Home
If you are in the Frames view of this article, just close the window when you're finished. If not, then just press the "Back" button until you get where you want, or use the relevant link at the very bottom of this page.
Paul makes the following statements:
(13) [God] Who has rescued us from the power of darkness, and has carried us away into the kingdom of his beloved son; (14) in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins; (15) who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (16) For in him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or governments, or authorities: all things were created through him, and for him: (17) And he is before all things, and in him all things are held together.(Colossians 1:13-17)
Jesus, according to Paul is "the image of the invisible God". The second part of verse 15, about him being "firstborn" doesn't have a clear and singular meaning, since it can speak simply of a pre-eminence or superiority above all others. This is seen in places in the ancient Greek translation of the Jewish Bible where, for example, Israel is called God's firstborn in Exodus 4:22. The exact same word is used and it doesn't mean that it was literally begotten from God, God is not Israel's biological father. But it did have a special status, a chosen status, above all other nations.
But the phrase "image of the invisible God" needs some thought. What is Paul actually saying? Paul doesn't seem to be using the word "image" in the same way that humans are made in the image of God because Paul is listing aspects of this special "son" of God that make Jesus distinct and different from everyone else. And yet Jesus, this "son", is a separate and different entity to God Himself since the Creator of the universe has never been and can never be called "firstborn" in scripture. In case you're wondering how firstborn can speak of a superiority yet not apply to God the Creator, the reason is fairly clear: the very word "firstborn" implies an honour of someone who was first brought into being, i.e. born first. Although the honour can be put upon other people, like how Jacob took Esau's birthright [literally, "firstbornship" in Hebrew], it still implies an honour of someone who was born or brought into being first and the word is linked to that concept. The God of the Jewish Bible was never born or brought into being so the word "firstborn" in any form cannot apply to him at all; and the word would become useless if applied to him since he has no use for the honour of one born or brought into being first. God's superiority is essentially different to any concept of firstbornship.
But back to the matter at hand: so we have this special "image of God" which is not God, as can be seen by Paul's wording. The only thing that comes to mind is a form, a visible image or shape, that either contains the qualities or attributes (i.e. the powers) of God and represents him, or just someone who shows God's character, personality, and morality.
Now if we are talking about the second meaning, i.e., character and personality of God, then this is not strictly idolatry, since it just describes a good person who is in touch with God's words, laws, and spirit. That could be a prophet. It may just be that Jesus, in Paul's eyes, better reflected God in that way than anyone else. Again, this isn't idolatry. It may be, and is, dead wrong, but it isn't idolatry, worshipping someone in the place of God or believing that a human being has all of God's abilities and powers and attributes. Therefore there is no real need to comment on Colossians 2:8-9 since it may not be idolatry inherently. Being full of θεοτητος theotaytos may simply refer to being full of Deity's characteristics and personality, as opposed to the very essence of who God is being in a human body which is impossible (1 Kings 8:27), or someone else having his attributes as discussed in my treatment of Phillipians 2.
If Paul meant anything more by his words, then the Hebrew Scriptures already cited show his foolishness.
And Paul continues:
(13) [God] Who has rescued us from the power of darkness, and has carried us away into the kingdom of his beloved son; (14) in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins; (15) who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (16) For in him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or governments, or authorities: all things were created through him, and for him: (17) And he is before all things, and in him all things are held together.(Colossians 1:13-17)
Paul says that everything was made εν αυτω, "en auto", i.e. "in him [Jesus]". What does this mean? Based on the Hebrew Scriptures, it cannot mean everything was made "by Jesus", as if Jesus created everything, becasue scripture proclaims that God (his special name represented as "Y-H-V/W-H") alone created everything (Isaiah 44:24; Nehemiah 9:6), and the descriptions of Jesus and God (Y-H-V/W-H) don't match (i.e., the being born, the dying, the sleeping, the bodily form). If Paul is preaching that Jesus did create everything, then he is contradicting the truths of God as revealed in the Jewish Bible.
But if it means "in Jesus", as meaning in a pre-existing "form" of Jesus, we are again left in ambiguity. Why? In Jewish thought, if something existed in God's mind, and it was always in his plan, then it is said to have pre-existed (though, obviously, not literally). And thus, if Paul says "things were made in Jesus", it may simply mean that everything was formed with Jesus in mind, meaning that God had Jesus as part of the plan when he created everything, or Jesus' coming into existence was the framework in which everything was made. Again, this second possibility is not idolatry per se. It may be (and is) dead wrong, but it isn't idolatry.
Because these statements contain this ambiguity, and the following statements in Colossians can be understood in each light, either Jesus being God himself or Jesus just being a superior representative of God, then there is little point in making hard and fast comments or condemnations of Paul here at least. If Paul is saying that Jesus is God (have the Divine nature can mean the same thing), then I've already cited the Jewish Bible here and elsewhere to show that Paul would be creating an idol-worshipping religion and that he is wrong. If Paul is not saying that Jesus is God, but some elevated person, then he is just wrong, but not an idolator and the creator of another form of idolatry.
(13b) having forgiven us all our trespasses, (14) blotting out the handwriting in ordinances which was against us; and he has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross (Colossians 2:13b-14)
Paul remains master of ambiguity. Why? Because we are left wondering what the "handwriting in ordinances" is. And here we have a choice. Paul could simply be reflecting the phrase in the latter part of verse 13, and the "handwriting in ordinances" is really the bill of our sins, and it is these sins that were nailed to the cross. Or Paul is saying that the only way to forgive sin was to blot out the handwriting, which is the law of Moses itself, which was written by hand and which was, in Paul's eyes, against humanity.
Knowing Paul's tendencies from the letters I've looked at before, either option could be true! But here in the book of Colossians, Paul doesn't really deal with Law, i.e. the Law of Moses. This book doesn't contain his usual anti-law tirades. And, with regards to Jesus nailing anything to the cross, that has been discussed in my analysis of Paul's previous epistles, and will be dealt with when I handled the book of Hebrews.
So since this passage is ambiguous, and the possible topics have been and will be dealt with, then I'll just leave this one.
(16) Therefore, don't let anyone judge you in drinking or in eating or in respect of festivals or sabbaths, (17) which are shadows of things to come, but the body of Christ.
Just a small note on this one. It just says, "let no one judge". It doesn't say "let no one keep the festivals or dietary laws or practices.
How many times, when I was a christian, and even when I had left christianity but was still respecting the holiness of the seventh day, how many times did some poor christian come to me quoting this verse which says very little about whether it is right or wrong to keep these practices? Too many to count! And this was when I hadn't said a thing about their non-observance of these practices. Yet they have to stick their judgment (and ignorance) on me? How weird some christians are!
Paul says:
(14) For you, brothers, became followers of the assemblies of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for you also have suffered like things from your own countrymen, even as they have from the Jews: (15) Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: (16) Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath has come upon them to the uttermost. (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16)
These verses are one of the main sources of pain and trouble against the Jews. The words are loaded with contention and condemnation, a blanket statement against the majority of Jewish nation and their descendants, not only as "christ-killers", but also as being antagonistic, against, contrary with all people.
Paul then says wrath and condemnation has fallen upon them. And with Paul's anti-Jewish message, and thus assistance, the Jews surely did get their "condemnation" and "trouble". And what a sorry story that was! Years, decades, centuries of persecution, torture, and death and Paul's spiritual descendants, the christian church, protestant and catholic alike. The hatred pasted on the words of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Gill, amongst others, basing their beliefs about the Jews on the words of Paul and the "new testament" only shows the fruits of the labors of Paul and his ilk.
So much for Paul's teaching of love!
(3) As I implored you to stay further at Ephesus, when I travelled into Macedonia, that you may charge some not to teach error. (4) Neither to pay attention to tales and endless [or inconclusive] genealogies which cause questions/disputes rather than edifying stewardship to God which is in faith. (1 Timothy 1:3-4)
Paul warns his followers not to listen to certain teachers who include something about genealogies in their teachings. The "new testament" itself bears witness to this teaching when it includes two contradictory genealogies of Jesus, both of which textually only speaks of Joseph's lineage and says absolutely nothing about Mary [NB. It's only christian tradition, not their texts, that say that the genealogy of Jesus in Luke leads to Mary].
In light of this, I can definitely understand why Paul wouldn't want people hearing about genealogies.
And we know that the law is gone if a person uses it lawfully. Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, impious and sinners, unholy and impure, father-killers and mother-killers, murderers, sexually-loose, homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.(1 Timothy 1:8-10)
So understand what Paul is saying. The law was not made for righteous people, for good people; it was made for wicked people. How odd! Again, Paul shows his one-dimensional view of law.
But again, read Psalm 19 and 119, which praises the law as a blessing even for righteous men. Psalm 1 says that a man is blessed, prosperous, and happy who spends his days studying the law. Was King David a wicked man in the eyes of God? No! And let's not be naive enough to mistake a wicked deed for a wicked person, as is inherent in christian doctrine. The law, the Law of God, is for everyone, not just for wicked people.
The Law of God also contains the stipulations of a very special pact and covenant between Deity and Israel, the terms to maintain the special relationship, not just to punish evildoers! Honestly, without revelation from the Almighty, how can anyone know for sure how to do what He requires? Since God doesn't have our mind and He is a totally transcendent, totally different kind of being, and we can't grasp anything about his nature, then the only way is for Him to tell us. And that is the job of Israel and its laws, to spread that divine law and knowledge (Exodus 19:5-6; Deuteronomy 4:6).
The problem is that if Paul meant better than this, he should have said better than this. But looking at his track record with regards to the Law of God, looking through his writings so far, then it would appear that Paul doesn't mean any better than a overly narrow view of a much rich Law and Torah.
Since Paul doesn't do any better, I should expect any better.
I'll just quote this straight from the King James Versions.
(11) Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. (12) But I don't permit a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (13) For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (14) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (15) Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. (1 Timothy 2:11-15)
I do not need to change a think that the KJV translates from Paul's words!
Paul's view of women ... hmmmmm .... So because Eve was deceived, women should learn in silence??? Because one women, the first woman, got it wrong, that means that no woman can teach??? How silly! How stupid!
Just two examples are needed to show that the Jewish Bible does not share the same view of women: Deborah, a judge (something like a ruler) of Israel (Judges 4); and Huldah, the prophetess (2 Kings 22:14). You see, in Judaism and in the Hebrew Bible, there are a good amount of female prominent figures. It definitely does not have such a foolish and insulting view of women. The mistake of Eve is not pasted on all womankind, as Paul would have it. And their salvation doesn't come through child-bearing, although both men and women wanted to have children to make the nation and godliness prosper.
No place in scripture gives any real basis to Paul's "teaching".
Paul describes his plight.
This you know, that all of them which are in Asia have turned away from me, of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. (2 Timothy 1:15)
Now some may ask, why would I even comment on these words when they have nothing to do with the Hebrew Bible? Well, along my journey of life, I've come across some interesting views of Paul. One of those views that I saw involved his claim to apostleship and those he wanted to claim as his own in Asia.
You see, there was only one person explicitly endorsing Paul's apostleship in the pages of the new testament, one person explicitly calling him an apostle: Paul. As can be seen in other parts of Paul's writings, people challenged that claim to apostleship. And these words in 2 Timothy may be evidence that Jesus' disciples didn't accept him as an apostle either.
"How so?", I hear some ask. As I go through the following theory, remember that only Paul explicitly, in plain words, claims his own apostleship.
In the new testament book of Revelation, John, one of the disciples of Jesus, claims to have a vision of Jesus giving a message to seven christian assemblies in Asia. One such group was in Ephesus, the assembly of the Ephesians. This is what the message to the Ephesians was.
I know your works, your labor, and your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them [to be] liars. (Revelation 2:2)
The question is, do we have any record of someone claiming to be an apostle and the people of Asia or Ephesus rejecting them? And the answer is yes! We know for certain that Paul claimed to be an apostle in the first verse of the book of Ephesians where he says "Paul, an apostle of Jesus by the will of God" (Ephesians 1:1). According to Paul's follower, Luke, in his book "Acts of the Apostles", which focuses on Paul more than anyone else, Luke says that Paul was in Asia, including Ephesus, and preached to many, some not accepting his words (Acts 19). So everything seems nice and kosher for a while there. But some time later, when Paul returns to Jerusalem, he meets with James, the leader of the Jerusalem, who tells Paul that he's heard rumours of Paul teaching to reject the Law. In order to prove this wrong, James advises Paul to take part in a practice that involves sacrifices. But who should turn up and oppose Paul?
(27) And when the seven days [of the sacrificial rite] were almost ended, the Jews which were from Asia, when they say [Paul] in teh temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, (28) crying out, men of Israel, help! This is the man that teaches everyone everywhere agains the peole and the law and this place. And further, he brought Greeks also into the temple and has polluted this holy place. (Acts 21:27-28)
Do you see the link? Do you see why 2 Timothy 1:15 could be seen as evidence against Paul's apostleship? And why there may even be signs that Jesus' disciples may not have even accepted him? Let me at least make it plain for you. Paul's claims of being an apostle generally came from himself, or at best his follower. No disciple of Jesus who became apostles ever called Paul an apostle, and there is no one else that affirms Paul's claims of being an apostle. There are parts of his writings that shows that there were some that challenged his claims. And as I've shown previous, whilst going through Galatians, Paul appeared not to respect the apostles, namely Peter, James and John, always calling them those who "would seem to be pillars", as if they really weren't (Galatians 2:9). But on the other hand, we have John and the people of Asia. John congratulates the Ephesians, who are from Asia, for rejecting false apostles. In Acts, we see people from Asia showing clear signs of rejecting Paul's apostleship by laying hands on him and accusing him of false teaching. And Paul himself says in 2 Timothy 1:15 that all of Asia has turned away from him. Notice that he never accused them of turning away from Jesus, but simply turning away from him. In other words, the people of Asia had rejected Paul. And it is also known in christian history that ancient sects of christianity, like the ebionites, rejected the teachings of Paul.
So there are strong signs that at least John saw Paul as a false apostle and that Paul's claim of being apostle is not as certain as his modern day followers would have us believe.
Now what I've described in this section is at the very least a theory with evidence. I'm not pushing the notion that this MUST BE the only truth. I'm sure the Paul-loving christians of today will have their explanations for the evidences that I've given. But at the very least, I want to show you the doubt that has always hung over the person and apostleship of Paul from the time he even claimed to follow Jesus, and this is without going into the oddities in his history and conversion story.
So Paul raises questions about his own authority.
Paul says:
(16) All scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16)
I only quote this verse to say that the "scripture" that Paul refers to is only the Jewish Bible, the Hebrew Scriptures. The "new testament" wasn't around during Paul's day, and if a portion of it was, it is very unlikely that it was already considered "scripture". This fact is an indictment and accusation against so much of modern day christianity which is so hooked on the new testament and so ignorant of the Jewish Bible that they make a mockery of the words of the "apostle" they revere so highly.
(10) For there are many unruly, empty-talkers, and deceivers, most of all those of the circumcision, (11) whose mouths must be stopped/silenced, who destroy whole households, teaching things that they must not, for the sake of dishonest gain. (Titus 1:10-11)
I just want you to note what Paul is saying here. Here he speaks evil of the Jews, the circumcised ones. They should be shut up, according to his "unbiased" opinion. It is the fact that Paul singles out the Jews that makes his point so anti-Semitic. In the past, especially before I went through this study, I never really understood why Jews thought the new testament said things against them. Now I've seen the evidence, I must say that they have a valid point.
But just take note of the fact that Paul here speaks evil of the Jews, i.e. he insults them, especially as we compare this to Titus 2:2 where he says "speak evil of no man". After reading what Paul has just called the Jews, someone would be excuses for shouting "WHAT?!?" when they see Paul admonishing Titus to speak evil of no man. After all the things Paul says about Jews, the disciples of Jesus that were still alive, and all who disagree with him, it is incredible that he would then say these words. I guess this is just another case of Paul's two-facedness or unequal standards: "Don't do this and that, but it's ok for me, Paul, to do it!"
Now that's a man you can trust .... or maybe not.
If you are in the Frames view of this article, just close the window when you're finished. If not, then just press the "Back" button until you get where you want, or use the relevant link at the very bottom of this page.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.