Colossians 1:15 and the rest of this hymn of praise to Christ (1:15-20) has got to be one of my favorites in Paul (I do love Philippians 2:6-11).
Well, I decided to put two competing Study Bibles up against each on this wonderful verse 15 (the entire section of vv.15-20 you will have check out on your own. 
):
Text:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (ESV)
Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.
He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation. (NLT)
A word on transtion:
For brevity, I’ll go with the ESV but for clarity the NLT. For concordance, I’ll go with the ESV over the NLT ( I have Exodus 4:22 in mind, and I believe Paul views Jesus as the New Israel).
Study Notes:
ESV Study Bible:
1:15 the image of the invisible God. Paul depicts Christ in terms similar to the presentation of “wisdom” in Proverbs 8 (“When he established the heavens, I [wisdom] was there . . I was beside him, like a master workman” [Prov. 8:27, 30]). In later Jewish wisdom literature, personified divine wisdom is described as the image of God. firstborn of all creation. It would be wrong to think in physical terms here, as if Paul were asserting that the Son had a physical origin or was somehow created (the classic Arian heresy) rather than existing eternally as the Son, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, in the Godhead. (See the article on The Trinity, p. 2513.) What Paul had in mind was the rights and privileges of a firstborn son, especially the son of a monarch who would inherit ruling sovereignty. This is how the expression is used of David: “I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth” (Ps. 89:27).
NLT Study Bible:
visible image: In the Greek translation of the OT, eikōn (“image, representation”) is used to refer to human beings having been made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27) and also to the wisdom figure in Jewish writings (see Wisdom 7:25-26). The NT writers speak about Christ as God’s wisdom to help explain his significance (cp. 1 Cor 1:24, 30). He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation (or He is the firstborn of all creation): This phrase figured prominently in early Christian debates about the nature of Christ. Firstborn does not mean he was created; it is a title, drawn from the OT, indicating supremacy of rank and priority in time.
Regarding Christ as the image of God, both Study Bibles went back to the OT to establish what Paul had in mind. The ESV SB doesn’t comment on the actual word “image” but sees what Paul is saying as the presentation of “wisdom” in Proverbs 8.
On the other hand, the NLT SB treats the word “image” itself from its appearance in the Greek translation of the OT of Genesis 1:26-27 and the Apocryphal Wisdom (7:25-26). I tend to favor the NLT on this one.
Regarding Christ as the firstborn over all creation, both Study Bibles try to address something of the Arian heresy and so on.
Now the ESV SB went a bit further than the NLT SB on this one: ESV SB not only gives a definition of firstborn in its Greco-Roman culture, but it also references Psalm 89:27 as being echoed in Paul. The NLT SB just gives a meaning of what firstborn is without any reference to the OT.
While I favor the ESV SB on this one, I believe it also failed in not referencing Exodus 4:22, where Israel is called YHWH firstborn, but now Jesus, the New Israel, is God’s firstborn.
What Paul had in mind was the rights and privileges of a firstborn son, especially the son of a monarch who would inherit ruling sovereignty.
I don’t see the ruling sovereignty but that Christ was the word by whom all else was created. He existed before all else.
“YHWH created me at the beginning of his course,
As the first of His works of old.”
The wisdom figure was a woman, and the presence of God, and his spirit are also feminine. Here is Azzan Yadin on this verse,
“Wisdom is a divine being that functions as an intermediary that comes to instruct humanity. … Verses 25-31 [23-29] describe Wisdom’s role as the primordial consort of Yahweh and witness to creation.”
The “firstborn” is not necessarily comparable to a human son, but is likely much more metaphorical. Christ is the primordial agent of creation, through whom all else was created. Christ is the first of the “works of old.” He is the first work of creation, as was wisdom. Although I am not saying he was created, but more that he was prior to all of creation.
Not about rulership, but about agency. Christ is the agent of creation now and forever. He is the one that holds creation together.
This first two lines above are the quote that I am responding to.
If you confuse the “firstborn” with the rights and privileges of firstborn son, or king or inheritor, one misses the entire intent of the passage, that the universe was created by Christ. An heir is born to inherit what was established and built up by his father. To talk of Christ as the firstborn son, is to create a false image of Christ inheriting power over the universe from his father. But the image is completely the opposite. It is about primordial wisdom or the “word” the “logos” as the instrument by which the universe was created.
Frankly both Bibles have messed this up.
Better to live without a study Bible.
Sue,
I consulted O’ Brien and he argues for “image” as Personified Wisdom in the OT (pp. 43, 44) , While GK Beale in Commentary on the NT use of the OT, argues for “image” as “Adamic image” and “the image of God” (pp. 852-53).
Regarding the “firstborn,” Beale argues from Adam as the “firstborn” as one with “authority by virtue of being given the inheritance rights,” which was transferred to the Levites and the “firstborn” of every Israelite family, and down to Christ, “inheriting a position ‘higher than the kings of the earth,’ with a ‘throne’ that lasts ‘forever’… (p. 853).
Both Study Bibles seem to be echoing these commentators.
Beale is a conservative. Why shouldn’t a study Bible offer a bit broader background and admit openly that there are two specific interpretations, the one Beale holds and the one I present. They should be given equal airtime.
There is a commentary by Robert McLachlan Wilson in google books page 135 that sets out the two options very fairly. If one only wants only one perspective on things, of course, by all means, stay within the confines of what one already believes.
Even more important is the role Christ has in reconciling us to him and giving us an immortal life. This is about creation and redemption, not about the rulership of Christ. He is the firstborn from the dead, and therefore gives to us in him life, which is what was created through him in the first place. Because he is the agent of creation he is the agent of the new creation.
So, there should be three different threads of meaning here. Christ as agent of creation, Christ supreme over life now, and Christ with whom we can be raised to immortality.
Sue, I’m with you. I believe a study bible or a commentary should provide the leading/major views on debatable texts.
So, there should be three different threads of meaning here. Christ as agent of creation, Christ supreme over life now, and Christ with whom we can be raised to immortality.
Sue, Paul does go on to point these things out. I quite agree.
Sue: Better to live without a study Bible.
TC: I believe a study bible or a commentary should provide the leading/major views on debatable texts.
Inasmuch as the latter is probably quite impossible due to space constraints, I’m inclined to agree with Sue. I would rather have a Bible with a good set of cross references and room in the margins for writing notes, plus a bookshelf full of commentaries, rather than try to cram that all into one monster Bible edition.
Sue, do you have a translation in mind that better communicates the functional role of Christ as the agent of creation and redemption?
Sue,
Where do you get this?
“The wisdom figure was a woman, and the presence of God, and his spirit are also feminine.”
It seems out of step with the rest of what you are saying is why I ask.
Also, are you questioning Christ’s ruling sovereignty in his kingly position or are you just saying that this passage does not support it?
Thanks,
Mike
What a study Bible gives is a first approximation to a clear interpretation of a passage. It can’t cover everything, and it can’t always give all the alternatives as well as doing every other interpretive job that can be helpful (giving all the alternatives is just one of many tasks that is before the study Bible author and editor). What the study Bible can do is attempt to give just that information which will help people to have a clearer, fuller, more meaningful understanding of the passage.
Those who want to go deeper on a given passage should indeed consult commentaries. But, ElShaddai, no one starts with a whole shelf of commentaries. Which commentaries should they use? They can consult the NLT Study Bible “Further Reading” section for guidance. We’re trying to tell people, the study Bible is a just starting point. If you really want to dive into this book fully, you might want to consult some commentaries.
But, ElShaddai, no one starts with a whole shelf of commentaries.
That is true. While I cannot say that it is my goal in life to have such a shelf, the “Further Reading” section is one of my favorite parts of the NLTSB – I really hope you keep that and expand it in future editions.
I was speaking more to the effect that trying to accommodate every variant of theological interpretation in the study notes for each passage would create an enormous volume, though one that would be undoubtedly fascinating to read. I should have chosen more precise language.
Okay, I understand. Yes, I agree — it would be big! And, in the same vein, one of the points that I was making is that if you try to cover all of the theological or interpretive options all the time, you’re going to have to omit other aspects of interpretation that might really be more important.
Pingback: NLT Study Bible Reviews | Scripture Zealot
I think the ESV is a fair translation of the verse itself. To introduce Christ’s ruling sovereignty is not the first concept that springs to my mind. It is clear that all commenters see wisdom in this verse. Wisdom was feminine, and through extension, there is shekinah, and ruach, vaguely feminine. But I don’t think that gender is important or even in view at all for the writer. It is only as a metaphor of linguistic device that gender is present at all. Not in any real way. I just tossed that in to show how odd the “firstborn son of a king” sounded.
To me the ESV commentary emphasizes the masculine. I would not emphasize the feminine in a commentary, but just leave gender aside. The ESV commentary also brings out a possible association with “head” and “ruling sovereignty.” These are Grudem’s favourite expressions for the position of husband over wife. I do not think that this is the place in a study Bible to once more focus on the ruling sovereignty of a husband. It is simply not within the intent of the author of the passage.
It is possibly even a pre-Christian hymn to wisdom as the partner of God in creation, and extended to the agency of Christ. If he is agent of creation, then we can have faith in him to give us immortality, that is the point.
But to make this one more propaganda piece for male headship is despicable.
I am trying to say that the ESV translation of this verse is appropriate but the commentary is not.
Inasmuch as the latter is probably quite impossible due to space constraints, I’m inclined to agree with Sue. I would rather have a Bible with a good set of cross references and room in the margins for writing notes, plus a bookshelf full of commentaries, rather than try to cram that all into one monster Bible edition.
El, I’m not asking for an exhaustive treatment in a commentary, but just a summary of the leading views.
Those who want to go deeper on a given passage should indeed consult commentaries. But, ElShaddai, no one starts with a whole shelf of commentaries. Which commentaries should they use? They can consult the NLT Study Bible “Further Reading” section for guidance. We’re trying to tell people, the study Bible is a just starting point. If you really want to dive into this book fully, you might want to consult some commentaries.
Sean, let me add that I think a SB could just give the leading views without being a monster. But I do recommend commentaries.
It is possibly even a pre-Christian hymn to wisdom as the partner of God in creation, and extended to the agency of Christ. If he is agent of creation, then we can have faith in him to give us immortality, that is the point.
“He is the image of the invisible God,
the firstborn over all creation.” (TNIV, HCSB)
I like “over all” better.
over all creation
That prevents the first interpretation, that it is a temporal position and puts Christ in the place of agent of creation. It is also not in the text.
It has to do with whether Christ is our ruler or the source of life, created life and immortal life. He is the first the beginning so in all things he is the one who is first. To take the idea of first temporally out, and just make him the ruler. justifies power as conqueror, not power as the first cause and source of life. Christ is a life-giving power, not a tyrannical and self-centred power. He is not the Roman emperor who takes for his own benefit. Christ gives, not takes. That is why in Eph. 4 God gives gifts to humans, rather than receiving gifts from humans. There is a constant play on this theme in the scriptures that translations often eliminate by using a non-literal translation.
So, IMO, the ESV is the better translation, but the NRSV is perhaps clearer and more literal,
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16for in* him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. 17He himself is before all things, and in* him all things hold together. 18He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. NRSV
15(AI) He is the image of(AJ) the invisible God,(AK) the firstborn of all creation. 16For by[f] him all things were created,(AL) in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether(AM) thrones or(AN) dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created(AO) through him and for him. 17And(AP) he is before all things, and in him all things(AQ) hold together. 18And(AR) he is the head of the body, the church. He is(AS) the beginning,(AT) the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. ESV
The NRSV is better having “come to have first place” instead of “preeminent.” I never know what these big words are doing in English when the Greek is very simple.
That prevents the first interpretation, that it is a temporal position and puts Christ in the place of agent of creation. It is also not in the text.
Sue, I believe “over all” brings out the deep-embedded verbal sense of heir/authority in “πρωτότοκος.”
The NRSV is better having “come to have first place” instead of “preeminent.” I never know what these big words are doing in English when the Greek is very simple.
Yes, simplicity is the key.
Sue, I believe “over all” brings out the deep-embedded verbal sense of heir/authority in “πρωτότοκος.”
But is shuts down the multivalency and prevents the many metaphorical readings of this text, as well as its likely origin in contemplation over the how of creation. And it is simply not in the Greek. Anyhow, nuff said, I see you have posted on the NRSV. Good stuff.
But is shuts down the multivalency and prevents the many metaphorical readings of this text, as well as its likely origin in contemplation over the how of creation. And it is simply not in the Greek. Anyhow, nuff said, I see you have posted on the NRSV. Good stuff.
Then no translation has really gotten it. Not even the ESV that you mentioned above.
The NRSV is worthy of the post.
I have this whole passage memorized in the NRSV. I think I should get a prize. What a great passage.
Thanks for taking the time to write these comments. They are very interesting.
Jeff
Jeff, maybe over coffee someday you can recite from the NRSV and I from the TNIV.
I understand why you would like “over all” but if we constantly change the text from what the church fathers actually read then we are not going to understand how the controversy came about. So, the literal has the advantage in this respect.
My problem with the ESV is not that it is too literal, but that it is not as literal as it purports to be on gender. It uses “men” for anthropoi when it shouldn’t. So it misuses its claim to be literal. That is its main problem.
Sue, the Fathers didn’t even agree among themselves. So Why should we to turn to them to resolve doctrinal issues?
No, I don’t mean that we should agree with them, not at all. I mean, how can we understand what they were talking about if we don’t have access to a text which is similar in meaning to what they saw.
I certainly do not mean that the church fathers should resolve issues for us, but we have to know what they were saying if people are going to make statements about historic Christianity.
I certainly do not mean that the church fathers should resolve issues for us, but we have to know what they were saying if people are going to make statements about historic Christianity.
Sue, thanks for the clarifications. I’m slow at times.
Not at all. I need to learn how to clarify.
Well, I guess it goes both ways sometimes.
Pingback: ESV Study Bible Reviews Roundup | Scripture Zealot