The more I’ve looked into Colossians, the more I’ve been intrigued at intricate and deep affiliations with 1 Corinthians. For this reason, I’ve revisited the question of authorship. Thankfully, discussion of authorship has largely moved on from issues of vocabulary and style, which should never have been thought of as decisive – or even of much interest at all. The more significant questions concern the alleged theological/ecclesial development evidenced in the letter.
Moo notes:
Four theological issues are consistently mentioned in terms of the Pauline character of Colossians: the teaching of the letter on authority, on Christ, on the church, and on eschatology. (Moo, p32)
Given that I spend all of my time considering these sorts of topics (authority, Christ, church, eschatology) in 1 Corinthians, perhaps it’s worth just noting a few of my humble reflections:
In terms of authority (ie of Paul), I don’t find anything in Colossians that goes beyond 1 Corinthians: 1 Corinthians vigorously emphasises Paul’s authority, as the one whose message founded the church, whose life is a model for the church, and whose words are to be treated generally by Christian churches as “spiritual” – and indeed as the “Lord’s command” (14:37).
In terms of Christ, I find that 1 Corinthians and Colossians evidence a striking harmony: Christ is the one in whom all of God’s riches are found; and thus the Corinthians/Colossians must understand their Christian identity as lacking nothing, so long as they are “in Christ”. So in Colossians 2:2-3 we read, “…in order that they might know the mystery of God: Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” In 1 Corinthians 1:30 we read, “…you are in Christ Jesus, who has become wisdom for us from God: righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” In principle, Christians therefore have fullness in Christ; but this fullness will not be seen until Christ himself is seen. In 1 Corinthians 15:22-3, we read, “for just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in its own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming, those who are of Christ.” In Colossians 3:4 we read, “When Christ is revealed, who is your life, then also you will be revealed with him in glory.” This latter passage should not be passed over as an “exception” in Colossians: Not at all – this verse represents the heart of the conception of Christian life in Colossians: identification with Christ in his death, resurrection, and future appearing.
In terms of church, I can see that Colossians emphasises “the (universal) church”; whereas Corinthians speaks of “the (widespread) churches”. Perhaps there is a development here. It should be recognised that 1 Corinthians certainly emphasises the concept of Christians “in every place” who, together, “call upon the name of Christ Jesus” (see opening verses); but, it is true: this is not called “the church”.
In terms of eschatology, there is clearly a difference of emphasis between the two letters: 1 Corinthians emphasises the present participation in Christ’s death, and future participation in Christ’s resurrection glory. Colossians emphasises the present participation in Christ’s death and resurrection, and future participation in Christ’s glory (akin to Romans 6). This difference of emphasis, however, does not seem to represent development or contradiction: The same general idea of identification-with-Christ is maintained, along with both realised and deferred applications of this identification. The difference of emphasis is attributable to different situations.
Conclusion:
I really think it’s bold to say that the theology of Colossians is so obviously developed that it can be attributed to a post-Pauline author. The evidence certainly doesn’t bring me to that conclusion. Furthermore, I just don’t see the evidence that a paraenetic letter, including the name and personal details of a just-dead author, was ever considered acceptable.
RSS - Posts