furniture of heaven, as 3.1 could be taken to imply … but a cast of mind, a settled way of looking at things, a sustained devotion to and enactment of a life cause’.41 P. T. O’Brien states: ‘frone/w thus expresses not simply an activity of the intellect, but also a movement of the will; it has to do with aims and the motives underlying them’.42 The spatial contrast between ta\ a1nw and\ ta\ e0pi\ th=j gh=j functions very differently for Paul from that of the Colossian philosophy. For Paul, it is not metaphysical in that God belongs to the upper level and it is necessary to escape the lower, material realm in order to ascend to him. For Paul, the distinction between above and below is because of Christ’s exaltation in heaven and Adam’s fall on earth. Therefore heaven becomes the place of the rule of Christ (3.1), for life (3.3), for the new self (3.10), whereas earth becomes the theatre of sin due to the fall of Genesis 3 (Gen. 3.17 LXX e0pikata/ratoj h9 gh=).43 In this context, the contrast between heaven and earth is not topographical but ethical.44 As Lincoln summarizes: ‘ta\ e0pi\ th=j gh=j include then the practices of the old man (3.5-9), the sphere of the flesh (2.18, 23), life in the “world” with its bondage to the elemental spirits (2.20) and in particular the ascetic regulations, the visions and the claims to special knowledge involved in the false teaching’.45 The irony of this verse becomes apparent with our exegesis of 2.8-23. The desire of the errorists was to witness the worship rendered by angels; however, this is not a heavenly pursuit, but worldly, as it focuses on regulations that are destined to perish (2.22). Indeed, the ascetic practices required for such an ascent resulted in enslavement to ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou (2.8, 20). This logically results in a perspective that, although it outwardly talked of heaven, was in reality earthly (tou= ko/smou). Paul is exhorting the Colossians not to abandon a heavenly perspective, but to have such a perspective that has both a starting point and destination that is ta\ a1nw.46 Instead of a perspective that begins with perishable regulations and ends with boasting of spirituality, the true perspective of ta\ a1nw begins and ends with Christ and finds its

39. A. T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, p. 125. 40. Ibid. 41. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 205. 42. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 163. 43. A. T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, p. 126. 44. Elsewhere Paul uses the term gh= and e0pi/geioj without negative overtones (1 Cor. 15.47; 2 Cor. 5.1, 2; Phil. 2.10). 45. A. T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, p. 126. 46. Levison sees ta\ a1nw as an allusion to the angelic host of heaven. J. R. Levison, ‘2 Bar. 48.42-52.7 and the apocalyptic dimension of Colossians 3.1-6’, 100. Dunn, however, comments that this would give too much ground to the practitioners of angel worship (2.18, 23) and ignores the obvious emphasis that Christ is the focus of ta\ a1nw. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 206, n. 9.


181

outworking in behaviour that reflects the heavenly reality. The goal of heavenly-mindedness is focused on Christ, not angels; the basis of this heavenly perspective is union with the resurrected Christ rather than union with angelic worship. It could be argued that telling the Colossians to concentrate on things above is unwise in the light of their preoccupation with the things of heaven. However, Paul’s approach is typical of his overall method. As Chadwick argues: ‘They were positively obsessed with ta\ a1nw. Paul will not discourage their upward look, but wishes to direct it even higher … What we have here is one more instance of the typically Pauline method of outclassing his opponents on their own ground’.47 Paul uses spatial terms of above and below because these are the categories of the philosophy being espoused in Colossae. Paul does not deny the heavenly realm; however, he redirects the attention of the Colossians and reminds them that legalistic external observances could only bring people into contact with the earthly realm. Therefore, as Lincoln summarizes: … the advocates of the philosophy take the earthly situation as their starting-point from which by their own efforts and techniques they will ascend into the heavenlies. Paul moves in the reverse direction, since he sees the starting-point and source of the believer’s life in the resurrected Christ in heaven, from where it works itself out into earthly life (3.5ff) and from where it will eventually be revealed for what it is (3.4).48

3. Temporal Eschatology as Motivation for Ethics: Colossians 3.3-4 In Col. 3.3, 4, Paul’s emphasis changes from a spatial eschatology to a temporal eschatology. Verse 3 looks to the past (a0peqa/nete, ke/kruptai) whereas v.4 is oriented towards the future (fanerwqh/sesqe). This temporal contrast is heightened by a structural parallelism as illustrated in Table 10.1. Table 10.1 v.3 (Past) a a0peqa/nete ga\r b kai\ h9 zwh\ u9mw~n c ke/kruptai su\n tw~| Xristw~| d e0n tw~| qew~:|

47. (272). 48. 49.

v.4 (Future) a o{tan o9 Xristo\j fanerwqh=|, b h9 zwh\ h9mw~n, c to/te kai\ u9mei=j su\n au0tw~| fanerwqh/sesqe d e0n doch|:49

H. Chadwick, ‘All Things to All Men (1 COR. ix. 22)’, NTS 1 (1955), 261–75 A. T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, p. 127. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, pp. 158–59.

182


Paul gives an explanation of true heavenly-mindedness by focusing on the believer’s link with Christ. The aorist a0peqa/nete points to the metaphorical death of Christians, as signified in baptism (2.12), whereby they associate with the real death of Christ.50 This death involves putting to death the old way of life, as just explained in ta\ e0pi\ th=j gh=j. The death of Christ was the means whereby the powers and authorities were disarmed (2.15), guilt was removed (2.14) and new life was bestowed (2.13). Christians have been incorporated into this death (2.11, 12), the implication of which is that they have died to the influence of sin. The Christian’s life is now identified with Christ as seen in the clause: h9 zwh\ u9mw~n ke/kruptai su\n tw~| Xristw~| e0n tw~| qew~|. In Paul’s writings, zwh/ and cognates are often used for the life of the age to come which is received at the Resurrection (e.g. Rom. 6.8, 23; 8.11, 13), and which, through the Resurrection of Christ, has become a present reality (Rom. 6.4; 8.2; 2 Cor. 4.10, 11). This is reminiscent of Col. 2.13 where there is reference to the regeneration of the Colossian Christians (sunezwopoi/hsen u9ma=j su\n autw~|). Therefore here in Col. 3.3, 4 both the present reality and the future expectation are involved. That which is currently hidden (v.3), in terms of Resurrection life, will be revealed at the Parousia (v.4).51 The verb kru&ptw is a reference to the divine mystery (1.26), who is identified as Christ himself in Col. 2.2, who was hidden ‘… but has now been revealed to the saints’ (1.26). This idea of being hidden and being revealed would have been of special interest to Jewish mystics whose goal was to enter the ‘hiddenness’ of heaven. Central to apocalyptic was the view that certain events had been hidden in God’s eternal purposes but were now revealed to the seer. In 1 En. 46.3 the angel answers Enoch’s question about the identity of ‘the One to whom belongs the time before time’ by saying: ‘This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells. And he will open all the hidden storerooms …’ Paul declares that the knowledge of such hidden things is not just the property of members of an elite group who claim special knowledge due to an ascent to heaven, but of all who are in Christ. Paul is making the point that, since the believer is incorporated with Christ and hidden with Christ in God,52 the believer’s life is already a heavenly life.53 Such incorporation and hiddenness is historical and not mystical. God’s plan of salvation has been fulfilled in Christ through his death and Resurrection. Therefore that which had been hidden for ages has been revealed (1.26, 27), although Paul points out that Christians still await the final revelation of Christ’s Parousia (3.4).54 50. See J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 206. 51. A. T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, p. 128. 52. The phrase e0n tw~| qew~| modifies both zwh/ and the immediately preceding su\n tw~| Xristw~|. Accordingly, the Colossian Christian’s life is already hidden in God because it is incorporated in Christ, who is, himself, God. 53. See R. C. Tannehill, Dying and Rising with Christ: A Study in Pauline Theology, p. 48. 54. A. T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, p. 129.


183

It would appear that fanero/w is used in 3.4 as the antithesis of kru&ptw in 3.3 thereby emphasizing the contrast is between present hiddenness ‘with Christ’ and future revelation. The fullness of life in Christ will be neither seen mystically nor metaphysically revealed, but is displayed historically at the crucifixion, Resurrection and the Parousia. The ongoing effects of this life that is hidden in Christ are brought out by the perfect tense (ke/kruptai) and will be outlined as moral exhortations that reflect the heavenly reality. It appears that Paul is giving a corrective to those involved in Jewish mystical practices. Rather than the ascent of an ascetic in order to behold the heavenly glory and partake in heavenly worship, the basis of the Christian’s participation with the things of heaven is to be hidden with Christ through the historical events of Christ’s death and Resurrection.55 This is not an invitation to live a life of ‘other-worldly’ mystical ascent, but a life firmly grounded in everyday reality. It does not require some form of asceticism to raise one to heaven, for that has been accomplished through the Resurrection of Christ. It was not a new filosofi/a that was needed, for wisdom is hidden in Christ. All depends on Christ, which is emphasized by the use of o9 Xristo/j in 3.4, the fourth mention of Xristo/j in as many verses, when the personal pronoun would have been more natural. Paul’s desire is to emphasize that true Christian existence is found ‘with Christ’ alone.56 It can be seen from the above that Paul has not abandoned a temporally based ‘now/not yet’ eschatological time frame. This is further reflected in the final clause, to/te kai\ u9mei=j su\n au0tw~| fanerwqh/sesqe e0n do/ch|. The glory that is referred to here is the glory that Adam lost and that is now hidden in Christ and points to a final amalgamation of the earthly and heavenly spheres.57 The manifestation of this glory is not something that can be gained by human effort as shown by the divine passives fanerwqh|= and fanerwqh/sesqe. This future expectation of ‘glory’ could be seen as countering the visionaries’ desire for a present revelation of glory. This future manifestation will be shown e0n do/ch|, a particular goal of heavenly voyagers (note the final position for emphasis).58 The desire of the Colossian errorists to observe angelic worship shows their failure to recognize that the revelation of such glory is the work of God and centred on the work of Christ. Their elitism shows that they do not appreciate that all believers will be included in this manifestation.59

55. Ibid., p. 128. 56. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, pp. 166–67. 57. For a discussion on the catchword ‘glory’ in Jewish apocalyptic literature see K. Koch, The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic, pp. 32–33. 58. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 167. 59. J. R. Levison, ‘2 Bar. 48.42-52.7 and the apocalyptic dimension of Colossians 3.16’, 102.

184

Heavenly Perspective 4. Conclusion

In the absence of any indication within Colossians that Paul is dealing with multiple and unrelated issues, the epistle must be seen as one integrated piece of writing with the paraenetic sections relating to doctrinal and polemic teaching. It is therefore incumbent upon a proponent of a particular view on the nature of the Colossian philosophy to show how the theme of the philosophy is referred to throughout the letter. In Col. 3.1-4 there is a clear relationship to the preceding chapters by similar vocabulary and ideas. Paul is thus beginning his paraenetic section in a way that uses the terminology of his opponents to show their error. Due to the nature of his opponents, Paul speaks in both spatial and temporal eschatological terms. This does not point to a Hellenizing of Paul’s eschatological views, but is consistent with a form of Jewish mysticism that looked at the possibility of immediate ascent to heaven. In the context of the errorists’ focus on heaven, Paul’s desire was to redirect the attention of his opponents from angelic beings to Jesus Christ, the one who is seated on the right hand of God. This redirection is imperative because the errorists’ desire for heaven led them to focus on earthly regulations and the elements of the world. In contrast to this, true heavenly-mindedness does not result in asceticism, nor in the formation of elite groups; heavenly-mindedness results in ethical behaviour that reflects the values and reality of heaven. This behaviour is worked out in everyday lives. The motivation for this heavenly behaviour is temporal, as both the past death and Resurrection of Christ and the future glorification of Christians are highlighted. Colossians 3.1-4 therefore not only summarizes Paul’s arguments so far and confirms a background of Jewish mysticism to the problem being addressed, but also introduces the concluding paraenesis of the letter and ties it firmly to the teaching that has already been given.

Chapter 11

EPISTOLARY PARAENESIS Epistolary paraenesis was a common literary genre in the first century CE.1 This genre was adopted by the apostle Paul, for whom theology and ethics were indivisibly related. It is thus not surprising that over a third of the Colossian letter is concerned with practical exhortations which refer to the theology that is expounded and the errors of doctrine that are corrected. It is the purpose of this chapter to show the relationship of these exhortations to Paul’s primary task of correcting the Colossian philosophy. The chapter will show this interrelationship by looking at three major themes in the letter: revelation, victory and reconciliation. It is acknowledged that these categories are arbitrary and other divisions may be equally valid, but they are used both for ease of argument and to illustrate Paul’s paraenetic task throughout the letter. It is not the purpose of this chapter to undertake a detailed exegesis of many of these exhortations, such as the household code, nor to discuss every reference to ethical teaching, but to show that Paul’s response to the Jewish mystical practices of the Colossian errorists was both paraenetic and doctrinal, and to show how paraenesis is threaded throughout the letter. An assumption has often been made that the paraenetic section of Colossians is found in chs 3 and 4, and that theology is found in chs 1 and 2.2 This, however, drives too distinct a wedge between theology and paraenesis. It will be seen that sections of Colossians 1 and 2 are strongly paraenetic. Indeed, Walter Wilson has divided the letter according to the types of paraenesis used. He sees 1.3-2.7 as paraenetic affirmations, 2.8-23 as paraenetic correction, and 3.1-4.6 as paraenetic exhortation, with 1.1-2 and 4.7-18 giving an epistolary framework to the letter.3 The paraenetic exhortations of 3.5-4.6 can be further

1. See S. K. Stowers, Letter-Writing in the Greco-Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), pp. 94–106, for a discussion of this epistolary genre. 2. See, for example, R. C. Lucas, Fullness and Freedom: The Message of Colossians and Philemon (Leicester: IVP, 1980), p. 132, who divides the letter as ‘an exposition of Christ and the gospel with an explanation of what it means to live in the world consistently with such truth’. 3. W. T. Wilson, The Hope of Glory, p. 229. Wilson compares this structure with Seneca’s Epistulae Morales 16.

186


divided into three sections of ethical material: lists of vices and virtues, the household code, and proverbial, ethical sayings.4 In arguing for a relationship of the paraenetic sections of Colossians to the more theological sections, it does not necessarily follow that Paul did not adopt a contemporary paraenetic formula. P. Carrington, for example, has suggested that the material in Colossians, Ephesians and James could be classified under the headings ‘put off’, ‘submit’, ‘watch’ and ‘resist’, and therefore points to the existence of a pre-Pauline list of exhortations which are reflected in several lists of vices and virtues in the New Testament.5 Although there have been many attempts to trace these lists to an extraBiblical source, no consensus has been reached.6 The common features within these lists may simply reflect different instances of the same situation, where people living in a Gentile environment had converted to Christianity and therefore faced similar battles of discarding their pre-Christian past and living a consistent Christian life. Although general exhortations do appear within the Colossian letter, such as 4.2-6 where Paul gives final and general exhortations, most of the paraenesis of the letter is concerned with the primary issue of the epistle: the Colossian philosophy. It is unlikely that Paul had visited the Colossians at the time of writing them his letter, therefore he was not interacting with previous teaching. Furthermore, we have no suggestion that he was responding to a number of pastoral needs as is the case in the Corinthian correspondence.7 Our major concern, therefore, is to understand the relationship between the philosophy as already defined and paraenetic exhortations.

4. This is the division of R. Yates, ‘The Christian Way of Life: The Paraenetic Material in Colossians 3.1-4.6’, EvQ 63 (1991), 241–51 (242). Lähnemann divides Colossians 3 and 4 according to the type of paraenesis: 3.1-4 states the basic foundation of the paraenesis (die Grundlegung der Paränese); 3.5-17 contains lists of vices and virtues (die Katalogparänese); 3.18-4.1 consists of the household code (die Haustafel); 4.2-6 gives concluding admonitions (schließlich die Mahnungen). J. Lähnemann, Der Kolosserbrief, p. 54. Martin divides the paraenesis according to the metaphors used: 3.1-7 elaborates the death/ resurrection metaphor; 3.8-17 uses the clothing metaphor; 3.18-4.6 develops the household metaphor. T. W. Martin, By Philosophy and Empty Deceit, p. 192, n. 3. 5. P. Carrington, The Primitive Christian Catechism: A Study in the Epistles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1940), pp. 30–44. See also E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter (London: Macmillan, 1946), pp. 384–439, who in an appended essay compares the ethical sections of Romans, Colossians, Ephesians, 1 Peter and James. See the lists in G. E. Cannon, The Use of Traditional Material in Colossians (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983), pp. 54–60; D. E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987), pp. 194–97. 6. B. S. Easton, ‘New Testament Ethical Lists’, JBL 51 (1932), 1–12, argues for a Stoic pre-Pauline source; P. Carrington, The Primitive Christian Catechism, pp. 13–21, sees a Jewish proselyte catechism. Similar lists of ethics appear in the Didache 1-6; the Epistle to Barnabas 18-20 and in the Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g. 1QS3.13-26). 7. See, for example, 1 Cor. 1.11; 7.1.

Epistolary Paraenesis

187

1. Revelation The major problem with the Colossian philosophy was that individuals were boasting of their access to the heavenly court whereby they gained specific revelation with which they could teach others. The problem with this teaching was that it was grounded in a form of revelation that was both very subjective and open to abuse. Paul is keen to show the difference between such revelation and authoritative, apostolic revelation. He commences this theme in the opening verses of the epistle, where, within the customary epistolary prescript of author(s), recipients and a brief salutation, he emphasizes his apostolic status in his self-designation as a0po/stoloj Xristou= Ihsou= 0 dia\ qelh/matoj qeou=. a. Colossians 1.9-14 Paul continues the theme of revelation in 1.9-14. The content of his prayer is concerned with revelation as shown by the i3na clause of v.9b (i3na plhrwqh=te th\n e00pi/gnwsin tou= qelh/matoj au0tou= e0n pa/sh| sofi/a| kai\ sune/sei pneumatikh|=). The idea of ‘fullness’ (plhrwqh=te) that appears in this verse seems to be an attack on the errorists who claimed to offer the Colossians the fullness of truth, based on their (supposed) spiritual maturity and heavenly ascents. It would appear that the errorists denied the sufficiency of Epaphras’ instruction, which they claimed was only concerned with the first steps of the faith.8 In v.9, Paul is keen to show that true revelation is not by human effort but by divine initiative, which is expressed by the divine passive plhrwqh=te.9 The object of plhrwqh=te is th\n e00pi/gnwsin, which again appears to refute the Colossian error. As O’Brien correctly observes: ‘His use of e00pi/gnwsij here might be by way of contrast with the much-canvassed gnosis of the heretics’.10 The knowledge for which Paul prayed was intended to lead to correct behaviour as seen by the infinitive of purpose peripath=sai (v.10). As opposed to some esoteric revelation that was typical of Jewish mystical movements, that described the furniture of heaven or angelic function before the throne, Paul is concerned for a revelation that results in lives that are worthy of the Lord and bear fruit in every good work (v.10). For the Jew, the knowledge of God’s will came from the law (Rom. 2.18), but now this knowledge is seen in terms of walking by the Spirit.11 The source of this knowledge is not a spiritual ascent, but the Spirit as seen in the

8. P. T. O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul (NovTSup, 49; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977), p. 84. 9. G. Delling, ‘plhro/w’, in TDNT, VI, pp. 286–98 (291); E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 25. 10. P. T. O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul, p. 86. 11. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 70; P. T. O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul, p. 87. See similar New Testament references to the Spirit in Rom. 8.4, 13, 14; Gal. 5.16, 18, 25.

188


adjective pneumatikh=| (v.9). This association between knowledge and wisdom and the Spirit is often seen in the Hebrew Bible (Exod. 31.3; 35.31; Deut. 34.9; 2 Chron 1.10-12; Isa. 11.2),12 as is the demand for inward obedience, rather than following external laws (Deut. 10.16; 31.31-34; Ezek. 36.26-27).13 As Christians walk in obedience to the revealed will of God, they give thanks for the blessings they have received as a result of their salvation (vv.12-14) as they endure everything with patience (v.11). As Sappington comments: ‘Such a pattern of thought leaves little room for Christians to participate in the mystical practices advocated by the Colossian errorists’.14 The knowledge that Paul desires for the Colossians is different from that of the errorists. He prays for a knowledge that is based on wisdom (sofi/a|) and understanding (sune/sei), that is spiritual (pneumatikh|=) and that results in ethical behaviour. The errorists’ understanding of knowledge was merely an appearance of wisdom (lo/gon sofi/aj 2.23) and resulted in claims of superior spirituality and division within the congregation. b. Colossians 1.25-29 The concept of revelation through apostolic commission is referred to again in 1.25 (h[j e0geno/mhn e0gw\ dia/konoj kata\ th\n oi0konomi/an tou= qeou=) . The meaning of oi0konomi/an in 1.25 has generated much discussion. Some, such as Lohse,15 Michel,16 Dibelius and Greeven,17 and Reuman18 see the term referring to Paul’s apostolic office, whereas Lohmeyer19 and O’Brien,20 on the basis of the parallels in Eph. 1.10; 3.9, see it as a reference to God’s administration or plan. These two concepts are closely related, as any apostolic commission must be in accordance with the divine plan.21 It would appear, however, that the second half of the verse (th\n doqei=san moi ei0j u9ma=j plhrw~sai to\n lo/gon tou= qeou=) would support the concept of being called to apostolic office. The purpose of Paul’s office is to reveal the mystery (musth/rion 1.26, 27) of the gospel which was hidden throughout ages and generations but has now been revealed. The process of revelation here is not through some Hellenistic mystery religion where the uninitiated are denied access to knowledge, nor is

12. P. T. O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul, p. 86, n. 95. 13. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 70. 14. T. J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, p. 183. 15. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 72. 16. Michel translates 1.25: ‘ … according to the divine office towards you with which God has commissioned me … ’ O. Michel, ‘oi9konomi/a’, in TDNT, V, 151–53 (152). 17. M. Dibelius and H. Greeven, An die Kolosser, Epheser, an Philemon, pp. 23–24. 18. J. Reumann, ‘“Stewards of God” – Pre-Christian Religious Application of OIKONOMOS in Greek’, JBL 77 (1958), 339–49, explains the term against the background of its religious connotations in the Graeco-Roman world. 19. E. Lohmeyer, Die Briefe an die Philipper, Kolosser und an Philemon, pp. 79–80. 20. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, pp. 81–82. 21. T. J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, p. 183.


189

it the revelation resulting from a mystical ascent.22 The means of revelation are clear: it comes first to the apostle and then to those who hear and respond to his message.23 The content of the mystery is defined as o3j e0stin Xristo\j e0n u9mi=n, h9 e0lpi\j th=j do/chj (1.27). The means of participation and incorporation into the divine glory is by mystical union with Christ (Xristo\j e0n u9mi=n).24 The purpose of Paul declaring this mystery to all is expressed by te/leioj (1.28 i3na parasth/swmen pa/nta a1nqrwpon te/leion e0n Xristw~|), a word that has a wide range of meaning.25 Among its meanings it could designate ‘a man who was deemed worthy of special experiences of the divine by means of an appropriation of ‘spirit’ (pneu=ma) or by initiation into mysteries’.26 Lightfoot understood the term according to its use in the Hellenistic mystery initiation and later Gnosticism ‘to distinguish the possessor of the higher gnw~sij from the vulgar herd of believers’.27 Lightfoot argues that Paul then applies this term to Christianity: ‘The true Gospel also has its mysteries, its hierophants, its initiations: but these are open to all alike. In Christ every believer is te/leioj’.28 An understanding of te/leioj that points to Greek mystery initiation, however, may not be the most helpful in our understanding of the Colossian philosophy. Of relevance to our study, which focuses on the Jewish background to the philosophy, is the fact that te/leioj is used twenty times in the LXX, often rendering Ml# (e.g. 1 Kgs 8.61; 11.4) or Mymt (e.g. Gen. 6.9, 10) to denote that which is whole. It is therefore used of the person who is wholly turned to God.29 In the Qumran writings Mymt is used of the members of the community who are perfect through keeping the divine law (1QS 1.8; 2.2; 8.20).30 In the New Testament there is also an association between 22. The Semitic nature of musth/rion in this context is acknowledged. See R. E. Brown, The Semitic Background of the Term ‘Mystery’ in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968), pp. 52–56; P. Benoit, ‘Qumran and the New Testament: Paul and Qumran Studies’, 23–24; J. Coppens, ‘“Mystery” in the Theology of Saint Paul and its Parallels at Qumran’, in J. Murphy-O’Connor (ed.), Paul and Qumran (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1968), pp. 132–58. 23. T. J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, p. 185. 24. Commentators are divided over the translation of e0n in this clause. Some see it as a reference to e0n toi=j e]qnesin e.g. T. K. Abbott, Epistle to the Ephesians and Colossians, p. 235; C. F. D. Moule, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 85; E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 76. Others see e0n u9mi=n as a reference to the mystical union between Christ and his followers: M. Dibelius and H. Greeven, An die Kolosser, Epheser, an Philemon, p. 24; G. Bornkamm, ‘musth/rion’, in TDNT, IV, p. 820; P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 87. Although the latter interpretation seems preferable, either rendering would show that the means of attaining the hope of glory was to be in Christ, whether those addressed were Gentiles or Christians in general. 25. For a survey of different meanings see P. J. Du Plessis, TELEIOS, The Idea of Perfection in the New Testament (Kampen: Kok, 1959), pp. 36–121. 26. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 78. Lohse cites Corpus Hermeticum 4.4. 27. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 169. 28. Ibid. 29. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 89. 30. H. Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten Qumrangemeinde (SUNT, 15; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1980).

190


perfection and the will of God (Rom. 12.2; Mt. 5.48; Jas 1.4, 25; 3.2) which is brought out specifically in Col. 4.12 where perfection is associated with the will of God (i3na staqh=te te/leioi kai\ peplhroforhme/noi e0n panti\ qelh/mati tou= qeou=). From 1.22 it would appear that the time frame for presenting each person perfect is at the Parousia.31 This desire for perfection therefore means a person who is wholly turned to God. It refers to the ethical and practical result of a relationship with Christ; it is not for an elite group within the congregation, but for every person (pa/nta a1nqrwpon), and is the final result of revelation. c. Colossians 2.2-3 Paul continues the theme of revelation in Col. 2.2, 3 where he expresses his desire that the Colossians might ‘have the knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge’ (NRSV). A. J. Bandstra has looked at the expression oi9 qhsauroi\ th=j sofi/aj kai\ gnw/sewj in v.3 and concludes that, due to the lack of an exact parallel expression, it must come from the opponents at Colossae.32 Some have therefore seen an allusion to Gnosticism. W. D. Davies, for example, refers to ‘a side-glance at the shibboleths of Gnosticism’33 although he admits that the essential ideas underlying Paul’s proclamation were derived from Judaism. F. Hauck argues it is ‘not impossible that the expression chosen in Col. 2.3 … is influenced by current Gnostic terminology’.34 The parallels to Gnosticism to which Hauck refers, however, do not speak of ‘treasures of wisdom and knowledge’ but to ‘treasures of light’. 35 Bandstra therefore concludes that ‘there is little direct evidence to support the Gnostic character of the expression used’.36 Similar attempts to find a parallel expression in Greek or early Christian sources have also proven futile.37 In the light of this, it is all the more remarkable that there are two occurrences of a parallel phrase in 2 Baruch that would point to a Jewish mystical background to the expression. Referring to the throne of God, 2 Bar. 54.13 says: ‘For with your counsel, you reign over all creation which your right hand has created, and you have established the whole fountain of light with yourself, and you have prepared

31. F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians, p. 79; contra Lohse who sees here a development from Paul’s earlier eschatological views and sees Col. 1.22 as a reference to the present requirement for conduct that is according to the will of God. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 65. 32. A. J. Bandstra, ‘Did the Colossian errorists need a mediator?’, p. 340. 33. W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, p. 173. 34. F. Hauck, ‘qhsauro/j’, in TDNT, III, 136-38 (138). 35. Ibid. 36. A. J. Bandstra, ‘Did the Colossian errorists need a mediator?’, p. 341. 37. See Ibid., p. 341, n. 70, for similar expressions in the writings of Plato, Xenophon, Philo and Clement of Alexandria. None of these, however, is an exact parallel nor a likely source of the phrase used in Col. 2.3.


191

under your throne the treasures of wisdom’ (italics mine). This association between wisdom and the throne of God is also found in Wis. 9.10, where God’s throne is identified as the place from which wisdom is sent. As has already been noted, the throne of God is the focal point of Jewish mystical movements. When Paul identifies Christ as the place where such treasure can be found in Col. 2.3, he is not only making a significant Christological statement, he is also stating the source of divine revelation. Another passage in 2 Baruch which gives a further parallel to Col. 2.3 is 2 Bar. 44.14: ‘These are they who prepared for themselves treasures of wisdom. And stores of insight are found with them …’ (italics mine). As has already been noted, 2 Baruch is typical of Jewish apocalyptic writings that speak of obtaining wisdom through heavenly ascent. On the assumption that Paul is quoting his opponents in 2.3, there is a clear claim that such revelation, wisdom and eschatological salvation come not by individual ascent to heaven, but can be found through Christ alone. In 2 Baruch, the knowledge of divine mysteries is limited to a few.38 This aspect of a few people claiming superiority based on special revealed knowledge is consistent with what we know of Jewish mystical movements and with our reconstruction of the Colossian error. To counter this, in Col. 2.2-3 Paul asserts that the knowledge of God’s mystery is revealed in Christ, and in 1.26 this mystery has now been revealed to all Christians (nu=n de\ e0fanerw/qh toi=j a9gi/oij au0tou=). d. Revelation – Conclusion It can be concluded that Paul is concerned with the issue of revelation as a key problem of the Colossian errorists. In the light of the Colossian error where a few people were claiming special revelation, Paul clearly affirms that revelation is available to all through Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (2.3). There is no need for further revelation. Paul’s understanding of authoritative divine revelation is that it is mediated through apostolic commission. He therefore reasserts his own apostolic authority and thereby shows why the Colossians should listen to his arguments. Such revelation leads to union with Christ. The Colossian errorists relied on revelation that was mediated through angels and dependent on human effort and therefore fell short of leading to union with Christ. Therefore those who follow the Colossian philosophy are dependent on lesser beings, created by God in and for Christ. Furthermore, God has triumphed over evil angels in the death of Jesus (2.15) rendering their regulations meaningless.39 Those who are ‘in Christ’ not only have a ‘superior’ revelation than the errorists, in that it is apostolic, but also have ‘superior’ access to the divine throne. Such teaching clearly disarms the errorists’ claims of superior spirituality. 38. 39.

A. J. Bandstra, ‘Did the Colossian errorists need a mediator?’, p. 342. W. T. Wilson, The Hope of Glory, p. 186.

192

Heavenly Perspective 2. Victory

The world view of Paul and his Colossian readers is both cosmic and terrestrial. On the one hand Paul assumes the existence of an invisible spiritual world, on the other, the visible things of earth. This all-encompassing world view is well summarized in 1.16: ta\ pa/nta e0n toi=j ou0ranoi=j kai\ e0pi\ th=j gh=j.40 There is, therefore, the presupposition of an invisible, divine, spiritual world of which the earthly world is a reflection. Included in this spiritual world are beings who, although part of God’s creation, are opposed to God and Christ and therefore in need of reconciliation with their creator.41 Wedderburn summarizes: ‘The author of Colossians probably thus in large measure shares the world-view of Jewish apocalyptic and mystical writings and of his or her opponents, that of a hidden upper world that already exists now, into which the faithful may penetrate in some fashion or other … or through the presence there already of that Christ with whom Christians are already firmly united’.42 Part of this dualistic worldview is that there is an interactive dimension between the terrestrial and the celestial. The victory in the celestial realm over the source of evil, namely the principalities and powers, needs to be reflected in the terrestrial realm in the defeat of sin in the life of the believer. Paul therefore personalizes cosmic victory and applies it to the life of the Colossian Christians. a. Colossians 1.12-14 The victory of Christ over the cosmic realm can be seen clearly in Col. 1.1214. Before dealing with this section, it is necessary to solve the dilemma of its relationship to that which precedes it: Paul’s prayer of thanksgiving, and that which follows it: 1.15-20. The traditional view, which is held by scholars such as Schubert, 43 Radford,44 Moule,45 Gibbs,46 and O’Brien,47 is that 1.12-14 concludes Paul’s 40. On Paul’s world view see W. A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), pp. 164–92; J. Becker, Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles (trans. O. C. Dean; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), pp. 373–449. 41. W. T. Wilson, The Hope of Glory, p. 184. That such beings are part of the world view of the apostle is clear from Rom. 8.38-39; 1 Cor. 8.5, 10.20-21; Gal. 3.19; 4.3; Eph. 1.21; 6.12. 42. A. T. Lincoln and A. J. M. Wedderburn, The Theology of Later Pauline Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 52–53. 43. P. Schubert, Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgiving (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1939), p. 93. 44. L. B. Radford, The Epistle to the Colossians and the Epistle to Philemon (London: Methuen, 1946), pp. 160–61. 45. C. F. D. Moule, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 55–58. 46. J. G. Gibbs, Creation and Redemption, p. 101. 47. P. T. O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgiving in the Letters of Paul, pp. 73–75.


193

thanksgiving prayer with eu0xaristou=ntej functioning adverbially as a further definition of peripath=sai a0ci/wj of 1.10. The second view, which has been discussed in Chapter 9 of this monograph, is that proposed by E. Norden, namely that 1.12 commences the hymnic section, rather than 1.15.48 E. Lohse follows this view49 as does E. Käsemann, who argues that vv.12-14 introduce vv.15-20 which he sees as a redacted baptismal liturgy.50 G. Bornkamm argues that 1.12-20 is one section, which finds its source in a eucharistic context.51 There are several problems, however, with the views of Norden, Käsemann, Bornkamm and Lohse. They divide an otherwise coherent section of 1.9-12. In 1.10-12 Paul lists four participles, karpoforou=ntej, au0cano/menoi, dunamou/menoi and eu0xaristou=ntej, to define what it means to walk worthy of the Lord (peripath=sai a0ci/wj tou= kuri/ou). As O’Brien comments: ‘There is no need, a priori, to separate eu0xaristou=ntej from the preceding three participles …’52 There are differences in focus and style between 1.12-14 and 1.15-20. Verses 12-14 are prose whereas vv.15-20 are highly poetic; vv.12-14 speak with reference to the congregation whereas vv.15-20 focus on cosmic realities; vv.12-14 are largely in the first person plural whereas vv.15-20 focus on the redeemer himself.53 Bornkamm locates the confession of 1.12-14 within a eucharistic context, and argues that eu0xaristou=ntej is a technical term introducing a liturgical confession.54 This view, however, has been refuted by Deichgräber55 and O’Brien56 who both argue that this usage is not characteristic of the New Testament and that if Paul wanted to use a technical term, he could have used verbs such as eu0loge/w and (e0c)omologe/w.57 From the above survey, it seems reasonable to see 1.12-14 as a Pauline composition in conclusion to the intercessory prayer and as a transition to the Christological confession of 1.15-20. It therefore functions as a summary statement for why the Colossians should give thanks to God for the victory that is theirs in Christ. This victory is seen as a transfer from the dominion of

48. E. Norden, Agnostos Theos, pp. 250–54. 49. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, pp. 32–36. 50. E. Käsemann, ‘A Primitive Christian Baptismal Liturgy’, pp. 149–68. 51. G. Bornkamm, ‘Das Bekenntnis im Hebräerbrief’, in G. Bornkamm (ed.), Studien zu antike und Urchristentum (BEvT, 28; München: Kaiser, 1963), pp. 188–203. 52. P. T. O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgiving in the Letters of Paul, p. 73. 53. T. J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, p. 195. See also H. Conzelmann, ‘Der Brief an die Kolosser’, in H. W. Beyer et al. (eds), Die kleineren Briefe des Apostels Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1963), pp. 131–56 (135–36). 54. G. Bornkamm, ‘Das Bekenntnis im Hebräerbrief’, pp. 196–97. 55. R. Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit, p. 145. 56. P. T. O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgiving in the Letters of Paul, pp. 73–74. 57. See also T. J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, p. 195.

194


darkness (v.13) to the dominion of light (v.12).58 The parallelism between v.12 and v.13 is seen as a release from the powers of darkness (e0k th=j e0cousi/aj tou= sko/touj) who, as has already been argued, are identified with ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou of 2.8 and ta\j a0rxa\j kai\ ta\j e0cousi/aj of 2.15. The association between darkness (skoti/a) and the powers of evil is extensive throughout the New Testament (e.g. Lk. 22.53; Acts 26.18) and in material from Qumran (e.g. 1QM 1.1, 11). This release has resulted in deliverance to share in the inheritance of the saints in the light (ei0j th\n meri/da tou= klh/rou tw~n a9gi/wn e0n tw~| fwti/) and to the kingdom of his beloved son (ei0j th\n basilei/an tou= ui9ou= thj a0ga/phj au0tou=). The aorist verbs e0rru/sato and mete/sthsen in v.12 and v.13 point to the same event and show the present nature of this blessing, as both verbs give the sense of entry into an inheritance.59 The verb r9u/omai is used in Exod. 6.6; 14.30 (LXX) to refer to entrance into the land of Canaan60 and metati/qhmi recalls ‘the wholesale transportation of peoples … of which the history of oriental monarchies supplied so many examples’.61 The victory that has been secured over the powers of evil and the present entry into ‘the kingdom of his beloved Son’ means that the Colossian believers are not to submit themselves to these vanquished foes. Their inheritance is secure and a present reality; therefore, when others seek to disqualify them for their lack of ascetic practices and heavenly visions, the Colossian Christians are to stand secure in the knowledge of their current status. This emancipation from the powers of evil is shown in v.14 to be by means of Christ62 in whom is found the forgiveness of sins. That into which the believers have entered is in clear contrast to the Colossian errorists’ claims of entering heaven as outlined in 2.18 (a4 e9o/raken e0mbateu/wn). The idea of believers participating in the inheritance apportioned for the saints (tw~n a9gi/wn) is a familiar concept from the Hebrew Bible. R. P. Martin has argued that just as the Israelites received an apportionment of the land of Canaan (Deut. 32.9; Josh. 19.9), so this concept is spiritualized in Ps. 15.5 (LXX) where: ‘The Lord is the portion of my inheritance’ (ku/rioj h9 meri\j th=j klhronomi/aj mou)63 and from the Dead Sea Scrolls64 which refers 58. Commenting on this verse, Schnackenburg states: ‘This basileia of the Son is therefore an existent reality in which Christians have a share’. R. Schnackenburg, God’s Rule and Kingdom (trans. J. Murray; New York: Herder and Herder, 1963), p. 298. See also P. T. O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgiving in the Letters of Paul, pp. 96–97. 59. See F. Zeilinger, Der Erstgeborene der Schöpfung, pp. 38–39, for the parallelism between these verses. 60. R. P. Martin, ‘Reconciliation and Forgiveness in Colossians’, p. 107; T. J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, p. 200. 61. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 139–40, refers to Josephus Ant. 9.235. 62. e0n w{| points to the familiar ‘in Christ’ formula which is developed in Col. 2.9-15. See E. Best, One Body in Christ, pp. 5–6. 63. R. P. Martin, ‘Reconciliation and Forgiveness in Colossians’, p. 106. 64. See R. E. Murphy, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible (Westminster, MD: Newman, 1956), pp. 92–93; H. Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament (2 vols; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1966), I, p. 226.


195

to the concept of inheritance in a spiritualized way (e.g. 1QS 11.7-8).65 Another possible association for the ‘holy ones’ (tw~n a9gi/wn) is with the expression ‘the sons of heaven’ who, in 1QS 11.7-8 are associated with angels.66 Benoit takes a middle ground by arguing that in the Qumran texts, ‘the holy ones’ is used in a way that is ambiguous, referring either to the community of believers or to the angels. He concludes that this ambiguity is also present in Col. 1.12 and thus argues that exegetes too often choose one meaning and exclude the other, thereby losing part of the richness of meaning of the term.67 It therefore seems probable, especially in the light of 1QS 11.78, that Paul wants to pick up both these meanings in Col. 1.12. The Colossian believers have already entered into their inheritance and are already qualified to participate in the worship of heaven, as they are already holy through the atoning work of Christ. It therefore refutes those who long to gain these qualifications by asceticism and who claim a higher form of worship based on a heavenly ascent. The section 1.12-14, therefore, not only shows the victory that has been won over the powers of darkness, but also the entry into the spoils of that victory expressed in terms of inaugurated eschatology expressing a typical Pauline now/not yet tension. Although Christians are already qualified for this inheritance, they still look forward to the ‘hope laid up … in heaven’ (NRSV) (1.5).68 b. Colossians 2.13-15 As seen in our exegesis of Col. 2.9-15, a cosmic victory over the powers of evil has been won in the cross of Christ. This is evidenced in the principalities and powers being led in triumphal procession (2.15). The Christian has been incorporated into this victory through baptism (2.12), in which the death and Resurrection of Christ are proclaimed and appropriated. c. Colossians 3.5-17 The victory of the cross is not only over the cosmic realm, it is also evidenced in the earthly realm. Those who are in Christ, who are incorporated into his body, the church, are to express the realities of Christ’s victory over evil in their quality of life. Paul expresses this outworking of a victorious Christian life in 3.5-17 by the metaphors of disrobing and dressing. The paraenetic application of this section, therefore, flows directly from the teaching of the previous

65. See E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, pp. 35–36. 66. R. P. Martin, Colossians and Philemon, p. 54; J. Gnilka, Der Kolosserbrief, p. 47; R. Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit, p. 79; E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 36. For the opposite view that tw~n a9gi/wn is a reference to ‘saints’ see H. Conzelmann, ‘Der Brief an die Kolosser’, pp. 135–36; C. F. D. Moule, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 55. 67. P. Benoit, ‘ Agioi 9 en Colossiens 1.12: hommes ou anges?’, in M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson (eds), Paul and Paulinism (Festschrift C. K. Barrett; London: SPCK, 1982), pp. 83–99. 68. T. J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, p. 200.

196


chapter on death and Resurrection (esp. 2.11-13). There is thus a relationship between a cosmic meta-narrative and a terrestrial narrative. The outworking of the victory of Christ in everyday life is seen in Colossians 3, where there are two lists of five vices each of behaviour that needs to be discarded, and one list of five virtues which need to replace the discarded vices. Each list contains a second person plural aorist imperative. The first and last lists are introduced with ou}n and the middle list with nuni\ de/, thereby tying the lists to their context.69 The parallelism between these lists is easily apparent in Table 11.1. Table 11.1 Colossians 3.5 Nekrw/sate ou}n ta\

Colossians 3.8 nuni\ de\ a0po/qesqe (kai\ u9mei=j)

Colossians 3.12 0Endu/sasqe ou}n …

ta\ me/lh ta\ e0pi\ th=j gh=j

pornei/an a0kaqarsi/an pa/qoj e0piqumi/an kakh/n, kai\ th\n pleoneci/an, h3tij e0sti\n ei0dwlolatri/a,

ta\ pa/nta,

o0rgh/n, qumo/n, kaki/an, blasfhmi/an, ai0sxrologi/an e0k tou= sto/matoj u9mw~n:

spla/gxna oi0ktirmou= xrhsto/thta tapeinofrosu/nhn prau5thta makroqumi/an

The asceticism of the Colossian mystics was meant to mortify physical passions that belonged to the realm of this world by engaging in activities such as fasting, in order to gain a heavenly perspective. Paul therefore identifies with his opponents by beginning with the same desire, namely mortifying that which is earthly. The context of dying is shown clearly in 3.5 by the aorist imperative nekrw/sate, which is followed by ta\ me/lh, which is best understood as a vocative, referring to the members of the church70 and then the 69. G. E. Cannon, The Use of Traditional Material in Colossians, p. 53. 70. C. Masson, L’Epître de Saint Paul aux Colossiens, p. 42, sees ta\ me/lh as a vocative, referring to Christians as members of Christ’s body. He therefore translates the verse ‘Mortifiez donc, [vous] les membres, les choses qui sont sur la terre, la débauche etc’.


197

accusative noun phrase ta\ e0pi\ th=j gh=j which is defined as pornei/an, a0kaqarsi/an, pa/qoj, e0piqumi/an kakh/n, kai\ th\n pleoneci/an.71 The verse would then be translated: ‘members, put to death the things that are of the earth …’. It is significant to note that all the vices in v.5 relate to sexual sin. The Colossian errorists’ harsh ascetic treatment of the body would mean they would have concurred with this list. As Francis correctly observes: ‘…we can never be completely certain that these five terms and all five were used by the opponents, but the fact that the visionaries would have heartily concurred with the exhortation lends probability to the view that the writer did not unwittingly blur the line of his own argument by woodenly naming universally detested vices’.72 The full impact of these vices would have been perceived in v.8 when Paul introduces another list with nuni\ de/, which shows that these vices are the current concern of the apostle, and that they are at least as serious as the sexual sins of v.5. As Francis observes: ‘The writer was in full agreement that the immorality, etc., should have been ended in the church “but now” the disturbance in the Colossian church that occasioned the letter must be ended too’.73 The list in 3.8, 9 is concerned with inter-personal relationships, in particular sins that involve the tongue (wrath, malice, slander, abusive language, lying), a list that most probably relates to the practices of the errorists. It would appear, therefore, that this is where the apostle’s emphasis lay. The Colossians needed to appropriate the realities of Christ’s death and Resurrection not just in the area of sexual sin and ascetic practices but also in the area of inter-personal relationships. The need for such an exhortation is consistent with our thesis of the errorists boasting of superior spirituality. d. Victory – Conclusion The victory of the cross is to be lived out in an ethical Christian lifestyle. There needs to be a personal application of the death and Resurrection of Christ which brought victory over the principalities and powers. This victory is evidenced externally in baptism, a symbol of death and Resurrection, and ethically in the mortification of vices and appropriation of Christian virtues. Although the Colossians saw ethical problems in the area of sexual morality, they needed to express the victory of the gospel in inter-personal relationships, particularly in their speech.

71. N. Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1965), pp. 104–05, sees ta\ e0pi\ th=j gh=j as a noun phrase which is the object of nekrw/sate. Turner translates ta\ me/lh as a vocative: ‘members of my body, mortify the things that are on earth: fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection …’. 72. F. O. Francis, ‘A Re-Examination of the Colossian Controversy’, p. 241. 73. Ibid., pp. 241–42.

198

Heavenly Perspective 3. Reconciliation

The idea of Christ being the agent of reconciliation is a strong Pauline theme (e.g. 2 Cor. 5.11-21). As has already been noted, Col. 1.15-20 deals with the issue of reconciliation with the crowning statement that kai\ di’ au0tou= a0pokatalla/cai ta\ pa/nta ei0j au0to/n. The ‘all things’ (ta\ pa/nta) that are to be reconciled in him include the things in heaven and on earth (Col. 1.16). The reconciliation of cosmic powers, however, does not mean that hostility is replaced by friendship; this reconciliation is seen more as peace that is the result of conquest.74 Reconciliation is therefore closely related to victory. Paul exhorts his readers to reflect this reconciliation in inter-personal relationships within the church. a. Colossians 1.15-23 Through Christ’s work of creation and redemption the Colossians were liberated from the fear of the realm of evil (Col. 1.15-20). The present existence of all cosmic powers, whether heavenly or demonic, is dependent on him. This reconciliation, however, is not simply a cosmic reality that does not interact with the world of humanity. The church is to reflect this cosmic reconciliation through the restoration of relationships.75 Paul continues the theme of reconciliation in 1.21-23 by applying the results of the cosmic reconciliation of 1.15-20 directly to the Colossian Christians (kai\ u9ma=j 1.21). The continuation of the concept can be seen in the use of the unusual verb a0pokatalla/ssein in 1.22 which is picked up from 1.20. As was noted in our exegesis of 1.20, this compound verb is only used in literary Greek in Col. 1.20; 1.22 and Eph. 2.16,76 and therefore may be a term especially coined by Paul. 77 The purpose of reconciliation is that individuals may be restored from being estranged from God (1.21) to a right relationship with God (1.22). This work of reconciliation is achieved by the ‘body of his flesh’ (1.22 e0n tw~| sw/mati th=j sarko\j au0tou= dia\ tou= qanatou=), the second occurrence of sw~ma in the letter and in this instance a clear reference to the physical body of Christ that was crucified.78 The continuing ramifications of this reconciliation are then applied to individual Christians in 1.23 in terms of perseverance in the faith. Having introduced the concept of reconciliation in Colossians 1, Paul gives practical implications of this in Colossians 3.

74. F. F. Bruce, ‘Colossian Problems IV: Christ as Conqueror and Reconciler’, BSac 141 (1984), 291–302 (293). 75. R. P. Martin, ‘Reconciliation and Forgiveness in Colossians’, p. 113. 76. F. Büchsel, ‘katalla/ssw’, pp. 254–58 (258). 77. R. P. Martin, ‘Reconciliation and Forgiveness in Colossians’, p. 114, n. 1. 78. J. D. G. Dunn, ‘“The Body” in Colossians’, in T. E. Schmidt and M. Silva (eds), To Tell the Mystery: Essays on New Testament Eschatology in honor of Robert H. Gundry (Festschrift Robert H. Gundry; JSNTSup, 100; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), pp. 163–81.


199

b. Colossians 3.11-17 A result of the mystical ascents practised by the Colossian errorists was the elitist attitudes they expressed to other members of the congregation. Paul counters these by saying that true heavenly-mindedness results in a community where there are no such distinctions, but Christ is all and in all (3.11). The reconciliation of all Christians is given clearly in 3.11. People of diverse origins are gathered together because of their common identification with Christ. This identification removes all ethnic, cultural and socioeconomic barriers,79 a theme to which Paul returns in several of his letters (1 Cor. 12.13; Gal. 3.28). A comparison between these occurrences will show that Paul is not using a pre-existent formula, due to the variation in how the theme is expressed.80 A comparison between Gal. 3.28, 1 Cor. 12.13 and Col. 3.11 shows that in each case, the comparison between Jew and Greek and between slave and free is maintained. Beyond this, differences occur. Only Galatians compares males and females. Colossians seems more interested in ethnic groups, especially with the mention of Barbarians (ba/rbaroj) and Scythians (Sku/qhj), peoples who are not juxtaposed but mentioned together as representatives of stigmatized groups.81 ‘Barbarians’ was a term that originally applied to speakers of unintelligible languages82 such as the Egyptians and the Persians, but by the time of the New Testament it was usually used as a designation of contempt for non-Greeks.83 This contempt is intensified with the addition of ‘Scythian’, an ethnic group from an area to the north and east of the Black Sea.84 The contempt with which Scythians were held is reflected by Josephus: ‘But even Scythians, who delight in murdering people and are little better than wild beasts, nevertheless think it their duty to uphold their national customs …’ (Contra Apionem 2.269). The purpose of Col. 3.11 is not to abolish social distinctions but to establish unity. This plea for unity would underscore the fact that the actions of the Colossian errorists were divisive. The first pair of ethnic groups being Greeks and Jews ( 3Ellhn kai\ Ioudai= 0 oj) would again confirm the Jewish 79. See for example F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians, pp. 148–51; J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 223. 80. See J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 223 for a comparison of the different emphases in Gal. 3.28 and Col. 3.11. 81. M. Y. MacDonald, The Pauline Churches: A Socio-historical Study of Institutionalization in the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 103. 82. See Ovid, Tristia 6.10.35-40. 83. H. Windisch, ‘ba/rbaroj’, in TDNT, I, pp 546–53; J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 225; J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 216, calls the Scythians: ‘The lowest type of barbarians’. See also M. Hengel, Jews, Greeks and Barbarians: Aspects of the Hellenization of Judaism in the preChristian Period (trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM Press, 1980), pp. 55–66; G. G. Stroumsa, Barbarian Philosophy: The Religious Revolution of Early Christianity (WUNT, 112; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1999), p. 59. 84. See K. S. Rubinson, ‘Scythians’, in ABD V, pp. 1056–57.

200


character of the Colossian philosophy. As Dunn quips: ‘who else would single out the “Jews” and lump all the rest together as “Greeks”’?85 In an understanding of the work of grace in the life of Christians, the Colossians ‘are exhorted to don garments of grace’86 as evidenced in 3.12. Paul applies to them three terms that are strongly reminiscent of Israel: e0klektoi\ tou= qeou=,87 a3gioi,88 and h0gaphme/noi.89 Therefore, whether Gentile or Jew, Christians were invited to consider themselves as full participants of God’s covenant blessings and Israel’s heritage.90 They are not disqualified because of their lack of Jewish mystical practice. The list of virtues in 3.12 (spla/gxna oi0ktirmou=, xrhsto/thta, tapeinofrosu/nhn, prau5thta, makroqumi/an) complements the vices of 3.8 as they are all concerned with human relationships.91 These virtues clearly relate to the Colossian error as is seen in the use of tapeinofrosu/nh, a key term in the description of the error in 2.18. Although in secular Greek the word had the connotation of ‘mean-spirited’ or ‘weak’,92 in the New Testament it is normally used in a positive sense of ‘lowliness of heart’ (Acts 20.19; Eph. 4.2; Phil. 2.3; Col. 3.12; 1 Pet. 5.5). The only time it is used in a negative sense is in Col. 2.18, 23.93 As this is the only occurrence of tapeinofrosu/nh in a New Testament list of ethics, ‘it would seem reasonable to suppose that it has been placed here by the author to counter the kind of self-abasement involved as a necessary prelude to receiving heavenly visions’.94 It would appear, therefore, that Paul is using this term in the list of virtues to show its meaning for

85. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 224. 86. P. T. O’Brien, ‘The Church as a Heavenly and Eschatological Entity’, in D. A. Carson (ed.), The Church in the Bible and the World (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1987), pp. 88–119 (118). 87. 1 Chron. 16.13; Ps. 105.6; Isa. 43.20; 65.22; Tob. 8.15; Sir. 46.1; Wis. 4.15; Jub. 1.29; 1 En. 1.2, 8; 5.7-8; 93.2; 1QM 12.1; 1QpHab 10.13. See also G. Schrenk, ‘e0klekto/j’, in TDNT, IV, pp. 181–92; J. D. G Dunn, The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1991), pp. 21–23; J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 228. 88. The idea of holiness is pervasive in Judaism. It is applied to priests and Levites (Lev. 21.7-8; Num. 16.5-7; 2 Chron. 35.3; Ps. 106.16). More significantly in this context is that it was applied to the people of Israel as a whole (e.g. Pss. 16.3; 34.9; Dan. 7.18; 8.24; 1QSb 3.2 and 1QM 3.5). 89. Although the idea of being beloved by the god(s) is widespread among many religions, it is nonetheless a self-perception of the Jews (Isa. 5.1; Jer. 12.7; 31.3; Mal. 1.2). 90. G. B. Caird, Paul’s Letters from Prison, p. 207; N. T. Wright, The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 141. 91. G. E. Cannon suggests that they are associated with how Christ was remembered in the gospel tradition. G. E. Cannon, The Use of Traditional Material in Colossians, p. 54. 92. W. Grundmann, ‘tapeino/j’, in TDNT, VIII, pp. 1–26; N. Turner, Christian Words (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1980), pp. 216–18. 93. N. Turner, Christian Words, p. 218. 94. R. Yates. ‘The Christian Way of Life: The Paraenetic Material in Colossians 3.14.6’, 245.


201

Christians. Rather than a means to attain a heavenly ascent, and thereby to cause division by boasting of superior spirituality, the Colossians were to understand tapeinofrosu/nh as a reflection of the character of Christ (3.13). As the centre in Paul’s list of five virtues (3.12), it appears that this is where his emphasis lies. Heavenly-mindedness, therefore, should be evidenced through forgiveness (3.13) and love (3.14), where the peace of Christ rules (3.15). Lähnemann sees that love, peace and the Word of Christ mentioned in 3.14-16 are important concepts in combating the Colossian error.95 Of particular interest is the use of brabeue/tw in 3.15. As was noted in our exegesis of 2.18, brabeu/w is drawn from the context of the arena, meaning to award prizes.96 Therefore the meaning within the context of the Colossian error is to allow the peace of Christ to qualify them (h9 ei0rh/nh tou= Xristou= brabeue/tw … 3.15) rather than the Colossian errorists to disqualify them (cf. katabrabeue/tw 2.18). They are to rest on the peace which Christ has achieved, as already explained throughout the letter through the theme of victory, and they are to live in the light of that reconciliation and peace. The focal point of true reconciliation and heavenly-mindedness will be seen in the church’s worship. If there is unity in worship, there should be unity in relationships. It is thus consistent that Paul should conclude this issue of reconciliation by referring to worship in 3.16-17. This has direct relevance to the Colossian error, where the adherents of the philosophy were belittling the worship of the Colossian Christians by claiming a higher heavenly worship with the angels (2.18). In this context, Paul implies that the worship of the Colossian Christians should be sufficient. c. Colossians 3.18-4.1 Heavenly-mindedness should not only be seen within the church (3.16), but also in everyday life, as displayed by the household code (Haustafel) of 3.184.1. There are similarities with other New Testament household codes (e.g. Eph. 5.22-6.9; 1 Pet. 2.18-3.7), early Christian writings (Did. 4.9-11; Barn. 19.5-7; 1 Clem. 21.6-9; Ignatius, Pol. 4.1-5.2; Phil. 4.2-3) and other examples from contemporary Greek, Roman and Jewish writing (Aristotle, Politics I.1253b.1-14; Philo, De Decalogo 165-167; Philo, De Specialibus Legibus 2.224-241; Josephus, Contra Apionem 2.199-208).97 The household code addresses six different groups of persons, who form three reciprocal relationships (wives-husbands in 3.18-19; children-parents in 3.20-21; slaves-masters in 3.22-4.1). Within each pair, the weaker party is addressed first. The exhortations within the household code are an extension of the virtues already 95. J. Lähnemann, Der Kolosserbrief, p. 56. Lähnemann sees a possible influence from the opponents upon the construction of 3.14-17 of which he says: ‘wo – vielleicht in bewußter Antithese zur Häresie – das die Gemeinde fördernde Verhalten stark betont wird’. J. Lähnemann, Der Kolosserbrief, p. 55. 96. s.v. ‘brabeu/w’, BDAG, p. 146. 97. See J. E. Crouch, The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1972), pp. 74–90.

202


enjoined upon the Colossians in this chapter. All members of the Colossian church were to be controlled by an attitude of humility and gratitude to God, regardless of social standing.98 Whether the household code here is a free-standing unit that was adopted by the apostle99 has been argued extensively.100 Yates suggests that this could be a code that was written before Colossians and inserted here. He argues this due to the fact that it is a self-contained unit that can be lifted from its context, with a style which is characterized by terse, easy-to-remember lines and the high incidence of hapax legomena.101 Dibelius, largely on linguistic grounds, argues for a Hellenistic background to the code, citing in particular Stoic philosophy.102 K. H. Rengstorf103 and D. Schroeder104 see the origin of the code as being distinctively Christian.105 Others such as Crouch,106 Lillie,107 Schweizer108 and Lohse109 see the background in a Hellenistic Jewish code.110 Crouch concludes that the study is at an impasse.111 For our purposes, the more pertinent question is, What relevance, if any, does the household code have to the Colossian error? The adoption of social conventions may be seen as a reaction to the asceticism of the philosophy whose adherents wanted to keep themselves pure from the simple duties of

98. W. T. Wilson, The Hope of Glory, p. 250. 99. See for example J. E. Crouch, The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafel, pp. 9–13. 100. For a summary of these arguments see D. L. Balch, ‘Household Codes’, in D. E. Aune (ed.), Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament: Selected Forms and Genres (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), pp. 25–50; J. T. Fitzgerald, ‘Haustafeln’, in ABD III, pp. 80–81; D. L. Balch, ‘Household Codes’, in ABD, III, pp. 318–20. 101. R. Yates, ‘The Christian Way of Life: The Paraenetic Material in Colossians 3.14.6’, pp. 241–51 (248). 102. M. Dibelius and H. Greeven, An die Kolosser, Epheser, an Philemon, pp. 48–50. 103. K. H. Rengstorf, ‘Mann und Frau im Urchristentum’, in Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen: Geisteswissenschaften Heft 12 (Köln-Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1954), pp. 7–52; K. H. Rengstorf, ‘Die neutestamentlichen Mahnungen an die Frau, sich dem Manne unterzuordnen’, Verbum Dei manet in Aeternum (Festschrift D. Otto Schmitz; ed. W. Foerster; Witten: Luther, 1953), pp. 131–45. See also the summary of Rengstorf’s arguments in J. E. Crouch, The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafel, pp. 24–26. 104. D. Schroeder, ‘Lists, Ethical’, in IDBSup, pp. 546–47. 105. See J. E. Crouch, The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafel, pp. 24–31, for a critique of this. 106. J. E. Crouch, The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafel, pp. 84–101. 107. W. Lillie, ‘The Pauline House-tables’, ExpTim 86 (1975), 179–83. 108. E. Schweizer, ‘Traditional ethical patterns in the Pauline and post-Pauline letters and their development (lists of vices and house-tables)’, in E. Best and R. McL. Wilson (eds), Text and Interpretation. Studies in the New Testament presented to Matthew Black (Festschrift Matthew Black; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), pp. 195–209. 109. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, pp. 154–57. 110. For a summary of this view see P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, pp. 215–18. 111. J. E. Crouch, The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafel, p. 32.


203

family life.112 However, the life that is focused on the things above where Christ is (3.2), is indeed a life of everyday marriage, parenthood and work.113 The fact that Paul is referring to heavenly-mindedness in all this can be seen in how he motivates masters to deal fairly with their slaves. The masters’ relationship with their slaves is determined by their own relationship with their Master in heaven, as expressed in 4.1 (ei0do/tej o3ti kai\ u9mei=j e1xete ku/rion e0n ou0ranw~|).114 For Paul, the life of earth is not just a shadow of the heavenly reality, as if it were an inauthentic existence. In a congregation that was overly concerned with asceticism, visions and angelic worship, all of which led to inflated pride, the household code is used to recall the simple duties of family life and to correct social behaviour as a demonstration of what it means to set one’s mind on things above (3.2).115 An understanding of the crucified, resurrected and exalted Christ works its way out in ‘personal, domestic, communal and societal aspects of Christian living. It is because the Colossian believers participate in the triumph of the exalted Christ over the cosmic powers that they have been set free to claim the structures of the world for his kingdom and to live out the life of heaven within them’.116 d. Reconciliation – Conclusion The Colossian errorists were focused on the cosmic realm. Paul shows that true heavenly-mindedness is to be lived out in earthly existence as a reflection of cosmic reconciliation. For those who are ‘in Christ’ this reconciliation is borne out in everyday relationships within church, family and work that bring unity despite social, ethnic and class barriers. Such an understanding of heavenly-minded reconciliation is the opposite to the practices of the errorists, whose focus on the things of heaven led to division and elitism.

4. Conclusion It has been the purpose of this chapter to show how Paul weaves paraenetic exhortations through his epistle to the Colossians and to demonstrate how this paraenesis is directly related to the philosophy he counters. Even though the Colossian philosophy, with its heavenly ascents and asceticism, may have appeared to be very esoteric and of little danger, Paul shows how such an error affected the central Christian truths. The philosophy denied authoritative apostolic revelation that had its source in divine commission. Its focus was

112. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 219. 113. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, p. 219; E. Schweizer, ‘Traditional ethical patterns in the Pauline and post-Pauline letters and their development (lists of vices and house-tables)’, p. 204. 114. A. T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, p. 130. 115. R. Yates, ‘The Christian Way of Life: The Paraenetic Material in Colossians 3.14.6’, 250. 116. A. T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, p. 130.

204


on revelation that was based on human effort and claims of spirituality that resulted in subjective teaching. The philosophy did not properly appreciate the sufficiency of the victory of Christ in his death and Resurrection. A true appreciation of the nature of this victory would result in the Colossian Christians aligning themselves with Christ by discarding behaviour that belonged to the vanquished foes, and following the values and behaviour of Christ, the victor. Such an understanding of victory would lead to reconciliation among Christians who would reflect the reality of heaven in the everyday tasks of life. This is the true heavenly-mindedness the Colossians were to embrace, an attitude that would lead to unity and peace among Christians rather than division and elitism. Paul thus addresses these issues in a way which shows that correct theology and correct ethics are inextricably interwoven.

Chapter 12

CONCLUSION Our task has been to examine closely the text of Colossians in the light of relevant background material in order to determine the nature of the Colossian error and Paul’s response to it. We have also sought to understand how the paraenetic sections of the epistle relate to the more theological sections, thereby seeing the letter as one integrated piece of writing concerned with one issue: the Colossian error. As with any study on a well researched and ancient document, this study is indebted to those who have gone before, and in a real sense ‘stands upon their shoulders’ to survey the situation more clearly. These advances in research, however, have also led to a level of confusion as more and more solutions are offered in order to solve the puzzle of the nature of the Colossian error. It is a fair conclusion that currently there is no consensus. In the light of this impasse, this study has sought to forge a way ahead by returning to a detailed study of the text of Colossians itself. Careful attention has been given to background material, and in a desire to be true to our sources, greater attention has been given to movements that are known to have been current in the first century CE. Our study has helped to identify those solutions to the puzzle that are ‘dead ends’, either because they post-date Colossians (such as Gnosticism), or because they were geographically removed from the Lycus Valley. We have therefore sought to identify a background to the error that conforms both to an exegesis of Colossians and to an understanding of contemporary biblical and extra-biblical texts. Due to the significant Jewish population in the Lycus valley in the first century CE, and to the mention within the letter of Jewish distinctives such as circumcision and the Sabbath, it has been our conclusion that the error arose from within Judaism. It is difficult to determine whether these Jewish errorists were part of a Christian congregation at Colossae or whether they were a separate group, such as a synagogue in the same town that was decrying Christianity. The former seems more likely, due to the trouble Paul takes to correct their doctrine and practice. Furthermore, the exhortation for reconciliation between Gentiles and Jews (3.11) points to a mixed Christian congregation. In the light of Paul’s teaching elsewhere about Jews who were not Christians (e.g. Rom. 2.17-3.20), it is unlikely that he was seeking reconciliation between Christian Gentiles and non-Christian Jews.

206


The result of our research has been to identify the Colossian error within Jewish mystical movements. Strong affinities have been noted between the Colossian philosophy and Merkabah mysticism, a movement which focused on a vision of the throne of God in heaven. Through the study of written evidence that predates the Colossian letter, it can be seen that the Colossian error appears to have been strongly influenced by Jewish mystical movements. Due to the widespread acceptance of Enochic literature and the vision of the divine throne in Revelation, a book that is set in Asia Minor, Jewish mystical ascents provide a background for the error that fits historical and geographical criteria. A key factor in the identification of the error with Jewish mysticism has been an understanding of the worship of angels (2.18) as a subjective genitive (the worship rendered by angels). A cornerstone of both Judaism and Christianity is monotheism, hence if angels were the object of worship, Paul’s correction would have been more forceful than the irenic tone of Colossians. Although an understanding of the worship of angels as a subjective genitive has been held by many scholars, and is the position of this monograph, a weakness of most of its proponents has been that they do not do sufficient justice to the mention of evil forces within the letter. This has largely been a reaction to earlier understandings of the error that saw it as a form of Gnosticism, in which cosmic beings (whether good or evil) were worshipped in order to gain access to heaven. Thus many of those who hold a subjective genitive understanding of the worship of angels have avoided an interpretation of ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou (2.8, 20) as personal beings, as they do not want to see them as objects of veneration. They are normally understood as principles or laws. Some have even sought to ‘depersonalize’ ta\j a0rxa\j kai\ ta\j e0cousi/aj (2.15). This book has endeavoured to suggest a more plausible alternative. The worldview of the inhabitants of the Lycus Valley at the time of the apostle Paul was determined by their perception of cosmic beings. Within Judaism, laws were not divorced from the angels through whom they were mediated. Within popular belief, disasters, illness and misadventure were seen as the result of evil forces. Therefore to see ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou as merely laws or principles is to disregard a first-century Jewish mindset which saw the cosmic realm as determinative for human affairs. As there is no reference in Colossians to ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou being worshipped, it is not necessary to equate them with worship offered to angels. We have therefore attempted to reconcile an understanding of ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou as personal beings with a subjective genitive understanding of the worship of angels. This monograph has argued that ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou referred to in Col. 2.8 are fallen angels. The domain of their activity is the world (tou= ko/smou). The errorists did not seek to placate them through worship; they sought to escape their domain through a heavenly ascent. In order to gain this ascent, there was a denial of worldly activities, that led to ascetic regulations and practices. This asceticism was intended to lead to the purity of heaven

Conclusion

207

where, released from the influence of the powers of evil, the adept could witness and possibly participate in the worship that angels offered to God. The errorists were therefore enjoining their followers to escape earthly entanglements and acquire a heavenly perspective. As with all movements that concentrate on human piety and holiness, the Colossian philosophy encouraged the formation of an elite group within the congregation who, by means of its own legalism, claimed to have already attained the things of heaven. Paul’s response to this error centres on Christ. If the Colossian errorists saw the angels and even themselves as worshipping Jesus, whom they identified as a second power in heaven, they did not realize the ramifications of their belief. If this Jesus was truly God (as the angelic worship presupposed), then he has dominion over the forces of evil. There was no need to escape the domain of fallen angels. Christ had already conquered them and led them in a triumphal procession (2.15). Christ had already put off ‘the flesh’ in his death (2.11), rendering unnecessary any demand for asceticism. The death of Christ was the means whereby the powers and authorities were disarmed (2.15), guilt was removed (2.14) and new life was bestowed (2.13). Heaven is not attained through the legalistic demands of the errorists, but through being incorporated into the benefits of the death and resurrection of Christ (2.11, 12). The goal of heavenly-mindedness is therefore focused on Christ, not angels; the basis of this heavenly perspective is union with the resurrected Christ rather than union with angelic worship. Due to the cosmic nature of the error, an exalted Christology is presented. The Pauline gospel, preached to the Colossians by Epaphras, which centred on the victory of Christ, was sufficient. It did not need to be supplemented by the Colossian philosophy. Christ’s superiority to the angelic beings is grounded in two areas. He is superior due to his work of creation in that all angelic beings, whether heavenly or not, are created by him. Furthermore, it is by Christ that all things, whether in heaven or on earth, will be reconciled. The errorists’ fear of fallen angels and desire to enter heaven is therefore founded on an insufficient appreciation of Christology. This study has seen all four chapters of Colossians as an integrated piece of writing. Unlike many previous solutions to the Colossian error, we have shown how paraenesis relates to doctrine. Paul’s concern in the letter is that a correct heavenly perspective will lead to appropriate Christian behaviour. This behaviour is seen not in the escape from earthly activities but in the midst of them. The lordship of Christ over all creation is borne out in everyday relationships of church, family and work. A true heavenly perspective results in Christian unity despite social, ethnic and class barriers. Such an understanding of heavenly-minded reconciliation is the opposite to the practices of the errorists, whose focus on the things of heaven led to claims of spiritual elitism that resulted in divisions within the Colossian congregation. The irony of Paul’s response to the errorists is that their desire to witness the worship rendered by angels is not a heavenly pursuit, but worldly, as it focuses on regulations that are destined to perish (2.22). Such a focus gives the principalities and powers a means of enslaving the Colossian Christians

208


to the very powers from which they had been liberated when they became Christians, by focusing again upon legalism. Instead of a perspective that begins with perishable regulations and ends with boasting of spirituality, a heavenly perspective begins and ends with Christ. Any other focus, even if that focus is the purity of worship that angels render in heaven, is empty deceit. The Colossian philosophy which focused on heavenly ascents was therefore kata\ th\n para/dosin tw~n a0nqrw/pwn, kata\ ta\ stoixei=a tou= ko/smou kai\ ou0 kata\ Xristo/n (2.8). This book has not been able to deal with every issue pertaining to the relationship of Colossians to Jewish mystical movements. As with all studies of this type, the answers they supply create more questions to be answered. Further work needs to be pursued on the relationship (if any) between Paul’s Christology in Colossians and the tradition of two powers in heaven that was prevalent in Jewish mysticism. In the light of the relationship between Pauline theology and Jewish mystical movements, this work also raises the question of Paul’s self-perception of his own apostolic authority and its relationship to his vision(s) of Christ. This is particularly relevant for those who see the source of Paul’s theology as his Damascus road experience. Our current study also raises further questions about the spatial (above/below) eschatology in Colossians and its relationship to temporal (now/not yet) eschatology. To what extent is the interrelationship between these different eschatological perspectives determined by the Jewish mystical background to the Colossian error? Paul’s correction to the error at Colossae has not only been of benefit to the original readers. Due to the inclusion of Colossians within the New Testament canon, this letter has had profound effects on generations of Christians, and this influence will continue. A correct understanding of the nature of the Colossian error is relevant, therefore, not only for an understanding of the development of early Christianity, but also to our present understanding of the epistle. The identification of the Colossian errorists is the most significant factor in proper exegesis of this letter, as their identity affects the interpretation of the letter as a whole. It is our conclusion, after a close examination of this text, that the Colossian error arose from Jewish mystics who boasted of their heavenly ascents and of their superior spirituality. This boasting led to divisions in the congregation. Close affinities are noted between the error and Merkabah mysticism. The antidote to such an error is a true appreciation of Christology that leads to a heavenly perspective that is lived out within normal earthly existence.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbott, T. K., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians and to the Colossians (ICC, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1897). Abelson, J., Jewish Mysticism (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1913). Abramsky, S., ‘Bar Kokhba’, in EncJud, IV, pp. 227–39. Aletti, J. N., Colossiens 1,15-20: Genre et Exégèse du texte: Fonction de la thématique sapientielle (AnBib, 91; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981). —— Saint Paul: Epître aux Colossiens: Introduction, traduction et commentaire (EBib, 2.020; Paris: Gabalda, 1993). Alexander, P. S., ‘3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch: A New Translation and Introduction’, OTP, I, pp. 223–315. —— ‘Comparing Merkabah Mysticism and Gnosticism: An Essay in Method’, JJS, 35, (1984), 1–18. Allen, L. C., The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah (NICOT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976). Altmann, A., Studies in Religious Philosophy and Mysticism (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969). Am, Y., ‘Philo Judaeus’, in EncJud, XIII pp. 410–16. Anderson, G., Sage, Saint and Sophist: Holy Men and Their Associates in the Early Roman Empire (New York: Routledge, 1994). Armstrong, A. H., An Introduction to Ancient Philosophy (London: Methuen, 1957). Arnold, C. E., ‘Review’, EvQ, 60, (1988), 69–71. ——Powers of Darkness (Leicester: IVP, 1992). —— Ephesians: Power and Magic: The Concept of Power in Ephesians in the Light of its Historical Setting (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992). ——‘Jesus Christ: “Head” of the Church (Colossians and Ephesians)’, in J. B. Green and M. Turner (eds), Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ. Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 346–66. ——The Colossian Syncretism: the Interface between Christianity and Folk Belief at Colossae (WUNT, 2.77; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1995). Aune, D. E., ‘Magic in Early Christianity’, in ANRW: Principat (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980), II.XXIII.II, pp. 1507–57. —— The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987).

210


—— Revelation 1–5 (WBC, 52; Dallas: Word, 1997). Babut, D., La Religion des Philosophes Grecs: de Thalès à Stoïciens (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1974). Baird, W., ‘Vision, Revelation and Ministry: Reflection on 2 Cor. 12.1-5 and Gal. 1.11-17’, JBL, 104, (1985), 651–62. Balch, D. L., ‘Household Codes’, in D. E. Aune (ed.), Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament: Selected Forms and Genres (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), pp. 25–50. —— ‘Household Codes’, in ABD, III, pp. 318–20. Balchin, J. F., ‘Colossians 1.15-20: An Early Christian Hymn? The Argument from Style’, Vox Evangelica, 15, (1985), 65–94. Bammel, E., ‘Versuch zu Kol. 1.15-20’, ZNW, 52, (1961), 88–95. Bandstra, A. J., The Law and the Elements of the World (Kampen: Kok, 1964). —— ‘Did the Colossian errorists need a mediator?’, in R. N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney (eds), New Dimensions in New Testament Study (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), pp. 329–43. Barbour, R. S., ‘Salvation and Cosmology: The Setting of the Epistle to the Colossians’, SJT 20 (1967), 257–71. Barclay, J. M. G., Colossians and Philemon (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). Barker, M., The Lost Prophet: the Book of Enoch and its Influence on Christianity (Nashville: Abingdon, 1988). ——The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem (London: SPCK, 1991). Barnett, P. W., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). Barr, J., ‘Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament’, VTSup, 7, (1960), 31–38. Barrett, C. K., From First Adam to Last: A Study in Pauline Theology (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1962). ——A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1973). Bauckham, R., ‘The Fall of the Angels as the Source of Philosophy in Hermias and Clement of Alexandria’, VC, 39, (1985), 313–30. ——God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). ——‘The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus’, in C. C. Newman, J. R. Davila, G. S. Lewis (eds), The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (JSJSup, 63; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999), pp. 43–69. ——‘Apocalypses’, in D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien and M. A. Seifrid (eds), Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (2 vols; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), I, pp. 137–87. Baugh, S. M., ‘The Poetic Form of Col. 1.15-20’, WTJ, 47, (1985), 227–44. Baur, F. C., Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ: his Life and Work, his Epistles

Bibliography

211

and his Doctrine: a Contribution to the Critical History of Primitive Christianity (E. Zeller (ed.); 2 vols; Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1875). Beale, G. K., The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC, Grand Rapids: Paternoster Press, 1999). Beasley-Murray, G. R., Baptism in the New Testament (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1962). ——‘The Second Chapter of Colossians’, RevExp, 70, (1973), 469–79. Beasley-Murray, P., ‘Colossians 1.15-20: An Early Christian Hymn Celebrating the Lordship of Christ’, in D. A. Hagner and M. J. Harris (eds), Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on his 70th Birthday (Festschrift F. F. Bruce; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), pp. 169–83. Becker, J., Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles (trans. O. C. Dean; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993). Beer, G., ‘Das Buch Henoch’, in E. Kautzsch (ed.), Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Altes Testaments (2 vols; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1900), II, pp. 217–310. Behm, J., ‘nh=stij’, in TDNT, IV, pp. 924–35. Bengel, J. A., Gnomon of the New Testament (M. E. Bengel and J. C. F. Steudel (eds); 5 vols; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1877). Benoit, Pierre, ‘Qumrân et le Nouveau Testament’, NTS, 7, (1960), 276–96. —— ‘Qumran and the New Testament: Paul and Qumran Studies’, in J. Murphy O’Connor (ed.), New Testament Exegesis (London: Chapman, 1968), pp. 1–30. ——‘L’Hymne Christologique de Col. I.15-20: Jugement critique sur l’état des recherches’, in J. Neusner (ed.), Christianity, Judaism and Other GrecoRoman Cults (Festschrift Morton Smith; 4 vols; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975), I, pp. 226–63. —— ‘Agioi 9 en Colossiens 1.12: hommes ou anges?’ in M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson (eds), Paul and Paulinism (Festschrift C. K. Barrett; London: SPCK, 1982), pp. 83–99. Bernard, J. H. (ed.), ‘The Odes of Solomon’, in J. Armitage Robinson (ed.), Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature (10 vols; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912), VIII, pp. 1–131. Best, E., One Body in Christ: A Study in the Relationship of the Church of Christ in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul (London: SPCK, 1955). Betz, H. D., ‘On the Problem of the Religio-Historical Understanding of Apocalypticism’, JTC, 6, (1969), 134–56. —— Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition (BHT, 4; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1972). Betz, Hans Dieter (ed.), The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation including the Demotic Spells (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986). Bieder, W., ‘Rezensionen’, TZ, 8, (1952), 135–43. Binder, D. D., Into the Temple Courts: The Place of Synagogues in the Second Temple Period (SBLDS, 169; Atlanta: SBL, 1999).

212


Black, M., ‘The Throne Theophany Prophetic Commission and the ‘Son of Man’: A Study in Tradition History’, in R. Hamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs (eds), Jews, Greeks and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity (Festschrift W. D. Davies; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), pp. 57–73. Black, M. (ed.), Apocalypsis Henochi Graece (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970). Blanchette, O. A., ‘Does the Cheirographon of Col. 2,14 represent Christ himself?’, CBQ, 23, (1961), 306–12. Bockmuehl, M., ‘1QS and Salvation at Qumran’, in D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien and M. A. Seifrid (eds), Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (2 vols; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), I, pp. 381–414. Bogaert, P. M., Apocalypse Syriaque de Baruch (SC, 144–45; 2 vols, Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1969). Bokser, B. Z. (ed.), The Talmud: Selected Writings (New York: Paulist Press, 1989). Bornkamm, G., ‘Das Bekenntnis im Hebräerbrief’, in G. Bornkamm (ed.), Studien zu antike und Urchristentum (BEvT, 28; München: Kaiser, 1963), pp. 188–203. —— ‘The Heresy of Colossians’, in F. O. Francis and W. A. Meeks (eds), Conflict at Colossae: A Problem in the Interpretation of Early Christianity Illustrated by Selected Modern Studies (Missoula, MT: SBT and Scholars Press, 1975), pp. 123–45. —— ‘musth/rion’, in TDNT, IV, p. 820. Bowen, C. R., ‘The Original Form of Paul’s Letter to the Colossians’, JBL 43 (1924), 177–206. Bowker, J. W., ‘Merkabah Visions and the Visions of Paul’, JSS, 16, (1971), 157–73. Box G. H. and J. I. Landsman (eds), The Apocalypse of Abraham: Edited with a translation from the Slavonic Text and Notes (London: SPCK, 1918). Box G. H. and W. Sanday (eds), The Ezra-Apocalypse: Being Chapters 3-14 of the Book Commonly known as 4 Ezra (or II Esdras) (London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, 1912). Braun, H., Qumran und das Neue Testament (2 vols; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1966). Brown, R. E., The Churches the Apostles Left Behind (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1984). ——The Semitic Background of the Term ‘Mystery’ in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968). Bruce, F. F., The Epistles to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964). ——Tradition: Old and New (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1970). ——Paul the Apostle of the Free Spirit (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1977). ——The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians (NICNT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984). —— ‘Colossian Problems I: Jews and Christians in the Lycus Valley’, BSac, 141, (1984), 3–15. —— ‘Colossian Problems II: The Christ-Hymn of Col. 1.15-20’, BSac, 141, (1984), 99–111.

Bibliography

213

—— ‘Colossian Problems III: The Colossian Heresy’, BSac, 141, (1984), 195–208. —— ‘Colossian Problems IV: Christ as Conqueror and Reconciler’, BSac, 141, (1984), 291–302. Büchsel, F., ‘katalla/ssw’, in TDNT, I, pp. 254–58. Bujard, W., Stilanalytische Untersuchungen zum Kolosserbrief: als Beitrag zur Methodik von Sprachvergleichen (SUNT, 11; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1973). Burchard, C., ‘Joseph and Asenath: A New Translation and Introduction’, OTP, II, pp. 177–247. Burney, C. F., ‘Christ as the ARXH of Creation’, JTS, 27, (1925–1926), 160–77. Burton, E. de W., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Galatians (ICC, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921). Caird, G. B., Principalities and Powers: A Study in Pauline Theology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956). —— Paul’s Letters from Prison (London: Oxford University Press, 1976). —— The Language and Imagery of the Bible (London: Duckworth, 1980). Calvin, J., The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians (D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance (eds); trans. T. H. L. Parker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965). Cannon, G. E., The Use of Traditional Material in Colossians (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983). Carr, Wesley, Angels and Principalities: The Background, Meaning and Development of the Pauline Phrase HAI ARCHAI KAI EXOUSIAI (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981). —— ‘Two Notes on Colossians’, JTS, 24, (1973), 492–500. Carrington, P., The Primitive Christian Catechism: A Study in the Epistles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1940). Carson, D. A., From Triumphalism to Maturity: A New Exposition of 2 Corinthians 10-13 (Leicester: IVP, 1984). —— The Gospel According to John (Leicester: IVP, 1991). Chadwick, H., ‘All Things to All Men (1 COR. ix. 22)’, NTS, 1, (1955), 261–75. Charles, R. H., The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1908). —— The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912). —— ‘The Book of Enoch’, in APOT, II, pp. 163–281. —— A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (ICC, 2 vols; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1920). —— ‘The Date and Place of Writing of the Slavonic Enoch’, JTS, 22, (1920–1921), 162–63. Charles, R. H. (ed.), The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896). —— The Ascension of Isaiah (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1900). —— The Greek Version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs edited from

214


nine mss. together with the variants of the Armenian and Slavonic versions and some Hebrew Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1908). —— The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1908). Charlesworth, J. H., ‘A Prolegomenon to a New Study of the Jewish Background of the Hymns and Prayers in the New Testament’, JJS, 33, (1982), 265–85. —— The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research with Supplement (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981). Chernus, I., Mysticism in Rabbinic Judaism: Studies in the History of Midrash, (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1982). Chester, A., ‘Jewish Expectations and Mediatorial Figures and Pauline Christology’, in M. Hengel and U. Heckel (eds), Paulus und das Antike Judentum (Festschrift Adolf Schlatter; WUNT, 58; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1991), pp. 17–89. Chrysostom, J., ‘Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Colossians. Homily VI’, in P. Schaff and H. Wace (eds), A Select Library on the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (14 vols; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.), XIII, pp. 284–88. Collins, J. J., The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). Colpe, C., ‘Zur Leib-Christi-Vorstellung im Ephesersbrief’, in E. Eltester (ed.), Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche (BZNW, 26; Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpelmann, 1964), pp. 172–87. Congdon, L. M., ‘The False Teachers at Colossae: Affinities with Essene and Philonic Thought’, (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Drew University, 1968). Conzelmann, H., ‘Der Brief an die Kolosser’, in H. W. Beyer et al. (eds), Die kleineren Briefe des Apostels Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1963), pp. 131–56. Coppens, J., ‘“Mystery” in the Theology of Saint Paul and its Parallels at Qumran’, in J. Murphy-O’Connor (ed.), Paul and Qumran (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1968), pp. 132–58. Coutts, J., ‘The Relationship of Ephesians and Colossians’, NTS, 4, (1957–1958), 201–07. Cross, F. M., The Ancient Library of Qumrân and Modern Biblical Studies (London: Duckworth, 1958). —— ‘An Aramaic Inscription from Daskyleion’, BASOR, 184, (1966), 7–9. ——‘The Development of the Jewish Scripts’, in G. E. Wright (ed.), The Bible and the Ancient Near East (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961), pp. 133–201. Crouch, J. E., The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1972). Cullmann, O., Baptism in the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1950). —— ‘The Tradition’, in A. J. B. Higgins (ed.), The Early Church (London: SCM Press, 1956), pp. 59–99.

Bibliography

215

—— The State in the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1957). Daniélou, J., Théologie du judéo-christianisme (Bibliothèque de Théologie, Paris: Desclée, 1958). —— ‘La Session à la droite du Père’, in K. Aland et al. SE I, (Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1959), pp. 689–98. Davies, W. D., Christian Origins and Judaism (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1962). —— ‘Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Flesh and Spirit’, in K. Stendahl (ed.), The Scrolls and the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1958), pp. 157–82. —— Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980). Davila, J. R., ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and Merkabah Mysticism’, in T. H. Lim (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), pp. 249–64. —— Descenders to the Chariot: The People behind the Hekhalot Literature (JSJSup, 70; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2001). De Conick, A. D., ‘Heavenly Temple Traditions and Valentinian Worship: A Case for First Century Christology in the Second Century’, in C. C. Newman, J. R. Davila, G. S. Lewis (eds), The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (JSJSup, 63; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999), pp. 308–41. De Jonge, M., The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Composition and Origin (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953). ——‘Christian Influence of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs’, NovT, 4, (1960), 182–235. —— ‘Once More: Christian Influence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs’, NovT, 5, (1962), 311–19. Deichgräber, R., Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit: Untersuchungen zu Form, Sprache und Stil der frühchristlichen Hymnen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1967). Deissmann, G. A., Bible Studies: Contributions chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the History of the Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901). Delebecque, E., ‘Sur un Problème de temps chez Saint Paul (Col. 3,1-4)’, Bib, 70, (1989), 389–95. Delling, G., ‘a0rxh/’, in TDNT, I, pp. 479–84. —— ‘qriambeu/w’, in TDNT, III, pp. 160. —— ‘plhsmonh/’, in TDNT, VI, pp. 131–34, —— ‘plhro/w’, in TDNT, VI, pp. 286–98. —— ‘stoixei=on’, in TDNT, VII, pp. 666–87. —— ‘te/leioj’, in TDNT, VIII, pp. 67–78. DeMaris, R. E., The Colossian Controversy: Wisdom in Dispute at Colossae (JSNTSup, 96; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994). Denis, A.-M., Introduction aux Pseudépigraphes grecs d’Ancien Testament (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970).

216


Dibelius, Martin, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1909). —— From Tradition to Gospel (trans. B. L. Woolf; London: Ivor Nicholson and Watson, 1934). —— ‘The Isis Initiation in Apuleius and Related Initiatory Rites’, in F. O. Francis and W. A. Meeks (eds), Conflict at Colossae: A Problem in the Interpretation of Early Christianity Illustrated by Selected Modern Studies (Missoula, MT: SBT and Scholars Press, 1975), pp. 61–121. Dibelius, M. and Greeven, H., An die Kolosser, Epheser, an Philemon (HNT, 12; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1953). Dimant, D., ‘The Apocalyptic Interpretation of Ezekiel at Qumran’, in I. Gruenwald, S. Shaked and G. G. Strousma (eds), Messiah and Christos: Studies in the Jewish Origins of Christianity (Festchrift David Flusser; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1992), pp. 31–51. Dimant, D. and Strugnell, J., ‘The Merkabah Vision in Second Ezekiel (4Q385 4)’, RevQ, 14, (1990), 331–48. Dodd, C. H., The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1936). —— ‘Colossians’, in F. C. Eiselen, E. Lewis and D. G. Downey (eds), The Abingdon Bible Commentary (Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1929), pp. 1250–62. —— ‘Ephesians’, in F. C. Eiselen, E. Lewis and D. G. Downey (eds), The Abingdon Bible Commentary (Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1929), pp. 1222–37. Dodds, E. R., The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1951). Donelson, L. R., ‘Review’, JBL, 107, (1988), 334–35 Downing, F. G., Cynics, Paul and the Pauline Churches: Cynic and Christian Origins II (London: Routledge, 1988). Du Plessis, P. J., TELEIOS, The Idea of Perfection in the New Testament (Kampen: Kok, 1959). Duling, D. C., ‘Testament of Solomon: A New Translation and Introduction’, OTP, I, pp. 935–58. Dunn, J. D. G., Christology in the Making: An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (London: SCM Press, 1980). —— The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1991). —— ‘The “Body” in Colossians’, in T. E. Schmidt and M. Silva (eds), To Tell the Mystery: Essays on New Testament Eschatology in honor of Robert H. Gundry (Festschrift Robert H. Gundry; JSNTSup, 100; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), pp. 163–81. —— The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996). —— ‘The Colossian Philosophy: A Confident Jewish Apologia’, Bib, 76, (1995), 153–81. Dupont-Sommer, A., Les Ecrits Esséniens Découverts près de la Mer Morte (Paris: Payot, 1968).

Bibliography

217

Eadie, J., A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Colossians (ed. W. Young; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979). Easton, B. S., ‘New Testament Ethical Lists’, JBL, 51, (1932), 1–12. Ebel, G., ‘peripate/w’, in NIDNTT, III, pp. 943–45. Egan, R. B., ‘Lexical Evidence on Two Pauline Passages’, NovT, 19, (1977), 34–62. Eissfeldt, O., The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. P. R. Ackroyd; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965). Eitrem, S., ‘ 0EMBATEUW: Note sur Col. 2.18’, ST, 2, (1948), 90–94. Ellingworth, P., ‘Colossians i.15-20 and its Context’, ExpTim, 73, (1962), 252–53. Ellis, E. E., ‘2 Corinthians 5.1-10 in Pauline Eschatology’, NTS, 6, (1959–1960), 211–24. Eltester, F.-W., Eikon im Neuen Testament (BZNW, 23; Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpelmann, 1958). Emerton, J. A., ‘The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery’, JTS, 9, (1958), 225–42. Ernst, J., Pleroma und Pleroma Christi: Geschichte und Deutung eines Begriffs der paulinischen Antilegomena (BU, 5; Regensburg: Pustet, 1970). Eskola, T., Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse (WUNT, 2.144; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2001). Evans, C., ‘The Colossian Mystics’, Bib, 63, (1982), 188–205. Feuillet, A., ‘Le Fils de l’homme de Daniel et la Tradition biblique’, RB, 60, (1953), 170–202. —— ‘La Demeure Céleste et la Déstinée des Chrétiens. Exégèse de 2 Co. v, 110 et contribution à l’étude des fondements de l’eschatologie paulinienne. Première partie’, RevScRel, 44, (1956), 161–92. —— ‘La Demeure Céleste et la Déstinée des Chrétiens. Exégèse de 2 Co. v, 110 et contribution à l’étude des fondements de l’eschatologie paulinienne. Deuxième partie’, RevScRel, 44, (1956), 360–402. —— Le Christ: Sagesse de Dieu: d’Après les Epitres Pauliniennes (Paris: Gabalda, 1966). Field, F., Notes on the Translation of the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899). Filoramo, Giovanni, A History of Gnosticism (trans. A. Alcock; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990). Findlay, G. G., ‘St Paul’s Use of qriambeu/w’, Expositor, 10, (1897), 403–21. Fiore, B., ‘Paraenesis and Protreptic’, in ABD V, pp. 162–65. Fitzgerald, J. T., ‘Haustafeln’, in ABD III, pp. 80–81. Foerster, W., ‘e0cousi/a’, in TDNT II, pp. 562–74. Fossum, J. E., ‘Jewish Christian Christology and Jewish Mysticism’, VC, 37, (1983), 260–87. ——‘Colossians 1.15-18a in the Light of Jewish Mysticism and Gnosticism’, NTS, 35, (1989), 183–201. —— The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish

218


Mysticism on Early Christianity (NTOA, 30; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1995). Fotheringham, J. K., ‘The Easter Calendar and Slavonic Enoch’, JTS, 23, (1921–1922), 40–56. Fowl, S. E., The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul: An Analysis of the Hymnic Material in the Pauline Corpus (JSNTSup, 36; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990). Francis, F. O., ‘A Re-Examination of the Colossian Controversy’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, 1965). —— ‘Humility and Angel Worship in Col. 2.18’, in F. O. Francis and W. A. Meeks (eds), Conflict at Colossae: A Problem in the Interpretation of Early Christianity Illustrated by Selected Modern Studies (Missoula, MT: SBT and Scholars Press, 1975), pp. 163–95. —— ‘The Background of EMBATEUEIN’, in F. O. Francis and W. A. Meeks (eds), Conflict at Colossae: A Problem in the Interpretation of Early Christianity Illustrated by Selected Modern Studies (Missoula, MT: SBT and Scholars Press, 1975), pp. 197–207. —— ‘The Christological Arguments of Colossians’, in J. Jervell and W. A. Meeks (eds), God’s Christ and His People: Studies in Honour of Nils Alstrup Dahl (Festschrift Nils Alstrup Dahl; Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977), pp. 192–208. Francis, F. O. and W. A. Meeks, ‘Epilogue’, in F. O. Francis and W. A. Meeks (eds), Conflict at Colossae: A Problem in the Interpretation of Early Christianity Illustrated by Selected Modern Studies (Missoula, MT: SBT and Scholars Press, 1975), pp. 209–18. Frey, J. B. (ed.), Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum: Recueil des inscriptions juives qui vont du iiie siècle avant Jésus-Christ au viie siècle de notre ère (2 vols; Rome: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Christiana, 1952). Fridrichsen, A., ‘qe/lwn Col. 2.18’, ZNW, 21, (1922), 135–37. Gabathuler, H. J., Jesus Christus. Haupt der Kirche – Haupt der Welt. Der Christushymnus Colosser 1, 15-20 in der theologischen Forschung der letzten 130 Jahre (Zürich: Zwingli, 1965). Gammie, J. G., ‘Spatial and Ethical Dualism in Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic Literature’, JBL, 93, (1974), 356–85. Gaylord, H. E., ‘3 (Greek Apocalypse of) Baruch’, OTP, I, pp. 653–60. Gibbs, J. G., Creation and Redemption: A Study in Pauline Theology (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971). Giles, K., What on Earth is the Church? (Melbourne: Dove, 1995). Gnilka, J., Der Kolosserbrief (HTKNT, 10; Freiburg: Herder, 1980). Golb, N., Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Search for the Secret of Qumran (New York: Scribner, 1995). Grant, R. M., ‘Like Children’, HTR, 39, (1946), 71–73. Gräßer, E., ‘Kol 3,1-4 als Beispiel einer Interpretation secundum homines recipientes’, ZTK, 64, (1967), 139–68. Greeven, H., ‘zhte/w’, in TDNT, II, pp. 892–93. Gruenwald, I., Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (AGJU, 14; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980).

Bibliography

219

Grundmann, W., ‘decio/j’, in TDNT, II, pp. 37–40. —— ‘tapeino/j’, in TDNT, VIII, pp. 1–26. Gunther, J. J., St. Paul’s Opponents and their Background: A Study of Apocalyptic and Jewish Sectarian Teachings (NovTSup, 35; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973). Hafemann, S. J., Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit: Paul’s Defense of his Ministry in II Corinthians 2.14-3.3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990). Hall, B. G., ‘Colossians II.23’, ExpTim, 36, (1924–1925), 285. Halperin, D. J., ‘Heavenly Ascension in Ancient Judaism: The Nature of the Experience’, in SBLSP (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), pp. 218–32. —— ‘Ascension or Invasion: Implications of the Heavenly Journey in Ancient Judaism’, Religion, 18, (1988), 47–67. Harrington, H. K., ‘Purity’, in EDSS, pp. 724–28. Harris, M. J., ‘Appendix: Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament’, in NIDNTT, III. pp. 1171–1215. —— Colossians and Philemon (EGGNT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991). Harrison, P. N., ‘Onesimus and Philemon’, ATR, 32, (1950), 268–94. —— Paulines and Pastorals (London: Villiers, 1964). Hauck, F., ‘qhsauro/j’, in TDNT, III, pp. 136–38. Hay, D. M., Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS, 18; Nashville: Abingdon, 1973). Hedley, P. L., ‘Ad Colossenses 2.20-3.4’, ZNW, 27, (1928), 211–16. Hellholm, D., ‘The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John’, in K. H. Richards (ed.), SBLSP (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), pp. 157–98. Helyer, L. R., ‘Colossians 1.15-20: Pre-Pauline or Pauline?’, JETS, 26, (1983), 167–79. —— ‘Recent Research on Colossians 1.15-20 (1980–1990)’, GTJ, 12, (1992), 51–67. —— ‘Cosmic Christology and Col. 1.15-20’, JETS, 37, (1994), 235–46. Hengel, M., Jews, Greeks and Barbarians: Aspects of the Hellenization of Judaism in the pre-Christian Period (trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM Press, 1980). —— Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the early Hellenistic Period (2 vols; London: SCM Press, 1981). —— ‘“Setze dich zu meiner Rechten!”: Die Inthronisation Christi zur Rechten Gottes und Psalm 110,1’, in M. Philonenko (ed.), Le Trône de Dieu (WUNT, 69; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1993), pp. 108–94. Himmelfarb, M., Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). Hippolytus, Antipope, Commentaire sur Daniel (trans. M. Lefévre; Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1947). Holladay, C. R., ‘The Portrait of Moses in Ezekiel the Tragedian’, in SBLSP (Missoula MT: Scholars Press, 1976), pp. 447–52. Hollander, H. W. and de Jonge, M., The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1985).

220


Hollenbach, B., ‘Col. II.23: Which things lead to the fulfilment of the flesh’, NTS, 25, (1978–1979), 254–61. Holtzmann, H. J., Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe: auf Grund einer Analyse ihres Verwandtschaftsverhältnisses (Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1872). Hooker, M. D., ‘Were there false teachers in Colossae?’, in B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley (eds), Christ and Spirit in the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), pp. 315–31. Houlden, J. L., Paul’s Letters from Prison: Philippians, Colossians, Philemon and Ephesians (Hammonsworth: Penguin, 1977). Huby, J., Saint Paul: les Epîtres de la captivité (VS, 8; Paris: Beauchesne et ses Fils, 1947). Hugedé, N., Commentaire de l’Epître aux Colossiens (Genève: Labor et Fides, 1968). Hurtado, L. W., ‘Revelation 4-5 in the Light of Jewish Apocalyptic Analogies’, JSNT, 25, (1985), 105–24. Isaac, E., ‘1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch’, OTP, I, pp. 5–89. Jackson, D. R., ‘Three Defining Paradigm Exemplars of Enochic Judaism 250 BCE –70 CE ’, (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney, 2001). James, M. R., Apocrypha Anecdota (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1897). James, M. R. (ed.), The Testament of Abraham: The Greek Text now first edited with an Introduction and Notes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1892). Jeremias, J., Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries (trans. D. Cairns; London: SCM Press, 1960). Jervell, J., Imago Dei: Gen. 1,26f im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulinischen Briefen (FRLANT, 58; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1960). Johnson, S. E., ‘Asia Minor and Early Christianity’, in J. Neusner (ed.), Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults (Festschrift Morton Smith; 4 vols; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975), II, pp. 77–145. Johnson, S. L., ‘Beware of Philosophy’, BibSac, 119, (1962), 302–11. —— ‘Paul’s Final Words to the Colossians’, BibSac, 121, (1964), 311–20. Judge, E. A., ‘Paul’s Boasting in Relation to Contemporary Professional Practice’, AusBR, 16, (1968), 37–50. —— ‘St Paul and Classical Society’, JAC, 15, (1972), 19–36. Juel, D. H., Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988). Käsemann, E., ‘On the Topic of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic’, in R. W. Funk (ed.), Apocalypticism (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), pp. 99–133. —— ‘A Primitive Christian Baptismal Liturgy’, in E Käsemann (ed.), Essays on New Testament Themes (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), pp. 149–68. Kee, H. C., ‘Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A New Translation and Introduction’, OTP, I, pp. 775–828.

Bibliography

221

Kehl, N., Der Christushymnus im Kolosserbrief: Eine motivgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Kol 1,12-20 (SBM, 1; Stuttgart: Katholische Bibelwerk, 1967). Kidd, I. G., ‘Cynics’, in P. Edwards (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2 vols; New York: Macmillan, 1967), II, pp. 284–85. Kiley, M. C., Colossians as Pseudepigraphy (The Biblical Seminar, 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986). Kim, S., The Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982). —— Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). Kittel, G., ‘do/gma, dogmati/zw’, in TDNT, I, pp. 230–32. Klauck, H.-J., ‘Die kleinasiatischen Beichtinschriften und das Neue Testament’, in H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger and P. Schäfer (eds), Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion (Festschrift Martin Hengel; 3 vols; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996), III, pp. 63–87. Kleinknecht, H., ‘ei0kw/n’, in TDNT, II, pp. 388–90. Knibb, M. A., ‘The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review’, NTS, 25, (1979), 345–59. —— ‘Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah: A New Translation and Introduction’, in OTP, II, pp. 143–76. Knibb, M. A. and Ullendorff, E., The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978). Knox, J., Jesus, Lord and Christ (New York: Harper and Row, 1958). Knox, W. L., St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939). Koch, K., The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic: a Polemical work on a Neglected Area of Biblical Studies and its Damaging Effects on Theology and Philosophy (SBT, 2.22; London: SCM Press, 1972). Koester, H., ‘The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment: Philippians III’, NTS, 8, (1962), 317–32. —— Introduction to the New Testament (2 vols; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1982). Kugler, R. A., ‘Testaments’, in D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien and M. A. Seifrid (eds), Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (2 vols; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), I, pp. 189–213. Kugler, R. A. and Schuller, E. M. (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty: Proceedings of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature Qumran Section Meetings (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999). Kuhn, H. B., ‘The Angelology of the Non-Canonical Apocalypses’, JBL, 67, (1948), 217–32. Kümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament (trans. H. C. Kee; London: SCM Press, 1975). Labourt, J., and Battifol, P., Les Odes de Salomon: Traduction Française et Introduction Historique (Paris: Lecoffre, 1911). Lähnemann, J., Der Kolosserbrief: Komposition, Situation und Argumentation (SNT, 3; Gütersloh: Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1971).

222


Lake, K., ‘The Date of Slavonic Enoch’, HTR, 16, (1923), 397–98. Lamp, J. S., ‘Wisdom in Col. 1.15-20: Contribution and Significance’, JETS, 41, (1998), 45–53. Lampe, G. W. H., The Seal of the Spirit (London: Longman, 1951). Leaney, R., ‘Colossians ii.21-23 [The use of pro/j]’, ExpTim, 64, (1952–1953), 92. Lesses, R. M., ‘Speaking with Angels: Jewish and Greco-Egyptian Revelatory Adjurations’, HTR, 89, (1996), 41–60. ——Ritual Practices to Gain Power: Angel Incantations and Revelation in Early Jewish Mysticism (HTS, 44; Harrisburg: Trinity, 1998). Levine, L. I., The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000). Levison, J. R., ‘2 Bar. 48.42-52.7 and the apocalyptic dimension of Colossians 3.1-6’, JBL, 108, (1989), 93–108. Lichtenberger, H., Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten Qumrangemeinde (SUNT, 15; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1980). Lightfoot, J. B., Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon (London: Macmillan, 1912). ——‘The Colossian Heresy’, in F. O. Francis and W. A. Meeks (eds), Conflict at Colossae: A Problem in the Interpretation of Early Christianity Illustrated by Selected Modern Studies (Missoula, MT: SBT and Scholars Press, 1975), pp. 13–59. Lillie, W., ‘The Pauline House-tables’, ExpTim, 86, (1975), 179–83. Lincoln, A. T., ‘“Paul the Visionary”: The Setting and Significance of the Rapture to Paradise in II Corinthians XII 1-10’, NTS, 25, (1979), 204–20. —— Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to his Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981). —— Ephesians (WBC, 42; Dallas: Word, 1990). Lincoln, A. T., and Wedderburn, A. J. M., The Theology of Later Pauline Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Lipin/ski, E., ‘Obadiah 20’, VT, 23, (1973), 368–70. Loader, W. R. G., ‘Christ at the Right Hand – Ps. CX.1 in the New Testament’, NTS, 24, (1977), 199–217. Lohmeyer, E., Die Briefe an die Philipper, Kolosser und an Philemon (KEK, 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1954). Lohse, E., Colossians and Philemon, (ed. H. Koester; trans. W. R. Poehlmann and R. J. Karris; Hermeneia, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). —— ‘xeiro/grafon’, in TDNT, IX, pp. 435–36. ——The Formation of the New Testament (trans. M. E. Boring; Nashville: Abingdon, 1981). Lucas, R. C., Fullness and Freedom: The Message of Colossians and Philemon (Leicester: IVP, 1980). Lüdemann, G., Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity (trans. M. E. Borning; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989). Luther, M., A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (ed. P. S. Watson; trans. P. S. Watson; London: James Clark and Co., 1953).

Bibliography

223

Luther, M. (ed.), Die Gantze Heilige Schrifft Deudsch (Wittenburg: 1545 = Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1973). Luttikhuizen, G. P., The Revelation of Elchasai: Investigations into the Evidence for a Mesopotamian Jewish Apocalypse of the Second Century and its Reception by Judeo-Christian Propagandists (TSAJ, 8; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1985). Lyonnet, S., ‘L’Etude du milieu littéraire et l’exegèse du Nouveau Testament’, Bib, 37, (1956), 1–38. —— ‘L’Epître aux Colossiens (Col. 2.18), et les mystères d’Apollon Clarien’, Bib, 43, (1962), 417–35. —— ‘Paul’s Adversaries in Colossae’, in F. O. Francis and W. A. Meeks (eds), Conflict at Colossae: A Problem in the Interpretation of Early Christianity Illustrated by Selected Modern Studies (Missoula, MT: SBT and Scholars Press, 1975), pp. 147–61. MacDonald, M. Y., The Pauline Churches: A Socio-historical Study of Institutionalization in the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). Macgregor, G. H. C., ‘Principalities and Powers: the Cosmic Background of Paul’s Thought’, NTS, 1, (1954–1955), 17–28. Mackintosh, H. R., The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1913). Manns, F., ‘Col. 1,15-20: Midrash Chrétien de Gen. 1,1’, RevScRel, 53, (1979), 100–10. Marshall, I. H., Jesus the Saviour: Studies in New Testament Theology (Downers Grove: IVP, 1990). Marshall, P., ‘A Metaphor of Social Shame: qriambeu/ein in 2 Cor. 2.14’, NovT, 25, (1983), 301–17. Martin, Ralph P., ‘Aspects of Worship in the New Testament Church’, Vox Evangelica, 2, (1963), 6–32. ——Carmen Christi: Philippians ii.5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the setting of Early Christian Worship (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983). —— Colossians: The Church’s Lord and the Christian’s Liberty: An Expository Commentary with a Present-Day Application (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1972). —— Colossians and Philemon (NCB, London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1973). —— ‘Reconciliation and Forgiveness in Colossians’, in R. Banks (ed.), Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology presented to L. L. Morris on his 60th Birthday (Festschrift L. L. Morris; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) pp. 104–24. Martin, T. W., By Philosophy and Empty Deceit: Colossians as Response to a Cynic Critique (JSNTSup, 118; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1996). —— ‘The Skythian Perspective in Col. 3.11’, NovT, 37, (1995), 249–61. Masson, C., L’Epître de Saint Paul aux Colossiens (CNT, 10; Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1950). Maunder, A. S. D., ‘The Date and Place of Writing of the Slavonic Book of Enoch’, The Observatory, 41, (1918), 309–16.

224


Mayerhoff, E. T., Der Brief an die Colosser, mit vornehmlicher Berücksichtigung der drei Pastoralbriefe kritisch geprüft (Berlin: Hermann Schultze, 1838). McCown, W., ‘The Hymnic Structure of Colossians 1.15-20’, EvQ, 51, (1979), 156–62. McDonald, J. I. H., KERYGMA and DIDACHE: The Articulation and Structure of the Earliest Christian Message (SNTSMS, 37; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980). McLellan, J. B., ‘Colossians II.18: A Criticism of the Revised Version and an Exposition’, Expositor, 9, (1910), 385–98. Meeks, W. A., The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983). Megas, G., ‘Das xeiro/grafon Adams: Ein Beitrag zu Kol 2, 13-15’, ZNW, 27, (1928), 305–20. Metzger, B. M. ‘The Fourth Book of Ezra: A New Translation and Introduction’, OTP, I, pp. 517–59. —— A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition) (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994). Meyer, H. A. W., Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians and to Philemon (W. P. Dickson (ed.); trans. J. C. Moore; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1983). Michaelis, W., ‘prwto/tokoj’, in TDNT, VI, pp. 871–81. Michel, O., ‘oi9konomi/a’, in TDNT, V, pp. 151–53. —— ‘filosofi/a’, in TDNT, IX, pp. 172–88. Milik, J. T., Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judea (SBT, 26; London: SCM Press, 1959). ——The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976). Mitchell, H. G., Smith, J. M. P. and Bewer, J. A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912). Mitton, C. L., The Epistle to the Ephesians: Its Authorship, Origin and Purpose (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951). Morray-Jones, C. R. A., ‘Transformational Mysticism in the Apocalyptic Merkabah Tradition’, JJS, 43, (1992), 1–31. —— ‘Paradise Revisited (2 Cor. 12.1-12): The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul’s Apostolate. Part 1: The Jewish Sources’, HTR, 86, (1993), 177–217. ——‘Paradise Revisited (2 Cor. 12.1-12): The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul’s Apostolate. Part 2: Paul’s Heavenly Ascent and Its Significance’, HTR, 86, (1993), 265–92. Moule, C. F. D., The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon (CGTC, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957). —— ‘“Fulness” and “Fill” in the New Testament’, SJT, 4, (1951), 79–86. —— An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963).

Bibliography

225

Moulton, J. H., Howard, W. F., and Turner, N., A Grammar of New Testament Greek (4 vols; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1929). Moulton, J. H. and Milligan, G., The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and other non-literary sources (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930). Moyo, A., ‘The Colossian Heresy in Light of Some Gnostic Documents from Nag Hammadi’, JTSA, 48, (1984), 32–44. Murphy, R. E., The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible (Westminster, MD: Newman, 1956). Newman, C. C., Paul’s Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric (NovTSup, 69; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992). Newsom, C. A., Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985). Newton, J., ‘Clement of Alexandria’, in J. D. Douglas and P. W. Confort (eds), Who’s Who in Christian History (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1992), pp. 163–64. Newton, M., The Concept of Purity at Qumran and the Letters of Paul (SNTSMS, 53; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). Nickelsburg, G. W. E., ‘Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee’, JBL, 100, (1981), 575–600. —— Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972). Niditch, S., ‘The Visionary’, in J. J. Collins and G. W. E. Nickelsburg (eds), Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980), pp. 153–79. Nitzan, B., Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry (trans. J. Chipman; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994). Nock, A. D., ‘The Vocabulary of the New Testament’, JBL, 52, (1933), 131–39. ——Early Gentile Christianity and its Hellenistic Background (New York: Harper and Row, 1964). —— Essays on Religions and the Ancient World (2 vols; Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1972). Norden, E., Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte Religiöser Rede (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1913). O’Brien, P. T., ‘Col. 1.20 and the Reconciliation of all Things’, RTR, 3, (1974), 45–53. —— Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul (NovTSup, 49; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977). ——‘Principalities and Powers and their Relationship to Structures’, RTR, 40, (1981), 1–10. —— Colossians, Philemon (WBC, 44; Waco: Word Books, 1982). —— ‘Principalities and Powers: Opponents of the Church’, in D. A. Carson (ed.), Biblical Interpretation and the Church: Text and Context (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1984), pp. 110–50. —— ‘The Church as a Heavenly and Eschatological Entity’, in D. A. Carson (ed.), The Church in the Bible and the World (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1987), pp. 88–119.

226


—— ‘Church’, in G. F. Hawthorne and R. P. Martin (eds), Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (Leicester: IVP, 1993), pp. 123–31. —— The Letter to the Ephesians (Pillar, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). Odeberg, H., 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928). Oepke, A., ‘a0pekdu/w’, in TDNT, II, pp. 318–19. O’Neill, J. C., ‘The Source of the Christology in Colossians’, NTS, 26, (1979), 87–100. ——Who did Jesus think he was? (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995). Overfield, P. D., ‘Pleroma: A Study in Content and Context’, NTS, 25, (1979), 384–96. Page, S. H. T., Powers of Evil: A Biblical Study of Satan and Demons (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995). Parsons, M., ‘Time and Location: Aspects of Eschatological Motivation in Paul’, RTR, 60, (2001), 109–22. Peake, A. S., A Critical Introduction to the New Testament (London: Duckworth, 1914). —— ‘The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians’, in W. Robertson Nicoll (ed.), The Expositor’s Greek Testament (5 vols; London: Hodder and Stoughton, n.d.). Percy, E., Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe (Lund: Gleerup, 1946). —— ‘Zu den Problemen des Kolosser- und Epheserbriefes’, ZNW, 42, (1949), 178–94. Pettazzoni, R., ‘Confessions of Sin and the Classics’, HTR, 30, (1937), 1–14. Philonenko, M., Les interpolations chrétiennes des Testaments des Douze Patriarches et les manuscrits de Quomrân (RHPR, 35; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1960). Picard, J.-C., Apocalypsis Baruchi Graece (PVTG, 2; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967). Picirelli, R. E., ‘The Meaning of “Epignosis”’, EvQ, 47, (1975), 85–93. Pollard, T. E., ‘Colossians 1.12-20: A Reconsideration’, NTS, 27, (1981), 572–75. Porter, S. E., Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (New York: Peter Lang, 1993). ——Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994). —— katalla/ssw in Ancient Greek Literature with Reference to the Pauline Writings (EFN, 5; Cordoba: Ediciones El Almendro, 1994). Prat, F., The Theology of St. Paul (trans. J. L. Stoddard; 2 vols; London: Burns, Oates and Washbourne, 1945). Preisker, H., ‘e0mbateu/w’, in TDNT, II, pp. 535–36. Quispel, G., ‘Ezekiel 1.26 in Jewish Mysticism and Gnosis’, VC, 34, (1980), 1–10. Radford, L. B., The Epistle to the Colossians and the Epistle to Philemon (London: Methuen, 1946). Rahlfs, A. (ed.), Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes (2 vols; Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935). Ramsay, W. M., The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia: being an essay of the

Bibliography

227

local history of Phrygia from the earliest times to the Turkish conquest (2 vols; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897). —— ‘Religious Antiquities of Asia Minor’, The Annual of the British School at Athens 18 (1911–1912), pp. 37–79. —— The Teaching of St. Paul in Terms of the Present Day (London: Hodder & Stoughton 1913= Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979). Reicke, B. I., ‘The Law and this World According to Paul’, in JBL, 70, (1951), 259–76. ——‘The Historical Setting of Colossians’, RevExp, 70, (1973), 429–38. Reid, D. G., ‘Elements/Elemental Spirits of the World’, in G. F. Hawthorne and R. P. Martin (eds), Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (Leicester: IVP, 1993), pp. 229–33. Reitzenstein, R., Hellenistic Mystery Religions (PTMS, 15; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1978). Rengstorf, K. H., ‘Mann und Frau im Urchristentum’, in Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen: Geisteswissenschaften Heft 12 (Köln-Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1954), pp. 7–52. —— ‘Die neutestamentlichen Mahnungen an die Frau, sich dem Manne unterzuordnen’, in Verbum Dei manet in Aeternum (Festschrift D. Otto Schmitz; Werner Foerster (ed.); Witten: Luther, 1953), pp. 131–45. Reumann, J., ‘“Stewards of God” – Pre-Christian Religious Application of OIKONOMOS in Greek’, JBL, 77, (1958), 339–49. Richards, E. R., The Secretary in the Letters of Paul (WUNT, 2.42; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1991). Roberts, J. H., ‘Jewish Mystical Experience in the Early Christian Era as Background to Understanding Colossians’, Neotestamentica, 32.1, (1998), 161–89. Robertson, A. T., A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of Historical Research (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1914). Robinson, J. A. T., The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology (SBT, 5; London: SCM Press, 1952). Robinson, J. M., ‘A Formal Analysis of Colossians 1.15-20’, JBL, 76, (1957), 270–87. Rochberg-Halton, F., ‘Astrology in the Ancient Near East’, in ABD, I, pp. 504–07. Roller, O., ‘Das Buch mit sieben Siegeln’, ZNW, 36, (1937), 98–113. Rowland, C., ‘Apocalyptic Visions and the Exaltation of Christ in the Letter to the Colossians’, JSNT, 19, (1983), 73–83. —— The Open Heaven: A Study in Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK, 1982). —— ‘The Vision of the Risen Christ in Rev. i. 13ff: the Debt of an early Christology to an Aspect of Jewish Angelology’, JTS, 31, (1980), 1–11. Rubinkiewicz, R., L’Apocalypse d’Abraham en vieux slave: Introduction, texte critique, traduction et commentaire (Lublin: Société des Lettres et des Sciences de l’Université Catholique de Lublin, 1987). —— ‘Apocalypse of Abraham: A New Translation and Introduction’, OTP, I, pp. 681–705.

228


Rubinson, K. S., ‘Scythians’, in ABD, V, pp. 1056–57. Rubinstein, A., ‘Hebraisms in the Slavonic “Apocalypse of Abraham”’, JJS, 4, (1953), 108–15. —— ‘Hebraisms in the “Apocalypse of Abraham”’, JJS, 5, (1954), 132–35. Saldarini, A. J., ‘Apocalypses and “Apocalyptic” in Rabbinic Literature and Mysticism’, Semeia, 14, (1979), 187–205. Sanders, E. P., ‘Literary Dependence in Colossians’, JBL, 85, (1966), 28–45. —— Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (London: SCM Press, 1990). —— Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE–66 CE (London: SCM Press, 1992). ——‘Testament of Abraham’, OTP, I, pp. 871–902. Sanders, J. T., The New Testament Christological Hymns: Their Historical Religious Background (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971). —— Schismatic, Sectarians, Dissidents, Deviants: The First One Hundred Years of Jewish Christian Relations (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1993). Sappington, T. J., Revelation and Redemption at Colossae (JSNTSup, 53; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991). Saunders, E. W., ‘The Colossian Heresy and Qumran Theology’, in B. Daniels and J. Suggs (eds), Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament (SD, 29; Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1967), pp. 133–45. Schäfer, P., ‘New Testament and Hekhalot Literature: The Journey into Heaven in Paul and in Merkabah Mysticism’, JJS, 35, (1984), 19–35. Schäfer, P. (ed.), Synopse zur Hekhalot Literatur (TSAJ, 2; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1981). Schiffman, L. H., and VanderKam, J. C. (eds), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). Schille, G., Frühchristliche Hymnen (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1965). Schlier, H., ‘be/baioj’, in TDNT, I, pp. 600–03. —— ‘deigmati/zw’, in TDNT, I, pp. 31–32. —— Der Brief an die Galater (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1951). —— Principalities and Powers in the New Testament (London: Burns and Oates, 1961). Schmidt, C., ‘Der Kolophon des Ms. Orient. 7594 des Britischen Museums: eine Untersuchung zur Elias-Apocalypse’, (SPAW, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse; Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1925). Schmidt, F., Le Testament grec d’Abraham: Introduction, édition critique des deux recensions grecques, traduction (TSAJ, 11; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1986). Schmithals, W., ‘The Corpus Paulinum and Gnosis’, in A. H. B. Logan and A. J. M. Wedderburn (eds), The New Testament and Gnosis (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983), pp. 107–24. Schmitz, O., ‘qro/noj’, in TDNT, III, pp. 160–67. Schnackenburg, R., Baptism in the thought of St. Paul (trans. G. R. BeasleyMurray; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964). —— ‘Christus, Geist und Gemeinde (Eph. 4.1-16)’, in B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley (eds), Christ and Spirit in the New Testament. Studies in Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule (Festschrift C. F. D. Moule; Cambridge:

Bibliography

229

Cambridge University Press, 1973), pp. 279–313. —— God’s Rule and Kingdom (trans. J. Murray; New York: Herder and Herder, 1963). Schneider, J., ‘stauro/j’, in TDNT, VII, p. 577. Scholem, G. G., Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1965). —— ‘Kabbalah’, in EncJud, X, pp. 490–654. —— Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (London: Thames and Hudson, 1955). —— On the Kabbalah and its Symbolism (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965). —— On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead: Basic Concepts in the KABBALAH (trans. J. Neugroschel; New York: Schocken, 1991). Schrenk, G., ‘bibli/on’, in TDNT, I, pp. 617–20. —— ‘e0klekto/j’, in TDNT, IV, pp. 181–92. —— ‘eu0doke/w’, in TDNT, II, pp. 738–51. —— ‘qe/lw, qe/lhma, qe/lhsij’, in TDNT, III, pp. 44–62. Schroeder, D., ‘Lists, Ethical’, in IDBSup, pp. 546–47. Schubert, P., Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgiving (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1939). Schulz, S., ‘skia/’, in TDNT, VII, pp. 394–98. Schürer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (eds. G. Vermes and F. Miller; trans. T. A. Burkill et al.; 3 vols, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986). Schweizer, E., ‘The Church as the Missionary Body of Christ’, NTS, 8, (1961), 1–11. —— ‘Die Kirche als Leib Christi in den Paulinischen Antilegomena’, in E. Schweizer (ed.), Neotestamentica: deutsche und englische Aufsätze 1951–1963/ German and English Essays 1951–1963 (Zürich/ Stuttgart: Zwingli, 1963), pp. 293–316. —— ‘Traditional ethical patterns in the Pauline and post-Pauline letters and their development (lists of vices and house-tables)’, in E. Best and R. McL. Wilson (eds), Text and Interpretation. Studies in the New Testament presented to Matthew Black (Festschrift Matthew Black; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), pp. 195–209. —— The Letter to the Colossians: A Commentary (EKKNT; London: SPCK, 1982). ——‘Slaves of the Elements and Worshipers of Angels: Gal. 4.3, and Col. 2.8, 18, 20’, in JBL, 107, (1988), 455–68. Scott, C. A. A., Footnotes to St Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935). —— Christianity According to St. Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932). Scott, E. F., The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930). Scott, J. M., ‘Throne-Chariot Mysticism in Qumran and in Paul’, in C. A. Evans and P. W. Flint (eds), Eschatology, Messianism and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), pp. 101–19.

230


—— ‘The Triumph of God in 2 Cor. 2.14: Additional Evidence of Merkabah Mysticism in Paul’, NTS, 42, (1996), 260–81. ¯ môn of Proverbs VIII 30’, in VT Scott, R. B. Y., ‘Wisdom in Creation: The ’A (1960), pp. 213–23. Seesemann, H., ‘pate/w and compounds in the N.T.’, in TDNT, V, pp. 944–45. Segal, A. F., ‘Heavenly Ascent in Hellenistic Judaism, Early Christianity and their environment’, ANRW: Principat (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980), II.XXIII.II, pp. 1333–94. —— Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990). ——‘Paul and Ecstasy’, in K. H. Richards (ed.), SBLSP (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986) pp. 554–80. ——Rebecca’s Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986). —— Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977). Selwyn, E. G., The First Epistle of St. Peter (London: Macmillan, 1946). Sherlock, C., The God who Fights: the War Tradition in Holy Scripture (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1993). Slingerland, H. D., The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical History of Research (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977). Smith, M., ‘Observations on Hekhalot Rabbati’, in A. Altmann (ed.), Biblical and Other Studies (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), pp. 142–60. Spicq, C., Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (trans. J. D. Ernest; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994). Staab, K., Die Thessalonicherbriefe: Die Gefangenschaftsbriefe (RNT, 7.1; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1969). Standhartinger, A., Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte und Intention des Kolosserbriefs (NovTSup, 94; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999). Steinleitner, F., Die Beicht im Zusammenhange mit der sakralen Rechtspflege in der Antike: ein Beitrag zur näheren Kenntnis kleinasiatisch-orientalischer Kulte der Kaiserzeit (Leipzig: Theodor Weicher, 1913). Stone, M. E., ‘Apocalyptic Literature’, in M. E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), pp. 383–441. —— ‘The Book of Enoch and Judaism in the Third Century BCE’, CBQ, 40, (1978), 479–92. —— ‘The Concept of the Messiah in IV Ezra’, in J. Neusner (ed.), Religions in Antiquity. Essays in memory of E. R. Goodenough (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968), pp. 295–312. —— The Testament of Abraham: The Greek Recensions (Missoula, MT: SBL, 1972). Stowers, S. K., Letter-Writing in the Greco-Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986).

Bibliography

231

Stroumsa, G. G., Hidden Wisdom: Esoteric Traditions and the Roots of Christian Mysticism (Numen, 70; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996). —— Barbarian Philosophy: The Religious Revolution of Early Christianity (WUNT, 112; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1999). Strugnell, J., ‘The Angelic Liturgy at Qumran, 4Q Serek Širot ‘Olat Haššabat’, in Congress Volume, Oxford, 1959 (VTSup, 7; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1960), pp. 318–46. Stuckenbruck, L. T., Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John (WUNT, 2.70; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1995). Sumney, J. L., Identifying Paul’s Opponents: The Question of Method in 2 Corinthians (JSNTSup, 40; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990). —— ‘Those who “Pass Judgment”: The Identity of the Opponents in Colossians’, Bib, 74, (1993), 366–88. Suter, D., ‘Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch 6-16’, HUCA, 50, (1979), pp. 115–35. Tannehill, R. C., Dying and Rising with Christ: A Study in Pauline Theology (BZNW, 32; Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpelmann, 1967). Theonis Smyrnaei, Philosophi Platonici: Expositio Rerum Mathematicarum (ed. E. Hiller; Lipsiae: B. G. Teubneri, 1878). Thrall, M. E., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (ICC; 2 vols; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000). Toussaint, C., L’Epître de S. Paul aux Colossiens (Paris: Emile Nourray, 1921). Trebilco, P., Jewish Communities in Asia Minor (SNTSMS, 69; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). Trench, R. C., Synonyms of the New Testament (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner and Co., 1890). Tuckett, C. M., Christology and the New Testament: Jesus and His Earliest Followers (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 2001). Turner, N., ‘“The Testament of Abraham”: Problem of Biblical Greek’, NTS, 1, (1954/1955), 219–23. ——Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1965). —— Christian Words (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1980). Tyndale, W. (ed.), Tyndale’s New Testament (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1534=1989). Urbach, E. E., The Sages: Their concepts and beliefs (trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975). Van Broekhoven, H., ‘The Social Profiles in the Colossian Debate’, JSNT, 66, (1977), 73–90. Van der Horst, P., ‘Moses’ Throne Vision in Ezekiel the Dramatist’, JJS, 34, (1983), 21–29. Van Roon, A., The Authenticity of Ephesians (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974). VanderKam, J. C., An Introduction to Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001).

232


——Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977). Vawter, B., ‘The Colossian Hymn and the Principle of Redaction’, CBQ, 33, (1971), 62–81. Vermes, G., ‘Baptism and Jewish Exegesis: New Light from Ancient Sources’, NTS, 4, (1958), 308–19. —— The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977). —— The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987). Verner, D. C., The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles (SBLDS, 71; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983). Versnel, H. S., Triumphus: An Inquiry into the origin, development and meaning of the Roman Triumph (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970). von Soden, D. H., Urchristliche Literaturgeschichte: die Schriften des Neuen Testaments (Berlin: Alexander Duncker, 1905). Walter, N., ‘xeiro/grafon’, in EDNT, III, p. 464. Wedderburn, A. J. M, Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology against Its Graeco-Roman Background (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1987). Weigelt, H., ‘filosofi/a’, in NIDNTT, III, pp. 1034–36. Weiss, B., Biblical Theology of the New Testament (trans. D. Eaton; 2 vols; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1882). Weiss, H., ‘The Law in the Epistle to the Colossians’, CBQ, 34, (1972), 294–314. Weiss, J., Earliest Christianity: A History of the Period A.D. 30–150 (trans. F. C. Grant; 2 vols; New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959). Wengst, Klaus, Christologische Formeln und Lieder (Gütersloh :Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1972). Wescott, B. F. and Hort, F. J. A., ‘Appendix 1: Notes on Selected Readings’, in B. F. Wescott and F. J. A. Hort (eds), The New Testament in the Original Greek: Introduction and Appendix (Cambridge: Macmillan and Co., 1882). Williams, A. L., ‘The Cult of the Angels at Colossae’, JTS, 10, (1909), 413–38. ——The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928). Williamson, L., ‘Led in Triumph: Paul’s Use of THRIAMBEUO’, Int, 22, (1968), 317–22. Wilson, W. T., The Hope of Glory: Education and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Colossians (NovTSup, 88; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997). Windisch, H., ‘ba/rbaroj’, in TDNT, I, pp. 546–53. Wink, W., Naming the Powers (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). Wintermute, O. S., ‘Apocalypse of Zephaniah: A New Translation and Introduction’, OTP, I, pp. 497–516. Witherington, B., Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). —— Paul’s Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1994). Workman, W. P., ‘The Hapax Legomena of St. Paul’, ExpTim, 7, (1896), 418–19.

Bibliography

233

Wright, N. T., The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC, Leicester: IVP, 1986). —— ‘Poetry and Theology in Colossians 1.15-20’, NTS, 36, (1990), 444–68. —— What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Oxford: Lion, 1997). Yamauchi, E. M., ‘Sectarian Parallels: Qumran and Colossae’, BSac, 121, (1964), 141–52. Yates, R., ‘“The Worship of Angels” (Col. 2.18)’, ExpTim, 97, (1985), 12–15. ——‘Colossians and Gnosis’, JSNT, 27, (1986), 49–68. ——‘Colossians 2.15: Christ Triumphant’, NTS, 37, (1991), 573–91. ——‘The Christian Way of Life: The Paraenetic Material in Colossians 3.14.6’, EvQ, 63, (1991), 241–51. ——The Epistle to the Colossians (London: Epworth, 1993). Young, R., Analytical Concordance to the Bible (Iowa Falls: Riverside Book and Bible House, n.d.). Zahn, T., Introduction to the New Testament (3 vols; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1909). Zeilinger, F., Der Erstgeborene der Schöpfung: Untersuchungen zur Formalstruktur und Theologie des Kolosserbriefes (Wien: Herder, 1974). Zerwick, M. and Grosvenor, M., A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981). Zimmerli, W., Ezechiel (BKAT, 8.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1969). Zmijewski, J., ‘nhstei/a’, in EDNT, II, pp. 465–67.


INDEX OF AUTHORS Abbott, T.K. 98, 103, 110, 119, 120, 123, 189 Abelson, J. 68 Abramsky, S. 60 Aletti, J.N. 117, 119, 160, 161, 167 Alexander, P.S. 44, 67 Allen, L.C. 3 Altmann, A. 41 Am, Y. 53 Anderson, G. 5 Armstrong, A.H. 29 Arnold, C.E. 1, 14, 20, 31, 32, 78, 79, 85, 124, 125, 153, 165–8, 170 Aune, D.E. 59, 64, 124, 186 Babut, D. 78 Baird, W. 71, 72 Balch, D.L. 202 Balchin, J.F. 148, 150, 152 Bammel, E. 154, 165 Bandstra, A.J. 28, 35, 36, 80, 81, 99, 190, 191 Barker, M. 39, 40, 42, 45 Barnett, P.W. 73 Barr, J. 41 Barrett, C.K. 71, 171 Battifol, P. 99 Bauckham, R. 45, 46, 48, 50 Baugh, S.M. 152 Baur, F.C. 6, 14 Beale, G.K. 59 Beasley-Murray, G.R. 80, 96 Beasley-Murray, P. 154 Becker, J. 192

Beer, G. 68 Behm, J. 116 Bengel, J.A. 104 Benoit, P. 22, 148, 150, 153, 154, 157, 158, 189, 195 Bernard, J.H. 99 Best, E. 92, 194 Betz, H.D. 5, 72 Bewer, J.A. 66 Binder, D.D. 5 Black, M. 43, 56 Blanchette, O.A. 99, 100 Bockmuehl, M. 55 Bogaert, P.M. 62 Bokser, B.Z. 42 Bornkamm, G. 24, 26–8, 78, 189, 193 Bowen, C.R. 6 Bowker, J.W. 130 Box, G.H. 58, 60 Braun, H. 194 Brown, R.E. 8, 189 Bruce, F.F. 4, 5, 8, 13, 26, 36, 42, 72, 74, 84, 93, 116, 121, 131, 154, 162, 168, 171, 190, 198, 199 Büchsel, F. 171, 198 Bujard, W. 8, 10 Burney, C.F. 147, 155, 156, 166 Burton, E. de W. 80, 81 Caird, G.B. 38, 81, 82, 92, 107, 111, 135, 152, 200 Calvin, J. 80, 81, 93, 120 Cannon, G.E. 186, 196, 200 Carr, W. 81, 84, 99–102, 110–13,

236


129, 132, 164, 165 Carrington, P. 186 Carson, D.A. 72, 162 Chadwick, H. 181 Charles, R.H. 51–3, 56, 59, 61, 63, 86, 126, 165 Charlesworth, J.H. 63 Chester, A. 46 Chrysostom, J. 100, 103 Collins, J.J. 69, 70 Colpe, C. 168 Congdon, L.M. 1 Conzelmann, H. 195 Coppens, J. 189 Coutts, J. 15 Cross, F.M. 3, 22, 54 Crouch, J.E. 201, 202 Cullmann, O. 74, 95, 164 Daniélou, J. 99, 178 Davies, W.D. 22, 117, 157, 190 De Jonge, M. 52 Deichgräber, R. 89, 90, 170, 193, 195 Deissmann, G.A. 76 Delling, G. 33, 81, 108, 141, 187 DeMaris, R.E. 1, 8, 24, 25, 28, 29, 33, 34, 124, 127 Denis, A.-M. 57 Dibelius, M. 24–6, 28, 80, 121, 128, 152, 173, 188, 189, 202 Dimant, D. 40 Dodd, C.H. 15, 92 Dodds, E.R. 67 Donelson, L.R. 13 Downing, F.G. 30 Du Plessis, P.J. 189 Duling, D.C. 83 Dunn, J.D.G. 4, 8, 12, 15, 19, 75–7, 83, 84, 91, 93, 96, 98, 105, 106, 113, 116, 118, 119, 121, 127, 128, 130–2, 134, 136, 137, 141, 149, 152, 154, 158, 160, 161, 169–71, 174, 176, 180, 182, 187, 188, 198–200 Dupont-Sommer, A. 53

Eadie, J. 76, 123 Easton, B.S. 186 Ebel, G. 75 Egan, R.B. 110 Eissfeldt, O. 64 Eitrem, S. 26, 128 Ellingworth, P. 153 Eltester, F.-W. 160 Emerton, J.A. 43 Ernst, J. 90 Eskola, T. 41 Evans, C. 36 Feuillet, A. 40, 43, 152, 160 Field, F. 110 Filoramo, G. 90 Findlay, G.G. 110 Fitzgerald, J.T. 202 Fossum, J.E. 39, 161, 162 Fotherington, J.K. 51 Fowl, S.E. 153, 164 Francis, F.O. 1, 17, 26, 34, 35, 38, 81, 84, 119, 121, 122, 126, 128, 129, 132, 197 Gabathuler, H.J. 150 Gammie, J.G. 67 Gaylord, H.E. 62 Gibbs, J.G. 151, 162, 192 Giles, K. 169 Gnilka, J. 20, 79, 170, 175, 176, 195 Golb, N. 22 Graßer, E. 174–6 Grant, R.M. 81 Greeven, H. 25, 152, 177, 188, 189, 202 Grosvenor, M. 120 Gruenwald, I. 49, 56 Grundmann, W. 178, 200 Gunther, J.J. 19 Hafemann, S.J. 109 Hall, B.G. 138 Harrington, H.K. 116 Harris, M.J. 8, 91, 104, 107, 117,

Index of Authors 120, 135, 138, 167 Harrison, P.N. 7, 9, 15 Hauck, F. 190 Hay, D.M. 178, 179 Hedley, P.L. 138 Hellholm, D. 69 Helyer, L.R. 147, 152 Hengel, M. 71, 168, 199 Himmelfarb, M. 39–41, 47, 56 Hippolytus, A. 46 Holladay, C.R. 53 Hollenbach, B. 139 Holtzmann, H.J. 6, 7, 15 Hooker, M.D. 20, 33, 76, 135 Hort, F.J.A. 138 Houlden, J.L. 154, 165 Howard, W.F. 77, 108 Huby, J. 98 Isaac, E. 56, 86 Jackson, D.R. 49, 50 James, M.R. 57, 62, 63 Jeremias, J. 95 Jervell, J. 92 Johnson, S.E. 70 Judge, E.A. 72 Juel, D.H. 178 Käsemann, E. 146, 147, 150, 175, 193 Kee, H.C. 53 Kehl, N. 170 Kiley, M.C. 6, 8, 9, 13, 14 Kim, S. 41, 47, 55, 58, 71, 149, 151, 162 Kittel, G. 104 Klauck, H.-J. 101 Kleinknecht, H. 159 Knibb, M.A. 49, 56, 63 Knox, J. 7 Knox, W.L. 81, 141 Koch, K. 69, 183 Koester, H. 175 Kraabel, A.T. 31 Kugler, R.A. 52 Kümmel, W.G. 10, 12, 152

237

Labourt, J. 99 Lähnemann, J. 31, 174, 186, 201 Lake, K. 51 Lamp, J.S. 160, 161 Lampe, G.W.H. 95 Landsman, J.I. 58 Lesses, R.M. 41 Levine, L.I. 5 Levison, J.R. 175, 176, 180, 183 Lichtenberger, H. 189 Lightfoot, J.B. 3, 4, 16, 21–4, 77, 81, 91, 93, 102, 103, 106, 107, 109, 119, 121, 123, 131, 138–41, 170, 189, 194, 199 Lillie, W. 202 Lincoln, A.T. 15, 73, 102, 130, 166, 174–7, 179–83, 192, 203 Lipiñski, E. 3 Loader, W.R.G. 178 Lohmeyer, E. 98, 147, 152, 154, 188 Lohse, E. 7–12, 14, 16, 19, 26, 74, 77, 86, 89, 90, 92, 93, 97, 100, 103, 107, 116–18, 154, 163, 168, 170–2, 175, 187–90, 193, 195, 202 Lucas, R.C. 185 Luther, M. 80 Lyonnet, S. 33, 34, 116, 124 MacDonald, M.Y. 199 Manns, F. 156 Martin, R.P. 8, 89, 99, 100, 147, 148, 154, 161, 194, 195, 198 Martin, T.W. 1, 18, 24, 29, 30, 186 Masson, C. 7, 15, 77, 85, 92, 100, 137, 149, 153, 160, 167, 196 Maunder, A.S.D. 51 Mayerhoff, E.T. 6 McCown, W. 154 McDonald. J.I.H. 74 McLellan, J.B. 120 Meeks, W.A. 26, 192 Megas, G. 98 Metzger, B.M. 60, 127, 141 Meyer, H.A.W. 81

238


Michaelis, W. 162 Michel, O. 78, 79, 188 Milik, J.T. 22, 48, 49, 56 Mitchell, H.G. 66 Mitton, C.L. 7, 14 Morray-Jones, C.R.A. 72 Moule, C.F.D. 5, 6, 81, 90, 92, 93, 107, 115, 119, 121, 132, 138, 152, 167, 170, 189, 192, 195 Moulton, J.H. 77, 108 Moyo, A. 28 Murphy, R.E. 194 Newman, C.C. 40 Newsom, C.A. 36, 37, 54, 55, 66, 127 Newton, J. 61 Newton, M. 136 Nickelsburg, G.W.E. 56, 66, 98 Niditch, S. 67 Nitzan, B. 54 Nock, A.D. 84, 101, 127 Norden, E. 147, 154, 193 O’Brien, P.T. 8, 13, 15, 16, 26, 28, 36, 48, 75, 91, 93, 102, 104, 107, 112, 116, 119, 121, 131, 132, 140, 141, 163, 167, 169, 174, 177, 180, 181, 183, 187–9, 192–4, 200, 202, 203 Odeberg, H. 41, 44, 122 Oepke, A. 107 O’Neill, J.C. 149, 150 Overfield, P.D. 91 Peake, A.S. 7, 110 Percy, E. 10, 11, 85, 100, 116, 119, 121, 152, 160 Pettazzoni, R. 101 Philonenko, M. 52, 53 Picard, J.-C. 62 Pollard, T.E. 157 Porter, S.E. 115, 171 Prat, F. 105 Preisker, H. 127, 128

Quispel, G. 54, 71 Radford, L.B. 192 Rahlfs, A. 79 Ramsay, W.M. 3, 102, 127, 128 Reicke, B.I. 77, 85, 87 Reid, D.G. 83, 85, 86 Reitzenstein, R. 78 Rengstorf, K.H. 202 Reumann, J. 188 Richards, E.R. 9 Roberts, J.H. 35 Robertson, A.T. 131, 177 Robinson, J.A.T. 101, 103, 107, 131, 135 Robinson, J.M. 149, 150, 154 Rochberg-Halton, F. 83 Roller, O. 101 Rowland, C. 35, 40, 43, 59, 69, 129, 130, 140 Rubinkiewicz, R. 58 Rubinson, K.S. 199 Rubinstein, A. 58 Sanday, W. 60 Sanders, E.P. 8, 11, 57, 136 Sanders, J.T. 154 Sappington, T.J. 1, 35, 51, 65–7, 69, 81, 84, 87, 98, 102, 112, 132, 146, 160, 188, 189, 193–5 Saunders, E.W. 22 Schäfer, P. 41, 55, 72 Schille, G. 89, 90 Schlier, H. 86, 105, 106 Schmidt, C. 61 Schmithals, W. 23, 24 Schmitz, O. 165 Schnackenburg, R. 96, 97, 132, 194 Schneider, J. 103 Scholem, G.G. 41, 44, 45, 55, 68, 72, 130 Schrenk, G. 66, 121, 170, 200 Schroeder, D. 202 Schubert, P. 192 Schulz, S. 118

Index of Authors Schürer, E. 4 Schweizer, E. 82, 83, 85, 123, 124, 147, 154, 202, 203 Scott, C.A.A. 96 Scott, J.M. 36, 37, 40, 54, 55 Seesemann, H. 75 Segal, A.F. 41, 42, 44–6, 52–4, 57, 64, 67, 71, 72 Selwyn, E.G. 186 Slingerland, H.D. 52 Smith, J.M.P. 66 Smith, M. 41, 42 Smyrnaei, T. 78 Staab, K. 11, 12 Steinleitner, F. 101 Stone, M.E. 49, 56–8, 60–2 Stowers, S.K. 185 Stroumsa, G.G. 199 Strugnell, J. 40, 54 Stuckenbruck, L.T. 125 Sumney, J.L. 17, 18 Suter, D. 48 Tannehill, R.C. 175, 182 Thrall, M.E. 73 Toussaint, C. 86 Trebilco, P. 3, 4 Trench, R.C. 91 Turner, N. 11, 57, 77, 108, 197, 200 Tyndale, W. 120 Ullendorff, E. 56 Urbach, E.E. 125

239

Van Broekhoven, H. 158 Van der Horst, P. 53 VanderKam, J.C. 22, 50 Vawter, B. 147 Vermes, G. 56, 95 Versnel, H.S. 108 von Soden, D.H. 7 Wedderburn, A.J.M. 192 Weigelt, H. 78 Weiss, B. 81 Weiss, J. 7 Wengst, K. 89 Wescott, B.F. 138 Williams, A.L. 106, 110, 124 Williamson, L. 109 Wilson, W.T. 5, 14, 159, 185, 191, 192, 202 Windisch, H. 199 Wink, W. 116, 135, 164 Wintermute, O.S. 61 Workman, W.P. 9 Wright, N.T. 8, 87, 149, 155–8, 166 Yamauchi, E.M. 23 Yates, R. 24, 96, 107, 111, 119, 130, 164, 186, 200, 202, 203 Zahn, T. 121 Zeilinger, F. 177, 194 Zerwick, M. 120 Zimmerli, W. 40 Zmijewski, J. 116, 117


INDEX OF REFERENCES BIBLE OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 1.1 147, 156, 157, 163 1.14 84 1.26 6, 41, 43, 160 2.7 43 3 50, 180 3.17 180 6.1-4 49 6.9 189 6.10 189 11.5 177 18.1-2 46 20.6 136 28.12 177 Exodus 4.22 162 4.24-26 95 6.6 194 14.30 194 16.3 141 16.8 141 19.20 177 20.3 126 23.21 42, 45 24.1 45 24.3 100 24.9 177 24.10 177 30.13-16 4 31.3 188

31.16-17 117 32.1-35 126 32.32-33 98, 105 33.15 45 34.28 116 35.31 188 Leviticus 5.2-3 136 7.19 136 7.21 136 7.26-27 116 11.1-23 116 11.8 136 11.24-28 136 13.45-46 136 15.19-33 136 16 117 16.29 121 16.31 121 21.7-8 200 21.17-21 127 23.26-32 117 23.27 121 23.29 121 23.32 121 25.19 141 26.5 141 Numbers 10.10 117 16.5-7 200

19.11-13 136 29.7-11 117 Deuteronomy 4.19 117 5.7 126 5.15 117 5.31 54 6.4 126 9.9 116, 122 9.18 122 10.16 96, 188 10.17 6 12.16 116 12.23-24 116 14.3-21 116 17.3-5 117 27.14-26 100, 102 30.15-20 102 31.31-34 188 32.9 194 34.9 188 Joshua 13.14 129 19.9 194 19.49 130 19.51 130 Judges 5.20 86

242


1 Samuel 7.6 117 15.26 121

2.1-7 66 28 69 38.7 53, 86

2 Samuel 12.16-17 117

Psalms 14.2 177 15.5 194 16.3 200 34.9 200 35.12 117 35.13 121 56.8 66 69.10 117, 121 69.28 98, 105 72.19 91 77.25 141 81.3 117 82.1 44 88.28 162 105.6 200 106.16 200 110.1 6, 178, 179 111.1 121 146.5-6 155 146.10 121

1 Kings 8.61 189 10.9 121 11.4 189 21.27 117 22.19-28 40 2 Kings 4.23 117 1 Chronicles 16.13 200 23.31 117 28.18 40 2 Chronicles 1.10-12 188 9.8 121 31.3 117 35.3 200 Ezra 5.13 6.35 8.21 8.23

122 122 117, 121 117

Nehemiah 1.4 117 9.1 117 Esther 4.16 117 6.1 66 Job 1 66 1.6-12 66 2 66

Proverbs 1.20-33 69 2.1-6 161 6.29 136 8.22-31 69 8.22 147, 156, 157, 162 Isaiah 1.13 117 5.1 200 6.1-13 40, 64 6.2-3 127 6.3 91 9.6 118 11.2 188 11.6-9 171 29.13 6, 137 43.2 49 43.20 200

45.3 6 56.6 117 58.3 121 58.5 121 65.6 66 65.17 171 65.22 200 65.25 171 Jeremiah 4.4 96 12.7 200 14.12 117 17.8 75 22.30 66 23.24 91 31.3 200 Ezekiel 1–10 42 1 37, 40, 54, 58, 59, 65 1.1 40 1.4-28 36, 40 1.5-21 40 1.22 56 1.26-28 40 1.26 41-43, 177 1.27 68 1.28–2.1 71 1.28 40, 42, 43 3.12 40 3.23 40 3.26 71 8.4 40 9.3 40 10 37, 54 10.1-22 40 10.4 40 10.18 40 10.19 40 11.22 40 11.23 40 31.7 75 36.26-27 188 39.19 141

Index of References 40–41 129 43.1-4 40 43.2-5 40 43.5 91 44.4 40, 91 45.17 117 46.3 117 46.6 117 Daniel 1.3-16 116 1.20 78 2.18-19 68 7 47, 50, 58, 178 7.1-14 42 7.9-14 40 7.9 43, 127, 165 7.10 127 7.13 43, 177 7.18 43, 200 7.22 43 7.26 43 8.10 86 8.24 200 9.3 117 10.2-3 68, 122 10.2 117 10.3 116, 117 10.5-6 46 10.5 56 10.6 56 10.12 117 12.1-3 98

12.1 98 12.3 67 Hosea 2.11 117 13.6 141 Amos 5.25-27 86 Jonah 3.5-10 117 Haggai 1.6 141 Zechariah 3.1 66 3.2 66 Malachi 1.2 200 3.16 66 APOCRYPHA 1 Esdras 5.52 117 Tobit 1.10-12 116 5.3 97 8.15 200 9.5 97

243 Judith 4.9 121 8.6 117 12.2 116 12.19 116 Additions to Esther 14.17 116 Wisdom of Solomon 4.15 200 7.14 161 7.26 160, 161 13.1-2 83 14.27 123 Sirach 1.1-10 69 1.4-6 161 1.4 166 40.15 75 46.1 200 49.8 40 Baruch 3.14-15 161 1 Maccabees 1.62-63 116 2 Maccabees 2.30 29, 34, 127

NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 1.19 105 5.9 51 5.34 51 5.35 51 5.37 51 5.48 190 6.16-18 117 7.20 51

9.14 116 11.18 116 12.32 118 14.27 51 15.1-20 137 15.9 137 25.34 51 27.34 136

Mark 1.6 116 4.19 79 7.1-23 137 7.7 137 7.8 79 14.61 178 14.62 43 15.26 104

244 Luke 1.15 116 2.1 102 2.14 127 6.35 51 14.24 136 22.53 112, 194 John 1.14 91 1.15 162 1.30 162 2.9 136 6.4 117 7.2 117 13.1 117 14.2 51 Acts 2.9-10 4 7.42 86 7.53 124 9 71, 130 9.3-12 71 9.4-6 71 9.9 71 10.10 136 14.15 51 16.4 102 17.7 102 20.11 136 20.19 200 22 130 22.3 9 22.6-21 71 22.17 71 23.14 136 26 130 26.12-18 71 26.18 112, 194 Romans 1.1-7 10 1.3 141 1.18-25 125 1.18 10

Heavenly Perspective 1.20 149, 159 1.28 11 2.5-10 10 2.5 11 2.14-16 10 2.14 102 2.15 102 2.17–3.20 205 2.18 187 2.25-27 95 2.28-29 96 3.23-26 10 3.30 95 4.1 141 4.9-12 95 4.11 11 5.6 134 5.8 134 5.14 118, 160 6 97 6.1-14 175 6.4 14, 182 6.5 175 6.8 134, 175, 182 6.23 182 7.12 98, 104 7.14 104 7.21-26 131 8.2 182 8.4 187 8.11 182 8.13 182, 187 8.14 187 8.29-39 12 8.34 134 8.38-39 192 9.3 141 9.5 141 9.8 141 10.9 76 11.36 161 12.2 131, 190 12.4-8 12 12.4 168 12.5 168 13.1 164

13.6 11 13.14 141 14.9 134 14.15 75, 134 14.17 11 15.13 11 15.26 13 16.1 169 16.4 169 16.5 169 16.16 169 1 Corinthians 1.2 169 1.11 186 2.6 11, 79 2.8 12 3.10-14 76 4.6 130 4.17 169 4.18 130 4.19 130 5.2 130 7.1 136, 186 7.20 10 8–10 116 8.1 130 8.4 84 8.5 192 8.6 161 8.7 84 8.9 76 8.11 134 9.24 119 10.12 76 10.16 10 10.18 141 10.19-21 84 10.20-21 192 11.2 10 11.16 169 11.22 169 11.23 75 12.12-30 168 12.13 199

Index of References 12.21 12 12.28 169 13.4 130 15 68, 97 15.1 75 15.3 75, 134 15.9 169 15.24 164, 166 15.25 178 15.45-48 160 15.47 180 16.1-4 13 2 Corinthians 2.14 111 3.3 96 3.10 11 4.2 75 4.4 12, 149, 162 4.5 75 4.10 182 4.11 182 5.1-8 52 5.1 180 5.2-4 96 5.2 180 5.11-21 198 5.15 134 5.21 100 8–9 13 9.3 11 10–13 72 10.8 72 10.13 72 10.15 72 10.16 72 10.17 72 11.2 11 11.12 72 11.16 72 11.18 72 11.30 72 12 34, 72 12.1-10 37, 71, 72, 130

12.1-6 73 12.1-5 71, 72 12.1 71 12.2-4 72 12.2 72 12.7 72, 73 12.20 130 Galatians 1.1 71 1.6-9 19, 158 1.7 77 1.9 75 1.11-17 71 1.11-12 71 1.12 71, 75 1.14 79 1.21 72 2.2 72 2.3-5 10 2.6-9 10 2.7-8 95 2.10 13 2.21 134 3.1-3 19 3.13 100 3.15-18 82 3.19 85, 124, 192 3.28 199 4 84, 85 4.3-5 81 4.3 12, 33, 80, 81, 192 4.8-10 19 4.8 81 4.9 12, 33, 81 4.10 80 4.23 141 4.25-27 169 4.26 177 4.29 141 5 95 5.2-12 19 5.15 76 5.16-17 141 5.16 75, 187

245 5.18 187 5.25 187 6.12-13 141 Ephesians 1.1-2 14 1.3 169 1.7 14 1.10 188 1.15 14 1.20-21 112 1.21-23 12 1.21 118, 149, 164, 166, 192 1.22-23 169 2.5 14 2.6 169 2.15 102 2.16 171, 198 2.20 76 3.2 14 3.9 188 3.10 112, 164, 166 3.17 75 4.2 200 4.15-16 14 4.25 51 4.32 14 5.19-20 14 5.22–6.9 201 6.5-9 14 6.10-12 112 6.12 112, 164, 166, 192 6.21-22 14 Philippians 2.3 200 2.6-11 149 2.6 148 2.9-11 12 2.10-11 127 2.10 12, 180 3 95 3.2 12, 76 3.3-4 141

246 3.3 96 3.14 119, 177 3.20 169 4.2-3 201 4.2 77 4.9 75 Colossians 1 85, 198 1.1-14 146 1.1-8 23 1.1-6 7 1.1-4 15 1.1-2 14, 185 1.1 8, 15 1.2 11, 15 1.3–2.7 185 1.3-23 10 1.3-8 11 1.3 15 1.4 11, 14, 15 1.5 10, 14, 20, 177, 195 1.6-9 7 1.6 7 1.7 15, 74 1.8 10, 15 1.9-25 7 1.9-14 32, 187 1.9-12 15, 149, 193 1.9 10, 11, 70, 140, 158, 161, 187, 188 1.10-12 193 1.10 10, 70, 187, 193 1.11 10, 188 1.12-20 193 1.12-14 11, 102, 105, 188, 192, 193, 195 1.12 5, 10, 78, 130, 194, 195 1.13-29 147 1.13-14 149, 152 1.13 10, 23, 78, 85, 112, 145, 148, 165, 170, 194 1.14-24 15

Heavenly Perspective 1.14 11, 14, 148, 194 1.15-23 18, 198 1.15-20 7, 11, 12, 20, 32, 38, 60, 69, 75, 106, 118, 143, 145–51, 153, 155–61, 163, 166, 172–4, 192, 193, 198 1.15-16 110, 150, 153–6, 159 1.15 46, 91, 148, 149, 153, 156, 158–60, 162, 166, 167, 171, 193 1.16 11, 22, 23, 25, 51, 85, 111, 148, 149, 154, 156, 158, 159, 161–6, 171, 174, 177, 192, 198 1.17-18 153, 154, 157, 168 1.17 11, 149, 154, 156, 163, 166, 169, 172 1.18-20 154–6 1.18 12, 13, 23, 92, 131, 149, 150, 153, 154, 156–8, 163, 166–70, 172 1.19-20 150, 153 1.19 11, 22, 90, 150, 156, 158, 163, 170, 171 1.20 10, 85, 149, 150, 154, 156, 158, 161, 163, 170, 171, 177, 198 1.21-23 149, 172, 198 1.21 5, 198 1.22 10, 22, 93, 158, 171, 190, 198 1.23 158, 177, 198 1.24-29 23 1.24 10, 11, 13, 92, 158, 169, 172

1.25-29 188 1.25 10, 14, 188 1.26–2.2 7 1.26-28 15, 22 1.26 11, 25, 182, 188, 191 1.27 10, 25, 75, 182, 188, 189 1.28 140, 189 1.29 10 2 36, 64, 79, 80, 84, 85, 96, 112, 146, 173 2.1 11, 23, 77 2.2-4 7, 22, 35 2.2-3 15, 161, 191 2.2 10, 25, 75, 158, 182, 190 2.3 6, 11, 36, 140, 190, 191 2.4-8 32 2.4 23 2.5 7 2.6-23 18, 74, 143, 158, 159, 173, 174 2.6-8 74 2.6 7, 11, 15, 74, 75, 174 2.7–3.1 7 2.7 11, 15 2.8-23 38, 180, 185 2.8-19 134 2.8-15 10 2.8 12, 15, 18, 20, 23, 25–7, 33, 38, 74, 77, 79–82, 87, 90, 95, 97, 105, 109, 113, 124, 128, 134, 135, 137, 140, 145, 159, 164, 170, 171, 180, 194, 206, 208 2.9-15 11, 32, 87–9, 113, 174, 194, 195 2.9-12 88, 96 2.9-11 15 2.9-10 12, 22, 90

Index of References 2.9 11, 12, 15, 21, 27, 90–3, 113, 158, 170 2.10 11, 12, 23, 25, 33, 85, 92–4, 110, 111, 131, 158, 164, 166, 174 2.11-13 196 2.11-12 90 2.11 2, 5, 10, 11, 15, 22, 27, 94, 95, 99, 107, 128, 182, 207 2.12-15 124 2.12 10, 11, 15, 94–6, 134, 158, 173–5, 182, 195, 207 2.13-15 89, 195 2.13 5, 14, 89, 95, 106, 158, 173, 175, 182, 207 2.14-15 89 2.14 28, 67, 90, 97, 100, 104, 106, 107, 129, 134, 135, 144, 158, 182, 207 2.15 2, 11, 12, 15, 22, 23, 25, 33, 38, 82, 85, 90, 96, 99, 105–9, 111, 135, 145, 158, 164, 166, 170, 171, 182, 191, 194, 195, 206, 207 2.16-23 12, 32, 87, 97, 102, 103 2.16-19 18 2.16-17 30, 115, 117 2.16 2, 5, 11, 15, 18, 20, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30, 97, 115, 119, 134, 136 2.17-19 15 2.17 35, 92, 93, 97, 118, 176 2.18 2, 18, 20–4, 27, 29, 34, 35, 38, 46, 84, 85, 91, 97, 117, 119, 122, 124, 125,

128, 129, 134, 136, 140, 174, 180, 194, 200, 201, 206 2.19 10, 14, 92, 158 2.20-23 18, 23, 30, 133, 134, 174 2.20 11, 15, 20, 25, 27, 28, 33, 38, 81, 87, 102, 103, 135, 173, 174, 180, 206 2.21 2, 15, 27, 29, 68, 97, 117, 140 2.22 6, 15, 97, 137, 180, 207 2.23 22, 25, 29, 121, 137, 138, 140, 161, 180, 188, 200 3 173, 186, 196, 198 3.1–4.6 185 3.1-11 23 3.1-7 186 3.1-4 13, 14, 18, 32, 38, 97, 169, 173–6, 184, 186 3.1-2 174 3.1 6, 11, 15, 68, 173–7, 179, 180 3.2-13 7 3.2 2, 15, 68, 158, 174, 179, 203 3.3 11, 15, 173, 176, 180–3 3.4-11 15 3.4 15, 174, 176, 177, 181–3 3.5–4.6 74, 185 3.5–4.1 169, 172, 173 3.5-17 11, 186, 195 3.5-9 180 3.5 11, 158, 181, 196, 197 3.6 130, 176 3.8-17 186 3.8 196, 197 3.9 99, 197 3.10 6, 158, 180

247 3.11-17 199 3.11 30, 95, 199, 205 3.12-15 23 3.12 14, 15, 196, 200, 201 3.13 15, 201 3.14-17 201 3.14-16 7, 15, 201 3.14 11, 201 3.15 158, 201 3.16-17 14, 201 3.16 22, 32, 140, 201 3.17–4.18 7 3.18–4.6 186 3.18–4.1 186, 201 3.18-25 15 3.18-22 15 3.18-19 201 3.18 11 3.20-21 201 3.20 11 3.22–4.1 14, 201 3.24 177 3.25 6, 15 4 173, 186 4.1-3 15 4.1 15, 203 4.2-18 23 4.2-6 186 4.2 15 4.3 10, 15, 25 4.5-8 15 4.5 15, 32 4.6 10, 15 4.7-18 11, 16, 185 4.7-17 16 4.7-9 16 4.7-8 14 4.7 11, 15 4.8 15 4.9-12 15 4.9 15, 16 4.10-12 15 4.10 16 4.11 95 4.12-13 16

248 4.12 158, 190 4.13 3 4.14 15 4.15-17 15, 16 4.15 13, 15 4.17-18 15 4.17 11, 15, 16, 158 4.18 8, 9, 15 1 Thessalonians 2.9 13 2.13 11, 75 2.14 169 3.5 11 3.13 11 4.1 75 4.13–5.11 67 4.14-17 111 4.14 134 5.10 134 2 Thessalonians 1.10 11 2.1 79 2.10 79 3.2 75 1 Timothy 1.17 149, 159 1.20 77 3.16 148 4.3 136 Philemon 2 16 12 16 18-19 13 Hebrews 1.3-4 179 2.2 85, 124

Heavenly Perspective 3.13 79 5.12 80, 85 10.1 118 11.3 51 11.27 149, 159 11.37 63 James 1.4 190 1.25 190 3.2 190 1 Peter 2.18–3.7 201 3.18 134 3.22 179 5.5 200 2 Peter 3.12 82 Jude 14 50 15 50 Revelation 1.1 65 1.9-20 47 1.12-16 47 1.13-15 56 1.13 43, 46 1.16 51 1.20 86 2.18 47 3.5 98, 105 3.14-22 70 4 59, 155 4.1–5.14 127 4.1-2 129 4.2–6.17 59 4.4 165

4.6 51 5 59, 155 5.1-14 99 5.1-11 46 5.8 59 7.9-17 59 9.1 86 10.1 56 10.5 51 10.6 51 11.15-19 59 12.7-9 98 13.2 165 13.4 59 13.15-18 59 14.1-5 59 14.9-11 59 14.14 46 15.2-8 59 15.2 59 16.2 59 16.10 165 18.1 56 19.1-8 59 19.14 111 19.20 59 20.2 98 20.4-6 98 20.4 59 20.12 98 20.15 98 21.1-7 98 21.8 98 21.22-25 98 22.5 98 22.8 125 22.9 125

Index of References

249

OTHER ANCIENT REFERENCES PSEUDEPIGRAPHA Apocalypse of Abraham 9.7-10 122 10.8 44 12.1-10 122 12.1-2 68, 122 15.4 58 17–18 126 17.8-21 65 18.1-14 58 27 58 Apocalypse of Baruch (Syriac) 1.2–5.4 65 5.7 122 5.8-10 176 9.2 68 10.1-3 65 12.5 68 13.2–20.6 65 20.5-6 68 21.1-2 68 22.2–30.5 65 41.1–43.3 65 43.3 68 44.14 35, 191 47.2 68 48–52 176 48.1–52.7 65 48.33-36 69 48.42–52.7 176 48.49 176 51.3-13 62 51.8-10 176 52.7 176 54.6-7 68 54.13 35, 190 56.1 68 76.1 68

Apocalypse of Baruch (Greek) 1.4-5 68 1.6-7 69 2–10 63 2.2 129 3.1-2 129 4.2 63 4.13-15 68 4.15 63 6.12 63 7.2 63 11–16 63 11.2 63 13.4 63 15.4 63 16.4 63 Apocalypse of Ezra 1.2 122 1.3 122 1.5 122 1.7 122 Apocalypse of Zephaniah 2.1 62 3.1 62 3.6-9 66 4.1 62 4.6 62 4.7 62 5.1 62 6.1 62 6.10 61 7.1-8 98 7.8 105 8.1 62 8.2-4 65 8.3-4 126 8.3 62 9.2 62

Ascension of Isaiah 1–5 63 1.1–3.12 63 2.7-11 122 3.13–4.22 63 5.1-16 63 5.14 63 6–11 63, 64 6 64 7–9 126 7.1–9.26 64 7.37 126 8.17 126 9.27–10.6 64 9.28-34 66, 126 10.7-16 64 11.16 63 11.17-33 64

Assumption of Moses 10 98 1 (Ethiopic) Enoch 1–36 48, 49, 51, 67 1.2 67, 200 1.8 200 5.7-8 200 6–11 48 6–9 49 6.2 67 9.1-11 67 104.2 67 104.4 67 104.7 66 106-107 48 108 48 108.3 105 108.7 98 12–16 48 12.1-2 67 12.1 49

250 12.3 49 12.4 67 13.4 49 13.7 49 13.8 49 14–15 65 14 58 14.4 49 14.5 49 14.8-23 36 14.9 49, 129 14.10 49 14.14 49 14.15-20 50 14.15 49 14.18-23 65 14.18 50 14.19 50 14.20 50 14.21 50 14.24 50 15.3 67 19.3 67 37–71 48, 49, 56, 67 42 69 46.3 43, 57, 182 46.4-8 57 47.3 66 48.1 69 49.1 69 49.2-4 57 49.2-3 69 51.3-5 57 51.3 57 52.4-9 57 55.4 57 60.1-4 65 61.4-9 57 61.6-13 65 61.8 57 61.10 166 62.2-16 57 62.2-6 57 62.9 57 62.11 57 69.27-29 57

Heavenly Perspective 70–71 67 70.1-2 67 70.27 57 71.1-4 56 71.5-17 56 71.5 56 71.6 56 71.8-12 65 71.8 56 71.9 57 71.10 57 71.11 57 71.14 57 71.15-17 67 72–82 48, 51, 67, 86 81.2-4 66 83–91 48 83–90 48 83.2 68 86.1-6 86 89.61-64 98 89.70-71 98 91–105 48 91.16-17 171 93.2 200 96.7 66 97.5-7 66 98.6-8 66 2 (Slavonic) Enoch 1–34 51 3 129 8 65 17.1 65 18.9 65 19.3 65 19.6 65 20.1 165, 166 22.8-10 51 31.2 65 35–68 52 42.4 65 44.5-7 66 59.2 51 71.2 68

3 (Hebrew) Enoch 10.1-6 44 15b.2 122 3 Maccabees 1.3 102 4 Maccabees 1.1-2 78 5.7 126 5.22-24 78 4 Ezra 1–2 60 3–14 60, 61 3.1 60 3.2 60 4–6 61 4.5–5.13 69 5.13 68 6.19 60 6.31 68 6.35 68 7.97 67 7.125 67 9.23-28 68 10.48 60 13.3 61 13.26 61 14.1-26 65 14.24 69 14.37-42 69 14.40-46 69 15–16 60 Joseph & Aseneth 1.10 116 7.1 116 8.5 116 Jubilees 1.14 70 1.23 96 1.29 171, 200 2.17-33 118 4.18-19 50

Index of References 4.21 50 4.22 50 4.23-26 50 6.32-38 70 6.35 70 6.38 70 23.26-29 171 23.27-31 98 39.6 66 50.6-13 118 Odes of Solomon 11.2 96 23 99 Testament of Abraham Rec. A. 9.6 67 11.4 58 12.5 58 12.17-18 66 13 58 16 58

Rec. B. 7.18 67 8.3 67 Testament of Asher 1.6 121 Testament of Benjamin 9.1 50 Testament of Dan 5.6 50 Testament of Isaac 4.1-6 122 5.4 122

251 20 98 25 98 Testament of Levi 2.5-7 129 3.3-8 65 3.4-8 126 3.4 53 3.5 126 3.8 53, 165 5.1 53 10.5 50 14.1 50 18.2 53 Testament of Naphtali 4.1 50

Testament of Job 11.11 97 48–50 126

Testament of Simeon 5.4 50

Testament of Judah 8.5 116 18.1 50

Testament of Solomon 8.2 83 8.4 83

QUMRAN 1QH 3.21-22 127 11.10-13 127

8.20 189 10–11 155 11.7-8 195

1QM 1.1 194 1.11 194 2.4-6 117 3.5 200 7.4-6 127 7.6 111 12.1 200

1QSa 2.8-9 126

1QS 1.8 189 2.2 189 3.13-26 186 6–7 136

1QSb 3.2 200 4.25-26 127 1QpHab 9.2 22 10.13 200 4Q201 3.6 49 4.1 49

4Q202 4.9 49 4Q203 8.5 49 4Q405 1.1 136 14–15 129 20-22 37 20.2.21-22 55, 66 11QT 47 136

252

Heavenly Perspective MISHNAH

Abot 1.1 75 3.20 98 ‘Aboda Zarah 2.3 116 5.2 116

Hagigah 2.1 45, 177 Megillah 4.10 45

BABYLONIAN TALMUD Hagigah 15a 44

Sanhedrin 38b 44 42a 117 TOSEFTA

Hagigah 2.3-4 42

MIDRASH Qohelet 5.5 44 PHILO De aeternitate mundi 109-110 82

De fuga et inventione 108-110 106

De confusione linguarum 190 118

De gigantibus 16 124 52 102

De decalogo 53 82 165-167 201

De Legatione 245 4

De ebrietate 30-31 162

Legum allegoriae 1.16 102 1.31 43 1.43 160 1.55 102

De migratione Abrahami 12 118 De opificio mundi 73 86 134 43 De plantatione 12 86 14 124 80 127

Index of References Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum Supp. 2.82-83 53 2.117 167 Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesim 1.4 43 2.56 43 2.62 44, 54 4.97 162

Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 134 82 155 167 De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 8-10 54 De somniis 1.35-37 122

253 De virtutibus 62 162 De vita contemplativa 3 82 De vita Mosis 1.155-158 53 2.21 118 2.67-69 122 2.117-135 106

De specialibus legibus 2.224-241 201

JOSEPHUS Antiquities of the Jews 4.4.1 123 11.346 117 12.119 3 12.125 3 12.147-153 3 12.253 126 13.2.2 21 13.172 83 15.5.3 102

15.10.4 21 15.10.5 21 18.11 78 Contra Apionem 1.42 102 2.199-208 201 2.269 199 2.282 118

The Jewish War 2.8.2-13 21 2.28 118 2.128 83 5.212-214 85 6.415 108 7.119-157 108

CLASSICAL AND PATRISTIC LITERATURE Aeschylus Persae 449 129

Barnabas 18–20 186 19.5-7 201

5.11.77 61, 62 6.8.62 79 6.566 123

Apuleius Metamorphoses 11.23 25

Cicero Pro Flacco 28.68 4

Cologne Mani Codex 60.12–62.20 71

Aristotle Politics I.1253b.1-14 201

Clement of Rome 1 Clement 21.6-9 201

Corpus Hermeticum 1.15.19-26 84 4.4 189 13.11 27

Clement of Alexandria Stromata

Didache 1-6 186

254 4.9-11 201 Diogenes Laertius 6.102 83 8.28 83 Euripedes Electra 595 129 Rhesus 225 129 Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 2.23.5 116 5.4 123 Gospel of Truth 10.22-28 99 19.35–20.25 99 Heliodorus 10.35 77 Hermas Similitude 5.3.7 121, 122 Vision 3.10.6 121, 122 Herodian v.7,3 123 Herodotus 2.104 94 7.30 3 Ignatius Letter to the Ephesians 19 63

Heavenly Perspective Letter to the Smyrneans 5 77 Letter to Polycarp 4.1–5.2 201 Irenaeus Proof 12 46 44 46 Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 113.4 46 120 63 Orphicorum Fragmenta 168 167 Paulus Orosius 7.9.8 108 Plato Parmenides 130C 43 Theaetetus 198B 75 201e 82 Timaeus 32c 167 40a-41a 83 92c 160 Plutarch Aemilius Paulus 32-34 108 Camillus 30.1 109 Comparatio Thesei et

Romuli 4.4.3 108 Sophocles Oedipus at Colonus 678-680 129 Oedipus Tyrannus 825 129 Stobaeus Excerpts 23.68 78 Strabo 8.17.2.5 94 12.3.35 108 Tacitus History 5.5.2 95 Tatian Oratio ad Graecos 26.1 109 Tertullian Adversus Marcionem 5.4.1 86 On Patience 14 63 Xenophon Anabasis 1.2,6 3

Heavenly Perspective: A Study of the Apostle Paul's Response to a Jewish Mystical Movement at Colossae

Secret Wisdom of Qabalah: A Study in Jewish Mystical Thought

The Apostle Paul in the Jewish Imagination: A Study in Modern Jewish-Christian Relations

The Apostle: A Thriller

The Apostle: A Thriller

A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement

Elijah: A Study in Jewish Folklore

Laughing at Nothing: Humor As a Response to Nihilism

Sigmund Freud and the Jewish Mystical Tradition

Restitution at the Crossroads: A Comparative Study

A Companion to the Study of History

A Matter of Perspective

A Matter of Perspective

A Matter of Perspective

A Matter of Perspective

A Matter of Perspective

A Matter of Perspective

A Perspective Look at Nonlinear Media

Channel Islands at War: A German Perspective

Numbers at work: a cultural perspective

Medical Care at the End of Life: A Catholic Perspective

The End of Reason: A Response to the New Atheists

Malaria: A Hematological Perspective: A Hematological Perspective

Heavenly

Dante and the Mystics: A Study of the Mystical Aspect of the Divine Commedia

Off-Canon Pleasures: A case study and a perspective

Houses of Study: A Jewish Woman among Books

The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright

Tender Heart: A Buddhis Response to Suffering

Heavenly Perspective: A Study of the Apostle Paul's Response to a Jewish Mystical Movement at Colossae

Secret Wisdom of Qabalah: A Study in Jewish Mystical Thought

The Apostle Paul in the Jewish Imagination: A Study in Modern Jewish-Christian Relations

The Apostle: A Thriller

The Apostle: A Thriller

A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement

Elijah: A Study in Jewish Folklore

Laughing at Nothing: Humor As a Response to Nihilism

Sigmund Freud and the Jewish Mystical Tradition

Restitution at the Crossroads: A Comparative Study

A Companion to the Study of History

A Matter of Perspective

A Matter of Perspective

A Matter of Perspective

A Matter of Perspective

A Matter of Perspective

A Matter of Perspective

A Perspective Look at Nonlinear Media

Channel Islands at War: A German Perspective

Numbers at work: a cultural perspective

Medical Care at the End of Life: A Catholic Perspective

The End of Reason: A Response to the New Atheists

Malaria: A Hematological Perspective: A Hematological Perspective

Heavenly

Dante and the Mystics: A Study of the Mystical Aspect of the Divine Commedia

Off-Canon Pleasures: A case study and a perspective

Houses of Study: A Jewish Woman among Books

The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright

Tender Heart: A Buddhis Response to Suffering

Recommend Documents