Beyond Belief

Colossians 1:15-20 - The Supremacy of Christ

Romans 5:1-5 - Benefits of Justification

John 17:20-23 - Jesus' Prayer for Unity

Isaiah 55: A Glorious Invitation 

            Introduction:  By way of introduction, Colossians can be categorized as one of the shortest of Paul’s letters.  In terms of chronology, it appears that this letter was written to a fairly young church, thereby adding to the hypothesis that like any new Christian community they were struggling with issues of identity and doctrinal certainty.  Whatever the case may be, Colossians “is a particular letter written to a particular congregation at one point in its (very early) history.” [1]  However, why was such a letter written?  What circumstances prompted its composition?  And what relevance is this letter to another church in another time?  For certain, these questions can only be answered as one engages the whole letter itself.  

            Though the integrity of Colossians has generally gone uncontested, the authenticity of the letter has undergone and continues to suffer intense scrutiny.  The definitive question centers on whether Paul wrote this particular letter or not.  The traditional view believes that he did, while others are quite hesitant to hold to such an opinion. [2]  In addition to the traditional view, there appears to be two other different perspectives that are circulated throughout critical scholarship.  For instance, Brown believes that someone else was responsible for the composition of Colossians and thus classifies the letter as deuteropauline. [3]  (Specifically, a student from the Pauline school of disciples at Ephesus around 80 AD - 616).  Others believe that someone close to Paul during his lifetime or shortly after his death was responsible for its composition. [4]  Whatever the case may be, one has to decide which scenario is more plausible.        

            Those who doubt the Pauline authorship of Colossians do so on the basis of a number of arguments.  These stem from issues regarding language and style to various theological contentions.  It appears that Dunn and Brown have articulated these differences against Pauline authorship most adequately. 

            In terms of vocabulary, Brown has highlighted 87 words found in Colossians that does not appear in other Pauline letters.  But he goes on to conclude that these differences prove nothing simply because they may have been shaped by the problem at hand (610-611).  From the standpoint of style, Dunn argues that on numerous occasions throughout Colossians, one is confronted with “features that are consistently and markedly different from those of the undisputed Paulines” (35).  He believes that these differences point to that of a different writer, more so than the work of an amanuensis. 

The final major issue has to do with theology.  In fact, the “developed christology, ecclesiology, and eschatology of Col has become the principle argument against Paul as the writer” (Brown 611).  Christologically, what is expressed in 1:15-20 and 2:9-10,15 “looks further along the trajectory” than that of the undisputed letters of Paul (Dunn 36).  In addition, the doctrine of justification by faith so prevalent throughout Paul’s writings is missing in Colossians (Brown 611).  It is with these things in mind that argue against Pauline authorship from a Christological perspective.  Likewise, the ecclesiology of Colossians seems to be so developed as compared to that found in Paul’s other letters that it suggests he could not have possibly matured so quickly in this discipline. [5]  Finally, the eschatology presented in Colossians seems so different in emphasis from that of Paul’s other writings that to justify his authorship in regards to Colossians is objectionable.  For here, in relation to the ‘now and not yet’ element of Paul’s eschatology, he places more stress upon the ‘now’ rather than the ‘not yet.’  What makes this transition so alarming is that his past emphasis was completely opposite, stressing the ‘not yet’ over and above the ‘now.’ [6]  This factor, therefore, points to another author.  In conclusion, both Dunn and Brown believe that the theological argument does indeed strengthen the case against Paul’s writing Colossians.

However, as there are arguments against Pauline authorship, there are also numerous arguments that speak emphatically in favor of it.  Traditionally, Colossians has been considered a genuine Pauline letter.  For instance, early church fathers such as Ireaeus and Tertullian accepted it.  Likewise, Colossians can also be found in both the canonical list of Marcion as well as in the Muratorian canon. [7]  Internally, Colossians has three personal references to Paul in the first person (1:1; 1:23; 4:18).  In addition, there are numerous references to Paul’s associates – Tychicus (4:7), Onesimus (4:9), Aristarchus (4:10), Mark (4:10), Justus (4:11), Epaphras (4:12), Luke (4:14), Demas (4:14), and Archippus (4:17). [8]

From the standpoint of language differences in Colossians, it would be of great benefit to keep in mind that in assessing these occurrences to also remember that many of these words appear in the hymnic passage of 1:15-20 or in interaction with the Colossian philosophy or as part of Paul’s polemic. [9]  Likewise, the absence of a word or concept may be due to the different subject matter being discussed. [10]  It is also “not unlikely that at least some of these words were borrowed from the errorists for purposes of refutation” (Vaughan 72). [11]  Schweizer also shares this sentiment and deduces that that these words cannot be “adduced to prove anything” (16). 

Colossians also has a number of stylistic differences as compared to other Pauline writings. [12]  However, these difficulties in style are not all that great.  In addition, “stylistic differences are generally attributable to changing circumstances or subject-matter” (Guthrie 553).  Likewise, “the stylistic peculiarities would seem to have their basis in the letter’s content which is clearly connected with the particular situation which necessitated the letter” (O’Brien 151). [13]  Therefore, the arguments against Pauline authorship based on style also fall short of validating such a claim.

Finally, differences in theology in Colossians as compared with other Pauline letters can also be justified.  For instance, in terms of Christology, though it may seem at the surface that Paul’s portrait of Christ in 1:15-20 is too pronounced and developed as compared with his earlier writings, the exact opposite is true.  For “this doctrine was not entirely new to Paul (cf. Rom. 8:19-22; 1 Cor. 8:6); it was only given greater prominence and a more systematic exposition in Colossians” (Vaughan 73). [14]  In addition, the Christological emphasis in Colossians was “spelled out in relation to and as a correction of the false teaching at Colossae” (O’Brien 150).  Furthermore, the absences of certain central ideas of Paul in Colossians, i.e. justification by faith, pose no problems at all.  For “it is quite unnatural to insist that a writer must express all his beliefs in every letter he writes.  The new ideas are not out of harmony with Paul’s earlier thoughts, but are rather developments from them” (Guthrie 554). [15]  As a result, there is no reason whatsoever to look for another author as the source of such ideas.

Secondly, issues of ecclesiology in Colossians can also be corrected quite easily.  For to deny the Pauline authorship of Colossians simply because of it’s overly developed doctrine of the church is unfounded.  To be sure, there is an advance of thought with regards to Paul’s use of the terms kefalh and soma when compared with 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 and Romans 12:4-5, but this advancement “has probably been stimulated by Paul’s reflection on the issues involved in the Colossian heresy, and is entirely appropriate” (O’Brien 151).  

Thirdly, issues surrounding eschatology can also be remedied.  Not unlike the contextualization and development in Colossians regarding Christology and ecclesiology, Paul’s eschatology has also undergone similar adjustments.  There is indeed an emphasis on realized eschatology in Colossians, but again “this has been called forth by the particular circumstances” encountered in the area (O’Brien 151).  Moreover, Colossians’ emphasis on realized eschatology did not and has not completely diluted the futuristic element so characteristic of Paul.  For there is also a future eschatology not only in 3:4, 6, 24, but also at 1:22, 28 as well.  Thereby combating the arguments against Pauline authorship.

Finally, one of the strongest lines of evidence that Colossians is a first-century work of Paul is its close link to the letter addressed to Philemon, the authenticity of which is virtually uncontested. [16]  Therefore, bearing the aforementioned arguments in mind, “the so-called differences between Colossians and the generally accepted Pauline letters do not constitute sufficient grounds for rejecting the apostolic authorship of this epistle.  Differences of emphasis there are, but these are best interpreted as being called forth by the circumstances at Colossae” (O’Brien xlix).

Though Paul never indicated the place of origin explicitly in his letter, Colossians does connote that he was imprisoned during its composition (4:3, 10, 18).  Bearing this in mind, there are three possibilities as to where Paul was located when he wrote Colossians – Rome, Caesarea, and Ephesus.  The traditional view is that Paul wrote this letter during his 1^st Roman imprisonment as recorded by Acts 28:30. [17]  Peter T. O’Brien has articulated an outline in favor of this position with clarity, while also engaging the arguments against such a hypothesis (l-li).  In addition, though a case can be made for a Caesarean imprisonment, it falls short in that is seems that such a small city could hardly have been the home base for the missionary work of Paul and his co-workers (lii).  And even though Ephesus has a number of positive probable arguments for the composition of Colossians, Rome still becomes the preferred choice among the three outlined here. [18]  Bearing this argument in favor of Rome in mind, the probable date for the writing of Colossians is about 60-62 AD. [19]  Though Brown (80 AD) and Wright (52/55 AD) contend for a later and earlier writing respectively.                           

The city of Colossae was located in the province of Phrygia, in the area now known as Asia Minor.  It was one of three cities (Laodicea and Heirapolis) that were located about 100 miles from the city of Ephesus.  Though it was regarded as a populous, large and wealthy city in the fifth and fourth centuries BC, it later declined in importance and had been surpassed by Laodicea and Heirapolis as the major trade centers.  By the time Paul wrote to the Christians living in Colossae, the commercial and social importance of the town already had declined substantially. [20]

Laodicea, Heirapolis, and Colossae belonged to the proconsular province of Asia.  Colossae’s population consisted primarily of indigenous Phrygian and Greek settlers, but in the early part of the second century BC, two thousand Jewish families from Babylon and Mesopotamia were settled in Lydia and Phrygia by Antiochus III.  Therefore, the Colossae of Paul’s day seems to have been a cosmopolitan place in which differing cultural and religious elements mingled.  [21] 

The message of the gospel was first introduced to this area by the apostle Paul during his Ephesian ministry recorded in Acts 19 (52-55 AD).  However, Paul was never afforded the opportunity to engage in personal ministry to the city of Colossae (Col. 2:1).  Nevertheless, during Paul’s three-year ministry in Ephesus, a man by the name of Epaphras was converted.  Scripture confirms that it was this man that later brought the message of Jesus Christ to the people of Colossae (Col. 1:7).  Epaphras also visited Paul at Rome during his house arrest and informed him about the various concerns that the young Colossian church was presently confronting (Bruce 407-8).  Indications also allude to the fact that the Christians were predominantly Gentile in background (Col. 1:21; 1:12, 27; 2:13).

The report brought by Epaphras was, for the most part, very encouraging (Col. 1:8; 2:5).  However, included also in this report was a troubling feature that disturbed Paul immensely.  An attractive, but false teaching was endeavoring to invade the church there.  A teaching so potent, that if it went unchecked, would subvert the gospel and bring the Colossians into Spiritual bondage. [22]  Therefore, the primary reason why Paul responded was to counteract this dangerous teaching (Dunn 23). 

The letter does not give any direct evidence as to the specific doctrines of this strange teaching, and for that reason it is difficult to obtain a clear and consistent understanding of it.  However, based on the many allusions to it, one can glean its leading features.   First, it professed to be a “philosophy”, but Paul, refusing to recognize it as genuine, called it a “hollow and deceptive philosophy” (2:8). [23]  Second, it placed much emphasis on ritual circumcision, dietary laws, and the observance of holy days (2:11, 14, 16, 17).  Third, it affirmed the mediation of various supernatural powers (angels) in the creation of the world and the process of salvation, insisting that these powers be placated and worshiped (2:15, 18, 19).  “As a result, Christ was relegated to a relatively minor place in the Colossian system” (Vaughan 74).  Finally, there seemed to be an ascetic element incorporated into this teaching (2:20-23).  

From these considerations one may conclude that the Colossian teaching was a syncretistic movement combining a number of elements.  First, based on the insistence on legalism, ritualism, and the observance of holy days, there was an undeniable Jewish focus.  Numerous biblical scholars have attested this to.  However, they do so in varying degrees.  For instance, Dunn and Wright believe that the false teaching in Colossae was solely Jewish in nature.  Wright would go so far as to state that “Paul’s polemic in Colossians . . . was a warning against Judaism” (27).  Dunn also concludes that the majority of the elements of the teaching are so Jewish in nature that no other hypothesis is even plausible (33).  He continues by stating that this “philosophy” must be understood as belonging to one of the Colossian synagogues (34).  Fortunately, F.F. Bruce brings some balance to this perspective when he states that this form of Judaism was not at all like that which was found previously in Galatia.  For in that case, it was probable that emissaries introduced that emphasis from Judea.  However, “the Colossian heresy was more probably a Phrygian development in which a local variety of Judaism had been fused with a philosophy of non-Jewish origin – an early and simple form of gnosticism” (413). [24]

At this juncture the second focus comes into view – the systems “philosophical” character.  This early form of gnosticism was more of a religio-philosophical attitude, more so than a well-defined system of belief.  In all of its forms, it can be characterized by exclusivism, belief in the evil of matter, in mediating beings, and in salvation through knowledge (gnwsis) (Vaughan 74-5).  As a result, an “inferior heavenly being” created the world because the Divine could not possibly come into contact with this evil world (Ferguson 290-1).  In fact, “God’s fulness is distributed throughout a series of emanations from the divine, stretching from heaven to earth.  These ‘aeons’ or offshots of deity must be venerated and homage paid to them as ‘elemental spirits’ or angels or gods inhabiting the stars.  Christ is one of them, but only one among many” (Martin 5).  Therefore, Paul’s references to “thrones . . . powers . . . rulers . . . authorities” (1:16) are allusions to these supposed intermediate beings (Vaughan 75).  In addition, the keeping of the law was looked upon as proving ones obedience to these angels and the breaking of the law brought their displeasure.  “Hence, they must be placated not only by the legal observances of traditional Judaism,” but also “by a rigorous asceticism” (Bruce 414).  Most importantly, it was the fact that Christ was relegated to be just one of those “offshots of deity” that caused Paul to respond with “one of the greatest declarations of Christ’s deity found anywhere in Scripture” (Geisler 668).  A teaching that finds its embodiment in him (2:9). [25]  Indeed, the theme of this letter is the complete supremacy and adequacy of Jesus Christ as compared with the inadequacy of human philosophy.     

With regards to the epistolary structure of the letter and the subsequent position of the passage into this structure, it seems quite evident that Colossians 1:15-20 is contained in the body portion of the letter.  Brown categorizes this passage as the beginning of the indicative, instructional section (600).  Similarly, others believe that Paul moves from prayer (v. 3-14) to exposition (v. 15) (Vaughan 88).  It appears that both positions are held quite unanimously amongst scholars.  Evidently, it looks as if Paul is using an epideictic mode of argumentation in this passage, “censuring unacceptable thought and practices” (Brown 604).  Therefore, the context of this passage is clearly central to the context in which it stands.  Paul’s prayer (1:9-14) leads up to the hymn, and themes from it are taken up and applied throughout the rest of the letter (O’Brien 152).

The most dangerous aspect of the Colossian “philosophy” was its depreciation of the work and person of Jesus Christ.  “To the errorists of Colosse, Christ was not the triumphant Redeemer to whom all authority in heaven and on earth had been committed” (Vaughan 89).  This passage, therefore, was part of Paul’s response to such a belief and attitude. 

Paul began his refutation by the use of a passage describing Christ’s role and/or relationship to creation, the church, and reconciliation.  In addition, this passage has been commonly referred to as a hymn (Brown 603).  However, Longenecker believes that because of its non-poetic nature, the use of the relative pronoun os at the beginning of each of its two main sections (v. 15, 18b), and the numerous examples of hapax legomena, i.e., “image”, “firstborn”, “before all things”, “the head”, “the beginning”, and “the fullness”, “this portion should be viewed as a formulaic prose composition of the early church that proclaims (1) the supremacy of Christ’s person, both cosmologically and in the church (v. 15-18a), and (2) the supremacy of Christ’s work, both cosmologically and in the religious experience of his people (v. 18-20)” (19).  Both theories are likely, while the latter seems more probable on the grounds of the evidence given.  

However, with regards to where this confession originated, it seems that there are two prevalent positions in particular that can account for such.   On the one hand, it could be that Paul was using an already existing Christian hymn familiar to the Colossians, with a number of refinements made to it useful for correcting the false teaching in Colossae (Brown 603). [26]  On the other hand, based on the weight that the hapax legomena carried in the ancient world, it can also be seen as “having originated within, or been formulated in opposition to, some type of ascetic-mystical piety or gnostic speculation that tended to de-emphasize the importance of the person and work of Christ” (Longenecker 19). [27]  Both arguments carry considerable scholarly weight.

In terms of the background for the description in 1:15-16a, there seems to be two arguments that have been promoted significantly throughout scholarship.  The most commonly accepted background is the Old Testament and/or Hellenistic Judaistic picture of personified female Wisdom (Prov. 3:19; 8:22). [28]  The other idea is that the background came out of a pre-Christian Gnosticism and/or rabbinic Judaisim. [29]  Yet, “what can be said is that while some of the language of the hymn echoes Hellenistic Jewish descriptions of Wisdom, it also has parallels in Platonic, Hermetic, and Philonic terminology” (Brown 604).  In addition, the Christology of this passage seems also to be phrased in a language not too distant from that which was used by syncretistic false teachers in Colossae.

Exegesis:  The confession in praise of Christ begins by asserting that He is “the image of the invisible God” (v. 15).  Here, Paul uses the noun eikon, translated as image, likeness, form, or appearance.  It generally implies “representation and manifestation.” [30]  In Greek thought, an image shares in the reality of what it represents (Flender 287). [31]  Likewise, the essence of the thing appears in the image.  “The stress is on the equality of the eikon with the original” (Bromiley 206).  In relation to Christ, He “is said to be the image or likeness of God.  There is no difference here between the image and the essence of the invisible God” (Flender 288).  In addition, eikon , in relation to the Godhead, also indicates a perfect image (Vine 319, Rhodes 50).

From the perspective of representation, the writer to the Hebrews declares of Christ that He is the “exact representation” of the nature and being of God (1:3).  The word connotes “exact expression.”  “In the present context, Jesus is portrayed as the absolute authentic representation of God’s being” (Rhodes 51).  Christ is the perfect likeness of God (Rogers 461).

Similarly, eikon also speaks of manifestation.  This is where Christ is said to make known the “invisible God.” [32]  However, it does not refer to making something visible, but it reveals it (Bromiley 714).  Therefore, Christ reveals or manifests God.  In relation to this, John declared, “no one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known” (1:18; 14:9). [33]  With this in mind, some have argued that this passage speaks primarily of Christ’s functional work (Martin 57).  However, to limit such a description of Christ as simply functional is an injustice.  For eikon clearly speaks not only of His function, His revealing of the Father, but also of His ontology, or what He is in Himself (specifically His pre-existence) (O’Brien 44).  In the end, “Paul’s statement leaves no place for the vague emanations and shadowy abstractions so prominent in the gnostic system” (Vaughan 90).

Paul continues by stating that Christ is “the firstborn of all creation.”  From the surface, “firstborn” would seem to imply that Christ was created, not unlike human beings, and therefore had a beginning. [34]  However, prwtotokos means nothing remotely close to this interpretation.  For the term does not indicate at all that Christ was a creation or a created being. [35]  On the contrary, prwtotokos speaks of His pre-existence (Bartels 668).

Indeed, Jesus was the “firstborn” son of Mary (Lk. 2:7), and was the first of several children.  Yet, “only of Christ can it be said that his birth did not signal the beginning of his existence.  Prior to his birth, he had existed for all eternity with the Father and the Holy Spirit” (Rhodes 35).  Jesus Himself declared this when He said, “I tell you the truth . . . before Abraham was born ‘I am’ ” (Jn. 8:58). So “firstborn” implies both Christ’s priority to all creation (in time) and His sovereignty over all creation (in rank) (Geisler 673).                       

Subsequently, figuratively speaking, it is a “title of honor for Jesus” (Bartels 668).    The reason He is considered to be the “firstborn of all creation” is revealed in verse 16 through the use of the conjunction oti, translated “because” or “for.”  Christ is considered to be the “firstborn of all creation . . . for by Him, (or in Him - en auvtw), all things were created, the things in the heavens and upon the earth, the visible and invisible.”  “Obviously, if Christ is ‘before all things,’ he does not depend on any one or anything outside himself for his existence” (Rhodes 44). [36] 

The preposition evn auvtw , translated “in him” denotes Christ as the sphere in which the work of creation takes place (Rogers 461).  It is possibly both local and instrumental, ‘by means of him and within him.’ (Moule 65).  “He is not in all things, but all things are in Him, a difference that is not insignificant” (Rogers 461).  In light of this, Bartels believes this to be a “confession of the supreme rank of the pre-existent Christ as the mediator of the creation of all things” (668). [37]

Another interesting feature in verse 16a is the verb ektisqh, which is the aorist indicative passive form of the verb ktizw , which means to create.  Indicative mood simply indicates the certainty of the action expressed, while the aorist points to an event completed in the past.  Yet, it can be said that in the passive voice the subject, in this case panta – all things, is acted upon or receives the action of the verb.  This is significant because it states that Christ performed the action of creation.  He was not included with the passive creation, but undertook an active function in creating.  It was He who created the “all things” indicated by the passive voice of ektisqh.  Again expressing His pre-existence and sovereignty (Caird 176).

However, what does ta panta describe and include specifically?  Verse 16 provides the answer with clarity when it states, “the things in the heavens and upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created by him and for him.”  “All things” was sometimes used in the sense of the more modern word “universe.”  “It denoted the totality of things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible” (Vaughan 90).  Evidently, “heaven” and “invisible” correspond as do “earth” and “visible.”  Therefore, all things have been brought into existence by the creative act of God in Christ (O’Brien 46).

The list that follows shows clearly which invisible realities Paul had in mind.  In this case, Dunn proposes that Paul has included a listing, whether exhaustive or not is besides the point, of a hierarchy of heavenly powers – “thrones” superior to “lordships” and so on.  The “thrones” are in heaven (Dan. 7:9; Rev. 4:4) as well “dominions”, and are almost certainly to be taken as referring to heavenly powers (Eph. 1:20-21).  He goes on to state that “principalities” and “authorities”, in light of Ephesians 2:10, 15, also speak of these heavenly realities (92).  In all this, the point that Paul was emphasizing was that Christ was and is superior to these heavenly powers by virtue of the fact that He created even these.  Therefore, by Him creating them, He is likewise superior over them.  “This strong emphasis on the superiority of Christ over the powers probably means that he was accorded a much more limited position in the Colossian ‘philosophy’ ” (Caird 179).  However, Paul’s prerogative here is to show that “from the highest to the lowest, all alike are subject to Christ” (O’Brien 47).  Thereby refuting point-blank any argument of the inferiority of Christ as compared with these powers.

The last part of verse 16 states that “all things have been created by him and for him."  First, whereas ektisqh at the beginning of the verse was in the aorist tense, here the verb ektistai is in the perfect tense.  The former speaks of a creative act in time past, whereas the latter speaks of the persistence and duration of the act of creation (Rogers 461).  Its emphasis is on the results of the action – intensive perfect. [38] 

Secondly, it must also be noted that Paul uses two prepositional phrases to denote Christ’s action and mediatorship in and over creation.  In fact, this is his third such phrase in the verse.  The first prepositional phrase has already been alluded too earlier. Evn auvtw, translated literally “in him,” is a dative of sphere, denoting the sphere in which the act of creation took place (in Christ).  The second phrase, di’ auvtou, is a genitive of agency, indicating the agency through which creation came into being.  With regards to Christ, all things have been created through Him (Jh. 1:3).  The final phrase, eivs auvtov, is also significant.  For the preposition eivs makes the pronoun an accusative of goal (Perschbacher 161).  Therefore, Christ is not only the sphere and agent (instrumental cause) of creation, but is also the goal (final cause) of creation. [39]  All powers in heaven and upon the earth, spiritual or human, have been created in, through, and for Jesus Christ that all might bring glory and ultimate praise to Him for who He is and what He has done.

“And he is before all, and in him all things hold together” (v. 17).  The conjunction kai is a continuation of the previous passage and in this case summarizes the affirmations of the supremacy of Jesus in creation.  In this case, the pronoun auvtos is used emphatically – He Himself, in contrast to the created things.  Here it means, “He and no other” (Rogers 461).  Caird highlights the tense of the verb estin, which in this case is present.  His point is that Christ did not just exist before the world began, but that "he is before all things.”  “In other words, this is not a statement about remote antiquity, but about the absolute and universal priority of Christ” (179).  The present tense of the verb speaks of the continuous element in Christ – He is!  This is realized all the more by the preposition apo, which refers primarily to priority in time.  When used with the present of the verb, the idea expresses immutability of existence. [40]  He exists before all things.  This is realized all the more by the adjective pantwn, which is an adverbial genitive of time. 

Not only did Jesus always exist (Jh. 1:1; 8:58), but He also holds all of creation together.  Again, the prepositional phrase evn auvtw is encountered.  As before, this is a dative of sphere, meaning that Christ is also the sphere in which creation is held together.  The scope of this is indicated by the adjective panta, “all things.”  Likewise significant is the verb sunethken which is the perfect indicative active of sunisthmi which means to place together, to stand together, to hold together, or to cohere.  Moule translates this portion of verse 17 as “the universe owes its coherence to him” (67).  Bruce believes that because all things cohere in Him, this adds something to what has been said about his agency in creation.  In that “what has been brought into being through him is maintained in being by him” (65).  The element of being maintained “in Christ” is realized all the more by the prepositional phrase evn auvtw, which precedes it (dative of sphere). 

The perfect tense is also important because it means that what He has created in the past (ektisqh – v. 16), is also held together both now and forever by Him.  For perfect focuses on the results of a past action – in this case the act of creation.  Paul’s argument here destroys any and every philosophical attitude of the false teachers that may have regarded Christ as just one of many ‘aeons’ that stands between God and the creation.  For not only is Christ the Creator of all and is therefore superior to all, but this same creation also owes its very subsistence to Him as well (Heb. 1:3). 

Paul has now concluded his declaration regarding the superiority of Christ over creation and now turns his attention to the ekklhsia, the church. [41]  “And he is the head of the body, the church.”  Like before in verse 17, the conjunction kai is used to show that this verse is a continuation with what has gone on before it.  In this case, Paul asserts that “Christ is the head of the body.”  It is likewise important to note that auvtos is emphatic, meaning that Christ alone, He and no other, is the Head of the church (Vaughan 91).  The verb estin must also be noted primarily due to its form.  As in verse 17, Paul uses the present tense of this verb, thus indicating the continuous focus and supremacy of Christ’s Headship. 

However, what does Paul mean particularly when he refers to Christ as the Head?  What ramifications does such a statement entail?  Furthermore, what relationship does kefalh have with swmatos ?   First, Paul has used kefalh on other occasions as a metaphor of Christ in relation to the church, swmatos (Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23;Col. 2:19).[42]   Here, the stress is on the unity of Christ and His church.  “As head, Christ directs the church’s growth to himself and to its fulfillment in him.  He is its principle and goal” (Bromiley 430). [43] In addition, the relationship of kefalh to swma “expresses the authority of Christ and the corresponding subordination of the church.  It expresses participation and dependence of the body on the head for the gift of life” (C. Brown 162).  Evidently, ths evkklhsias is a genitive of apposition, indicating a direct relationship to swma. [44]

Paul continues by providing a ground of Christ’s Headship over the church.  “Who is the beginning, firstborn from among the dead.”  The relative pronoun ovs is used again as in verse 15, speaking of Christ and indicating a Christian confession.  The noun avrch, meaning beginning or source or origin, is spoken of Christ. [45]  “The word refers to priority in time and to originating power” (Rogers 461).  It also denotes primacy, whether in a temporal sense or with reference to authority and sovereignty (O’Brien 50).  Additionally, prwtotokos, used for the second time in this passage, is an appositional nominative.  Again, it means first in rank, the pre-eminent One.  Here, it is in apposition to avrch, and gives further explanation of this first noun.  In particular, “firstborn” enables the reader to better understand what Paul meant by “beginning.”  By being the “firstborn from among the dead,” Christ was and is (evstin) the beginning, source, and origin of resurrection.  Because of His resurrection from the dead, “the resurrection age has burst forth and as the first who has risen from among those who had fallen asleep he is the first-fruits who guarantees the future resurrection of others (1 Cor. 15:20, 23)” (O’Brien 51).  Bruce agrees indeed that it is the coming resurrection of believers in Christ that is anticipated here (71).

Yet, what purpose could there be in all this?  Paul answers back, “so that in all things he might hold first place.”  Though this phrase sums up everything Paul declared up to this point, it also must be seen as expressing the purpose of the immediately preceding statement about Christ’s being the beginning and firstborn from among the dead (Vaughan 91).  This is verified by Paul’s use of an ivna clause, which indicates purpose.  The purpose here being that through Christ’s inauguratory resurrection, He now holds first place in everything.  In actuality, He has always been first, but His resurrection from the dead opened up an even wider and more significant sovereignty (Vaughan 92).  This is evidenced by evn pasin – in all things. 

Another interesting feature is the personal pronoun auvtos.  For yet again, it signifies that preeminence is the exclusive right of Christ. [46]  Likewise, the verb genhtai connotes special importance due to its form.  In this case, it is the aorist subjunctive middle of ginomai, which means to become or to be.  The aorist tense looks to something that happened and was completed in the past.  In addition, the middle voice (in this case it is a deponent verb), gives it an active meaning.  Based on these things, it seems that Paul is stating that because of Christ’s resurrection (an event which occurred and was completed in the past and likewise was an action of Christ), He now, as a result, is preeminent over all.  Furthermore, the verb prwteuwn is a present active participle, and is specifically a participle of result, which adds weight to the preceding thesis.

Verse 19 is introduced with ovti, introducing the content of belief.  However, there are a number of issues that are the cause for concern.  First, what is the subject of “was pleased”?  And secondly, what does “all the fullness” mean?

To begin, it does not make much sense to assert that the Son is the subject of euvdokhsen.  It does, however, make good sense to make God, implied in the text, the subject. [47]  In fact, this is the rendering used in both the NASB and the NIV translations, where it understands the passage as an affirming action of God (active voice). [48]  The passage would therefore read, “God was pleased to have all the fullness to dwell in Him.” 

Another issue has to do with the meaning of plhrwma.  Two views in particular seem to dominate scholarship.  For it can either refer to the totality of the divine powers and attributes, or to the fullness of saving grace and power which belongs to the one constituted as savior (Rogers 416).  Out of the two, the former seems more probable when viewed from the perspective of context.  For instance, Moule believes that “fullness” indeed is a reference to Deity.  He explains it to mean “God in all his fullness,” that is, “all that God is” (70).  The suggestion being that nothing of deity is lacking in Christ.  The similar expression in Colossians 2:9 lends support to this view.

Furthermore, of special significance is the verb katoikhsai.  This is the aorist active infinitive form of the verb katoikew, which means to live, to dwell, or to settle down.  Particularly, this could be an ingressive aorist, “to take up ones permanent abode” (Rogers 461).  Paul was simply stating that in Christ all of the fullness of deity dwells permanently.  This too would refute any teaching put forth by the false teachers in Colossae.  For if they did believe that Christ was just one of many elemental, mediatorial beings that stood between God and the world, than Paul’s declaration that in Christ is the one mediator between God and the world, and that in Him are all of the attributes and fullness of God, destroys there philosophy completely. 

Paul proceeds in his declaration in praise of Christ by pointing to His work of reconciliation.  He declares, “and through him to reconcile all things to himself.”  The conjunction kai is used here again, indicating that this verse is a continuation from the previous.  As God was pleased to have all the fullness to dwell in Christ, so He is pleased to reconcile all things to Himself through Christ.  “The fullness of the divine energy is manifested in Christ in the work of reconciliation as well as in that of creation” (Bruce 74).  The prepositional phrase di’ auvtou speaks of Christ as the agent of the action of the verb.  In this case, the verb avpokatallazai is in view.  This is the aorist active infinitive of the verb apokatallassw, which means to reconcile.  It can either be epexegetical, explaining what was pleasing to Him, or an infinitive of purpose.  Due to the prepositional compound, it has the meaning “back” and implies a restitution to a state from which one has fallen; to effect a thorough change back (Rogers 461). 

However, what is the scope of this reconciliation?  Paul declares, ta panta, all things.  Yet, if all things have to be reconciled to God through Him, it follows that all things have been estranged from their Creator (cf. Rom. 8:19-23).  Therefore, as reconciliation is assured to the children of God, so the release of creation from its bondage to decay is likewise assured by that same redemptive work (Bruce 74). 

Due to the fact that creation is in hostility and enmity with their Creator, then the conflict must be replaced by peace.  This is precisely what Paul was stressing when he declared “having made peace through the blood of his cross.”  The verb eirhnpoihsas is the aorist active participle of the verb eirhnopoiew, which means to make peace.  Specifically, this is a participle of means, indicating the means of reconciliation.  It speaks primarily of a relationship made right with God.  Scripture is quite clear that before salvation, humanity was at enmity with God (Rom. 5:10-12).  However, through the atoning work of Christ, peace with God has become a reality.  But how is this made possible?

Paul declares, “through the blood of his cross.”  The preposition dia speaks of agency, in this case, the agency of the cross.  Aivma, translated blood, denotes a life that has been offered up sacrificially and voluntarily in death (Rogers 461).  In the present context, it speaks of the blood that was shed by Jesus on the cross. [49]  It was through the agency of the cross that peace with God, a restored relationship, is made possible.

Paul then concludes this confession by proclaiming, “through him, I say, whether the things in upon the earth, or the things in the heavens.”  Paul uses the prepositional phrase di’ auvtou again here to reiterate the agency of Christ.  Moreover, the adjective panta located earlier in the verse comes into view again.  For here, Paul seems to spell out what the “all things” was referring to in particular.  These are “the things upon the earth and the things in the heavens.”  “Things” is in the neuter gender and thereby encompasses all of creation; a fact attested to earlier.  This “peace”, referring to the restored relationship between God and His creation, can be found in two places.  First, “upon the earth.”  The noun ghs, translated earth, is more specifically an adverbial genitive of place, indicating the place where something occurs.  In this instance, it refers to the place where reconciliation, or peace with God, is made real.  The second place is “in the heavens.”  In this case, evn tois ouvranois is dative, and is specifically a dative of sphere.  This indicates an abstract, logical, or figurative realm.  Bearing all of these things in mind, it seems that Paul is simply pointing to the totality of the work of Christ and how it extends not only to the earth, but also into the heavens.

Conclusion:  In conclusion, the letter to the Colossians is a powerful one indeed.  In it, Paul was confronted with a “philosophy” based on a human tradition that was attempting to undermine the purity of the gospel he so eloquently preached.  Specifically, the most severe attack was against the deity of Christ.  Therefore, Paul responded with one of the greatest declarations of Christ’s deity found anywhere in Scripture.  He did so through the use of an early Christian confession, a sure way to implement the potent absolutes of Christ deity in the hearts and minds of those in Colossae.  In the end, any attempt that those teachers made to depreciate the person of Christ all fell to the wayside as He was lifted up and glorified as the sole preeminent One of the entire cosmos.

Application:  Yet, what significance does this passage have for life in the 21^st century?  It seems quite evident that in Christ is the image and fullness of deity.  He is not just another great religious leader like Budda or Vishnu, but is the supreme One over all.  For instance, He is supreme over creation by virtue of the fact that He is the Creator.  He is therefore not a part of the created order, but over and above it.  In conjunction, He is not only the Creator of all things, but the sustainer as well.  What solace one can take as they realize that the Christ they serve is in complete control of the whole universe.  In addition, Christ is also the Head of the church.  For in Him comes the life giving and life-sustaining energy so desperately needed for existence.  Through Him peace with God is made possible.  Furthermore, because of His resurrection, Christians worldwide can expect to participate in the same, For He has made possible this earthly resurrection.  Indeed, in all things He has the preeminence!

Back to Links to Biblical Studies                                   

Introduction:

            The passage of Scripture that will be addressed in this exegesis is found in Romans 5:1-5.  That the author of this letter is none other than the Apostle Paul is disputed by almost no one.[1]  Likewise, the fact that an amanuensis, a man by the name of Tertius, assisted him is also uncontested.[2]  That Paul utilized such a person was not at all uncommon in that era of human history.  In fact, “ancient writers gave to their amanuenses varying degrees of responsibility in the composition of their works – from dictation to summaries.”[3]  However, because of the distinctive Pauline art and content, it is ubiquitously believed that Paul dictated the material to Tertius, rather than consent to a simple summation of thought.[4]  In addition, though scholars dispute the unity and integrity of Romans, the final conclusion, supported by the major Greek manuscripts, is that the letter Paul wrote to Rome contained all 16 chapters found in the modern texts and translations.[5]

            Paul classified the recipients of the letter in a general sense as “to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints” (1:7).  However, were these believers in Rome Jews or Gentiles in ethnic background?  The answer appears to be both.[6]  There is evidence, however, that Paul addressed a predominantly Gentile audience (1:5, 13).[7]  This coincides with the ideas that he considered himself to be “the apostle to the Gentiles” (Rom. 11:13; 15:16).  So it is reasonable to conclude that his readership were chiefly Gentile in background.

            Though Paul never identified the city explicitly, it is commonly held that he wrote this letter from Cenchreae (Corinth), at the close of his third missionary journey; during the “three months” he was in Greece (Acts 20:3).[8]  At that time, he was anticipating a trip to Jerusalem with the offering from the churches of Macedonia and Achaia for the poor believers there (Rom. 15:26-33).  Bearing these things in mind, both Brown and Witmer believe that the letter to the Romans was written sometime between 57/58 A.D.  Though others such as Fitzmyer (55-56), Barrett (50-53), and Dunn (55-56) contend for an earlier writing.

            The situation or occasion for which he was writing has already been alluded to.  Paul had completed his work of evangelization in the east and intended to enter into the next phase of his ministry – Spain.  However, before that work could be undertaken, he had to make a trip to Jerusalem to bring to them the offerings he received from the churches in Macedonia and Achaia.  Afterwards, on his way westward, he would make a visit to Rome, to spend some time with the Christians there and to be refreshed by them and them by him (Rom. 15:24-33).  Since many people in Rome had never seen him before, he felt it necessary to introduce himself to them.  In doing so, he incorporated into his letter an account of the gospel as he had come to understand it.[9]  But why was such a detailed description sent to Rome?  The reasons appear to be many, but include: the past battles in Galatia/Corinth, the coming crisis in Jerusalem, the desire to secure a missionary base for his work in Spain (Moo 20), the greatness and size of Rome, and issues regarding Jew and Gentile co-existence (Barrett 7).

            With regards to the epistolary structure, it seems quite evident that Romans 5:1-5 is contained in the body portion of the letter.  Brown categorizes this passage as the beginning of Part II: the doctrinal section (5:1-8:39)(560).  While he finds agreement on this point from some, others also oppose him.  For instance, Fitzmyer aggress that chapter five should be regarded as the beginning of the second unit of the doctrinal section (96).  While Dunn proposes that chapter five is related to the conclusion of the argument so far, 1:16-4:25.[10]  It seems, however, that Cranfield makes the definitive statement when he declared the former argument seems more probable on the grounds of the nature of the contents of chapter five and by virtue of its substance with the three following chapters (98).[11]  At this point, the argument proposed by Brown, Fitzmyer, and Cranfield appears to be more in line with the biblical account and the logic of Paul.

            Building on the aforementioned epistolary structure, the context of Romans 5:1-5 focuses on the benefits or consequences of justification was previously outlined by Paul in 1:16-4:25.  For in those passages, Paul’s thesis was about justification by faith without deeds of the law.  He furthers his argument through the illustration of Abraham and how his faith was credited to him as righteousness (4:22).  5:1-11, therefore, is “clearly transitional,” and prepares the way for the chapters six to eight.[12]  Evidently, it looks as if Paul is using an epideictic mode of argumentation in this passage, where he affirms common beliefs and values.

Exegesis:

            “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 1).  The word “therefore” suggests that Paul is stating, ‘based on everything that I have said up to this point, this is what follows.’  The statements of the benefits that proceed are the direct result of being declared righteous.  In this case, “Paul is assuming the reality of justification for himself and his readers” (Expositor’s).  It is on the basis of this justification, made possible by faith, that the benefits of this state of existence is specified and qualified.  The first benefit is “peace with God” (v. 1).

            “Peace with God” highlights the theme of this section.[13]  More than a mere subjective experience of peace, a sense of peace of mind and heart concerning sins forgiven (which will certainly be experienced), Paul desires to emphasize peace in the context of a relationship made right with God through the atoning work of Christ (v. 10-12).  For he stated in verse 10 that before salvation “we were enemies of God.”  But now, the old enmity has been abolished by God’s forgiveness and peace with God has become a reality.  Indeed, Paul stated emphatically, “we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son” (v. 10).  John Stott declares in relation to this, “peace with God speaks of the immediate effect of justification, in that enmity has given way to peace (12).  Indeed, justification and reconciliation means “peace with God.”

            In conjunction, the verb dikaiwqentes also has a number of interesting implications.  First, in terms of function, it can be viewed as causal – an event or state that produces some result.  In this case, it speaks of the results of the act of justification.  Secondly, this is the aorist passive participle of dikaiow, which means to justify, to declare to be in the right.  Aorist participles usually denote antecedent time to the controlling verb.  In this case, the controlling verb is ecomen, meaning to have.  Therefore, dikaiwqevtes has a time relationship with ecomen, meaning that one must be justified before one can experience “peace with God.”  Aorist also points to a completed action.  Meaning in this case that the act of justification has been completed at a point in time.  Indeed, “justification itself is a once-for-all act by which God acquits the sinner.”[14]  In addition, the passive form of this verb is more specifically a theological passive, implying that God is the ultimate agent of the action.[15]  A point testified to in verse eight.

            In conclusion, verse one ends with the statement “through our Lord Jesus Christ.”  The proposition dia with the genitive is more a genitive of person, indicating agency.[16]  In essence, it is through the agency of Christ that peace with God is known and enjoyed.[17]  This phrase, therefore, plays an important role in chapter five in introducing the mediatorial role of Jesus Christ.  For through Him and in Him are found the reconciler and the mediator in the Father’s plan of salvation.[18]  In fact, this phrase “connotes the present, actual influence of the risen Christ on the lives of Christians as he dispenses the salvation that comes from God himself.”[19]

            Evidently, the Lord Jesus is also the One “through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand” (v. 2).  Christ is not only the One through whom justification is made a reality, but is likewise the One through whom “access” is granted.  It is interesting to note that here faith is also mentioned as the “essential instrumentality, as in justification itself.”[20]

            In addition, the statement, “we have access” is also very interesting.  The verb eschkamen is the perfect indicative active form of ecw, meaning to have.  This verb is associated with the noun prosagwghn, meaning access.  With regards to the verb, note the indicative mood and its previous use in light of the certainty of the “peace with God” experienced by those who are justified.  The same is true here in regards to the certainty of the access.  The perfect tense is also fundamental to the meaning implied here.  Perfect tense is that of a completed action focusing on the existence of the finished results.  More specifically, this is an intensive or resultative perfect, used to emphasize the results or present state produced by a past action.  Hence, the meaning is to have received and still possess.  Paul was stressing not only the certainty of the action, but also the completeness of the state produced by faith, through Christ.  The justified one, therefore, has not only received “access” at a point in time, but continually has “access” into “this grace in which we now stand.”

            However, what exactly did Paul mean by a grace that one could stand?  In order to properly deal with this, it is imperative to recall the previous verb eschkamen and its emphasis on results or the present state produced by a past action.  For immediate purposes, the present state aspect of this verb is of the utmost importance, for it highlights the “grace” aspect here.  Thus, “grace” in this verse speaks of the state of being that one is introduced into Christ by faith.  Consequently, Paul was stating that the justified one has continuous access by faith through Christ into a new state or status of being where “grace is characteristic and dominant” (Moo 301).

            In connection, the following verb esthkamen is the perfect indicative active of isthmi, which means ‘to stand.’  Therefore, it seems that Paul’s conviction was that “conversion . . . results in a relationship with God which is settled and established.”[21]

            Paul then concluded verse two, “and we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.”  The context specifies that the verb kaucwmeqa is indicative.[22]  More specifically, this is a declarative indicative – which states a simple fact in the past, present, or future.  This word is also a deponent verb – indicating an active function.  Therefore, Paul is focusing primarily on the action of a person who is consistently declaring a statement of fact.  In this case, the act of boasting in “hope of the glory of God.”

            Yet, what does it mean to “boast in hope of the glory of God”?  To begin, the word ‘boast’ may be better translated “rejoice” (NIV).  In fact, this is the meaning to which C.K. Barrett concedes when he defines kaucwmeqa as “a triumphant, rejoicing confidence in God” (96).  Secondly, it seems quite evident that the glory of God is the object of this rejoicing and that the hope for this glory of God provides the ability to rejoice.  Thirdly, this “hope of the Glory of God” also appears to be linked with Christ.  For dia (through) at the beginning of verse two is also connected to “we rejoice” by the conjunction kai (and).[23]  So then, Paul seems to be stating that the One through whom “we have access” is likewise the One through whom “we rejoice.”  That through faith in Christ, one does not only have continual access into the state of God’s eternal grace, but has in addition to this new status, received the renewed “hope” of sharing in “the glory of God.”  It is here where Paul introduces an eschatological element into his letter.[24]  The hopelessness of 3:23 has now been replaced with a renewed sense of anticipation and immense joy, in light of the work of Christ that makes possible this heavenly introduction.[25] 

            Paul then continues by stating, “and not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings” (v. 3).  The same verb he used for “rejoice” in verse two he now utilizes again here in verse three.  However, he does so with a different emphasis and intention.  For previously, it was associated with a heavenly anticipation, whereas now he focuses on a different time frame and context, namely, that of “suffering.”  There is a definite relationship between present suffering and future glory.  According to the text, this relationship is found in the element of rejoicing, for rejoicing takes place in both circumstances.  The same anticipation that is exhibited in light of the future glory is likewise to be exhibited in light of the present suffering and tribulation.  For “present suffering and future glory are both objects of a Christian’s exultation.”[26]  In fact, afflictions are the cause of exultation.  What follows indicates how this possible.

            Paul introduces the reason by simply stating, “because we know.”  This verb has a causal function, indicating that it is a state or event that produces some result.[27]  In addition, the conjunction oti, translated, “that,” introduces the content of the knowledge.  Hence, the reason why believers can “rejoice in sufferings” is “because they know” what results sufferings will produce or achieve.

            Paul continues, “knowing that tribulation produces perseverance, and perseverance, character, and character, hope.”  These are the reasons why believers can “rejoice in sufferings.”  “Sequences of this kind, in which suffering inaugurates a chain of linked virtues, are introduced as a stimulus to face difficulties with joy in two other NT texts (1 Pet. 1:6b-7; Jas. 1:2-4) and must have been popular in the early church.”[28]  However, Paul does not speak of the fact that believers somehow have the ability to support suffering more than others do, but focuses upon the attitude that “looks through affliction and distress to find their meaning in God.”[29]

            Paul uses an interesting verb to describe how these virtues achieve their respective goals.  Katergazetai is the present indicative middle form of the word katergazomai, which simply means ‘to produce.’  However, the preposition compound is perfective, carrying the action of the main verb to its conclusion.[30]  Thus, suffering has as its conclusion perseverance.  This model is carried throughout until the end of verse four.

            Secondly, from endurance comes character.  The word used for character is dokimh, which means ‘proof.’[31]  An interesting word to say the least, especially when used in conjunction with “endurance.”  Paul is stating that ‘endurance produces proof.’  Proof of what?  Proof of character.  It is the quality of being approved as a result of tests and trials.[32]  The metaphor of proving gold by testing it with fire would have been a familiar one indeed.  The thought of Abraham’s testing certainly must have been in Paul’s mind as well.[33]

            Third, proven character produces hope.  The climax of the linked virtues ends with hope.  The Christian faith, with confidence in God, looks beyond this present world and into the next.  There is a futuristic orientation in the saints who have placed their faith in Christ.  And rightly so, for their eyes are fixed upon that joyous hope of the final glory.  In particular, what Paul is expressing to his readership is the fact that a developing character is a sign that God is presently at work in one’s life.  Subsequently, to know that God is at work in the present provides a sense of assurance and confidence that He will not give up until the work is brought through to completion.  Thus Paul has come back once again to the link between suffering and glory.  The ultimate connection between these two realities is that sufferings produce the hope of glory.  For one “rejoices not only in the end (glory), but also in the means to the end (suffering).

            Paul now concludes this pericope in verse five by continuing with the topic of hope.  “And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts, by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.”  The hope previously discussed will not disappoint the child of God.  The verb kataiscunei is the present indicative active form of the word kataisxunw, when translated means ‘to put to shame.’  In this case, the present tense indicates a continuing action, precisely ‘will never put us to shame.’[34]  This is reminiscent of certain Old Testament passages that declare a similar theme (Ps. 22:6; 25:3, 20).

            Next comes the reason why the justified one “will never be put to shame.”  This statement is introduced by oti, which means ‘that’ or ‘because.’  It also introduces the content of the knowledge.  Specifically, those who have placed their faith in Christ will never be put to shame ‘because the love of God has been poured out into their hearts by the Holy Spirit, who was given to them.’  The love of God in this instance is classified as a subjective genitive; ‘the love which God has for us.’[35]  Moo also suggests that this last clause is causal in function – focusing on the result of the event or state described.

            This ‘love of God’ has in effect been “poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.”  The verb ekkecutai is the perfect indicative active form of the word ekkxew, which means ‘to pour out.’  The Old Testament background for this verb lie in such texts as Joel 2:28 and Malachi 3:10, where God will ‘pour out’ His Spirit/blessings on His people.[36]  The word denotes abundance and diffusion.  In conjunction with the ‘pouring out’ motif is the ‘giving of the Spirit.’  The change of tense here is worth noting.  The Holy Spirit “was given” to them (doqentos) which is an aorist participle, referring to a past event.  However, God’s love “has been poured out” into their hearts, which is a perfect tense, indicating a past event with abiding results.  From this, one can conclude that the Holy Spirit was given to them at the moment of conversion.  Likewise, He flooded their hearts with the love of God.  The perfect tense comes in to play by rendering this love as a continuous factor in their lives.  Therefore, “the once-given Spirit caused a permanent flood of divine love in their hearts.”[37]  The Spirit makes the reality of the love of God known to every believer.  It is this love that provides the assurance that the believer’s hope in God and His promise of glory is not misplaced and will not fail.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the benefits of justification are thus: peace with God, the enmity is over.  Continual access into the state of grace in which these justified ones stand firm.  And hope, a joyful, confident expectation of the glory of God.  All of these things are made possible through the agency and person of Jesus Christ.  The instrumentality being ones faith in Him.  This hope is produced or achieved by the character that God is working in the believer through the endurance of suffering, but is confirmed by the assurance of His love which is known through the giving of the Spirit.

Application:

            Yet, what significance does this passage have for life in the 21^st century?  First, this passage teaches that upon the moment of conversion, upon putting ones faith in Jesus Christ, one is no longer considered an enemy of God.  The relationship that was broken because of sin has now been restored through the finished work of Christ, and peace with God becomes a reality. 

            In relation to the past and present situations of war and peace in the world, the spiritual possibility of peace with God through His Son, Jesus Christ, becomes the catalyst from which and through which the potential of peace with our fellow man is realized.  Has God loved His enemies enough to send His Son to earth for their redemption and make it possible that humanity can have peace with Him, upon being graced with such in our lives, we are to reciprocate that action and love our enemies, so that peace will also be evidenced among us (Matt. 5:44). 

Though the problems of the world are great and very complex, love is always right, and will be the foundation from which to reconcile and develop human relationships, even when that reality may seem impossible.  God loved the world enough that He gave everything He had, what meant the most to Him, so that He could have a relationship with His creation again.  Likewise, those who have experienced His grace and love personally now have the responsibility to allow His love in their hearts to give all that they have, so that peace will become a reality where they live.  “Blessed are the peacemakers . . .” (Matt. 5:9).

Back to Links to Biblical Studies

 See Rom. 1:1.  For a detailed analysis of internal evidence in favor of this view see Witmer 435.

              The passage of Scripture that will be addressed in this exegesis is found in John 17: 20-23.  Though the text does not explicitly identify the writer of this Gospel, it is widely accepted that the author is the Apostle John (Tasker 794).  However, none of the human authors of the Gospels identified themselves by name (Blum 267).  Instead, an author may choose to reveal their identity indirectly within the writing, or their work may be well known in tradition as coming from them (Blum 267).  This is the case regarding the Gospel of John.

            John was one of the sons of Zebedee, a fisherman from the town of Bethsaida (Smith 473).  His brother was James, another disciple of Jesus, and his mother’s name was Salome (Mk. 16:1, Mt. 27:56).  Both John and James received a personal call from Jesus to leave the family fishing industry and follow Him (Mk. 1:19-20).  After this, they were both nicknamed “sons of thunder” by Jesus (Mk. 3:17), probably because they were “high-spirited, impetuous Galileans, whose zeal was undisciplined and sometimes misdirected” (Lk. 9:49) (Tasker 794). He was also the disciple whom Jesus loved, who lay close to Jesus during the Last Supper (Jn. 13:23).  It was John who was entrusted with the care of Jesus’ mother as instructed by Jesus on the cross (Jn. 19:26-27).  After Jesus death and resurrection, John played a leading role at the church in Jerusalem, and was delineated by the Apostle Paul as one of the ‘pillars’ of the church (Gal. 2:9).  John is also recognized as the human author of four other books in the New Testament.  These include the three Epistles of John and the Book of Revelation (Stott 68).

            The date of the writing of this Gospel, according to tradition, is somewhere in the mid-90’s of the first century (Keener 260).  Tradition also states that John came to Ephesus after Paul had founded the church there, and worked at this location for an extended period of time (Blum 267).  This also became the location of the writing of this Gospel.

            It appears that John had written this Gospel with two very specific groups in mind.  They included both the Jews and Gentiles of his day.  Gentiles are included in this because John often interpreted Jewish words or customs for his readers (Jh. 1:38, 41-42; 5:2; 9:7; 19:13, 17; 20:16).  However, there does appear to be somewhat of an emphasis towards the Jewish people (Wiersbe 284).  The use and description of the word ‘Messiah’ “indicates that a Jewish audience is probably in mind” (Marshall 800).   

The purpose of John’s writing can be found in John 20:30-31: “That you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”  “John’s purpose is to reveal the glory of Jesus as the Son of God” (Marshall 800).  He did this through the descriptions of seven signs performed by Jesus (Jh. 2:12).  “Whereas the first three Gospels major on describing events in the life of Christ, John emphasized the meaning of these events” (Wiersbe 284).

John 17 is the consummation event of chapters 13 to 17.  In the previous chapters, John wrote concerning the preparatory work of Jesus with His disciples.  It is here where Jesus had told them who He was (14:8,9), why He was about to leave them (14:2), how He loved them (15:9), whom He would send to them (14:16), and of their union with Himself (15:5) (Rainsford 32-33). He had also told them of the trial and danger to which they would be subjected (15:18-21).  “Then at the close of chapter 16, He had told them of the legacy He was about to leave them” (Rainsford 33).  After giving those whom he loved “all the comfort, all the instruction, all the encouragement, all the warning, and having expressed to them all the love that filled His soul”, “He looked toward heaven” (Rainsford 34) (Jn. 17:1).  The words to come are prefaced by, “After Jesus said this” (Jn. 17:1).  “The ‘this’ refers to the entire Farewell Discourse; and so we are to understand that this final prayer is the capstone to the instruction that has preceded it” (Carson 175).  “In this there is nothing surprising: farewell discourses often end with a prayer in which the person taking his departure commends his friends, or his children, to God” (Barrett 499).  This prayer is best read and interpreted in the context in which John has placed it – “between the last discourses and the story of the passion” (Barrett 501). 

            In the closing portion of His prayer, the ”Lord emphasizes the matter of spiritual unity.  He had mentioned it before (v.11), but now it becomes the burden of his prayer” (Wiersbe, The Intercessory Prayer of Jesus 119).  Verse 20 states, “I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word.”  This verse signals the third and final focus in Jesus’ prayer.  It passes “from the thought of the apostles to the thought of all those who should reach discipleship through their ministry” (Bernard 576).  “As their faith was itself the result of Jesus’ mission to the world, so their mission will evoke faith” (Barrett 511).  The future disciples will come to believe that Jesus is the Son of God through the agency of the Word as preached by the present disciples (cf. Rom. 10:14).  The word pisteuontwn in verse 20 is a present active participle of pisteuw, meaning to believe (Mounce 374).  It is interesting that the present participle “emphasizes a continuing trait” (Rogers 221).  More specifically, it is a proleptic or anticipatory present participle, with the force of a future (Bernard 576).   They will “come to believe.”   Christ is anticipating that there will be a continuing influx of people who will come to believe in Him through the agency of the Word of God as preached by the disciples.  It will be a Word that witnesses to Christ.  “What is meant is trust in the mission of Jesus and his power to deliver” (Michel 599).  “Believing in Jesus is the same as coming to him, receiving him, or loving him” (Bromiley 856).

            To continue, verse 21 declares, “that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may

be in Us, that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me.”  “Jesus prays that the whole church may be one, as he has

already prayed that his own disciples may be one (v. 11)” (Barrett 512).  “In Greek, this verse is a continuation of the sentence begun

in verse 20” (Newman & Nida 542).  As the church would grow in number, so would the probability of disunity amongst its members

(Bernard 576).  Verse 21 begins with ina, which generally means that, so that, or in order that.  “The first two clauses express the

content of prayer and the third expresses purpose” (Rogers 221).  In conjunction, wsin, which is the Present subjunctive active of

eimi, means to be.  With ina, wsin in the subjunctive, expresses purpose or result (Rogers 221).  “That all may be one” (v. 21).   

Another word, eis, also has significant meaning.  In Classical Greek, eis basically denotes the number one (Vinyard 286).  However, the sense of numerical one is absent in the New Testament (Vinyard 286).  For in the New Testament, eis commonly means the uniqueness of something or single (Bromiley 214).  “In that respect the ‘oneness’ or ‘uniqueness’ of God is a vital tenet of the Biblical faith – both Old and New Testaments.  The shema of Israel (Deut. 6) reflects the centrality of this distinction in the religion of Israel” (Vinyard 286).  “Israel acknowledged that their God was ‘one’ and recognized the importance of this factor in their own solidarity among the nations” (Keener 306).  This same truth applies to Christ as well.  As the destiny of the old humanity was fixed in Adam, so the destiny of the new humanity is fixed in Christ (Bromiley 215).  What the church has in common is that they are all ‘in Christ’.  He is the Head, and the church is His body (1 Cor. 12:13) (Bromiley 215).  “The death of the one for many brings unity to the many (Gal. 3:28)” (Vinyard 287).  It is in this respect that the church is ‘one.’

Jesus then likens this unity to that of the Father and Himself.  In fact, “this unity of all believers finds its ideal in the unity of the Father and the Son” (Dods 845).  This clarifies the nature of this unity (Bernard 576).  As the Father and the Son are one, so the church is to be one.  However, “the Father and the Son are one and yet remain distinct” (Barrett 512).  This clarifies the concept of unity all the more.  “He was not calling for uniformity, since he and the Father are distinct from each other and have different functions; nor was he calling for agreement in external opinion.  He predicated that the unity would be one of nature; for he and the Father, while distinguishable in person, are one being” (Expositor’s, CD-ROM).  This concept parallels Pauline teaching (1 Cor. 12:12-13) and other passages in John as well (15).  In these cases, “all believers belong by a vital rather than merely a formal relationship” (Expositor’s, CD-ROM).  

Jesus continues by stating “that they also may be in Us” (v. 21).  This unity is “facilitated only by a profound spiritual unity with God in Christ” (Burge 870).  The unity among the believers must also “be grounded in unity with or dwelling in the Father and the Son”  (Witherington 271).  This states a concept of “mutual indwelling” (Bartels 723).  “Christ himself is in unity with the Father and brings his own into the same fellowship” (Bromiley 215).  The ideal here is that all Christians be en hmin (in us). To abide in Christ (Jn. 15:4) is to also abide in God.  The use of the plural hmin reveals this (Bernard 577).  “Those who are thus ‘in God’ share the Divine life in common, and are therefore one” (Bernard 577).  However, the use of kaqws in such passages “is only suggestive of a partial, not a complete, analogy” (Bernard 577). 

Jesus concludes His thoughts in this verse by giving another purpose clause like that in the beginning of the verse.  This clause expresses the purpose of the unity of future believers (Newman & Nida 542).  “May they all be one . . . that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me.”   “This unity of all believers is to result in the universal belief in Christ’s mission” (Dods 845).  While this unity between the members of the church and with God in Christ is seemingly invisible by nature, there must also be a visible dimension to it as well, because this unity is able to be seen by the world.  The oneness of the church is a witness to the world that provides the means for them to believe in Christ.  But just how is this unity seen?  It must be through their mutual love for one another.  For “by this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn. 13:34-35) (cf. 1 Jn. 3:11-24).  It also must be referring to the “glory” that Jesus gave His disciples (v. 22).  In addition, the verb pisteuh is the present subjunctive active of pisteuw, which means to believe.  The present tense emphasizes a continuing trait (Rogers 221).  The subjunctive mood does not imply that Christ may or may not be able to be witnessed in the church, but that the world can believe in Him only by the unity that the church exhibits.  The world can only believe in Christ as much as the church makes Him known through their unifying witness.   The active in this case, as in all cases, represents the fact that the world (people) are the ones performing the action; the action of believing in Christ.  It is a willing action.

But what are they to believe in?  “That Thou didst send Me.”  Oti, which means that, introduces the content of the belief (Rogers 221).  Through the common, unifying witness of the church, the world may come to believe that the Father did send Jesus into the world.  The verb apesteilas is the aorist active indicitive of apostellw, meaning to send.   In this case, it means “to send as a personal authoritative representative” (Rogers 221).  The aorist tense is more specifically a consummative aorist, emphasizing the end of the action.  “He has been sent and He is here” (Rogers 221).  The indicative mood represents the certainty of the action of the verb. “Jesus uses apostellw to denote his full authority, i.e., to ground his mission in God as the One who is responsible for his words and works” (Bromiley 68).  The Classical Greek meaning connotes basically the same message.  For in this era, it meant that the “envoy has full powers and is the personal representative of the one sending him, a close connection is established between the sender and the recipient” (Muller 127).  In the end, “the consequence of the spiritual unity of Christians . . . is that the world will be convinced that the mission of Jesus was divine, and that He is ‘the Savior of the world’” (Jn. 4:42) (cf. Jn. 16:8) (Bernard 577).   The result is not unlike the response of the immediate disciples of Jesus (Jn. 17:8).          

Jesus continues in verse 22:  “And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one.”  The verbs dedwkas and dedwka are the perfect active indicative forms of didwmi, meaning to give.  The force of the perfect tense is simply that it describes an event that, completed in the past, has results existing in the present time (Perschbacher 310).  In particular, this is an intensive perfect or a resultative perfect: a past action with emphasis placed on the results of the action (Perschbacher 311).  Active voice again represents the idea that the subject is performing the action of the verb, in this case it is the Father and Jesus respectively.  The indicative mood indicates the certainty of the event.  The glory that the Father has given to Jesus, Jesus has now given to His church. 

But what is this glory?  It would appear that it is related to the glory mentioned in verse 5.  “But how this glorious quality of existence, associated with the preincarnate Christ, can be transmitted to his disciples, and in what way it manifests itself in their lives and behavior, is difficult to understand” (Newman & Nida 543).  First of all, as a theological expression, doxa (glory) “uniquely capsulizes the essence of the divine existence” (Vinyard 166).  In the Old Testament, God revealed His glory throughout the history of Israel.  God’s glory also expresses God’s action in salvation history (Vinyard 166).  However, this glory is also connected with the Ark of the Covenant (Vinyard 166).  In fact, “God’s glory is His presence (1 Sam. 4:1-21)” (Vinyard 166).  God’s redeeming His people from Babylonian exile was also seen as a manifestation of the glory of God (Isa. 40-66).  God’s glory can also be seen (Aalem 45).  In the New Testament,  doxa also refers to the expression of God’s glory (Vinyard 167),which is supremely seen in Jesus Christ.  Therefore, in order to come to some kind of understanding with regards to this passage, it is imperative that one first grasp the relationship of this glory to Christ. 

Glory also seems to refer to the revelation of God’s character, and Jesus is “the

radiance of God’s glory” (Heb. 1:3).  The glory of God was seen by the shepherds at the birth of Christ (Lk. 2:9,14) and by his disciples during his incarnate life (Jn. 1:14).  Particularly, it was revealed in his signs (Jn. 2:11) and at His transfiguration (Mt. 17:1-8; Mk. 9:2-8; Lk. 9:28-36) (Nixon 565).  Jesus also spoke to others of His glory, a glory He has from eternity (Jn. 5:44; 17:5,22,24).  The resurrection and ascension are also seen as manifestations of the glory of God in Christ (Lk. 24:26; Acts 3:13; 7:55; Rom. 6:4).  It is also to be revealed at his parousia (Mk. 8:38; 13:26).   John’s Gospel “promotes the thought that the glory of Christ was expressed in His affliction and suffering.  The Cross is the central locus of the glorification of Christ, the tangible witness that the saving power and glory of God are operating in and through Him” (Vinyard 167).  Therefore, the glory of God, revealed in and through Jesus Christ, is a “redeeming and transforming power which is presently at work” (Vinyard 168).  In fact, believers may already participate in the glory of Christ (Rom. 8:17; 1 Pet. 5:15).  This is realized in the context of the Christian community (2 Cor. 4:3-6).  Union with Christ and participation in His glory is the work of the Spirit (1 Pet. 4:14).  “The key to this realization is that believers, by the power of the Spirit, will perform the same works as Christ and will consequently glorify the Father, i.e., make manifest the saving power of God in the name of Christ (Jn. 14:13; 14:12-20; 16:12-15)” (Vinyard 168).  Therefore, “the object of the church is to see that the world acknowledges the glory which is God’s (Rom. 15:9) and is shown in his deeds (Acts 4:21), in his disciples (1 Cor. 6:20) and above all in his Son, the Lord of glory (Rom. 16:27)” (Nixon 565). 

In light of the preceding information, it appears that the glory that was given to Christ’s disciples primarily refers to the continuation of His redemptive mission.  The church cannot and does not save anyone in and of itself, but through the person of the Holy Spirit (the agency of God’s presence-glory), the church exhibits the Glory of Christ, and thus enables the world to come to faith in Him.  This is evidenced through the words which they speak (heralds), the love they share, and the signs that they perform (by the Holy Spirit).  This corporate work and witness of the church is what binds it together and makes it one (v. 22b).  “By sharing in his calling, they participate in his glory and are united with him and with one another” (Expositor’s, CD-ROM). 

The final thought in this pericope is found in verse 23.  “I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me.”   “I in them and you in me” explains the meaning of “one” in the last part of verse 22 (Newman & Nida 544).  This fact was exemplified earlier in verse 21 (cf. Rom. 8:10; 2 Cor. 13:5; Gal. 2:20; 4:19).  However, in this verse, Jesus continues with the thought and theme of this passage, unity.  Yet, He does so by diving a little deeper into His thought.  “That they may be perfected in unity” could also be translated “so that they may be completely one.”  This construction indicates both the intended purpose and the goal of “I in them and you in me” (Newman & Nida 544).  It is introduced by an ina clause, coupled with wsin.  Again, this delineates purpose or result (Rogers 221).  The purpose is that “they may be completely one.”  The verb tetleiwmenoi  is the perfect passive participle of teleiow meaning to complete, to accomplish, to make perfect, to mature (Rogers 221). This word is used in a periphrastic construction.  “Perfect tense periphrastic particles emphasize completed action” (Perschbacher 407). In this occasion, perfect “indicates a permanent state as the goal and final result” (Rogers 221).  “The idea of completeness is all that is involved here” (Barrett 513).   “Jesus prays that his disciples may be wholly one as he is in them and God in him” (Bromiley 1165).  However, what is also implied from the context is that “perfect is an appropriate description of the Christian only when one understands that Christ is the cause of perfection” (Vinyard 100).  This “complete unity” is only made possible through Jesus Christ.  “God is in Him, He is in each believer, and thus a true and final unity is formed” (Dods 845).  This is a picture of perfect “wholeness in oneness” (Wesley).  This word is also used in various other passages expressing a similar thought (Heb. 10:14; 1 Jn. 2:5).

The purpose or result of this completeness is expressed in the next portion.  “That the world may know that Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me.”  This phrase is introduced by another ina clause, denoting the purpose or result of the previous statement.  Jesus prays that the church may be “perfected in unity” so that the “world may know.”  The verb ginwskh is the present subjunctive active of ginwskw meaning to know.  Present tense emphasizes a continuing trait, while the active voice (simple active) indicates that the subject of the verb is performing or experiencing the action (knowing).  The subjunctive merely states the probability of the world coming to know that the Father sent the Son into the world.  It does not question the fact that the Father has performed this action as much as it declares that the world may not come to know.  The world may choose to know or not to know.  This is where the subjunctive comes into play.

However, what role does ginwskw play in this verse?  First of all, it is important to understand the relationship between ginwskw (to know) in verse 23 and pisteuw (to believe) in verse 20.  On numerous occasions in John, these two verbs are used synonymously (Jn. 6:69; 17:3; 3:15) (Barrett 82).  For in the Scriptures, to know something is also to understand it.  In understanding, one may come to believe in the object that is known.  “Knowledge itself implies relationship in addition to cognition: to know God is to be united with him” (Barrett 82).  So coming to believe in Jesus (v. 20) is also to know Him (v. 23). 

But what is it that the world “may know”?  “That Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me.”  In this verse, oti (that) introduces the content of the belief (Rogers 221).  The goal or purpose is twofold: that the world may know that the Father has sent the Son to earth, and has loved the disciples as He has loved the Son (Blum 334).  The verb apesteilas (to send) in verse 23 is the same verb used in verse 3 and 21.  At these times, it connotes the same message and meaning.  The aorist tense indicates an action in the past.  The active voice indicates that the subject (God) has performed the action of the verb.  Finally, the indicative mood suggests the certainty of this action.  The “perfected unity” as witnessed in the church by the people of the world will enable them to know that God has sent Christ.  Remember that this verb means, “to send as a personal authoritative representative” (Rogers 220).  The unity of the church acts as a witness to the validity and authenticity of Christ’ mission and message as being sent by God (Blum 334).  This knowledge then will inevitably bring about the result of salvation (eternal life) to those who would receive such in the world (Jn. 3:15-16). 

In addition, this knowledge will also allow the world to know that God has loved his disciples as He has loved His Son (v. 23).  Knowing that God has performed the action of sending His Son into the world to bring about the completion of His acts in salvation history, will ultimately lead the world to acknowledge the love of God.  “For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son” (Jn. 3:16).  “The goal of the unity of believers with each other and with God is that the world will sense that God’s love for believers is deep, intimate, and lasting as is His love for His unique Son (cf. v. 26)” (Blum 334). 

The verb hgaphsas is the aorist indicative active of agapaw, meaning to love.  The aorist tense speaks of the action as taking place as a snapshot picture in the past.  Indicative mood indicates the certainty of the action.  While the active voice indicates that the subject (God) is performing the loving action.  It also speaks of an active love, not self-seeking (Bromiley 7).  “It expresses a love that does not require a comparable response” (Vinyard 26).  It is therefore, a “fitting description of the kind of love God has shown to man in sending His Son to save all who will believe” (Vinyard 26). 

Yet, what does all this mean in the context of the 21^st century?  Does the primary thrust of this passage, being unity, apply to the church today?  And if so how?  The answer to these questions is a definitive yes.  First, one must remember the context of John 17:20-23.  This portion of Jesus’ prayer is futuristic; aimed towards those who will come to believe in Him through the disciple’s witness.  It is a prayer for all believers, in all times.  This makes it automatically relevant to the Christians of the 21^st century.  In addition, other passages such as Ephesians 4 stress the same idea of unity in the Body of Christ.  “There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Eph. 4:4-6).  The church of Jesus Christ is called to be a united witness to Jesus.  There is a spiritual oneness among all Christians in all ages.  Both John 17 and Ephesians 4 dictate this with clarity.  However, what does unity look like?

The form of unity has been a controversial topic of endless debates throughout the time of the church universal.  The Ecumenical Movement, which desires that all denominational walls be broken down and one, physical church be established, is one extreme.  They state that all doctrine should be downsized to the lowest common denominator in order to facilitate oneness.  At the other side of the spectrum are those who argue that this unity is a spiritual oneness, and does not necessarily have to manifest itself in physical oneness.  This is the view that seems more in line with the biblical witness.  The Bible does not call for uniformity, where all personal distinctions are lost.  “Differences exist between members, i.e., between rich and poor, or men and women.  These are not removed but they are transcended” (Bromiley 215).  The biblical mandate is for unity in the midst of diversity (1 Cor. 12-14).  It is here where the ecumenical argument falls short.

However, does this mean that Christian fellowship is to be frowned upon?  Not at all (Acts 2:44).  The key here is love.  It is interesting that passages dealing with unity also conclude that love is an important element, i.e., Ephesians 4:1-16.  Indeed, “love is the circulatory system of the body” (Wiersbe 129).  With love as the foundation upon which unity is built, Christians can and should have fellowship with one another.  Again, not denying the differences that exist, but allowing the areas of commonality to dominate over and above those things which divide.  “As we mature in the Lord, we find that it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable” (Wiersbe 130). 

In conclusion, the “High Priestly Prayer” of Jesus as recorded in John 17 is extremely powerful.  In addition, verses 20-23 are particularly relevant for the church of the 21^st century.  Here, the thrust of Christ’ prayer is for unity.  He highlights that this unity is likened to that as seen in the relationship between His Father and Himself.  The “glory” that Jesus has given to the church makes this possible.  The ultimate purpose of this unity is so that the world would believe and know that the Father has sent the Son into the world, and that He loves the disciples as He has loved His Son.  This is the mission of the church: to witness to the world the glory of God in Christ through the agency of the Word of God, preached and taught in love, and through mutual love for one another.  For “by this all men will know that you are my disciples” (Jn. 13:34-35).  May the church of Jesus Christ be faithful to this task until He comes!

 

 

Back to Links to Biblical Studies 

 

 

 

Works Consulted

 

Aalem, S.  “doxa.”  New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.  Gen. Ed. Colin Brown.  Vol.2.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.  44-48.  4 vols. 

Angel, G.T.D.  “erwtaw.”  New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.  Gen. Ed. Colin Brown.  Vol. 2.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.  879-881.  4 vols.

Barrett, C.K.  The Gospel According to John.  Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1978.

Bartels, K.H.  “eis.”  New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.  Gen. Ed. Colin Brown.  Vol.2.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.  719-723.  4 vols.

Berkhof, L.  Systematic Theology.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949.

Bernard, J.H.  A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John.  Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1976.

Blum, Edwin A.  “John.”  The Bible Knowledge Commentary.  Gen. Eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck.  Vol.2.  Wheaton: Victor, 1983.

Boice, James Montgomery.  The Gospel of John.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.

Bromiley, Geoffrey W.  Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

Burge, Gary M.  “John.”  Evangelical Commentary on the Bible.  Gen. Ed. Walter A. Elwell.  Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989.

Carson, D.A.  The Farewell Discourse and Final Prayer of Jesus.  Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.

Colson, Charles.  The Body.  Dallas: Word, 1996.

Dods, Marcus.  The Expositor’s Greek Testament.  New York: George H. Doran, 19--.

Erickson, Millard J.  Christian Theology.  Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.

Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas Stuart.  How to Read the Bible for All its Worth.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.

Grudem, Wayne.  Systematic Theology.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Gruenler, Royce Gordon.  “John 17:20-26.”  Interpretation  43:  (1989):  178-183.

Guthrie, George H., and J. Scott Duvall.  Biblical Greek Exegesis.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

James, Doug.  E-Mail.  15 March, 1999.

“John.”  The Expositor’s Bible Commentary.  Computer Software.  Zondervan Interactive, 1998.  CD-ROM.

Keener, Craig S.  The IVP Bible Background Commentary.  Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993.

Laskey, Dennis A.  “Luther’s Exposition of John 17.”  Currents in Theology and Mission.  18 (1991) :  204-208.

Marshall, Alfred.  The Interlinear NASB-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.

Marshall, I.H.  “Epistles of John.”  The Illustrated Bible Dictionary.  Part 2.  Wheaton: Tyndale, 1988.  797-799.

---.  “Gospel of John.”  The Illustrated Bible Dictionary.  Part 2.  Wheaton: Tyndale, 1988.  799-806.

Michel, O.  “pisteuw.”  New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.  Gen. Ed. Colin Brown.  Vol.1.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.  593-605.  4 vols.

Mounce, William D.  The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.

Muller, D.  “apostellw.”  New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.  Vol.1.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.  126-135.  4 vols.

Neuhaus, Richard John.  Freedom for Ministry.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

Newmann, Barclay M., and Eugene A. Vida.  A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of John.  London: United Bible Societies, 1980.

Nixon, R.E.  “Glory.”  The Illustrated Bible Dictionary.  Part 1.  Wheaton: Tyndale, 1988.

Perschbacher, Wesley J.  New Testament Greek Syntax.  Chicago: Moody, 1995.

Rainsford, Marcus.  Our Lord Prays for His Own.  Chicago: Moody, 1950.

Rogers, Cleon L. Jr., and Cleon L. Rogers III.  The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

Ross, Charles.  The Inner Sanctuary.  London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967.

Schippers, R.  “teleiow.”  New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.  Gen. Ed. Colin Brown.  Vol. 2.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.  59-65.  4 vols.

Schmitz, E.D.  “ginwskw.”  New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Gen. Ed. Colin Brown.  Vol. 2.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.  392-406.  4 vols.

Smith, William.  Smith’s Bible Dictionary.  Nashville: Holman, 1994.

Stott, John.  Men with a Message.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

Tasker, R.V.G.  “The Apostle John.”  The Illustrated Bible Dictionary.  Part 2.  Wheaton: Tyndale, 1988.  794-795.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence.  Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology.  Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1976.

Vinyard, Dennis W.  The New Testament Greek-English Dictionary.  Springfield: The Complete Biblical Library, 1990.

Vorlander, H.  “didwmi.”  New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.  Gen. Ed. Colin Brown.  Vol. 2.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.  40-43.  4 vols.

Wesley, Arun Kumar.  “A Meditation.”  Asia Journal of Theology.  18 (1991):  204-208.

Wiersbe, Warren W.  The Bible Exposition Commentary.  Wheaton: Victor, 1989.

---.  The Intercessory Prayer of Jesus.  Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997.

Witherington, Ben.  John’s Wisdom.  Louisville: Westminster, 1995.

 

 

 

            The prophet Isaiah could certainly be placed into this prophetic category.  He was a man called by God to speak on behalf of God to the Israelite community of His day.  The scope of Isaiah’s prophecies is three-fold:  to reprove sin, to invite persons, both Jew and Gentile, to a place of repentance and reformation, and to comfort the devout with prophetic promises of the coming Messiah (Smith 461).  “Isaiah has been called ‘the Evangelical Prophet,’ on account of the number and variety of his prophesies concerning the advent and character, the ministry and preaching, the sufferings and death of the Messiah, and the extension, permanence, and glory of His kingdom” (Smith 461).  It is on this premise that the Book of Isaiah will be examined.  In particular, this paper will focus in on the underlying message and theme of Isaiah 55 - the glorious invitation – for this particular theme represents well one that runs deep throughout the context of the entire book.

            Isaiah is the son of Amoz (Isa. 1:1).  His name means “Yahweh is salvation” (Martin 1029).  Isaiah probably resided in Jerusalem and had access to the royal court (Isa. 7:1-3; 37:2) (Martin 1029).  He was married (Isa. 8:3), and had two sons, Shear-Jasbud (Isa. 7:3), and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz  (Isa. 8:3). Isaiah is one of the Major Prophets, as contrasted with the Minor Prophets of the Old Testament, and is often called the prince of prophets (Wood, The Prophets of Israel 297).  It is commonly held that Isaiah began his work as a prophet in the latter years of King Uzziah’s reign (Ridderbos 698).  In fact, it may have been in the last year of this ruler as stated in Isaiah 6 (Ridderbos 698).  Since Uzziah died in 739 BC, Isaiah’s ministry may have occurred from about 740 BC to 680 BC, or approximately 60 years (Wood, The Prophets of Israel 298).  His ministry was probably the longest amongst Israel’s prophets (Wood 298).  The exact year of Isaiah’s death is unknown, but “it was probably after Hezekiah’s death in 686 BC” (Martin 1029).  Tradition records that Isaiah was martyred during King Manasseh’s reign.  In fact, “Justin Martyr wrote that Isaiah was sawed asunder with a saw” (Martin 1029).  Some see a reference to this in Hebrews 11:37.  However, this is only speculative at best.

            Isaiah dates his ministry to the reigns of specific kings: Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah (Isa. 1:1) (Wood, The Prophets of Israel 297).  He prophesied to the Southern Kingdom of Judah and not to the Northern Kingdom of Israel (Wood 297).  These years in Israel were characterized by tremendous struggles, both politically and spiritually (Martin 1029).  The Northern Kingdom of Israel finally fell to the Assyrian Empire in 722 BC.  The Southern Kingdom, however, withstood the attack, at least temporarily (Martin 1029).  It was in the midst of this political and spiritual deterioration that Isaiah rose to deliver a message to the people of Judah (Martin 1030).  His message was two-fold: to trust in the God who had promised them a glorious kingdom through Moses and David, and to not place their trust as a nation in Egypt or any other foreign power to protect them, for the Lord was all the protection they needed (Martin 1030). 

            Isaiah’s “primary purpose was to remind his readers of the special relationship they had with God as members of the nation of Israel, His special covenant community” (Martin 1031).  It was to teach God’s people that salvation came by grace alone (Wood, The Prophets of Israel 306).  In this salvation, Israel “would take a central place, but the other nations would participate in it too” (Isa. 1:19,26; 2:2-5) (Ridderbos 703).  This purpose and theme is presented under two main divisions.  In chapters 1-39 the prophet proclaims a message concerning Judah’s sin and the impending punishment should they continue on this path (Wood 306).  The time in view is the day in which Isaiah lived himself (Wood 306).  In Chapters 40-66, Isaiah “brings a word of comfort and also messianic prediction” (Wood 306). ).  Here, Isaiah projects himself ahead and sees Judah’s punishment as already taken place (Wood 306).  This prophecy comes at a time when Israel is in exile in Babylonia (Ridderbos 704).  They think that God has forgotten them, and some have even come to regard the place of their exile as their homeland (Ridderbos 704).  At this point in time, Isaiah tells of a time when deliverance will come from the punishment.  He continues by announcing that sometime in the future, the Messiah will come and bring deliverance from the cause of this punishment, sin (Isa. 53) (Wood 306).  Isaiah concludes by revealing that there will come a time when Israel will rule the world and be the supreme people in a glorious millennial period (Isa. 55) (Wood 306).  “Redemption has been predicted and explained as occurring in the Suffering Servant (ch. 53).  The invitation has been extended for participation in that redemption through covenant relationship (ch. 54)” (Butler 300).  Upon the hills of all that has occurred thus far, Isaiah, in chapter 55, announces a glorious invitation to the people.             

            “Come,” cries the prophet, “all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost” (Isa. 55:1).  The word “come” (used four times in verse 1), “is mainly an attention-getting device, but it expresses a slight tone of pity” (Expositor’s).  The prophet Isaiah is depicting a normative Middle Eastern scene of an open market.  It is commonly held that Isaiah is illustrating his point through the use of a Near Eastern water vendor (Expositor’s).  “Like street vendors hawking their wares in an open market, the speakers announce a feast open to everyone” (Watts 246).  However, the obvious difference on this occasion being that the costs are free.  A seeming paradox to say the least.  This is an interesting invitation.  “God, the creator, is portrayed as a merchant in the marketplace where people are buying and selling, pleading with man, the creature: “Stop! Look! Listen! Eyes this way! Ears alert! I have something worthy of your attention!” (Green 159).  He offers everyone who thirsts to come and drink, free of charge!  The only criterion is to be “thirsty.”  “All who realize their need of the substance of life are invited to come and receive freely” (Butler 301).  In this case, Isaiah is using water to speak figuratively of salvation (Butler 310).  “The point of these verses is that God’s provision of redemption through the servant (Messiah) shall be by grace” (Butler 301).  “The death of the servant (Isa. 53:5-9) paid for the free gift of life” (NIV Study Bible 1097).  Isaiah is exhorting Zion to focus their attention on the promises of God so that they may have salvation by grace alone.  What the Jews found astonishing was not the fact that Jehovah would be gracious to them.  What they found astonishing was that He would grant them mercy a part from any merit that they could produce (Butler 301).

            Verse two continues on with the train of thought exhibited in verse one.  The prophet asks his hearers the poignant question, “Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy?”  At this juncture, Isaiah is probably alluding to the people’s preoccupation with settling down in Babylon (Expositor’s). 

They had been in Babylon for many years – some for the whole of their life.  They had grown roots, acquired property and commercial interests, were prosperous and secure.  The prophet does not plead or argue, but throws into the quiet pool of their complacency a disturbing pebble, as he asks: ‘Does all this really satisfy you?  Is this what you are for?’ (Expositor’s)   

Isaiah was stating that the pleasures, which one can possess in and from the land of Babylon, could never bring true satisfaction of both heart and mind. 

These things, in and of themselves, can never fill the longing in your hearts.  How could they be interested in other things when the Lord is the only One who could bring true satisfaction? (Martin 1110).    Isaiah declares: “Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good, and your soul will delight in the richest of fare” (v. 2b). 

He continues in verse 3, “Give ear and come to me; hear me, that your soul may live.”  The phrase, “that your soul may live”, is better translated, “that you may have the fullness of life” (Scullion 130).  “He now adds the words to the effect that life in its fullness is awaiting you” (Westermann 282).  “The fullness of this blessing that God works for you is awaiting you if you now close with the invitation given in his word of salvation” (Westermann 282). 

This fullness of life is now expressed in terms of the covenant.  “I will make an everlasting covenant with you, my faithful love promised to David” (v. 3b).  “God now offers to pledge this eternal life to Israel within the bonds of the covenant” (Knight 191).  What covenant?  The Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7:5-16).  In this Covenant, God promised David an unending dynasty, culminating in the Messiah (NIV Study Bible 1098).  However, something spectacular happened.  The Covenant and promises made to David by God have now been transferred to the people of God (Scullen 130).  “Just as God promised to keep His good hand on David, so He assured those who come to Him that He will never remove His good hand (His blessings) from them”  (Martin 1110).  “It is, therefore, for all Israel that the promises made to David are to be realized” (Westermann 283).

A fuller understanding of the truth stated in verse three is better realized in verses four and five.  The fact that the promises of the Davidic Covenant have been transferred to the people of God is understood and further explained.  Verse four speaks of King David and how God made him a witness, a leader, and a commander of the peoples.  However, the word “you” in verse five (b) is singular, speaking of the surviving remnant of Israel (Webb 217).  “As God made David a witness and leader of peoples, so he will now make his people Israel” (Webb 217).  Israel will not increase due to the conquests of other nations, but will increase by the witness of Yahweh who is in the midst of His people (Scullion 130).  This witness will draw people to Israel.  “Israel will be like a magnet attracting people of all nations into the kingdom of God” (Webb 217).  This will occur “because of the Lord your God” (v. 5b).  Israel will be restored both physically and spiritually (NIV Study Bible 1098).  Nations will recognize the Lord’s splendor and come to the newly restored Israel (Martin 1110). 

Verses six and seven reiterate the previous invitation to come and drink freely from the waters of salvation.  Isaiah is calling the people of Israel to call on the Lord and to repent of their sins.  If they do this, they are assured of the Lord’s mercy and grace.  If they will come, God will “freely pardon” (v. 7b). 

This plan of God must have been difficult to comprehend for a people whose world was contracting rather than expanding (Webb 218).  “But if so, that was because their human minds . . . were limited and sinful” (Webb 218).  To counter this probable train of thought, God declared through the prophet Isaiah: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways” (v. 8).  In fact, God declares, “as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways” (v. 9).  This must have silenced any negative discussion that may have been circulating regarding the uncertainty of God’s word. 

If this was not enough, in verses ten and eleven, Isaiah continues to reiterate the dependableness of God’s Word (Westermann 289).  He states that as the rain and the snow come upon the earth, making it bud and flourish, so God’s Word will not return empty, but will accomplish and achieve the purpose for which it was sent.  “God’s word is not merely content: it is event.  It is the instrument by which he effects his purpose” (Scullion 131).  In essence, “God’s word is a word that does things.  When God speaks, something comes about” (Westermann 289).  Nothing can frustrate or divert God’s Word from its course (Webb 218).  This must have been an extremely encouraging and exciting time for the people when they heard Isaiah utter these words from Jehovah.  “No wonder chapter 55 throbs with excitement” (Webb 218).  For “when God speaks His word, it brings forth spiritual life, thus accomplishing His purpose” (Martin 1111). 

“With God’s conditions of repentance having been fulfilled and the people’s return to the Lord having made possible a return to the land, the prophet can speak of their joyous and peaceful journey (v. 12)” (Expositor’s).  The departure from Babylon provides the background for this verse (NIV Study Bible).  Due to this exodus of repentance, nature will even respond.  Figuratively speaking, Isaiah declares that upon Israel’s joyous return to the Lord, “the mountains and hills will burst into song . . . and all the trees of the field will clap their hands” (v. 12).  This personifies the joy that the people will exhibit at this time (Martin 1111).

The chapter concludes in verse thirteen giving examples of some of the changes that will occur in nature because of this joyous return to the Lord.  “The contrasts in vegetation are symbolic of contrasts in God’s attitude toward his land.  The thorns and briers are signs of abandoned fields, symbolizing Yahweh’s punishment of exile.  But trees like the cypress or a myrtle mark a cultivated and well-watered land” (Watts 247). 

Why will these things occur?  “This will be for the Lord’s renown” (v. 13b).  For “in the final analysis, whatever comes about comes about for God’s honor, just as all creation exists in order to render him praise” (Westermann 292).  All these things serve to bring glory to God, pointing beyond itself to His eternal grace and power (Expositor’s).  In the end, “God’s deliverance would never be forgotten” (NIV Study Bible 1098).

In conclusion, it is quite clear that the prophets of Israel indeed had an important role to play in Israel’s history.  They were God’s messengers; commissioned to deliver God’s Word to His people.  Isaiah was such a person.  At a time when Israel (and Judah) was deteriorating rapidly, Isaiah arose with a message from God.  It was a message of warning and a message of deliverance.  Isaiah chapter 55 is a pivotal part of this message.  In this chapter, Isaiah sends out a glorious invitation to God’s people.  This invitation is a call to repentance and subsequent salvation.  It is a call to return to the Lord on the merits of the Suffering Servant (Messiah)(Isa. 53).  However, all Jews did not agree in their response to this invitation (Watts 248).  Some accepted, others rejected.  In light of this, God will not change His plan.  “So the rebels are invited to change, to become a part of God’s new city and new age.  They are offered a warm reception and a full pardon" from their sins (Watts 248).  The invitation is still being given today.  John the Revelator once wrote, “Come! Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life” (Rev. 22:17b).  God is calling His creation back into fellowship with Himself.  The onus of responsibility is on the part of the ones to whom He is calling.  What will our answer be?  This is indeed a glorious invitation!

Works Consulted

Baker, J.P.  “Prophecy, Prophets.”  The Illustrated Bible Dictionary – Part 3. 

Wheaton: Tyndale, 1994.  1276-1287.

Butler, Paul T.  “Isaiah.”  Bible Study Textbook Series.  Vol. 3.  Joplin: College

Press, 1983.

Erdman, Charles R.  The Book of Isaiah.  Grand Rapids: Baker, 1954.

Green, James Leo.  God Reigns.  Nashville: Broadman Press, 1968.

Holy Bible.  The NIV Study Bible.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985.

“Isaiah.”  The Expositor’s Bible Commentary.  Computer Software.  Zondervan  

Reference Software, 1998.  CD-ROM

Knight, George A.F.  Servant Theology.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Martin, John A.  “Isaiah.”  The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Gen. Eds. John F.

Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck.  Vol.1.  Wheaton: Victor, 1985.

Motyer, Alec.  “The Prophets.”  Eerdmans Handbook to the Bible.  Gen. Eds. 

David Alexander and Pat Alexander.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.  376-395.

Ridderbos, N.H.  “Isaiah.”  The Illustrated Bible Dictionary – Part 2.  Wheaton:

Tyndale, 1988. 698-705.

Scullion, John S.J.  Old Testament Message.  Vol. 12.  Wilmington: Michael

Elavier, Inc., 1982.  128-132.

Smith, William.  Smith’s Bible Dictionary.  Nashville: Holman, 1994.

 Watts, John D.W.  “Isaiah.”  Word Biblical Commentary.  Vol. 25.  Waco: Word,

1987.

Webb, Barry.  The Message of Isaiah.  Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1996.

Westermann, Claus.  Isaiah 40-66.  Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969.

Wood, Leon J.  A Survey of Israel’s History.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.

---.  The Prophets of Israel.  Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.

Back to Links to Biblical Studies