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.