The Forgotten Trinity (16 page)

Two main ideas will help us to get a handle on Gnostic belief. First,
the very term "gnosticism" comes from the Greek term gnosis,2 meaning "knowledge." Devotees of Gnostic thinking believed that salvation
was primarily a matter of obtaining certain knowledge (normally available only through their particular group, often disseminated by secret
rituals). This knowledge, in turn, allowed a person to "escape" from
the corruption of the world and their physical bodies.

Second, Gnostic belief was marked by dualism. Dualism is the idea
that what is material (matter, flesh, the world) is inherently evil, while
that which is spiritual (the soul, angels, God) is inherently good. Much
of Greek thought was dualistic in nature. Salvation was found through
"escaping" the body, for it was believed that man is basically a good
spirit trapped inside an evil body. This is one of the reasons that when
Paul made mention of the resurrection in his sermon on Mars Hill
(Acts 17:32) they began to mock, for anyone who sees salvation as
being freed from the body will hardly find the message of the resurrection of the body to be good news.

The acceptance of dualism led to two extremes of behavior. Some
became ascetics, depriving the body through fasts and monastic living,
often demanding that followers abstain from sexual conduct, even to the
point of forbidding marriage. For some strange reason, these groups
often died out in a couple of generations. On the other extreme, you had
the hedonists who reasoned that since the goal of salvation was to be rid
of your physical body, and since your spirit really wasn't impacted by what your body did, why not just have fun, eat, drink, and be merry?
These folks would engage in extremes of immorality, figuring that what
the physical body did was irrelevant to the pure, immortal "soul."

Most important for our study and for the background of Colossians is the question of how the Gnostics explained the creation of the
world. If you think about it, you see they had a problem. If all matter
is evil, how could the pure, good God of Gnosticism be responsible
for the creation of evil matter? Over time they developed an elaborate
scheme to explain how evil matter made its appearance in the universe.
As it is a bit complex, I provide a graphical explanation below.

We begin with the good, pure, spiritual God at the top of the diagram.
From this one true God flows a long series of "emanations" known to
the Gnostics as "aeons." These aeons are godlike creatures, often identified as angels when Gnosticism encountered Jewish or Christian beliefs
(possibly alluded to in Colossians 2:18). All of the aeons, taken as a
group, comprised the "pleroma," the Greek word for "fullness ."3 Each of
these aeons along the line of emanation from God is a little less "pure,"
a little further away from the one true God. Eventually, the line extends
far enough that you encounter the "Demiurge," a divine being who has the capacity to create and is sufficiently "less pure" than the true God so
as to create, and come in contact with, matter. In the second century of
the church's history, some Gnostic teachers identified this evil Demiurge
with the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh.

One other element of Gnostic teaching and influence should be
noted. The concept of dualism led to one of the most forcefully denounced heresies of the apostolic era: Docetism. The Docetics were individuals who denied that Jesus had a real physical body. They were called
Docetics because the Greek term dokein' means "to seem." Hence, Jesus
only seemed to have a physical body, when in fact He didn't. As we noted
earlier, Docetics would tell stories about Jesus and a disciple walking by
the seashore, talking about the mysteries of the kingdom. At some point
the disciple would turn around and look back upon their path and discover that there was only one set of footprints. Why? Because Jesus
doesn't leave footprints, since He only seemed to have a physical body.
One can easily see why the Docetics believed as they did. They were dualists, influenced by the Greek concept of spirit and matter. If they affirmed that Jesus was truly good, they could not believe He was truly
human with a physical body, since the body is evil. It is plain that there
were Docetics around during the time of the apostles, for John left no
uncertainty as to his view of their teaching:

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses
that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit
that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of
the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now
it is already in the world. (1 John 4:2-3)5

With this background, we can now listen to Paul's words and test
the various interpretations that are offered of his teachings in Colossians 1:l5ff, as well as in Colossians 2:9.

IMAGE AND FIRSTBORN

Colossians 1:15-17 is so often cited by so many different groups,
both orthodox and heretical, that we must be very careful to look as
closely as possible at the text so as to be able to give a proper, God honoring, consistent, and truthful answer to those who ask us concerning our belief in Christ as the eternally preexistent Creator of all things.
A few points here might seem complex or obscure. However, keep in
mind that the cultic groups that deny the deity of Christ are often well
prepared to utilize this passage to their benefit. Knowing the passage well
is your first line of defense in seeking to speak God's truth in love. Paul
obviously felt it necessary to go into detail on this topic, so we should
be prepared to work just as hard to understand his teaching.

And He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all
creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens
and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions
or rulers or authorities-all things have been created through Him
and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold
together. (Colossians 1:15-17)

At first glance, it seems obvious that we are describing the Creator
in this passage. Yet many groups attempt to derail what seems like the
obvious meaning of the passage by pointing out that verse 15 describes
the Son as the "image of the invisible God" and as the "firstborn of all
creation." Those who do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity
will assert, "See, He's the image of the invisible God, not the invisible
God himself," wrongly assuming that we believe the Father (the "invisible God") and the Son to be the same Person. In response, we point
out that no creature can be the image of the invisible God, at least not
in perfection. The Bible likewise describes Christ in similar language
when it says that He is the "exact representation of His nature" (Hebrews 1:3). The Son can perfectly reflect the nature of God, and be the
perfect image of the Father, because He, like the Father, is eternal and
unlimited in His deity.

But what of the term "firstborn"? Many groups place heavy emphasis upon this term, though often for different reasons. Normally,
the use of the term falls into two categories:

1. Those who deny the deity of Christ will insist that the term indicates
origination, creation-a beginning in time. These groups will insist that
the passage is teaching that the Son is the first thing created by God, or the first element of the rest of creation. For most of these folks,
"firstborn" is taken as completely synonymous with "first created."

2. Those who believe this refers to some kind of relationship between
the Father and the Son that indicates an inferiority on the Son's part.
Mormons, for example, take the term to refer to the idea that the Son
was begotten by the Father in a premortal existence, making the Son
a second God, separate from the Father.

The first major task in properly addressing this passage is dealing
with the meaning of the Greek term prototokos (firstborn) 6 When Paul
wrote this letter and used this term, what did he intend? How would
his readers have understood him?

First, it is important to realize that this term already had a rich
background in the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX).' It appears there approximately 130 times, about half of those appearances
coming from the genealogical lists of Genesis and Chronicles, where
it bears the standard meaning of "firstborn." But it has a much more
important usage in a number of other passages. The "firstborn" was
entitled to a double portion of the inheritance or blessing (Deuteronomy 21:17; Genesis 27), and received special treatment (Genesis
43:33).

That firstborn came to be a title that referred to a position rather
than a mere notion of being the first one born is seen in numerous
passages in the Old Testament. For example, in Exodus 4:22 God says
that Israel is "My son, My firstborn." Obviously Israel was not the first
nation God "created," but is instead the nation He has chosen to have
a special relationship with Him. The same thought comes out much
later in Jeremiah 31:9, where God again uses this kind of terminology
when He says, "For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn." Such language speaks of Israel's relationship to God and
Ephraim's special status in God's sight.

But certainly the most significant passage, and the one that is probably behind Paul's usage in Colossians, is Psalm 89:27: "I also shall
make him My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth." This is
a highly messianic Psalm (note verse 20 and the use of the term
"anointed" of David), and in this context, David, as the prototype of the coming Messiah, is described as God's prototokos, the "firstborn."
Again, the emphasis is plainly upon the relationship between God and
David, not David's "creation." David had preeminence in God's plan
and was given leadership and authority over God's people. In the same
way, the coming Messiah would have preeminence, but in an even
wider arena.

When we come to the New Testament,8 we find that the emphasis
is placed not on the idea of birth but instead upon the first part of the
word-protos, the "first." The word stresses superiority and priority
rather than origin or birth.9 In Romans 8:29, the Lord Christ is described as "the firstborn among many brethren." These brethren are
the glorified Christians. Here the Lord's superiority and sovereignty
over "the brethren" is acknowledged, as well as His leadership in their
salvation. In Hebrews 1:6 we read, "And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, `AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.'" Here the idea of preeminence is obvious, as all of God's
angels are instructed to worship Him, a privilege rightly reserved only
for God (Luke 4:8). The term "prototokos" is used here as a title, and
no idea of birth or origin is seen.

In both Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 1:5, Christ Jesus is called
the firstborn of the dead (or "from" the dead). These would refer especially to the leadership of Christ in bringing about the resurrection
of the dead and inauguration of a new, eternal life.

And so we are now ready to tackle the question concerning Colossians 1:15 and "firstborn of all creation." In commenting on this
passage, Kenneth Wuest said,

The Greek word implied two things, priority to all creation and
sovereignty over all creation. In the first meaning we see the absolute preexistence of the Logos. Since our Lord existed before all
created things, He must be uncreated. Since He is uncreated, He
is eternal. Since He is eternal, He is God. Since He is God, He
cannot be one of the emanations from deity of which the Gnostic
speaks.... In the second meaning we see that He is the natural
ruler, the acknowledged head of God's household.... He is Lord
of creation."'

It seems the eminent Greek scholar J. B. Lightfoot was behind at
least the outline of Wuest's comments, as he provides much the same
information in his commentary on the usage of prototokos in Colossians 1:15." He sees a definite connection between Paul's use of "firstborn" here and its appearance in the Greek Septuagint at Psalm 89:27.
He discusses both the aspects of priority to all creation as well as sovereignty over all creation. This understanding of the term is echoed by
many other scholarly sources.12

So what can we conclude? Most importantly, we see that it is simply
impossible to assume that the term "firstborn" means "first created."
Even if one were to ignore all the background information above, the
term would still not speak to creation but to birth, and such a term
could easily refer to the Son's relationship with the Father, not to any
idea of coming into existence as a creature. But when the Old Testament use of the term is examined, it primarily speaks to a position of
power, primacy, and preeminence. So how does the concept of Christ's
preeminence fit into Paul's teaching in this passage? Let's see.

ALL THINGS

Verse 16 of Colossians 1 begins, "For by Him ..." This connects
verses 16 and 17 to the thought of verse 15.13 Why is Jesus called the
"image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation"? Because,
Paul says, all things came into being by Him. We are completely missing the point if, in fact, we think verse 15 is in any way diminishing the
view of Christ being presented. Instead, Paul feels he must explain
what he means by applying such exalted titles to Christ! "Image of the
invisible God" is not a phrase to be used of a creature.14 And when we
read the phrase "firstborn of all creation," we should hear the emphasis
upon all creation. When we say that someone is the champion in a
certain sport "in all the universe," we are saying the person is the best
there is, period. So when Paul says that Jesus Christ has preeminence
over all creation, he is specifically denying that there is anything not
under His sovereign power. He then explains how that can be by asserting that all things were created by, through, and for Christ.