J. L. Terveen Colossians 2
21
clearly secondary and much later (second century). Postulations of syncretistic influences (F. F. Bruce,
Colossians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 165-169, is typical though he clearly leans toward a form of
Judaism to explain the whole of the "Colossian heresy") have more to recommend them, though they
appear overly dependent upon speculative mirror-readings from Colossians itself. It is possible that Paul
himself, drawing upon familiar biblical terminology and concepts, used pleroma terminology as
particularly appropo to his argument explicating Jesus full and complete divinity in the face of opposing
"philosophies" (more than likely of Jewish character) which one way or another devalued the uniqueness of
Jesus relationship to God.
16
BDAG, 452. Many commentators refer at this point to J. B. Lightfoot (Colossians, 181-182) to provide
Greek illustrations for this distinction between divine essence or nature (
and divine qualities or
characteristics (
). The second term, also a hapax in the NT, occurs in Rom.1:20.
17
The emphatic end-positioning of
in 2:9 points to Jesus embodiment of divine plenitude as
crucial to his argument. The divine fullness manifested itself particularly and completely in the person and
ministry of Jesus, especially in his death, burial, and resurrection.
18
One example is Petr Pokorny, Colossians, A Commentary (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1991), p.122
writes: "In Christ one encounters the true, authentic, fulness of God, over against which all other
conceptions of God, speculations and experiences are secondary."
19
OBrien, Colossians, p.112-113, examines four interpretive lines in order of his evaluation of probability:
(1) "in bodily form" (see various translations, NIV, NASB, RV, RSV), (2) "in one person" (the focus being
on the singular locus of the embodiment, no dispersal of deity), (3) "in reality" (cf. Col.2:17,19), and (4)
"corporately" (i.e. in the church; cf. Col. 1:24). See also Lohse, Colossians, p. 92, 100 n. 46, 47.
20
E. Schweizer, "
" in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), VII, p.1077.
21
Dunn, Colossians, p.152.
22
(more common than
in the NT) indicates a permanent settled dwelling . See BDAG,
p.534; J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic
Domains, 2
nd
ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988), p.731; J. Goetzmann, "
" in Dictionary
of New Testment Theology, ed. C. Brown, II (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967), p.251.
23
The aorists
and
in Col.1:19 contrast with the present tense
in 2:9.
24
Theologically, Paul has affirmed the permanent humanity of Christ, from the incarnation onwards. Prior
to the incarnation, it appears Paul understood that
did not reside in Christ
. However, all the fullness of deity does dwell in Christ pre-incarnationally and eternally.
25
BDAG, p.327.
26
C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), has been
particularly influential in this writers thinking about the famous Pauline
language. His chapter
(p.47-96) on the corporate Christ has influenced much NT scholarship in the direction of understanding
Pauls distincitve phrase in terms of what is often known as corporate identification.
27
Paul tends to repeat himself as he spins out each metaphorical representation of Christs work, though
such apparent redundancy should probably be understood as intentionally adding intensity and emphasis to
the presentation rather than being simply tedious and unnecessary repetition.
28
Exegetical difficulties abound, however, upon even a cursory textual observation of the variety of
syntactical and semantic possibilities to say nothing of the varying interpretive approaches to the
background of Colossians. While expanded discussion may prove necessary, even within the more limited
confines of this present study, efforts will be made to summarize effectively as often as possible.
29
This word, used elsewhere only in Mk.14:58 and 2Cor.5:1 in the NT, points clearly to that which is
wholly Gods work devoid of any human handiwork. However understood precisely, none disagree that
God stands as the agent of this "circumcision."
30
It appears probable that Pauls mind was working along the same prophetically inspired OT lines that
spoke of the circumcision of the flesh needing to be spiritually realized by a corresponding "circumcision
of the heart" (Ro.2:28-29; 2Cor.3:3; Phil.3:3; cf. Deut.10:10; Jer.4:4).
31
R. Martin, Colossians and Philemon, p.81-82, is typical of interpreters who see baptism already at 2:11,
though the term itself does not occur until 2:12. Martin interprets every aspect of Col.2:11 in light of
Christian baptism, seeing it as the "sacramental means by which his victory becomes theirs" (p. 82).
Pokorny, Colossians, p. 124, exclaims confidently that "baptism is the true circumcision." Bruce,