Wherein in 16b, all things were
created “in him,” now the hymn writer says that they are created “through him”
and “for him.” The δι’ αυτου, “through him,” indicates that
Christ is the agent of creation. The passive verb probably implies that the
Father is the final or ultimate source of creation, which is what we would
expect from the OT and Jewish tradition. The divine passive of the verb “also presupposes
the OT idea of creation as background to the declaration of 1:16.” Paul told
the Corinthians that Christ is the one “through whom are all things” (δι’ ου τα παντα; 1 Cor
8:6). The εις αυτον, “for him,” indicates that
Christ is the goal of creation. Such an affirmation is unprecedented for
anything predicated of divine Wisdom in Jewish tradition. An eschatological goal
now emerges. Christ is the one who will restore creation to what it was originally
intended to be, thus anticipating the final lines of the hymn where it is said
that Christ will reconcile all things to himself (Col 1:20). Christ as the goal
of creation is also without parallel in Paul’s writings, where creation is seen
as “for” God (see Rom 11:36 [εις αυτον τα παντα]; see
also 1 Cor 8:6), but Christ’s involvement in the eschatological consummation is
prominent in his letters (see esp. 1 Cor 15:20-28; 1 Thess 4:13-5:11). There is
one strand of Jewish tradition, however, that affirms that the word was created
“for the Messiah” (b. Sanh. 98b [I.10.8.A Neusner]).
Some interpreters have attempted
to explain the three prepositions describing Christ’s role in creation as
dependent upon Aristotle’s discussion of three causes—efficient (“in him”),
instrumental (“through him”), and final causation (“for him”), or as a
Platonic/Stoic theory of causation. For instance, the second-century emperor
and philosopher, Marcus Aurelius, praises the harmony of nature: “All that thy
seasons bring, O Nature [ω φυσις], is fruit
for me! All things come from thee, subsist in thee, go back to thee [εκ σου παντα, εν σοι παντα, εις σε παντα]”
(Meditations 4.23; see also Seneca, Ep. 65.8). While the
coincidence of language is striking with the same three prepositions, Marcus
Aurelius’s worldview regarding nature was probably not widely held or even
known in the rural community of Colossae. Similarly, positing an allusion to Aristotle
overly interpreters the language and does so on the basis of a school tradition
with which the readers were probably not familiar. As noted above, it is also
likely that the “through him” and “for him” help explain the ”In him” of 1:16b,
and should thus not be seen as three distinct modes of causation. This approach
also ignores the role of the Father in the divine passives, who would properly
be seen as the final cause. (Clinton E. Arnold, Colossians [2d ed.; Word
Biblical Commentary 44A; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2025], 364)
