| So, I know that I haven't written on here in a long long time. So, I am writing now. Just a few things this time. I got a haircut a couple of months ago (or hair non-cut), but since I haven't seen anybody in a while I haven't really told anbody about it. So here are a few picture of it, althogh they are not really of the haircut persay. Also, I put two papers that I recently wrote below. I thought it might be fun to let people see what I do in Seminary and give any feedback if they want. They papers below are for Church History and New Testament. the First one is on Brother Lawrence and Lancelot Andrewes and the second one is a very indepth study of the passage Colossians 1:15-20. Don't feel obligated to read them, I won't be offended if you don't. love, kevin   “Encounter with a Classic” A Comparison of Brother Lawrence and Lancelot Andrewes Kevin Warner CH 503 Engaging Reformation and Modern Church History “A complete draft of this paper was peer-reviewed on 2/28/07” Description of the Authors and their Contexts For this assignment I chose to read two works of literature from the time of the Reformation: The Practice of the Presence of God by Brother Lawrence and The Private Devotions by Lancelot Andrewes. Both grew up in the midst of the turmoil of the European Reformation, Andrewes was born in 1555 while Brother Lawrence was born in 1614. While they may not have had much, if any, interaction between each other, both were exemplary theologians in their style of practicing and developing actions of dwelling with Christ in prayer. Lancelot Andrewes was born in Allhalllows Barking, London in 1555. His father was a seafaring man in England, Lancelot’s home for most of his life. Thus, for much of his life, the crown and direction of the religion of England was in fluctuation, moving back and forth between Catholic and Protestant rulers. In 1571, he attended Pembroke and later in his life, in 1601, he became the Dean of Westminster. In school and throughout his life it was very natural for him to learn languages; it was said that by the end of his life he had mastered at least fifteen languages. Throughout his career in the church and in scholarship he was in contact with many great minds and was involved in much of the political changes occurring in England. In 1603, Andrewes assisted in the coronation of King James; later in his life, in 1626, he assisted in the coronation of King Charles the first. In 1607, under the rule of King James, Andrewes had a large part in translating and creating the Authorized Version of the English Bible. Yet, his close contact with the political side of England, especially with King James, had its downfalls. One regret which Andrewes had for the rest of his life was being forced to side with King James in the Essex case; his remorse for this act can be seen in his Personal Devotions For all of his doubts and misgivings about his life, Andrewes’ Personal Devotions are prized by many as a window into Andrewes prayer life but also as a modern day guide to prayer. In September of 1626 Lancelot Andrewes passed away. Nicholas Herman Lorraine, also known as Brother Lawrence, was born in 1614 in Herimenil, France. Not much is known about his younger years, except for the fact that at around the age of 18 he went through some sort of silent conversion experience. He did not pursue it though, but instead joined the military. During his service, he was involved in the bloody Thirty Years’ War; some speculation has been made as to whether or not Lawrence took part in some of the looting or acts of violence in the war. In 1635 he was wounded in the war and returned back to his parents’ home. He eventually joined the Order of Discalced Carmelites in Paris in 1640; this is where he acquired the name Lawrence. While in the Order, he served as the cook for fifteen years and later as the sandal repairman; a job fit for him because his gout caused him much pain while standing. Brother Lawrence went through a similar experience to that of Martin Luther. Lawrence became depressed inside the monastery and thought that his actions were condemning him on all sides. He finally came to the realization of his state and began to feel at peace because of God’s presence. Thus, he is so well known for his continual practice of being in the presence of God. Through his services in the monastery and those outside of it he was able to make many contacts and share his incredible experience and thoughtful practice of God’s presence. Eventually his war wound and gout caught up to him and the year before he died he suffered three excruciating illnesses before passing away on February 12th 1691. Content of Private Devotions & The Practice of the Presence of God While Lancelot Andrewes has many works from his hand and mouth, such as the Authorized Version of the Bible and his personal sermons, his most famous work consists of his personal devotionals. The Personal Devotions consist of a wealth of prayers which Andrewes himself created and used in his own devotional times. The collection starts out with a look through Scripture of different times, places, and circumstances for prayer. While he does not quote the Bible by chapter and verse, to show when he uses Scripture, one will notice Scripture all throughout his prayers: “Blessed art thou, O Lord, Who broughtest forth the beasts of the earth, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth, for food, clothing, help; and madest man after Thine image, to rule the earth, and blessedst him.” One might even propose that Scripture is the backbone of all of his prayers. Next, Andrewes created a number of morning prayers. Yet, these are not just simple and short ‘hello’s’ to God, they are complex and well thought out liturgical practices. Each morning prayer consists of a Meditation and Adoration, a Confession of Sin, a Prayer for Grace, a Confession of Sin, an Intercession, and finally a Thanksgiving. This is one example of one of his prayers of thanksgiving: “O Lord, my Lord, for my being, life, reason, for nurture, protection, guidance, for education, civil rights, religion…” Andrewes even created prayers for each day of the seven day week. In it, each day may emphasize or deemphasize a certain type of prayer. After this, Andrewes has some prayers for doing evening devotionals, although there are not as many night devotionals as morning devotionals. The next section is an anthology of various kinds of prayers ranging from an act of deprecation and a meditation of the aggravation of sin to a prayer of Hosanna on the Earth and meditation on the Day of Judgment. Many of these prayers dwell in the area of confession of sins and the blessed work of Jesus in terms of our sins: “Look upon the face of Thine Anointed, and in the blood of Thy covenant, in the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Lord, be merciful to me a sinner.” His prayers end with a section concerning prayers to be used during the act of communion. These are five shorter prayers which help the participant to prepare for the Lord’s Supper before, during, and after taking the elements. There are two main sections in The Practice of the Presence of God: the first consists of Lawrence’s personal correspondences with various people including “a religious priest, others to a Carmelite nun, some others to one or more lay people, and the last four to a Blessed Sacrament nun.” The second section consists of a volume written by Lawrence entitled “The Spiritual Maxims, or Means for Attaining to the Presence of God.” The first section consists of conversations which the author had with Brother Lawrence and a collection of various letters written by Lawrence. The Conversations piece, documents the ongoing encounters that the author had with Lawrence. While each paragraph is a little awkward because it starts every time with “that he” or “that we,” each section contains a wealth of information about how one might live out the idea of practicing God’s presence. Lawrence did not find a difference in his set devotional times and his everyday experiences because he would constantly be glorifying and praising God in his every action. In fact, he believed that every action, thought, and word should be an utterance of praise and glory unto God. An example of this is found in his Second Conversation: “in the kitchen (to which he had naturally a great aversion), having accustomed himself to do everything there for the love of God, and with prayer, upon all occasions, for his grace to do his work well.” The section which includes his Letters is a little different in that it actually retells the stories of real people and how Lawrence is counseling them in the practice of the presence of God. In the thirteenth letter, Lawrence discusses the author’s illness, “I am in pain to see you suffer so long. What gives me some ease and sweetens the feelings I have for your griefs is that they are proofs of God’s love toward you. See them in that view and you will bear them more easily.” Even in sickness, Lawrence prays for him but also praises God for His constant presence. The second section in the book consists of Brother Lawrence’s own Spiritual Maxims. These are a reiteration of what it means to live out the practice of the presence of God. Throughout this section one will find methods, practices, and ideas about how this happens, “to worship God in spirit and in truth means to offer to Him the worship that we owe…we must worship Him in spirit…by presenting to Him a true and humble spiritual worship in the very depth of our being.” In the end, Brother Lawrence emphasizes time and again that this practice is not a set of devotions or set of rules, it is instead temperament of the heart to always be in-tune with God. A Critique of Strengths and Weaknesses This section will take an in-depth look at each theologian’s written work and make observations as to some of the strengths and weaknesses of each work. In the end, the author will compare the two works to each other in an attempt to see how the two theologians may have interacted with each other. Lancelot Andrewes was a wonderful benefit to the English Reformation and he continues to shape people’s personal walks with God through his own Personal Devotions. One strength of Andrewes’ devotionals is that they cover a wide variety of topics and subjects. Many times prayers are weak and lack substance, yet Andrewes’ prayers are filled with quotes from Scripture and a variety of prayers. His morning devotionals are filled with different focuses and areas that one can use to praise and talk to God. In the first day during his time of confession, Andrewes confesses the various areas covered by the Apostles’ Creed, “to serve the Lord, for His conception, in faith, for His birth, in humility, for His sufferings, in patience and in impatience of sin…” It is not stagnant or boring, but different and an example of a good mixture of prayer. One focus of the prayers seems to be on the act of confession and the depravity of human beings. As will be discussed later on, this is a great benefit for many modern Protestants because this act has gradually left many worship services. Another strength, coming from his personal devotionals, is his combination of Scripture and his own experiences. Throughout the book one will see a number of different ways of using Scripture through prayer to pray for his own circumstances such as the church’s problems and specific people: “Remember Thy Church, from one end of the earth to the other; and give her peace, whom thou haste redeemed with Thy precious blood; and establish her unto the end of the world.” While there are many strengths that one might gather from Lancelot Andrewes, there are only two main weaknesses with his approach to prayer. First, there is always a danger in writing out prayers and then reading them consistently. One wonders if Andrewes ever fell into a pattern of repetition while praying and not actually praying to God but rather simply reading the words on the paper. Second, one must also temper these prayers with the thought that they are circumstantial. Many of the names, places, and even the emotions that are emitted come from his experiences of regret and complacency. Turning to Brother Lawrence, the Practice of the Presence of God is a wealth of positive ideas on how to be continually aware of God’s presence at all times. This practice is beneficial for all generations because it places our minds and hearts constantly on God’s workings and voice. This is so beneficial because many times people place their time with God in specific devotionals or even places; one’s time with God may be the one hour spent in prayer in the morning. This practice of the presence of God infuses God into every action throughout the entire day. Thus, “the most excellent method he had found of going to God was that of doing our common business without any view of pleasing men, and (as far as we are capable) purely for the love of God.” It is amazing to think that Brother Lawrence’s practice made him aware of the fact that there was no difference between his prayer times and his every day experiences. While Brother Lawrence’s practice may have been a great fit for him, it may not work for all peoples. One weakness is the overall lack of Scripture throughout Brother Lawrence’s practice. While one can notice God in his or her own heart, the only legitimate means of interpreting whether one hears God’s voice or not is through the Scriptures. One may theorize that reading Scripture was part of Brother Lawrence’s devotional times. Yet, he states that “the time of business…does not with me differ from the time of prayer; and in the noise and clatter of my kitchen, while several persons are at the same time calling for different things, I possess God in as great tranquility as if I were upon my knees at the blessed sacrament.” Thus, since Scripture was not used frequently in his practice of the presence of God, one may assume that it was not a part of his devotional times. Another weakness of his approach was in how one might practically put this constant awareness of God into action. It is a wonderful idea to be always thoughtful of God and to have every action one does be for the glory of God, but how does one make every small task into the practice of the glory of God? For example, how might one glorify God while brushing his or her teeth, going to the bathroom, or taking a shower in the morning? One thought is that this might lead to an escapist view. If one is constantly thinking about glorifying God with his or her eyes toward heaven, then how does one still live in this world and do the everyday, mundane activities? In the end, both theologians offer very interesting views on how to be in-tune with the Christian God. While both lived in relatively the same time period, their styles of reacting to the trials of the world around them proved to be extremely different. Andrewes chose to interact with his culture, teach, and have numerous interactions with political figures, “in 1625 [King] James died. On his deathbed the king sent for Andrewes…On the second of February 1626 Andrewes was able to be present at the coronation of Charles the first, in which ceremony, both on account of his high office and his personal acceptability, he took a foremost place.” Brother Lawrence, on the other hand, chose to live in an Order and to only share his practice with those associated with the Order or in acquaintance with it, “there were the workers who came to the monastery, the beggars at the door, and the visitors to both the parlors and the church.” In the end, both theologians influenced a great number of people, but in their own methods and circles. Both theologians would have found some points in their practices and theologies to agree on, but they would have probably found more points of disagreement. Both would have agreed on the fact that everyone needs to immerse themselves with God through variety. The variety found in Andrewes was in his depth of words and different types of prayers. Lawrence, on the other hand, used every activity he did as a way of being with God. Thus, whether through action or word, both theologians found that diversity in relationship to God is an excellent endeavor. Their strongest point of disagreement would have probably been in the area of one’s actual practice of praying and communing to God. Andrewes found solace in set times to pray and certain types of prayer, while Lawrence loved to constantly give God His due glory through everyday activities. In the end, both theologians complement each other nicely in their views of communing with God. On the one hand, Andrewes’ provides the depth of Scripture to Lawrence’s lack of it, while, on the other hand, Lawrence provides the continuation of prayer lacking in Andrewes’ liturgical prayers. Lessons to be Learned Both Lancelot Andrewes and Brother Lawrence offered a wealth of knowledge to their generation and an incredible example for contemporary Christian Americans. As stated before, neither approach, in this author’s opinion, is adequate by itself, but when combined, these approaches can transform one’s spiritual prayer life. From the Personal Devotions of Lancelot Andrewes, one can find a depth of diverse prayers. This diversity of prayers can strengthen many modern day prayers which are weak and lacking in thought-out theology. One form of prayer which has been lost by many modern Protestants is the art of confession; on the other hand, Andrewes, because of the time period and circumstances surrounding him, used a lot of confessional writing. While it is important for churches to focus on God’s grace, it is equally important for churches today to focus on the depravity of mankind and its sinfulness. Also, the art of personal devotions has been lost in the fast-paced American world of consumerism. Many Christians and even ministers feel that they do not have time to sit down with God and pray. Even when people do take time to pray, many do not know what to say to God. This is one of the greatest benefits of Andrewes’ devotionals, it gives an example of personal prayers that one might follow in order to have a rich devotional time. Thus, Andrewes’ devotionals can be very helpful in corporate as well as private times of worship. Yet, people must be careful not to create a type of localized prayer time or situational prayer time. When one makes a commitment to pray in the morning, sometimes the thought of God stays there in the morning. The Practice of the Presence of God, as set forth by Brother Lawrence, provides a wonderful rule of life. Lawrence claims that one must always be thoughtful of God and give Him glory through every action in the day. Lawrence, in reference to this statement, claims that “when he had thus in prayer filled his mind with great sentiments of that infinite Being, he went to his work appointed in the kitchen…he spent all the intervals of his time, as well before as after his work, in prayer.” It is important for people to learn that God is not localized by a church building or a set devotional time; God is in every space and penetrates every area of time. This thought is the most beneficial piece of knowledge that Brother Lawrence offers. This rule of life brought forth by Brother Lawrence has been challenging to me specifically in terms of my devotional times. Throughout my Christian walk I have developed the habit of a morning devotional time where I sit before God, pray, and read my Bible. The problem though is that when I arise from that time and go on with the business of the day, I often leave God in that spot and my mind drifts onto other things. In the end, this constant awareness of God’s presence should seep into everyday actions and words, so that I might be a witness and shining light unto the world. In terms of application for the world of the Reformation and for the world of today, Lancelot Andrewes offers wonderful prayers in terms of church relations and church polity. Throughout my time of reading Andrewes devotionals, I noticed a number of prayers for different braches of the church: “for the Catholic Church, its establishment and increase; for the Eastern, its deliverance and union; for the Western, its adjustment and peace; for the British, the supply of all things that are wanting in it…” This was very important for people of that time period because it forced people to reconcile and forgive instead of be angry with each other and form more factions. It is still very important for people today to pray for all the different denominations and sects of Christianity, so that there might be unity and communication; especially in this world which breeds new denominations and factions everyday. There are also many modern and ancient forms of application that come out of Brother Lawrence’s practice of God. Brother Lawrence grew up in the time of the Reformation, which accused many Orders and Convents of being reclusive and secluded from the world. Thus, Lawrence’s practice of God throughout his day including his constant interactions with people inside and outside of his Order was a wonderful example of how one might truly live a Christian life inside an Order. Lawrence was also able to take advantage of his whole day by praising God through a practice instead of only at certain set times throughout the day. In terms of modern day application, as a Youth Ministry major, my experience is mostly with youth. This idea of practicing God’s presence is especially important for kids; many of those who grow up in the church or even those who are unchurched believe that God is localized inside of the church. It will be important for me as a future youth minister to teach kids how to observe God throughout their entire day: how he is moving, how He is speaking, and how every action is either glorifying or condemning unto God.
Bibliography Andrewes, Lancelot. Lancelot Andrewes and his Private Devotions. Translated by Alexander Whyte. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1981. Brother Lawrence. The Practice of the Presence of God with Spiritual Maxims. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Spire Books, 1967. Brother Lawrence of the Resurrection. The Practice of the Presence of God Translated by Salvatore Sciubra. Washington D.C.: ICS Publications, 1994. Inductive Bible Study: Colossians 1:15-20 Kevin Warner NT 512 MB: Understanding the Epistles and Revelation
Dr. Blomberg Literary Context of Passage In order to better understand the passage of Colossians 1:15-20, it is necessary to understand its surrounding context. This section will attempt to examine its preceding passage, following passage, and answer the question of how it relates to the overall theme of the book of Colossians. The section which immediately precedes Colossians 1:15-20 consists of 1:3-14 which deals mainly with the idea of thanksgiving. The author of Colossians is giving thanks to the Father for the faith that he has found throughout the world, especially in the town of Colossae. The thanksgiving is also mingled with prayer unto God that the recipients’ faith might be established and rooted: a rooting that bears good fruit and is pleasing to God. N.T. Wright alleges that the verses immediately preceding the passage under study, 1:12-14, are defined by this theme: “the creator God has qualified his people to share in the inheritance of the saints in light, by delivering them from the kingdom of darkness and transferring them into the kingdom of his son, in whom they have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” Towards the end of this section on thanksgiving, the author begins to discuss how God brought salvation into the world through his Christ child. The theme of the passage under study, Colossians 1:15-20, revolves around Christ and his salvific work. First, it discusses how Christ is related to God in that he is the image of God’s invisibleness. Next, it shows how Christ is related to all of creation: things being created through him and for him; also, all things hold together in him. The passage goes on to claim that Christ is also related to the church: he is the head of the church and the model for all Christians to follow. The passage ends by discussing how the Father’s will is completed in Christ as He dwells in Christ and reconciles all of creation unto Himself. In the end, this passage provides a wonderful poetic expression of Christ’s relation to God and to all of creation. The section following immediately after this set of verses is 1:21-23 which deals with the implications of God’s work of reconciliation with the world through Christ. The author reminds the audience of their former lifestyle: a life of alienation from God. However, because of the work of Christ, they are now reconciled to the Father. This means that they are to be presented to the Father as holy and without sin as they continue to follow in the path of Christ. The overall theme of the larger section which Colossians 1:15-20 rests in has to do with living a life of reconciliation to Christ. The author begins this section by giving thanks to the readers for their faith in the message of the Father sending the Son. In the course of this thanks he begins to discuss the implications of this sending and how it directly applies to the readers. Thus, the section flows from a message of prayerful thanksgiving into a theological discourse and then finally into a means of application. The application is that one should not live the life of alienation from God anymore, but one should continue to walk in the model of Christ so that they may continue to be a part of the reconciliation of creation to the Father. While the entire letter to the town of Colossae has an overarching positive ring to it, one will notice that throughout it the author is dealing with a very sensitive issue: a heresy which has arisen within the church. One commentator declares that “the heresy affected three major doctrines – Christology, soteriology, and anthropology.” Colossians 1:15-20 is a crucial passage to the entire book of Colossians because it speaks of Christ and his work of reconciliation of creation to the Father. Thus, this poetic passage is the author’s way of directly attacking the heretics’ claims about Christ. In the end, while the author is very thankful for this town, he is very careful to explain the reconciling work of Christ and the necessary implications of living in a reconciled world. Historical-Cultural Background In order to understand the passage under study, one must first understand the culture in which the letter was written, so that the passage’s time period defines it and not the 21st century. The main point of this section will be to understand the immediate context of the author and his recipients and also the overall context in which the author and recipients found themselves. The first issue which needs to be addressed concerns the understanding of who the recipients of this letter were and why they were receiving this letter. An undisputed issue of this section is that this letter was written to the town of Colassae. Dr. Blomberg claims that “Paul is addressing this church in a comparatively small Gentile community in the Lycus valley, though with a significant minority of Jews.” It is important to note that this town, while not equally portioned out, had both Gentile and Jewish Christians which lead to numerous controversies and disputes. The disputed issue in this text, among theologians has to do with why the author is writing to the town of Colassae. The majority believes that there was a heresy growing amidst this congregation; understanding this heresy is said to be key to understanding the entire book. As stated earlier, the three main elements of this heresy were that of Christology, soteriology, and anthropology. In the end, because of the Colossians’ cultural background one theologian claims that the “heresy combined in “syncretistic” fashion both Judaizing and Hellenizing elements.” The next logical step is to then understand some of the implications of the Hellenistic worldview and how it affected Paul’s use of this Christian hymn in the book of Colossians. There are many elements in this passage that directly relate this hymn to the Hellenistic culture in which it was submerged in, but for sake of brevity, this section will only focus on philosophical thought. There are elements in this passage that would remind its readers of a single type of Hellenistic philosophical thought: Stoic thought. The Stoic philosophy, as taken from Marcus Aurelius’s “Self Contemplations,” used very similar wording to v. 16; the idea of using the pronouns “in-through-to” to describe Christ is very similar to Stoic doxologies. The major difference though between the Stoic and Christian thought was that Stoics believed that the omnipotence of God indicated that he was not separate from the creation. The final issue in this section, quite possibly one of the most important elements, deals with the Jewish background that affected the Colossians. The most important Jewish concept that relates to this passage deals with the idea of wisdom literature. One commentator claims that the wisdom category and genres were so prevalent in 1st century Judaism that they must have contributed to the religious framework of Paul. Jewish wisdom literature described the wisdom of God as the means to the creation of the world and as holding all things together. This is an obvious parallel to the description of Christ found in Colossians 1:15-20. Also, the Midrash approach to wisdom saw it as closely related to the beginning of the world. There were a few differences though between Jewish wisdom literature and this hymn unto Christ. Wisdom was not associated with the Christ nor was the Christ seen as the goal of creation. Likewise, the Christ’s death and resurrection were not part of the Jewish wisdom genre. From this, one will observe that this hymn about Christ found in Colossians 1:15-20 is very closely related to the Jewish idea of wisdom. Thus, the Jewish Christians in Colossae would have picked up on this and paired the Jewish idea of wisdom with the Christ. Word Studies Eikwn/Image The first word to be studied, ‘image,’ comes from Colossians 1:15. While the phrase ‘image of God’ is not found regularly in the Bible, it is a very important word to study for Christians because of the concept of the imago dei found in Genesis 1:26. Thus, it is even more important to understand how Christ is the image of God. To better understand this word, one must look at the range of meanings this word has inside the Bible and outside of it. First, one must look at the vast range of meanings that this word brings along with it as well as its history. In the Old Testament there are five words that are used for the word image. In the book of Genesis, this word is used to describe the substance or essence of God which man has inside of him. Yet, outside of Genesis the word is mostly used to describe idols and false Gods. Outside of the Bible, yet throughout the Old Testament time period, the word was used to describe a painting, statue, or simile. The poet Homer used a derivative of the word to say “it seemed good,” or “it appeared.” Also, “In Greek thought an image shares in the reality of what it represents…the god is himself present and operative in his image.” Thus, the Old Testament followed the common usage of this word by referring to tangible idols and to the intangible representation of God. As the word ‘image’ entered into New Testament times, it did not change in meaning. One commentator claimed that outside of the New Testament it meant “an object shaped to resemble the form or appearance of something… [such as a] portrait.” It was also described as a likeness or representation. Throughout the New Testament itself, one will find a number of uses of this word. These uses include: idol, image of corruptible man, image and glory of God, likeness, looks the same, and a mark or likeness to the beast in the book of Revelation. The next step is to determine how the author used this specific word in the context of Colossians 1:15-20 and what its meaning is. One commentator states that in this context the word means “the exact replica in bodily form of the non-embodied Father.” Another claims that it means that Christ is the essence of the invisible God. In the end, both of those commentators are correct. Christ is the physical representation of the spiritual God; Christ gives clarity to hazy ideas of God. Thus, God is real and fully present in Christ because His image is inside of Him. Aoratou/Invisible The second word, ‘invisible,’ occurs twice in this passage, first in verse 15 and second in verse 16. This is an important word to study because it occurs multiple times in this context but also because the culture of the New Testament is drastically different from that of the 21st century. Many times, the word ‘invisible’ today means too small to see, while in the times of the Bible, invisible things were closely related to spiritual things. To better understand this word, one must look at the range of meanings this word has inside the Bible and outside of it. It is first important for one to study the history of this word and how it was used before it came about in the New Testament book of Colossians. It is interesting to note that this word never actually occurs in any of the books of the Old Testament. Yet, according to Jewish tradition, God is not invisible, just incapable of being seen; this concept is comparable to one’s inability to look at the sun. The word also appears outside of the religious realm in the area of philosophy. Like Colossians 1:16, Platonic philosophy divided the cosmos into two types: ‘things seen and things unseen.’ Thus, invisibility was closely associated with spiritual and religious realms of gods and the cosmos. The word ‘invisible’ was used four times in the New Testament: twice in Colossians and once each in Romans and 1 Timothy. Inside of the New Testament this word ranged from the attributes of God to the way God reigns as king over His kingdom. In the range of works in the same time period as the New Testament, the word came to mean, “pertain[ing] to not being subject to being seen, unseen.” In the end, the word was used more frequently in the New Testament than the Old Testament time period and came to represent different attributes of God. The final step is to determine how to translate the word ‘invisible’ in terms of the context of Colossians and its culture. The best translation of the word has to deal with the spiritual realm of life and not with atoms and particles, objects which are too small for our eyes to see. Thus, a correct translation of the word would be the spiritual things that can not be seen on earth. Prwtotokos/Firstborn The third word under study, ‘firstborn,’ is also used repeatedly in this passage and carries multiple meanings with it. Today, the word ‘firstborn’ carries the meaning of the oldest child in a family. While this was true of some instances in the Bible, the word was also used to describe the attributes of being a firstborn child. This is a very important word to study so that one might correctly understand the concept which relates directly to Christ. To better understand this word, one must look at the range of meanings this word has within the Bible and without. First, one must understand how this word was used throughout the Old Testament and its surrounding culture. The word used in Hebrew for ‘firstborn’ was the word bekor which had to do with birth and order. Although this word was used to represent one’s eldest son, it was also used as a title to express status, such as the example of Psalm 89:27. In the Septuagint, the firstborn, in the literal sense, meant born first of man and beast. In a transferred sense (meaning the transfer of a father’s rights to the eldest son) prwtotokos is used to express a special relationship which is defined by strength, love, and a special position in the law. Thus the word ‘firstborn’ was closely associated with the special privileges that the son born first would inherit from his father. It is interesting to note here though, that this word occurs very rarely outside of the Bible. Next, one must understand how the word ‘firstborn’ was used in the New Testament. One commentator claims that this word came to mean pertaining to having special status associated with a firstborn. While another commentator claims that the word meant “existing before or supremacy.” In relation to the passage found in Colossians, it is interesting to note that the Rabbis held the idea of wisdom to be the firstborn of creation; the torah and the sanctuary were also described as being firstborn which meant that they had a special relationship with God. In the New Testament, the word meant both a person born first and one having authority. The final step is for one to provide an adequate translation for the word ‘firstborn.’ In the New Testament the word means supremacy or priority of rank to dominate, Christ’s relation to creation. It is interesting to note that Christ is described in the figurative and literal sense of the word. In verse 15, ‘firstborn’ is meant in the figurative sense of the word: supremacy or priority of rank to dominate, Christ’s relation to creation. In verse 18, Christ is the ‘firstborn’ in the figurative and literal sense. The Church Father, Severian of Gabala, agrees with this stance: ““Firstborn of all creation” applied to his status before the emergence of the created order, whereas “firstborn from the dead” refers to the fact that he was raised first of all the brothers who will share in salvation.” Not only does He have dominion and power over those resurrected and created, but he is also the first one raised to life in the resurrection. Grammar Studies Understanding mechanics used in terms of the Greek language and how they are portrayed in the English language, is an extremely important task in understanding any passage properly. This section will attempt to analyze two distinct parts of the grammatical area of Colossians 1:15-20. First will be a study of the verbs found within the passage and what force and direction they carry. Second, will be a study of the connective words and prepositions. Force of the Verb Forms It is interesting to note that there is a progression found within the verbs of this passage. The progression begins in the present tense as it describes Christ. Next it moves into two forms of the past tense: the aorist and the perfect tense. Verse 16 provides an interesting example of the author using two forms of the same verb; first in the aorist and second in the perfect. The verb is ktizw which means to create. The first instance of the word is in the aorist tense which simply means that the action happened in the past, while the second form of the word is in the perfect which “emphasizes the duration and persistence of the act of creation.” One other interesting fact is that both words, while in different tenses, have the same voice: the passive voice; “the passive voice in Greek is used to express divine activity.” The progression stays in the past tense until verse 19 when it switches briefly into the present tense to describe Christ’s supremacy. Then, for the rest of the passage the verbs stay in the past tense to indicate completion of things happening in the past. This shows that God not only worked in creation in the past, but is also, through Christ, present and reigning over His creation. Types of Connectives Colossians 1:15-20 contains many connective phrases, yet this section will focus, for the sake of brevity, on the many connective agents in verse 16. This verse contains three heavily used prepositions in the Greek language: en,, dia, and eis. The first preposition, en,, is a personal agent which is expressed normally by the words ‘by,’ ‘in,’ or ‘through.’ One commentator claims that “in some instances, this is best expressed by a set of causative relationships, for example, “God caused Christ to create everything.” Another interesting comment is that this phrase does not denote Christ being in all things, but rather that all things are in Christ. Thus, this statement claims that Christ was the agent of creation and that because of this, all things are in him. The second preposition under study, dia, carries the sense of ‘through,’ ‘by means of,’ or ‘during’ with the genitive. One comment on this preposition is that it “may include, along with an instrumental cause, also a principal cause.” This simply means that along with Christ being a part of the making of creation, He was also the primary cause of creation. The final word under study, eis, can be translated into a number of different words. In some translations it is translated as ‘for him,’ yet, one commentator claims that this is “not an entirely adequate representation of the preposition eis, which indicates purpose or goal.” Thus, Christ is here explained as the ultimate end of creation. It is also interesting to note that the world was actually created for the purpose of the Messiah. The three Greek prepositions indicate that Christ was the agent of creation as well as a primary cause in creation. In the end, Christ is simply described as the ultimate goal of everything created. This is important because the order of the connectives is repeated in verses 19-20. Thus, Christ is not only intricately involved in the making of creation, but He is also intricately involved with the redemption of creation. Major Interpretive Problems As with any passage of scripture, there will ultimately be many different views from theologians and scholars about the interpretation of certain issues. The goal of the interpreter is to sift through these various interpretations and decide which interpretation is ultimately the correct meaning intended from the original author. In terms of Colossians 1:15-20, there are three areas whose interpretations are debated among theologians: the problem of who the author of this section was, the correct structure of this piece of poetry, and what is meant by the word ‘firstborn.’ This section will first examine the various interpretations of these issues and then decide which one best fits the context and the author’s intended meaning. First, an issue which arises in almost every commentary of this passage deals with where this passage actually came from and who wrote it. This paper will side with tradition and Blomberg that Paul most likely wrote this letter. Yet, the source of this passage has been heavily debated; the argument is that the source of it could be either Gnostic, a later redactional insert, or that it was actually written by Paul. The first argument claims that this passage was adapted by somebody, possibly even Paul, from a Gnostic text and inserted into Colossians. One scholar, Kasemann, thought that by removing the words ‘church’ and ‘through the blood of the cross’ the passage became a perfect Gnostic text. The author of Colossians then adapted this Gnostic text to be a baptismal liturgy because it would have been familiar to the Hellenistic Christians in the town. The largest problem with this approach though is that this argument relies heavily on 2nd century thought. Next, scholars propose that this passage is simply a spectacular Christian poem that was not written by Paul, but simply inserted by him or another into this text. One commentator goes so far as to say that the majority of scholars believe that this hymn was non-Pauline. Some reasons for this are that there are a number of terms used in this passage that are not used anywhere else in Paul’s writings such as the words ‘image of God,’ ‘visible and invisible,’ ‘thrones,’ ‘dominion,’ ‘preeminent,’ and ‘make peace.’ Some have proposed that this may have even been a hymn or a piece of liturgy. It is possible that the people in Colossae may have been using this in their worship and thus it was already familiar to them. Finally, there are some scholars that argue for a Pauline authorship of this passage. One scholar’s claim runs with the idea of this passage being used in worship and believes that Paul wrote Colossians 1:12-23 as a hymn to be read in the church’s worship service. Another scholar simply claims that “the case against the Pauline authorship is considerably more flimsy than its more ardent advocates would have us believe.” This may very well be. The Gnostic reading of the text comes from much later Gnostic texts than the book of Colossians. Even the argument against Paul’s authorship which states that there are numerous words in the text which Paul does not use elsewhere, does not hold because Paul could have very likely decided to use different words for this special hymn. In the end, there is no physical evidence to show that Paul is definitely not the author of this Christian hymn. To conclude, while there are many intriguing interpretation to this passage, the best interpretation lays in the fact that this was most likely a poem which was inserted into the text by Paul. One commentator makes the interesting note that verses 12-14 use the words ‘we’ and ‘us,’ which might allude to a confessing community, while verse 15-20 do not. This scholar ends up deciding that this was most likely a Christian creed. The idea of this passage being a Christian hymn or creed is the best option of interpretation, whether or not it was written by Paul may still be a mystery though. The Gnostic argument falls through because of its late dating. The argument for a pre-Pauline author is not an air-tight argument. It is also intriguing to note that Pliny, in describing the early Christians, claims that they were singing hymns to Christ as to God. Thus, it is quite possible to assume that hymns or creeds to Christ were quite common in that time period. In the end, this passage was most likely an earlier hymn or creed that was inserted into the text by Paul or written earlier by Paul. The next, issue that needs to be discussed is the issue of how this poem is structured. This argument assumes that Colossians 1:15-20 is a piece of poetry with a certain structure to it. Yet, the actual structure of this poem has been disputed among numerous theologians. There are two sides to the argument: one side claims that there are three distinct stanzas, while the other side claims that there are only two stanzas. The first argument claims that the passage should be poetically divided up into three distinct sections. The first section is comprised of vv. 15-17a while the third section is comprised of vv. 18-20. The idea is that this passage is a chiasm. Thus, verse 17b is the middle of the chiasm and the most important part of the poem. One commentator even claims that this is the most popular explanation of the poem. In the end, the fact that all things hold together in Christ is the main thrust of this poem. The other stance argues that there are only two stanzas in this poem. One scholar noticed that verse 18 changes the focus of the hymn from cosmological to soteriological. Thus, Dr. Blomberg claims that “verses 15-20 are poetic in structure and form a coherent unity, divisible almost exactly in half, into verses 15-17 and 18-20, with part one proclaiming Christ’s sovereignty over creation and the second declaring his supremacy over the church.” This is a logical explanation of a Christocentric poem and how God has related to his creation through Christ. In the end, the best explanation of this passage is that there are only two distinct stanzas which divide the poem into Christ’s role in creation and Christ’s role in the church. While the proposal that 17b is the middle of a chiasm is rather intriguing, it is more logical that all of verse 17 should be included in the first stanza. The phrase ‘in him all things hold together’ is an explanatory phrase that relates directly to the powers and realms of verse 16. Thus, verse 17 is stating verse 16 in a more comprehensive manner. Therefore, one should understand this poem as Christ’s relation to everything split up into two stanzas. The final major interpretive issue that arises in this passage has to do with the phrases ‘firstborn of all creation’ and ‘firstborn from among the dead.’ As shown before, the word ‘firstborn’ had a vast range of meanings throughout the Old and New Testaments. The basic disagreement is whether or not this phrase refers to a chronological experience or an authoritative description of Christ. The argument that Christ was chronologically firstborn of creation is a rather dated argument, but it is a very important issue even for Christians today to study. The first instance of this proposal was set forth by Arius and later came to be known as the Arian Controversy. Arius believed that because of this verse, there was once a time in history when Christ was not present. Also, the theologian Chrysostom claimed that “the word firstborn is not expressive of dignity and honor, nor of anything else, but of time only.” While these theologians are not current, there are still theologians today and sects of Christianity that rely on Arius’s logic for doctrine; an example of this is the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The other perspective claims that the term ‘firstborn’ is not a chronological term but rather a term used to describe Christ’s rank and authority. As stated earlier, the majority of modern scholars agree that this term is used to describe the qualities or special attributes of a firstborn son. The theologian Ambrose stated: “firstborn, mark you, not first created, in order that he may be believed to be both begotten, in virtue of his nature, and the first in virtue of his eternity.” Thus, Christ was the first in a sense, but not as creation bound by time. In conclusion, it is quite obvious from the above word study and the study of the history of the word ‘firstborn’ that the phrase is meant to incur an authoritative description of Christ. The argument that there was a time when Chris was not in existence is not consistent with Scripture. In the end, one must rely on the dominant use of this word found within the New Testament which states that Christ has supremacy over creation because of his firstborn-like status. Analytical Outline The Authority and Causality of Christ in the Work of Creation and the Church I. V. 15: Christ is the representative, physical likeness of God and has supremacy over all creation. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. A.) V. 16: Everything was created with the agency of Christ. For by Him all things were created 1. This includes the realm of God and the realm of humans. Both in the heavens and on earth, 2. Also, this includes the spiritual and physical realms. Visible and invisible, 3. In the end, this includes every kind of power or authority in heaven or on earth. Whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities; B.). This passage claims that not only was Christ the cause of creation but that he was also the ultimate goal of creation. All things have been created through Him and for Him. C) V. 17: In summary, Christ has supremacy over all creation, thus all things are in relation to Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. II. V. 18: Christ directs, governs, gives life to, and strengthens the church. He is also head of the body, the church A.) Christ is literally the first one raised from the dead but is also the authority of those to be raised. And He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. B.) V. 19: God chose to physically and spiritually be in Christ. For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 1. V. 20: Because God chose to dwell in Christ, he caused Christ to repair the broken relationship of creation to God. And through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, 2. This work of repair was done by Christ’s death on the cross. Having made peace through the blood of His cross; C.) In summary, Christ has reconciled and repaired all of creation, including the church, unto God. Through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. Interpretive Summary Comprehensive Summation This passage is most likely a Christian hymn or creed that was inserted by Paul as part of a prayer to combat a heresy which had risen up in the town of Colassae. The first phrase of the poem summarizes its main points: Christ is the physical representative of the spiritual being, God and he has the authority of an eldest son over creation. This phrase would have most likely reminded readers of the Jewish idea of wisdom and its importance in creation. Next, the passage goes on to explain and expand on the ideas of Christ being the agent of creation and than what creation entails. There are six terms used to describe the ‘all’ of creation, these terms are representative of everything that is spiritual and physical; this even includes entities that are in power such as angels and governments. At the end of this section, Christ is not only said to be the authority over creation, but he was also the cause of creation and eventually the ultimate goal of it. While still discussing Christ, the thrust of the passage changes to focus on Christ’s relationship to the church. This section begins by claiming that Christ is simply the authoritative and life-giving agent of the church. Like creation, Christ is said to be the ‘firstborn’ of the dead which means that He is the literal first one raised from the dead but that he also has authority and supremacy over those that will be raised from the dead. The next section uses the same prepositions en,, dia, and eis as verse 16. Instead of explaining Christ’s relation to the act of creation, this section deals with Christ’s relation to the act of reconciling and repairing creation to God. This work of repair was done by God becoming a man, in Christ, and dying on a cross. In the end, the work of Christ’s crucifixion is what redeems the whole creation and puts it back into a proper relationship with God. Theological Summary Colossians 1:15-20 covers four main theological doctrines: Christology, Cosmology, Ecclesiology, and Soteriology. First, the basis of the poem is Christ and His relation to God and creation. Christ’s full humanity and deity are stated in this passage by the phrases ‘image of God’ and ‘the fullness of God dwelling in Him.’ Next, the poem goes on to explain Christ’s relation to all of creation, in other words His relation to the cosmos. Relating to both Christology and Cosmology is the fact that Christ is said to be the agent, cause, and ultimate goal of everything in the spiritual and physical realms. Thus, since everything was created for the purpose of Christ, He has supremacy and authority over it. The passage then goes on to deal with how Christ relates to the church. Because he is the ‘head of the church,’ Christ is the creator of the church and thus sustains it and governs over it. The passage ends by explaining how Christ reconciled all of creation to God. As in creation, Christ was the agent, cause, and goal of the redemption of creation. This was achieved through the act of God being crucified on the cross through Christ. Application The final area under study concerning Colossians 1:15-20 deals with applying the truths of this passage for people today. For me, this passage intimately touches on several areas of my faith. The first area that this passage speaks to me in is that of my Spiritual Formation Contract. The second area deals with my Youth and Family Ministry Major. This semester, my Spiritual Formation Contract deals with the idea of doubt in the midst of faith. For the past year or so I have noticed a number of nagging doubts and questions looming in the back of my mind in terms of my Christian faith. This may have grown out of the fact that I can not ever remember having a conversion experience. Thus, I never went through a time of questioning or decision making about my faith; as long as I can remember I have been a Christian. As a result, I have been asking some hard questions such as, how can I tangibly touch God and know that He is there. Or, is evolution really not possible or am I just ignorant? In terms of these questions and doubts that I have had recently, this passage has helped me and confirmed some ideas proposed to me by my mentors. First, in the area of the tangibility of God, Colossians 1:15 and 19 claim that God’s image and essence were inside of Christ. Thus, God became tangible through Christ’s life, work, and words. I can physically read about God and put into practice Christ’s words through the Bible and thus experience the historical and tangible Christ. In terms of the second question, evolution and creation, Colossians 1:16 claims that Christ is the agent, cause, and goal of all of creation. This verse affirms that there is some sort of order in the world, but that Christ is the ultimate work behind it, not a random process. In the end, this passage offers some physical as well as systematic answers to my doubts. The other area of my life that this passage deals with is in the area of Youth and Family Ministry. As a youth minister, I will be able to point teenagers and parents to this passage to answer specific questions they might have. First, if doubts concerning the tangibility of God or that of evolution arise, I can point them, from my own experience, to this passage. Second, another issue which relates to this passage is the idea of authority. Teenagers especially, have a lot of trouble with authority figures such as parents, teachers, or coaches. This passage teaches teenagers that not only are all authority figures under the authority of Christ, but that they were actually created by Him. Finally, this passage can help teenagers understand the importance of their relationship to the church. Since Christ is the ‘head’ of the church, he is then the ultimate sustainer and authority of the church. Therefore, this means that on the one hand it is important for teenagers to attend church, but on the other hand, if church is not glorifying unto God and not in Christ’s hands, then they need to speak up and work to effect change.
Bibliography Baugh, Steven M. “The Poetic Form of Colossians 1:15-20.” Westminster Theological Journal 47 (1985): 227-244. Barth, M. Colossians (AB). 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1974.
Blomberg, Craig L. From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts through Revelation. Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Academic, 2006. Bratcher, Robert G. and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon. Vol. XX. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1977. Brown, Colin. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. G.R.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986. Danker, Frederick William ed. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed., Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000. Garland, D. E. Colossians/Philemon (NIVAC). G. R.: Zondervan, 1998. Gorday, Peter and Thomas C. Oden eds. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon. Vol. IX. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2000. Helyer, Larry L. “Cosmic Christology and Colossians 1:15-20.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37 (1994): 235-246. Lamp, Jeffrey S. “Wisdom in Colossians 1:15-20: Contribution and Significance.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41 (1998): 45-53. Louw, J. and E. A. Nida eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the NT Based on Semantic Domains. 2 vols. New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1988. O'Brien, P. T. Colossians, Philemon (WBC). Waco: Word, 1982. Rogers, Cleon L. The New Linguistic an Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1998. Thompson, M. M. Colossians & Philemon (THNTC). G. R.: Eerdmans, 2005. Wright, N.T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Vol. 3. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Zerwick, Max and Mary Grosvenor. A Grammatical Analysis of Greek New Testament. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981. Zondervan NASB Exhaustive Concordance. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, [1998].
N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, vol. 3 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 239. |
![[the image]](http://www.milk.com/wall-o-shame/waterproof.jpg)
