Colossians 1:15-23, Part 6
Now, Christ the Creator. The passage relates christology to every other major doctrine in Scripture. We have considered the doctrine of Christ in relation to the doctrine of revelation, and now we will consider the doctrine of Christ in relation to the doctrine of God, as well as other topics that sometimes fall under this heading or are closely associated with it, such as creation, angelology, and demonology. In other words, at this point, we proceed from epistemology to ontology, or metaphysics.
The deity of Christ is indicated at the outset by the same statement that stresses his revelatory function: "He is the image of the invisible God." In fact, he is able to reveal God in a complete and perfect manner because he himself is deity. He is the exact representation, or image, of deity because he is deity. Verse 19 says that all divine fullness dwells in him. His ontological status is the basis of his revelatory power. His own explanation is that he is able to tell us about God because he has been with God from the beginning, and has "seen" and "heard" the things of heaven. Again, these terms cannot denote empirical sensations, but a spiritual-intellectual apprehension. In any case, epistemology and metaphysics must be consistent with each other in a system of thought, as it is in the Christian religion.
As with many other biblical passages, although Scripture describes Christ in a way that he cannot be anything other than deity, and sometimes applies to him the word "God," its language often makes a distinction between Christ and "God." That is, although Scripture asserts the deity of Christ, it does not portray him as identical in every way to the person that it often designates as "God." This is consistent with and explained by the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all deity, equal in every way in terms of their divine attributes, but the word "God" is most often used to refer to the Father.
Since Christ is the exact image of the Father, then of course he is God. But since he is an image of the Father, then even though he is God, as in divine, he is not identical to the Father. Adding to this what Scripture teaches about the Holy Spirit, the biblical doctrine is that the Godhead is one and triune. This is not a contradiction, and there is not even a hint of paradox in it, since he is one in one sense, and three in a different sense. Our passage does not offer the complete doctrine on this, but it assumes and applies it throughout its discussion on christology.
The second part of verse 15 says that Christ is "the firstborn over all creation." This does not mean that he was born first or the first to be created. Scripture indicates in other places that he is not a creature, but that he has always been with God. And here it does not say, "He is the firstborn over all creation, the first to be created"; instead, it says, "He is the firstborn over all creation, for by him all things were created."
The word "firstborn" can indeed indicate a temporal priority, as in one who is born first, but it can also indicate a hierarchical priority, as in the superior rights of the firstborn. These two meanings do not bear a necessary relationship, so that it is possible to have one without the other. As one commentator writes:
In Exodus 4:22 God says, "Israel is my firstborn." There was no secondborn. Literally and physically Israel was the secondborn and Esau was the first. Hence the meaning is not temporal priority but the legal rights of the boy whose father designates him as the head of the family. Exodus 4:22 refers to God's choosing a nation. Even though the next verse has the literal meaning, as God threatens to kill Pharoah's firstborn son, the position of Israel as a nation is not one of temporal priority, but one of favor and privilege. Psalm 89:27 records the Lord's promise to or about David: "I will make him my firstborn, the highest of the Kings of the earth." Obviously this refers to office and dominion; not to any temporal priority, for David was neither the eldest child in his family, and all the more clearly he was not the first king who ever ruled on earth.
The fact that Christ is God, or deity, already means that he cannot be a creature, and that "firstborn" here cannot refer to the temporal priority of a creature. The passage itself speaks of Christ as a creator and not a creature, and stresses his "supremacy" over all things (v. 18). Thus the word "firstborn" is to be taken as a reference to rank and status.
Colossians 1:15-23, Part 5
For the true doctrine, we will begin with John 14:6-9. The teaching that we should "look at" Jesus in order to learn about God was most likely derived from this passage.
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."
Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?"
Jesus says to the disciples, "You have seen the Father." Philip says, "Show us the Father." And Jesus replies, "I have been with you so long, and you still do not know me? If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." From this some have derived the teaching, "If you want to know what God (the Father) is like, just look at Jesus." The ambiguous and improper repetition of this statement, which has become a Christian cliché, has led to some strange and false ideas about Christ as the revelation of God. So now our aim is to consider what we ought to mean when we say that we should "look at" Jesus.
Right away, even if – I do not say that this is the correct view – we interpret the "seeing" in these verses as referring to the empirical, to physical sight, the passage compels us to conclude that this way of "seeing" Jesus carries no necessary relationship with "knowing" Jesus. He says that if Philip knows him, then Philip would realize that to see him is to see the Father, so that because he has indeed seen Jesus, he has already seen the Father as well. However, Philip does not know this until Jesus tells him about it, for until this time he remains oblivious.
Therefore, even without reading further, the passage itself teaches that you can see Jesus and not know Jesus, and if you see Jesus and not know Jesus, then you will not know that to see him is to see the Father. And if you do not know Jesus so that you do not know that to see Jesus is to see the Father, then you can see Jesus and still not see or know the Father. At this point we can already be certain that the "seeing" here does not refer to the mere sensation of sight, but rather to a spiritual-intellectual perception. Even for his immediate disciples, it is the verbal explanation of all of this that removes the obscurity (John 16:25-31). The rest of this large section, John 14-17, will reinforce and extend this position.
John 14:10-11 comes right after the above passage (14:6-9), and provides an explanation: "Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves." Jesus says, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father," because the words that he speaks come from the Father, and not because he looks like the Father, since God is spirit, and has no visible form. His words bear the exact message that the Father's words would bear, since his words come from the Father, and are the Father's words. It is in this sense that, if anyone has "seen" Jesus, he has seen the Father. And note again that even if one believes on account of the miracles, it is still the message that he believes, since the miracles themselves merely confirm rather than carry or convey the message.
John 14:16-19 says that believers can "see" the Holy Spirit, and that they will continue to "see" Jesus even after his death. Even if we assume that to "see" Jesus after his death refers to his post-resurrection appearances, to "see" the Holy Spirit certainly cannot be explained in empirical terms. Jesus says, "The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him." He is speaking of "seeing" the Spirit in a sense that is possible for believers but impossible for unbelievers, but unbelievers can indeed see the Spirit's outward manifestations, such as the miracles performed through the disciples. This means that Jesus is not referring to seeing the Spirit in the empirical sense, but believers can see him in terms of a spiritual-intellectual apprehension.
A disciple asks in John 14:22, "But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?" Jesus then refers to his "teaching" (v. 23) and says, "These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me. All this I have spoken while still with you" (v. 24-25). Again, to "show" himself and the Father has to do with words, or intellectual content, and not appearance or something that can be "looked at" in the visual or empirical sense. Verse 26 says that the Holy Spirit will remind them of everything that Jesus "said" to them – not the sound of the words, of course, but the meaning conveyed by words – and not what he looks like or the visual images of his miracles and righteous actions.
Jesus says in John 15:16, "Everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you" – as we have seen, not by letting them look at him, but by conveying intellectual content to them through speech. Verse 22 says that because he has "come and spoken to them," non-Christians "have no excuse for their sin." The "coming" here refers to the incarnation, and the "speaking" refers to the revelation of God, his will, and his righteousness. The world does not reject the "coming" as such, but the "speaking" of the one who has come. There is a difference. That the "speaking" is from the one who has come from heaven, of course, makes the rejection of the spoken message all the more deserving of condemnation.
Verse 24 indeed makes a parallel statement regarding his miracles, but we have already addressed this. That is, the miracles are intelligible only because they occur within the context of and in association with a message. They are to confirm and not to carry or convey the spiritual-intellectual content that confronts the minds of men. Also recall the illustration taken from John 13, where Jesus washes his disciples feet, an example that they do not understand until it is explained to them. The example serves the message; it does not stand by itself.
Then, as Jesus explains the work of the Holy Spirit in John 16, he does not say that the Spirit's revelation consists of a feeling, or an impression, or some sort of visual representation through which we can "see" Jesus. Rather, the Spirit reveals truth by speaking: "He will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only when he hears" (v. 13). All that the Father has belongs to Christ, and the Spirit takes from what is Christ's and makes it known to the disciples (v. 14-15). And he does so by "speaking," by imparting intellectual content that is conveyed and represented by words. It is in this manner that Christ's teaching work continues, not by something inherent in his physical incarnation, but by speaking to his disciples in intelligible speech through the Holy Spirit (v. 25-30).
John 17 makes a transition so that Jesus turns from teaching his disciples to addressing God the Father in prayer. We read in verses 6-8, "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me." He does not say, "I have revealed you by being born as a man, by walking around on the earth, and by letting them look at me." But he says, "I have revealed you" – how? – "For I gave them the words you gave me." He says again in verse 14, "I have given them your word." Verse 20 indicates that these disciples will continue this work of revelation when others believe "through their message" (not their appearance or example).
The above defines how we should understand a verse like John 1:18, and all similar statements: "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." How did Jesus make known the invisible Father? He did not do it by taking up a human body just so he could become visible and be looked at. He did it by using words to tell people about the Father. Corresponding to this, when Jesus was baptized in water and the Holy Spirit came upon him, the Father thundered, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!" (Matthew 17:5). He did not say, "This is my Son, take a good look at him!"
All of this is consistent with Hebrews 1:1-2, which says, "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe." The passage does not say, "God spoke through his prophets in the past, but now he has revealed himself through the incarnation of the Son." And contrary to yet another Christian cliché, it does not say, "The prophets spoke God's words, but Christ was God's Word." It does not make the incarnation a superior revelation to verbal revelation, if the incarnation is a revelation in itself at all. As we have seen, the truth is that for the Word to reveal God, he must speak words just like the prophets did. To contrast Christ against the Scripture, or the words of the prophets, is a theologically devastating error. It is also blasphemous because, since God cannot be higher than himself, to make Christ essentially superior to the Scripture as a revelation, one must deny the divine inspiration of Scripture, that is, to call God himself uninspired.
By now we have established that to "see" Christ is to perceive his message, a message that he received from his Father and delivered to his disciples. Under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit, the disciples then continued to transmit this message. It is by receiving this same message that we can still "see" Christ today, and to see him is to see the Father also, since the Father is the source of this message, this revelation, and the whole system of Christian revelation. It is in this way that the invisible God is made, in a manner, visible.
Christ indeed brings a fuller revelation, but it is not in the incarnation as such, but in words spoken by and spoken about the incarnate Son of God, as they are recorded in the New Testament. If we want to know God, we should indeed "look at" Jesus, for to see him is to see the Father. But all this means is that we should read the words spoken by Jesus, and the words spoken about Jesus.
In addition to dispelling the false piety that often accompanies the common expressions, there are significant advantages to the above explanation. First, it sets forth the true biblical teaching, and this reason alone is sufficient for us to affirm it. Second, now that we understand what it means to "look at" Jesus, we can actually do it and reap the benefits. Third, now we can "show" Jesus to other people, so that they also can "look at" him. We show them Jesus, and thus also the Father, with words – that is, just by telling them about Jesus. The knowledge of God is not something mystical or nebulous, and in the sense that it has been revealed, it is not even mysterious. God sent his Son, an exact representation and a perfect messenger, to talk to us. This incarnation of deity performed many miracles and righteous deeds, and these are also recorded for us in the words written about him. Through these words we have a clear perception of both the Father and the Son – we "see" them – as the Spirit grants us understanding.
Colossians 1:15-23, Part 4
In what sense, then, is Christ a revelation of God? Or, in what way does Christ reveal God? Before we proceed to the true doctrine, we will address two false answers.
First, we must deny that Christ is a revelation of God in the sense that by his incarnation he has made himself perceptible to human sensation. He has indeed taken upon himself a human body that is perceptible to human sensation, and his resurrected body now remains perceptible to the senses, but this is not why he is a revelation of God. Even a manifestation or an incarnation of God does not make God as such perceptible to the senses, for God is spirit and not flesh. When we say, "If you want to know what God is like, just look at Jesus," we must not mean that a person can learn about God just by looking at the physical appearance of Jesus, or just by staring at him without thinking about him or listening to him.
As Isaiah writes, "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him" (Isaiah 53:2). He has a genuine human body, not essentially different from that of any other human body, so that it is impossible to know that Jesus Christ is God, or to learn anything special about God, just by looking at his physical appearance. We must insist on this in order to maintain the true doctrine of the incarnation.
Although Peter have followed and perceived Jesus in the flesh, when he confesses, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16), Jesus replies, "This was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven" (v. 17). He says in John's Gospel, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44) and "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him" (v. 65). Although Jesus came to reveal the Father, no one could recognize Jesus unless the Father reveals him. Then, in Luke 10:22, we read, "No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."
Another problem with the idea that we should "look at" Christ in the physical and empirical sense is that, since he has been raised and seated at the right hand of God, we can no longer perceive his physical body unless he chooses to grant a special appearance. There is no biblical warrant to assume that he does not do this today, but he certainly does not appear to every person whom he converts to the faith. In fact, except for the apostles and a significant number of other disciples, he did not appear to the rest of the early believers, who believed not because they saw Christ, but because they believed the testimony of the disciples about Christ. This same testimony about Christ is recorded for us in Scripture, and it is by believing the Scripture that we become Christians.
Those attempts at showing from the Bible that some kind or degree of an empirical epistemology is compatible with or even necessary to a spiritual knowledge of God and of Christ are based on invalid and distorted interpretations of Scripture. One example comes from 1 John 1:1-3, which says:
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched – this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.
It is impossible to smuggle empiricism into Scripture through this passage. First – but this is not the main reason – as we have mentioned, if a spiritual knowledge of Christ is gained by touching him and seeing him, then those who have not seen him or touched him cannot possess the same kind or amount of knowledge. This is against the entire spirit of the New Testament. The same apostle who penned this passage records Christ as saying, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (John 20:29; also 1 Peter 1:8-9).
Those who have not seen Christ in the empirical sense are not necessarily at a disadvantage, but how often do theologians, commentators, and preachers suggest that those who perceived Christ with their senses were indeed more blessed! They speak thus because of a pagan and carnal mindset that is driven toward that which is of the flesh and of the senses, rather than that which is of the spirit, or the mind. This crippling moral defect underlies the insistence to include a kind or degree of empiricism in the Christian's epistemology.
Pseudo-presuppositionalism is the most absurd and deceptive of the various proposals. It pretends to uphold revelation as the first principle and necessary precondition of all knowledge, but in reality it subjugates God's word, God's Spirit, and the Bible, under physical sensations. This strange philosophy, revered by many in Reformed circles, is a disguised form of empiricism or irrationalism, a syncretistic epistemology that combines heathen and biblical ideas. In making anti-Christian principles the precondition of Christian revelation, it does the opposite of what it claims to accomplish. Contrary to its pretension, it makes empirical humanity rather than the "ontological Trinity" the presupposition of all knowledge.
From the theological perspective, then, it is a form of idolatry and blasphemy. It would bow to Christ only if he would first bow to Belial. In contrast, we affirm that divine revelation does not depend on human sensation, whether in its inspiration, formation, reception, or propagation. From a philosophical perspective, although it makes a show of confronting the presuppositions of evidentialism, pseudo-presuppositionalism makes human sensation the necessary doorway to divine revelation, so that it is in fact nothing more than evidentialism without evidences. When it comes to defending the faith, it is irrational and impotent. It survives because of its fundamental agreement with and surrender to anti-Christian principles – non-Christians do not oppose their own assumptions – and because of the even more severe irrationalism and impotence of the unbelievers.
Our direct answer to the distortion of 1 John 1:1-4, however, is that it does not permit an interpretation that favors empiricism. John writes that he has seen, heard, and touched (what he has come to know as) the Word of life. He does not say that he has come to recognize Christ as the Word of life because he has seen, heard, and touched him, or that it was necessary for him to have seen, heard, and touched Christ in order for him to recognize Christ as such. What is needed to endorse empiricism is simply absent from the passage.
Of course John has seen, heard, and touched Christ, but as we have already shown from Scripture, he could recognize the Christ only because the Father revealed this to him. The significance of the passage, then, is not an endorsement of any form or degree of empiricism, but the emphasis that Christ indeed walked the earth in a human body (4:1-3), in which he died, and was raised, and made atonement for the forgiveness of sins (1:7, 9). The emphasis is not on the empirical, but on the physical and the historical. Christ's incarnation entails a physical body and historical events, so that he could be seen, heard, and touched, although no knowledge and revelation can come from the sensations. Here John testifies to only what it was that he saw, heard, and touched, and not that he received any knowledge or revelation from the seeing, hearing, and touching.
Second, we must deny that Christ is a revelation of God in the sense that his miracles and actions as such reveal God or make God's characteristics evident or accessible to human observation. The biblical reason is that Scripture never teaches that Christ's miracles and actions in themselves accomplish the purpose of revelation. The logical reason is that it is impossible to validly infer any truth from observation. Moses performed great miracles, but he was not God. Many men have lived holy lives, but they could not claim, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9).
Since I have already explained this numerous times in other places, here we will consider only two short illustrations from Scripture.
Hebrews 2:1-4 indicates that "the message" is "confirmed" by "signs, wonders and various miracles." God's revelation is not carried or conveyed by miracles, but merely confirmed by them. In fact, in themselves the miracles cannot even tell people that they serve as confirmation to a message, so that sometimes people have to be told to look to them as confirmation (Matthew 14:4-5; John 10:25, 38, 14:11). In other words, the miracles do not speak for themselves or for the message, but it is the message that speaks for itself and for the miracles, pointing to them as its confirmation.
If miracles can "speak" for themselves, then there would be no need to refer to them as confirmation or even to mention them, for a person would only need to do another miracle to speak for the first miracle if the first fails to communicate the point. It would suffice to simply keep on doing miracles in silence. But the truth is that miracles in themselves cannot "speak" at all. The biblical pattern is that the miracles confirm the message, but it is the message that explains and interprets the miracles. To put this another way, the miracles are meaningful and serve their purpose only because they occur within the context of a message, and are thus properly related to it.
Then, in John 13, Jesus sets an example for the disciples by washing their feet (v. 15, "I have set you an example"), but they did not understand until it was explained to them (v. 7, "You do not realize now what I am doing"). Thus even a deliberate moral example cannot speak for itself. It is not in itself a revelation, but it serves only as a context and occasion for the revelation, which resides in the verbal explanation of the action (v. 12-17).
Moreover, Jesus was readily exposed to the human senses only during his short time on the earth, and even then not every person living at the time saw him. So it is impossible to "look at" the moral example of Jesus in his action, but only in the words that record and interpret his actions. This again indicates that either the revelation was made available to a few people in the past, and it is no longer possible to "look at" him to benefit from the revelation, or the revelation was never necessarily inherent in the actions themselves in the first place.
Colossians 1:15-23, Part 3
As we keep in mind the importance of understanding Christianity as a comprehensive and self-consistent system, we perceive that our passage refers or alludes to all the major topics covered in a course of systematic theology, with Christ as the central motif and unifying principle of the doctrines.
Christology is presented and emphasized, including the deity of Christ before and at the creation of the universe, and the humanity of Christ in the incarnation and atonement. As it sets forth a broad and coherent christology, the passage also relates to it epistemology (revelation), theology proper (God, Trinity, creation, providence), angelology and demonology (angels, demons, powers), anthropology (man), harmatiology (sin), soteriology (reconciliation, atonement, resurrection, conversion, faith, perseverance), ecclesiology (the nature, structure, and mission of the church), and eschatology (glorification, judgment, heaven, hell). Berkhof calls this order of presentation the synthetic method. Contrary to those who complain that it is artificial and extra-biblical, it is the correct arrangement. It is comprehensive and logical, and Paul uses almost the same outline in his speech on Mars Hill in Acts 17. This is in fact the biblical-logical outline for systematic theology, and there is nothing wrong with calling this simply the systematic method.
These doctrines cannot be fully expressed and developed within several statements, but the passage alludes to all of them, and suggests how each one is related to the biblical doctrine regarding the nature and work of Christ. Nevertheless, since they are not developed in the passage, and since the central motif of the passage is christology, instead of adopting the synthetic approach as the main outline, a superior approach, loosely derived from the passage itself, is to structure the discussion as follows: Christ the Revealer, Christ the Creator, Christ the Sustainer, and Christ the Redeemer. This approach is also more fitting for the preacher to expound the passage in a sermon. Moreover, the systematic outline readily fits into this christological structure.
First, Christ the Revealer. Verse 15 says, "He is the image of the invisible God." This tells us something about the ontology of Christ, that he is the very image of the Father, the exact expression of deity. That he is "the firstborn over all creation" is based on and related to this. But the passage refers to Christ the incarnate Son of God, and not only as the second member of the Trinity apart from the incarnation (also 2 Corinthians 4:4). He is also said to be the image of the invisible God, suggesting that the "image" here does not denote only his ontological status, but also his revelatory function as the incarnate one.
As John writes, "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known" (John 1:18). Or as Calvin says when he comments on our passage, "For Christ is the image of God because He makes God in a manner visible to us….For in Christ He shows us His righteousness, goodness, wisdom, power, in short, His entire self. We must, therefore, take care not to seek Him elsewhere; for outside of Christ, everything that claims to represent God will be an idol." Thus the phrase, "image of the invisible God," refers to the incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ, as revelation or as revelatory.
Now, in what sense is Christ a revelation of God? How does he reveal God? And what do we mean by "reveal" or "revelation"? It is often said, "The incarnation is the greatest revelation of God." The language suggests that the incarnation in itself is a revelation. Does the Bible say this? In what sense is the statement true, if it is true at all? Another popular statement that seems to make the same point in a less formal way is, "If you want to know what God is like, just look at Jesus." Variations abound when it comes to the first part of the statement, but the key phrase is the second part: "Just look at Jesus." Again, is this what the Bible teaches? And what does it mean to "look at" Jesus? Is the meaning totally visual, as in to "stare at" Jesus without thinking about him or even listening to him? Is the meaning only empirical in part, as in to "observe and consider"? Or, is it even non-empirical, requiring no empirical contact with Jesus at all? If it is so important to "look at" Jesus, and if to "look at" him can do so much for us, we should at least know what it means.
Then, in the study of theology, Christ is often said to be the supreme special revelation. He is often referred to as a revelation apart from and superior to Scripture. I am all for saying pious things about Christ, but such a theological position is misleading, if not outright false. Should we say that Christ is a superior revelation to Scripture, or that Christ gives a superior revelation in Scripture? The former translates into the nonsensical position that God is apart from and greater than his own mind – that is, unless we reject the inspiration of Scripture. But then we run into the problem of having an uninspired testimony to a supposedly greater revelation. The former would place an insurmountable restriction on our knowledge of the latter.
Once we have affirmed and defended the position that Scripture is the very Word of God, nothing can be a higher revelation, for the inspired Word would by definition be equal to any revelation that comes from Christ, and God cannot be higher than himself. Even the continuous and direct revelation of God that we will receive in heaven can only be fuller, and not superior in the sense of being more authentic or authoritative. Scripture is either his Word or it is not, and if it is his Word, then it is as much truth and life here as any revelation will be in heaven. God can offer a revelation that is fuller than what he has provided in Scripture, but by definition he cannot offer a revelation that is greater.
In any case, some theologians have an inordinate obsession to make the person of Christ a revelation, and to assert that he is a revelation. Again, such language appears pious to many people, but it is ambiguous, and possibly meaningless. In what sense is Christ's person a revelation? What does it mean to say that Christ is the greatest revelation? Those rare attempts at actually explaining this language fail to present the revelation in a way that is consistent with its alleged nature – not that the person gives the revelation, but that the person is the revelation. That is, if every attempt at explaining and defending the idea that the person is the revelation is unintelligible, or if it amounts to saying that the person gives the revelation, then the idea that the person is the revelation remains unjustified, and shall we say, incomprehensible.
Colossians 1:15-23, Part 2
That said, this is indeed a remarkable passage on christology. As mentioned, the reason is not that it presents a high view of Christ, since it is impossible to present a higher view of Christ than any other passage that affirms his deity. Rather, its significance rests in the details that it provides about the nature and the work of Christ. But before we proceed in that direction, we must say something about Christianity as a system of thought.
Christianity is a complete and coherent belief system; it addresses every category of thought, living, and reality – often in explicit terms, but at least in principle or by implication. Putting this in terms suited to our purpose, Christianity is system of thought summarized and contained in a series of doctrines that are arranged and considered in what we call systematic theology.
These doctrines are biblically and logically related such that any topic can be, and often must be, discussed in relation to other topics. In fact, one way for a believer to comprehend truth and to guard against error is to do precisely that – that is, to learn each biblical doctrine itself as well as its relation to all other doctrines. Then, since they are related in such a manner that the central principles necessitate or authenticate all the others, and that all of them affirm or justify one another, as a result of grasping these doctrines as a system, each one gains greater depth and security in the Christian's thinking. When placed in the context of a system, the understanding of one doctrine enhances and fortifies the understanding of all others. And there is a similar benefit when Christianity is advanced and defended as a system (Acts 17:22-31).
Therefore, systematic theology is paramount – not just beneficial, but essential and necessary – to spiritual development and church operation. Of course, it is just a formal term to denote a comprehensive, interrelated, and coherent understanding of biblical doctrines. Some theologians insist that Scripture contains logical paradoxes and apparent contradictions. We must condemn this as satanic, and purge this stubborn wickedness from our churches. They further insist that when Scripture affirms both sides of a contradiction, we must believe both of them. We must denounce this as moronic, and in fact, impossible.
This is because when one proposition is said to contradict another, by definition it means that to affirm one is to deny the other. So to affirm both sides of a contradiction is to deny both sides in reverse order. That is, if X contradicts Y, then to affirm both X and Y is to deny Y and X. The person who claims to affirm both sides of a contradiction either believes one and lies about the other, or he believes neither. His pretense about affirming scriptural teachings in the face of opposition and ridicule amounts to nothing, since he is in a manner an even greater enemy of the truth.
The teaching that there are contradictions in the Bible (even if only apparent ones that we cannot resolve in this life), and that we should affirm these contradictions, has done incalculable damage to the cause of Christ. It has sown the seed of rebellion against God and disdain for his revelation, and the evil harvest has plunged Christian theology into generations of disrepute. In false reverence, these believers say, "Only God can reconcile what our finite minds perceive as contradictions." But in reality they boast, "We declare as contradictory what he declares as clear and coherent revelation."
Scripture never admits to containing actual or apparent contradictions, and all alleged self-contradictions have been demonstrated as false and slanderous. How great is the mercy of God, and how deep is his patience, that he does not right away smite those who blaspheme his word! They perform the sacrilege in his house and in his name, as if doing him a service, and persecute those who oppose them. But "God is not mocked. A man reaps what he sows" (Galatians 6:7). When theologians fornicate with the devil in God's own bed, divine judgment will not forever tarry. There is a time when they will both be cast into the outer darkness. In contrast, we insist against the combined force of all contrary tradition and authority that the Bible is actually and apparently – and obviously – self-consistent. Let those who dissent be anathema.
Colossians 1:15-23, Part 1
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation – if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.
It is often suggested that we have in this passage probably the most exalted christology in Scripture, or the highest view regarding the nature and the work of Christ. Preachers and commentators have a tendency to call whatever biblical topic or passage they currently deal with "the most" this or that. But even disregarding this, the statement is misleading because it is impossible to have a more exalted view of anyone than to affirm or imply that he is God. And since Scripture affirms and implies the deity of Christ in numerous places, this passage does not present a higher view of Christ, but the normal and proper view of Christ. There is nothing here that surprises the Christian or stretches his belief. This is the Christ that we know and recognize from all other portions of Scripture, including the Old Testament. An overly dramatic reaction is unhelpful. Nevertheless, the passage is indeed descriptive and substantial. It includes details on the implications of Christ's deity and his exalted station as a divine-human person.
The common assumption is that Paul is answering a heresy – namely, Gnosticism, a precursor to Gnosticism, or a set of false doctrines with Gnostic tendencies. Since the passage presents a high view of Christ, and it is assumed that Paul responds to the heresy by affirming a contrary position almost point-by-point, from this perspective it would appear that the heresy threatens the faith of the Colossians with a doctrine that denigrates the person of Christ or that presents a false and downgraded christology. This may indeed be the situation that Paul faces as he writes this letter, but as mentioned, it is not necessarily the case, and it is not necessary to assume such a background for an accurate understanding of the text.
For example, the Gnostics teach that God did not directly create the universe, but through a series of emanations. Each step in the series stands further away from God than the previous one, so that by the point where matter is produced, it is so far from God that matter is essentially evil and opposed to him. And since matter is evil, Jesus Christ could not have walked the earth in a genuine body of flesh. This could explain Paul's emphasis on an accurate and exalted christology.
The assumption that he is responding to a Gnostic or Gnostic-like heresy is consistent with his insistence on Christ's divine nature (1:15), his direct creation of all things (1:16), and his incarnation in and atonement by a physical body (1:22). That is, Christ was not only one in a series of emanations, but the very image of God. And it was he who created all things, so that God did not create by a series of emanations. His work of redemption was accomplish through his incarnation in and atonement by a physical body (also 1 John 4:2-3).
However, it is a fallacy to conclude from this that Paul is indeed writing in response to such a Gnostic or Gnostic-like heresy. Just because something could be true does not mean that it is true. And it is absurd to suggest that one cannot understand what Paul is saying without acknowledging this Gnostic or Gnostic-like heresy as the letter's background or occasion. Truth is not generated by and does not depend on falsehood. Christ is "the image of the invisible God," and can be described and understood as such, whether or not anyone denies it. It is true that he redeemed believers "by [his] physical body through death" – a doctrine that can be preached and believed – whether or not there is a heresy that regards matter as evil.
All the heresies in the world cannot force God to reveal anything to us that he does not wish to reveal. And if he wishes to communicate something to us, he does not need heresies to arrange the context for the revelation, although he can use and has used them as occasions to disclose and implement truth. The point is that truth can be revealed and learned apart from the background of falsehood and deception. God is before Satan – he does not need the devil to give him identity and purpose. Likewise, truth is before falsehood – it does not need heresy to give it context and meaning. And even if some teachings were at first declared and expounded against such a background, if they were presented in positive and substantial form, then they can be understood even without this original context. Christ is the image of God, creator and sustainer of all things, the head of the church, and redeemer of all who believe, no matter what. In fact, it is when we understand the nature and the work of Christ apart from any heresy that we are able to apply the true doctrine against any heresy.