Commentary & Notes: Colossians 1:12-20 Debunking Modalism

I have addressed the error of Sabellianism or modalism on this blog in various ways including uncovering the misuse of language that backs the Oneness platform of confusion on the nature of God. Recently, I had the opportunity to display why the particular teachings of a heretic were insufficient and non-biblical, only to find out that many believers, who claim to adhere to trinitarian doctrine, really didn't think it was a "big issue" to believe otherwise because they felt that since "belief" of doctrine wasn't an issue at salvation and that adherence to doctrinal teaching along this line was also not a matter or issue of salvation. 

Sentiments of this can be dangerous and could also be unbiblical. Not that it was the case in this particular situation, but it seems that by far and large the church has abandoned indepth teaching as it pertains to the nature of God and the examination of who God is, what HIS nature means to the world, and why those teachings are relevant to the day to day life of every believer. 

The need and longing to know and explore the nature of God has been replaced by the the sentiments and desires to be "peaceful" and "unified" with all them who claim to be "believers" no matter what those "said" believers actually believe.

This is devastating because the fact is that people gave their lives for what they "believed", in the early church and those beliefs were without compromise. What one believes is of great significance and vitally important to the life and relationship and even fellowship of every believer with Christ. In addition, if one can simply redefine God to meet ones own terms and beliefs, then HE is not the God of the bible nor the God of history. When men invent or create a God that they can readily understand or compartmentalize, then it is questionable whether faith is truly placed within the God who has both defined himself as he is and the faith that we were told to earnestly contend for. (Jude 3) 

What do you say? A case of circular reasoning? Well, I don't think so. I believe it is a demand and persistence to seek and know truth. The truth of the matter is that God the Father and God the Son exist eternally, have never changed hats, are not merely defined by their role, and, though distinct, are yet ONE God. This is what the scripture repeatedly affirms and what the Holy Writ, when examined for what it says, certainly affirms. 

Let's review a portion of the first chapter of Colossians in a verse-by-verse study on the nature of God.

Colossians 

Delivered by Tychicus, the epistle to the Colossians was written by Paul while under house arrest in Rome. Written to the mostly Greek Saints and believers who lived in an area located in what was known as Greater Phrygia which included the cities of Antioch in Pisidia , Colosse, Hierapolis, Iconium, and Laodicea . The church itself, probably founded by Epaphras sat on the river Lycus. 

The aim of the letter was to counter false teaching regarding the majesty, nature, mission and complete redemption of mankind found in Jesus himself. The epistle proved to be a strong and poignant stance against the backdrop of an early and developing gnosticism and theosophy of Judaizers who's mission was to redefine the faith. The letter was a direct assault on novel speculations of the day and false teachings which sought to redefine the Jesus of history and his unique place in all of creation and among mankind. 

In this segment, we will look at a section of Chapter 1 of Colossians (v.12-20) that is strong evidence that Jesus and God the Father acted, moved and operated in in relationship to one another and were not confused by early church believers as being one in the same, although they were certainly ONE God. This teaching itself is ample proof, that the nature of God was an issue of utmost importance within the church and among its most early adherents and should not be compromised.   

I have highlighted my commentary within the verses and provided 4 notes as supplement to make sure that context remains clear through and regarding what is being taught in this valuable Pauline epistle. 

Colossians 1:12-20

12-Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

13-Who (eg: referring to the Father) hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:(aka: JESUS) 

14-In whom (eg: the "dear Son" aka: Jesus) we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

15-Who (referring to Jesus) is the image (See note 1) of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (See note 2)

16-For by him (eg: the "dear Son" aka: JESUS) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: (All of these are the acts of God Almighty himself)

17-And he is before all things, (eg: everything spiritual and natural can be credited in their existence to God the creator.) [In this case referring to JESUS himself] and by him all things consist.

18-And he is the head of the body, the church: (This is continuing to speak of JESUS) who is the beginning, the firstborn (See note 2) from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.(See note 3)

19-For it pleased the Father (Herein is the distinction) that in him (the "dear Son") should all fulness (see note 4) dwell;  

20-And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Special Notes:

(Note 1) ~ v.15 ~ Image: the Greek word from which we get "Icon". Strong's "1504 (eikṓn) assumes a prototype, of which it not merely resembles, but from which it is drawn" (R. Trench). (eikṓn) then is more than a "shadow"; rather it is a replication (F. F. Bruce, Hebrews, 226; see also Lightfoot at Col 3:10 and 2:21).

Something that is separate, yet drawn "from" something that exists and is in itself tangibly real as from the thing it was drawn from. By virtue of that (the image, eikon) would have to have the same "nature" and "essence" but is distinctly NOT the primary thing spoken of though it is identical in every way. 

(Note 2) ~ "firstborn of every creature". Deal with this in 2 parts.

1- "firstborn" ~ From a word group indicating first to experience or one who is in an pre-eminent position. From Strong's 4416 prōtótokos (from 4413 /prṓtos, "first, pre-eminent" and 5088 /tíktō, "bring forth") – properly, first in time (Mt 1:25; Lk 2:7); hence, pre-eminent(Col 1:15; Rev 1:5).4416 /prōtótokos ("firstly") specifically refers to Christ as the first to experience glorification, i.e. at His resurrection (see Heb 12:23; Rev 1:5). For this (and countless other reasons) Jesus is "preeminent" (4416/prōtótokos) – the unequivocal Sovereign over all creation (Col 1:16). [4416 (prōtótokos) refers to "the first among others (who follow)" – as with the preeminent, glorified Christ, the eternal Logos who possesses self-existent life (Jn 5:26).]

2- "creature" ~  Strong's Cognate: 2937 ktísis – properly, creation (creature) which is founded from nothing (this is also the sense of this term from Homer on); creation out of nothing (Lat ex nihilo). See 2936 (ktizō) and 2939 /ktístēs ("the Creator") for lengthy discussion on "creation-facts."

These phrases combined in this verse do not indicate that Jesus is the "first one made" or "created" among creatures that God made. To the contrary, this verse indicates that Jesus is at the arch-pinnacle of all of creation, or the one to whom all creation and everything (everyone) that is made looks. This contextual understanding can be best understood in the antecedent phrase that Jesus is the "image of the invisible God". From that, if Jesus is the image "eikon" of the invisible God, sharing the same nature and essence of that "invisible God" as the scripture indicates, he could have not, in any manner, come into existence, operation or function whether by being created and or by being born of Mary. Thus Jesus himself precedes Mary tracing existence prior to John 1:1 as God would certainly have existed prior to any "beginning" and would have been present "in the beginning". Further, this concept takes better shape in light of the next verse or V.16.

(Note 3) ~ Strong's 4409 "proteuo" same word grouping as note 2, means to be chief, or to have first place, AS OPPOSED to being first as in a succession. Example, The Supreme Court has who is called a "Chief Justice". This Chief Justice may not be the "first Justice" or "first one" chosen to sit on the court, however he has leading or pre-eminent role of authority on the Court. Thus, as this word is used here, it indicates the one who has the preeminent role, place and authority.     

(Note 4) ~ Strong's  says a Cognate: 4138 plḗrōma – "sum total, fulness, even (super) abundance" (BAGD). See 4130 (plēthō). this word also indicates fulfillment or completion. This would be wholly and contextually consistent with the narrative as v.20 deals with the cross and redemption. Simply put, rather than "fulness" having to do with the embodiment of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in the body and personage of Jesus, as some people contend, this phrase has everything to do with the PLAN of God and what was fulfilled or "finished" by Jesus himself. This verse (v. 19) is rendered as an indicator of the maturity of the plan of salvation contained within Jesus himself. So in this verse, "fulness" and later "fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9) is indicative of the salvation plan, or the highest point at which Heaven (God) speaks and acts in delivering men and mankind from sin and death.  

Blessed!