Friday, April 23, 2021

Gordon D. Fee on The Son of God as αρχη of the New Creation

 

 

Col. 1:18 (Gen. 1:1)—The Son of God as αρχη of the New Creation

 

Having made the point that the Son is πρωτοτοκος in relation to the whole of the present creation, so as to put “the powers” in their proper place, Paul goes on in the next strophe to position the Son with regard to his role in the new creation. Thus this second strophe has primarily to do with the Son’s relationship to the church and therefore to the powers for the sake of the church. Picking up from verse 14, the focus is now on the Son’s redemptive work, particularly on the reconciliation which he has effected for the sake of the church in the context of the powers. Two matters need to be pointed out.

 

First, Paul has previously used the metaphor of the church as the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-25; cf. 10:17) to emphasize the need for diversity within unity. But here, using the Greek sense of the metaphor “head” (The Greeks considered the head to be the ultimate necessary part of the body, since all its functions originate in and are sustained by the head; thus when used metaphorically, the focus is on the body’s dependence on the dead), Paul emphasizes the church’s utterly dependent relationship to Christ. Indeed, failure to be connected with the head, he says later (2:19), means total loss with regard to one’s relationship with God. The church is thus to be understood as existing “in Christ” similar to the way creation exists “in him”: As the Son is the sphere of being for all that exists, so the Son is also the “head” of his body the Church, which not only exists in him, but also draws all necessary life from the “head” to which it is connected.

 

Second, given this understanding of the janus, or presenting clause, then the relative pronoun ος (line a) should probably be understood in a way similar to a in the first strophe. In that strophe the first thing up was a phrase clarifying the relationship of the Incarnate Son to the unseen God, as the one who perfectly bore the divine image. In this strophe the first thing up, Christ as αρχη (“the beginning”), should likewise be understood in light of the immediately preceding reference to his body, the church. With an apparently deliberate echo of Gen 1:1 (One is led to think so because this strophe is as much concerned with the new creation as the first strophe was with the original creation), the Son of God is asserted to be the “beginning” of the new creation, just as he is the “cause” of the former creation; and he is so as the result of his being the “firstborn” with regard to the dead. In this case, however, πρωτοτοκος carries both sense of the word: as in the “first” to rise from the dead, he thus also has the rights of the “firstborn” with regard to his church. All belong to him, the author of the new creation, and all are thus totally dependent on him with regard to the life of the future.

 

The word αρχη has been claimed for Wisdom Christology, but on as equally poor grounds as with the preceding word. Philo, for example, speaks of God’s wisdom once in this way (Leg. 1.43), but whether he is thinking in terms of personified wisdom is moot (see n. 24 above). In the Wisdom literature itself the word occurs with reference to Wisdom only in Prov. 8:22-23—and in Sir. 24:9, which is simply an echo of Prov. 8:23. Although there is a slight possibility in the Septuagint of Prov. 8:22 that the translator intended to identify “Wisdom” with the word αρχη, the likelihood in fact is remote. After all, the author’s own elaboration of verse 22 in verse 23 specifically identifies her not with this word as such, but with her being present “at the beginning,” before the creation itself. And since this is the only way ben Sirach understood it (24:9; cf. 1:4), it is altogether unlikely that Paul had Lady Wisdom in mind when he called the Risen Son, the “beginning.” Paul seems obviously to be reflecting Gen. 1:1, and is thinking of the Son in terms of the new creation, an idea totally foreign to the Wisdom tradition.

 

What this means, finally, is that the two words that begin each strophe (image / beginning) are direct echoes of the Son in connection with creation in Genesis 1. With the primary word in the second line in each case (firstborn), Paul puts a new spin on his own use of this term from Rom. 8:39, and seems to use it in the present context to point to the reality that the Davidic messianic Son is none other than God’s eternal Son who has all the rights of primogeniture with regard to both the original and the new creation. (Gordon D. Fee, “Old Testament Intertextuality in Colossians: Reflections on Pauline Christology and Gentile Inclusion in God’s Story,” in Sang-Won (Aaron) Son, ed., History and Exegesis: New Testament Essays in Honor of Dr. E. Earle Ellis for His 80th Birthday [New York: T&T Clark, 2006], 201-221, here, pp. 217-18)

 

Footnote 24 (from p. 214) reads thusly:

 

It is elsewhere found in Sir. 17:3 and Wis. 2:23 with direct reference to Gen 1:27, and Ps-Solomon in several instances referring to idols (Wis. 13:13, 16; 14:15, 17; 15:5) and once in a metaphorical way (17:21) referring to darkness. IT does occur in Philo, Leg. 1.43, but it is not at all certain that Philo had Wisdom as a being in mind, since two paragraphs later he says similar things of virtue. Colson and Whitaker (LCL 1.175) certainly did not think so, and they are quite ready to capitalize these words when they are considered personification. Here they read: “By using many words for it Moses has already made it manifest that the sublime and heavenly wisdom is of many names,” which include “beginning, image, and vision of God.” And in any case, bringing Philo into a discussion of the Wisdom literature is itself somewhat problematic; all the more so when it is the only possible referent that one has.