So since you’ve been raised with Christ, devote yourself to the matters above—where Christ is enthroned at God’s right hand! Let the focus of your thinking be heavenly matters, not earthly ones.
—Colossians 3:1–2
In Colossians 3:1–2 Paul exhorts believers to fix their attention on Christ enthroned in heaven. A first-century, urban Mediterranean audience would have heard this invitation at least partly in light of various ideas and images current in their milieu. The milieu of the Colossian believers themselves probably included both Greek philosophy (φιλοσοφία, 2:8) and traditional Jewish practices (2:16).
These elements of the Colossian believers’ milieu exploited language close enough to Paul’s to suggest how Paul could expect his exhortation to be understood. Just as he urges a heavenly object of thinking (τὰ ἄνω φρονεῖτε, 3:2), Greek and Roman philosophy sometimes insisted that right thinking1 elevated the soul to the heavens to experience the pure vision of a transcendent deity. Some Jewish circles also attempted to secure visions (2:18) of God’s heavenly throne. As in some other Pauline passages (e.g., 1 Cor. 2:16; Phil. 2:9–11), here too Christ, alongside God the Father, fills a role usually filled by a supreme deity.
While Paul employs analogous images and language to communicate his point, his interest is not so much the more general object of philosophic abstractions and mystic contemplations. He focuses instead more concretely on the exalted Christ; as in many other passages (e.g., 1 Cor. 2:16; Phil. 2:5; 3:19–20; 4:7), the renewed mind has a Christocentric focus.
This brief chapter will trace in turn ancient philosophy’s contemplation of heavenly matters; evocations of such language in other early Jewish and Christian sources; the significance of Paul’s Christocentric focus in his adaptation of the language in Colossians 3:1; the behavioral implications that Paul draws from this Christocentric focus; the intelligibility of those implications in light of ancient philosophy; and how the immediate context shapes eschatological implications in Paul’s evocation of heaven. My focus and primary contribution will be to elaborate how ancient hearers would have received the passage, especially in view of ancient philosophy.
Contemplating Heavenly Matters (Col. 3:1–2)
Paul urges his hearers to seek “matters above” (τὰ ἄνω), where Christ is enthroned beside God, and to focus their interest on “matters above,” in contrast to “earthly matters.” By repeating the heavenly element twice, Paul reinforces its importance. He is not thinking of contemplating star formation, black holes, dark matter, or the like (although contemplating God’s creative ingenuity was a possible component of ancient thinking about heavenly matters); rather, he is drawing on language about the heavens that often connoted what was pure and divine. Paul’s language adapts familiar philosophic idiom for contemplating divine, heavenly reality, but with a specifically Christocentric focus.2
Heavenly Mindedness in Greek and Roman Sources
As commentators on Colossians have sometimes noted, philosophy emphasized right thinking, through which the soul sought to rise to the heavens.3 Such an emphasis arose naturally in its context: the entire range of Greco-Roman philosophy emphasized sound thinking,4 and most thinkers also viewed the heavens as pure, perfect, and unchanging—hence, eternal.5 Intellectuals often combined these ideas to speak of contemplating heavenly realities.6
Thus, for example, in an influential dialogue Plato emphasizes that souls by nature desire the highest location,7 and those who consistently choose philosophy will ascend to a heavenly place.8 Thinkers from various periods after Plato envisioned meditating on the heavens and stars as a noble philosophic pursuit,9 and a pure mind could be described as guarded in a “celestial citadel.”10 The rational mind enabled one to ascend;11 stirred by reasoning, some said, the mind would fly upward, since it is light in weight.12 An essay in the form of a revelatory dream repeatedly emphasizes looking to the imperishable things in the heavenly spheres, not to the corruptible earth below.13
While many sources reflecting these ideas are Platonic, the ideas are by no means limited to Platonists.14 Thus, Seneca, an eclectic first-century Stoic, believed that the soul proved its divinity and celestial origins by enjoying what was divine, such as the stars and orbits of celestial bodies.15 Good Stoics believed that the ideal wise person would adopt a perspective from heaven and evaluate the rest of existence without personal bias.16 Such a heavenly perspective had practical consequences. Thus, for example, heavenly reality set the model for the soul formed from it: the mind should remain tranquil, like the highest heavens.17 Moreover, the heaven-informed soul despised terrestrial limitations such as human boundaries.18 Some other thinkers also emphasized that they lived according to heaven’s values revealed in nature, rather than according to earth’s values in society.19
Heavenly Mindedness in Early Jewish and Christian Sources
Such perspectives were not limited to Gentiles; some Jews in a Hellenistic context adapted this language. The Middle Platonic Jewish philosopher Philo opines that humans are not only terrestrial entities but also celestial ones, near the stars.20 He believed that inspiration would cause the soul to contemplate God,21 carrying the soul into the upper atmosphere.22 The mind should contemplate matters beyond heaven rather than lowly ones.23
For Philo, this observation was not merely theoretical; he believed that he had experienced this exaltation himself. Meditating on philosophy and other divine matters, freed from earthly and bodily thoughts, Philo felt that he was raised in soul to heavenly regions (with the sun, moon, and other celestial bodies).24 Moving in the same realm of thought, yet at a more popular level, the Wisdom of Solomon notes that the perishable, earthly body weighs down the soul.25 The second-century CE Testament of Job emphasizes being occupied with heavenly rather than earthly matters, since earthly matters change and are unstable, whereas heaven remains unperturbed.26 As in the case of Philo’s inspiration, charismatic inspiration moved the hearts of Job’s daughters to heavenly rather than earthly or worldly matters.27
Some similar language and images also appear in the thought of the undisputed Pauline letters, particularly 2 Corinthians 4–5. Here Paul’s “inner person” is being renewed despite the body’s decay.28 This unencumbered inner person is being prepared for what is unseen and eternal, which is from the heavens (2 Cor. 4:16–5:2).29 In contrast to pure Platonists, Paul anticipates a heavenly body, though with some other apocalyptic Jewish circles he could associate this heavenly body with celestial bodies (1 Cor. 15:40–41).30 Paul also speaks of a heavenly Jerusalem (one “above”), of which the earthly version is presumably at best a shadow (Gal. 4:25–26). This idea too was already at home in Jewish circles.31
By itself, some vertical dualism in the Pauline corpus need not imply a wholesale embrace of conventional philosophic perspectives. Apocalyptic Judaism may have had an even more specifically developed vertical dualism than Greek philosophy did,32 although the dualism of Jewish sources in Greek did not always carry the connotations that it did among philosophers.33 In Colossians 3, as in Jewish apocalyptic, the vertical dualism is also eschatological, so that the “shadow” is contrasted with the coming world (Col. 2:17), and believers’ identity is fully revealed at Christ’s coming (3:4).34 Moreover, as is usually observed,35 the image of Jesus at the Father’s right hand in 3:1 is specifically Jewish; it recalls Psalm 110:1, consistently applied to Jesus’s exaltation as Lord in early Christianity.36
Paul’s thought structure is intelligible in terms of a broader milieu, but his image is distinctly Christocentric, both reflecting biblical images long applied christologically and implying a future eschatology. Nevertheless, as some examples above (such as Philo and other Diaspora Jewish sources) show, we need not force a choice between Jewish and Hellenistic elements (again note Col. 2:8, 16).37
“Where Christ Is Enthroned” (Col. 3:1)
Contemplating “matters above” was not a purely impersonal exercise and plainly was not impersonal for Paul.
Heavenly Beings or God’s Throne
For most ancient thinkers, the heavens were not barren; celestial deities lived there.38 Heaven also hosted the stars; many Gentiles viewed the stars as divine,39 and Jews normally viewed them as angels.40 In Platonic thought, pure deities could reside only in the heavens.41
Obviously, the plurality of such divine beings in typical pagan thought would be problematic for Paul. Indeed, following Plato, many thinkers regarded the realm between earth and heaven as the realm of intermediate daimones, whereas heaven was the place of the supreme God.42 For Paul, by contrast, the heavenly focus must be on Christ alone, a focus that some Colossian believers might be in danger of forgetting. Thus, Colossians 1:15–17; 2:10, 15, 18 must warn against overestimating the status of the intermediate powers (as angels would have been understood to be) vis-à-vis Christ.
Various ancient thinkers, however, did seek the one, transcendent deity in the heavens. Platonic mysticism (including in its Jewish form in Philo) sought contemplative or mystical vision of God,43 but this aspiration was by no means limited to Gentiles or even Philo. In apocalyptic texts heavenly revelations could include meteorological data from the lower heavens,44 but they especially included revelations focusing on the vision of God on his throne.45 Indeed, a primary goal of Jewish mysticism in general was the vision of God’s throne.46 The means of attaining this vision may have varied, but the objective remained fairly consistent.47 The date of some of these mystical sources is disputed,48 but God’s exalted throne was also a key element in Jewish apocalypses from both centuries before Paul’s time and long afterward.49
The Exalted Christ
That Christ fulfills this divine role for Paul could have seemed jarring to outsiders, whether Jewish or Gentile, who may have been unfamiliar with the Jesus movement. Against this backdrop, the Christocentric emphasis in Colossians 3 is unmistakable. Some philosophers sought to attain the divine vision (and consequent transformation) through contemplating the purely transcendent, abstract deity of Platonism. Some Jewish mystics sought to attain a divine vision of the throne chariot. Yet some of Paul’s own visions (2 Cor. 12:1–4, 7) apparently included Jesus (12:1, 8–9).50 For some early Christians beyond the immediate Pauline circle, Jesus was the only genuine mediator between heaven and earth (John 3:13; cf. 1:51; Matt. 11:25–27//Luke 10:21–22).
In Colossians the object of heavenly contemplation is no transcendent abstraction or even Israel’s God in exalted splendor, but Christ. Philo may have limited experience of God to the mediation of the Logos (Reason);51 God draws the ideal person from “earthly matters” to himself through the Logos.52 In Colossians 1:15–20 and 2:8–9, Christ fills a role similar to Philo’s Logos or the Jewish sages’ expectations for divine wisdom; this idea may be reiterated in our passage.53
Granted, Paul speaks not simply of a heavenly being but of τὰ ἄνω (“matters above,” plural) versus “earthly” matters in Colossians 3:2. Nevertheless, the only content of these heavenly matters specified at the outset is the exalted Christ. Indeed, the postpositive conjunction γάρ (“for”) in 3:3 explicitly predicates one’s contemplation of “matters above” on union with Christ in God.
This focus fits the Christocentric emphasis of Colossians as a whole. Heaven hosts many angelic ranks, but they were both created (1:16) and tamed (1:20) through Christ. Moreover, the emphasis fits the preceding context. Like the “earthly things” relativized by Platonism, Paul relativizes Jewish new moons and sabbaths (2:16) as merely “shadows” (2:17). In this case, however, they are shadows not merely of heavenly things but, consistent with Eastern Judaism, of eschatological things (“coming things,” 2:17).54 I will not digress here to enter the debate about the precise contours of the asceticism discussed in 2:18–23, but in any case, believers have died with Christ to such earthly matters (2:20–22). It is not abuse or neglect of the body (2:23) that causes them to transcend earthly matters but union with a new “body” in Christ (2:17; cf. 1:18, 22, 24; 3:15), and hence death to the old one, presumably in Adam, in 3:5 (cf. also 2:11).
Moral Implications of Heavenly Contemplation
If Christ is the focus, however, why does Paul speak of τὰ ἄνω (“things above”), in the plural, in Colossians 3:2? He might use the plural τὰ ἄνω (“things above,” i.e., “heavenly matters” or even “heavens”) here simply to evoke contemporary language, but a singular could have communicated this sensitivity as well (cf., e.g., the singular of οὐρανός in 1:23; especially 4:1).55
More likely, he is preparing to complement or further explicate the mention of Christ (in 3:1) in what follows. Literary connections in fact do suggest that the following context explains what is involved in these τὰ ἄνω. As the invited focus of contemplation in 3:2a, these “things above” contrast with the “earthly matters” that the same exhortation summons hearers to avoid (3:2b). This passage goes on to define these “earthly matters” in terms of all the immoral behaviors to which one died with Christ (3:5–9, esp. 3:5), behaviors characterizing the old life (3:9).
En-Christed Life
Given their specific contrast to “earthly” behaviors, the “matters above” would then involve whatever characterized the new life in Christ (cf. Col. 3:3–4). These characteristics are not simply Pauline paraenesis prescribed universally for humanity; they are repeatedly connected with Christ. Because the new person is made new in accordance with the creator’s image (3:10), and this new person embraces all humanity (3:11), the passage fairly clearly evokes the first creation in God’s image (cf. Gen. 1:26–27; Rom. 5:12–21). It thus points to a new kind of humanity in the heavenly Adam (cf. 1 Cor. 15:47–49).56 This new life reflects God’s image in Christ (Col. 3:10–11). The climax in verse 11 could hardly be more emphatic: “Christ is all and among all”57—in other words, Christ is the basis for the new humanity and is working in all the diversity of traditional human categories (cf. 1:27).
In “putting on” this new life (Col. 3:10), then, one puts on characteristics of Christ, such as kindness and forgiveness (3:13–14).58 The latter characteristic explicitly follows the Lord’s example (καθὼς καὶ ὁ κύριος, 3:13). It is Christ’s peace that unifies believers (3:15), surmounting ethnic and social boundaries (3:11); indeed, they are ultimately one body (3:15), that is, in Christ (1:18; 2:11, 19). Paul thus connects this paraenetical material closely with his Christocentric emphasis.
The depiction of new life in Christ continues further in the following lines about worship and conventional household codes. Whereas the parallel text about worship in Ephesians emphasizes the Spirit (Eph. 5:18–20),59 Colossians maintains its contextual emphasis on the effects of union with Christ: Christ’s message dwelling in the believer produces worship (Col. 3:16–17).60 All one’s acts should be done in the name of Jesus (3:17) and for the Lord (3:23–24), including one’s behavior in accordance with household codes (3:18, 20, 22, 23, 24; 4:1). In view of my discussion of 3:1–2, it is perhaps most relevant to note that Christian slaveholders must answer to a lord “in heaven” (4:1).
In the context, then, Colossians speaks of no abstract contemplation detached from present earthly existence. Rather, the focus on heaven is a focus on Christ, not only as he is enthroned above, but as that reality of his lordship impinges on daily life. Prayer in this context is not just heavenly contemplation but addresses present issues, even if they are issues that have eternal consequences (Col. 1:3, 9; 4:2–4, 12). For Paul, believers should be so heavenly minded that they do more earthly good.
Moral demands may also be implicit in the presentation of Jesus’s exalted status in 3:1, which indicates his authority. The allusion to Psalm 110:1, noted above as widely applied in early Christianity, implicitly identifies Jesus as “Lord.” Jesus appears as “Lord” as many as eight times in Colossians 3:13–4:1, most relevantly (as we have noted) a “Lord in heaven” in 4:1. In any case, for Colossians, union with the heavenly, exalted Christ redefines believers’ eschatological identity and should thus impinge on their present behavior. We might speak of the “en-Christed life”—life lived by dependence on Christ living in believers (3:3–4), through faith in his character and power.
The Intelligibility of the Moral Connection for Ancient Hearers
Even many non-Christian Gentiles could have grasped the moral connections to Paul’s emphasis on a heavenly focus, although their understanding of morality would not have agreed with his on every point. As I noted earlier, Paul does not disparage the body in the way that later Platonists or gnostics did, but he does adapt some contemporary language about the body to challenge bodily desires for activities already deemed sinful in Scripture.61 Thus, he speaks here of τὰ μέλη τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, “the members that are on the earth” (Col. 3:5).62
Connections would be fairly evident. A Middle Platonist, for example, would detect a ready connection between the ascent in Colossians 3:1–2 and the warning against earthly, bodily passions in 3:5. For Middle Platonists, the intellect would experience God, rising ever upward as it relinquished bodily sense-knowledge and earthly matters.63 A strong intellect could encounter the divine in the heavens;64 philosophic rhetoric could direct the mind away from indulging vices to contemplating matters above.65 For later Platonists, pleasure dragged the soul back down toward the body.66 Those who wished to ascend to God needed to abstain from pleasures;67 virtue would draw the soul upward toward that to which it was akin.68
Nor was this concern limited to later Platonists. The first-century Jewish thinker Philo emphasized not only the soul’s heavenward proclivity (as noted above) but also the danger of distraction from that proclivity. Thus, Philo believed that the primeval serpent symbolized pleasure because of its downward orientation.69 Others also concurred that thinking like deity required virtue, not desire for anything evil or shameful.70
The Stoic Seneca agreed that the soul would ascend by contemplating the heavens only to the extent that it was freed from the body.71 The flesh weighed a person down, but the soul by nature was light, eager to ascend to the highest heavens, on which it meditated.72 In freeing the soul from passions, virtue released it to contemplate heavenly things;73 by moving among the stars, the mind should spurn evil and worldly wealth.74
Philosophers’ popular detractors did not always appreciate implied connections between heavenly contemplation and earthly behavior; for some ancient critics, in fact, philosophers could become so heavenly minded that they were no earthly good. Some considered discussion of the state more profitable for terrestrial audiences.75 Writers could depict typical farmers as rejecting the impractical pursuits of philosophers who “meddle with things above the earth.”76 The author of one work complains that one could not speak wisdom concerning heavenly matters unless one understood earthly matters.77 Others merely warned that those who cannot understand earthly matters dare not pretend to understand heavenly ones.78
Many Greek observers ridiculed the celestial preoccupation of contemporary astronomers and philosophers through a familiar anecdote. Thus a servant girl reportedly ridiculed Thales for falling into a well while preoccupied by the stars; she complained that he sought to know heavenly matters while ignoring what lay beneath him.79 Others applied this story line more widely.80 In one later novel Alexander of Macedon allows a stargazing astrologer to fall into a pit, mortally wounding him; rather than extending sympathy, Alexander mercilessly reproaches the hapless astrologer for studying heavenly matters while ignoring earthly ones.81 Nevertheless, Paul, like many philosophers, could not be charged justly with such neglect. As already noted, he not only uses familiar language for contemplating “matters above”; he also applies this idea to concrete behavioral issues (Col. 3:5–4:1).
Heavenly Afterlife and Colossians 3
Although verses 1–2 are not by themselves explicitly eschatological, they quickly give way to an eschatological expectation (3:4); as in many Jewish sources, vertical dualism is connected with eschatological dualism.82 In Colossians Paul speaks elsewhere of a hope reserved for believers in heaven (1:5; cf. 1 Pet. 1:3–4), appealing to an image familiar by Paul’s day, including to the circles to which Paul objects (cf. Col. 2:8, 16). In Colossians, however, the basis for the hope is already effective among believers (1:23, 27). Believers’ lives are already hidden with Christ (3:3), who is their life (3:4), with consequent promise for the future (3:4; cf. the present possession of the Spirit as a guarantee of the future in, e.g., Rom. 8:23; 2 Cor. 5:4–5; Eph. 1:13–14).83
Philosophers and those influenced by them usually viewed the heavens as pure, perfect, and unchanging—hence, eternal.84 This conception shaped many views of immortality. Even if scholars a century ago overemphasized astral immortality,85 the soul’s celestial destination does appear in various ancient sources,86 although in an early period perhaps this may have been an especially Roman interest.87 In some Greek and Roman sources the soul was of heavenly origin and cultivated its heavenly character by meditating on the divine, on what was heavenly.88 This practice prepared the soul for its heavenward ascent after death.89 Souls imprisoned in present bodies could look heavenward in anticipation of their release.90 The soul ascended to the heavens, to which it was kin, leaving behind the body.91 The souls of the deceased ascended and could look down from heaven.92 Whereas pure souls ascended, however, souls too attached to their bodies might be thought to hover in the atmosphere and ascend higher only over long periods of time.93
Colossians does not address what is “eternal” in the heavens in an abstract sense, however, but in 3:1 emphasizes Jesus’s resurrection, with its eschatological implications for believers in 3:3–4 (cf. 2:17). The allusion to Psalm 110:1 (noted above)94 also surely presupposes Jesus’s resurrection, given the connection between the two in early Christian tradition (Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Acts 2:33–34; 1 Pet. 3:21–22). Just as Hellenistic Jews such as Philo could adapt Gentile philosophy in light of Jewish tradition, so can Paul, although Paul is far less assimilated than Philo (and may provide a contrast with philosophy, in view of Col. 2:8). Just as the content of heaven is no divine abstraction, but Christ, so the immortality that awaits believers there is not a product of the soul’s preexistent nature (as in Platonism) but the promise inherent in the life that believers already share with Christ.
Conclusion
Colossians 3:1–2 is a pivotal text both for understanding the sorts of conceptions in the larger milieu that the letter as a whole addresses and for understanding the connection between the letter’s earlier theological arguments and the following paraenetical material.
Philosophers, mystics, and apocalyptic visionaries sought to visualize heaven, often to envision deity; philosophers emphasized specifically heavenly thinking. For philosophers, the pure and heavenly deity was abstract and transcendent; for Colossians, the heavenly focus is Christ, fitting the letter’s Christocentric emphasis.
For Paul, contemplating Christ also leads naturally to Christlike character, in contrast to the pursuit of earthly passions. Although Paul’s articulation of the connection is distinctive, his connection of heavenly contemplation with appropriate behavior would have been fully intelligible to his contemporaries, including many philosophers. Paul also connects consideration of Christ’s current heavenly status with believers’ future hope, again in a manner intelligible to many of his contemporaries.
1. I earlier addressed this emphasis in philosophy; see esp. pp. 46, 120–22.
2. The use of “things above” (language that appears nowhere else in Colossians and is rare in the Pauline corpus) instead of “heavenly things” might be to avoid confusion with other heavenly entities (Col. 1:16, 20), but, in view of Col. 1:5, may be simply stylistic variation, as perhaps in Phil. 3:14, 20.
3. So Schweizer, Colossians, 175.
4. See fuller discussion on pp. 46, 120–22, 225; or Keener, “Perspectives,” 212–13. True beliefs could form a new identity in line with virtue (Stowers, “Resemble,” 92).
5. See discussion below, esp. p. 249.
6. See, e.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 120.15; Max. Tyre Or. 11.10; 25.6; T. Job 36:3–5 (OTP)/36:4–7 (ed. Kraft); 48:2; 49:1; 50:1. Cf. also some discussion of “heavenly” perspectives in Keener, John, 559–61.
7. Plato Phaedr. 248AB. Bodies were fashioned from earthly substance, with heavenly souls merely imprisoned in them (Plato Phaedr. 250C; Plut. Exile 17, Mor. 607D).
8. Plato Phaedr. 248E–249A.
9. Iambl. Pyth. Life 12.59 (also affirming mathematics, which likewise involves what is harmonious). Pythagoras allegedly attained full knowledge of the heavens (Iambl. Pyth. Life 5.27).
10. Val. Max. 4.1.ext.2 (in arce caelesti, trans. Bailey, LCL, 1:354–55).
11. Porph. Marc. 26.415–16. Some described God as pure mind (Pliny E. N.H. 2.5.14).
12. Heracl. Hom. Prob. 63.4. Wisdom would soar (63.5).
13. Cic. Resp. 6.17.17; 6.19.20.
14. This observation is important because Stoicism was far more influential than Platonism in the first-century northern Mediterranean world, though Philo’s work demonstrates that Platonism was influential in educated Hellenistic Jewish circles at least in Alexandria (for discussions of Platonic influence on Philo, see, e.g., Runia, “Middle Platonist”; Sterling, “Platonizing Moses”; Dillon, “Reclaiming”), despite some Stoic and even Aristotelian elements.
15. Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.pref.12. Epictetus contends that externals hinder the soul because of our “earthly” surroundings (Diatr. 1.9).
16. Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 59 (citing Marc. Aur. 7.48; 9.30; 12.24.3), 63 (citing Cic. Fin. 3.25). Some allowed for enlightened emotions provided they were “monitored” from above (Engberg-Pedersen, “Marcus,” 334–35). Even if Engberg-Pedersen (Paul and Stoics, 65) goes too far in regarding the Stoic emphasis on proper understanding of one’s identity as “the framework for Paul’s thought” about identity in Christ, it reflects elements in the larger milieu relevant for how Paul and Paulinists would be heard.
17. Sen. Y. Dial. 5.6.1. For the harmony of heavenly spheres, see, e.g., Max. Tyre Or. 37.5; Iambl. Pyth. Life 15.65–66; Men. Rhet. 2.17, 442.30–32; Lucian Dance 7. For imitating the heavens’ harmony, see, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 40.35; such imitation enabled one to return there (Cic. Resp. 6.18.18–19). Though Aristotle knew the Pythagorean view (Heav. 2.9, 290b.12–29), he opposed it (2.9, 290b.30–291a.26).
18. Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.pref.13. Contemplating the larger cosmos allowed one to transcend mortal limitations (Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.pref.17; cf. 3.pref.10).
19. Diogenes Ep. 7; cf. the spoof on Socrates in Aristoph. Clouds 228–32.
20. Philo Creation 147; cf. Creation 82. Later rabbis also opine that humans are a mixture of heavenly and earthly components (Sipre Deut. 306.28.2; Gen. Rab. 12:8).
21. Philo Creation 71; cf. Alleg. Interp. 3.82.
22. Philo Spec. Laws 3.2.
23. Philo Drunkenness 128.
24. Philo Spec. Laws 3.1. At the time of writing, however, he complained that terrestrial matters like politics distracted him (Spec. Laws 3.3).
25. Wis. 9:14–15.
26. T. Job 36:3/4–5/7.
27. T. Job 48–50, esp. 48:2 (they stop φρονεῖν “earthly” things, employing the same verb as Col. 3:2); 49:1 (no longer “desiring” worldly things); 50:1.
28. On the language of the “inner person,” see diverse approaches in Aune, “Duality,” 220–22; Markschies, “Metapher”; Betz, “Concept.”
29. The heavenly body is viewed as a present possession (2 Cor. 5:1), probably not in terms of present experience (5:2–4; cf. similar vocabulary in 1 Cor. 15:49–54), but in terms of the down payment of the Spirit (2 Cor. 5:5) and the beginning of the new creation (5:17); see, e.g., Keener, Corinthians, 179–80.
30. Resurrection bodies are compared with stars in Dan. 12:2–3; 1 En. 43:3; 104:2; 2 Bar. 51:10. In more hellenized Judaism, cf. astral immortality for martyrs in 4 Macc. 17:5.
31. E.g., 4 Ezra 10:25–28; b. Hag. 12b; Lincoln, Paradise, 18–24, 29. In Diaspora Judaism, cf. Philo Dreams 2.250; Heb. 12:22.
32. Cf. comments in, e.g., O’Brien, Colossians, 161; Arrington, Aeon Theology, 69; Charlesworth, “Comparison,” 409; Black, Scrolls, 171; perhaps T. Job 33:3.
33. E.g., Judah (with its kingship) has “earthly matters” and Levi (with its priesthood) “heavenly matters” in T. Jud. 21:3. In the context of T. Sol. 6:10, “heavenly matters” turns out to be essentially folk magic, but this usage is unusual, at least in our extant early Jewish sources.
34. For heaven as both present and eschatological in Jewish apocalyptic, see esp. Lincoln, Paradise.
35. E.g., Lohse, Colossians, 133. The image need not be so limited (Suet. Nero 13.2), but its pervasiveness in early Christianity supports this allusion.
36. Mark 12:36; Acts 2:33–35; Heb. 1:3, 13 (cf. 8:1; 10:12; 12:2); 1 Clem. 36.5; Poly. Phil. 2.1; Barn. 12.10. Some later rabbis assigned this location to teachers of Scripture and rabbinic tradition (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:2, on Ps. 16:11).
37. Nearly all scholars now recognize the value of Greco-Roman sources for understanding a wide range of Jewish sources, even from Jewish Palestine, in this era; see, e.g., Lieberman, Hellenism; Cohen, Law; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism.
38. E.g., Ovid Metam. 1.168–76; Val. Max. 7.1.1; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.pref.2; Dial. 12.8.5; Val. Flacc. 1.498; Dio Chrys. Or. 12.34; cf. Max. Tyre Or. 39.4. In various Jewish sources, God was in the highest heaven (e.g., 2 En. 20:1–3; 3 En. 1:2); for Jewish association of God with heaven, see also, e.g., Dan. 4:26; 1 Esd. 4:58; Tob. 10:13; Jdt. 6:19; 1 Macc. 3:18, 50, 60; 4:24; 3 Macc. 7:6; 1 En. 83:9; 91:7; 1QM 12.5.
39. E.g., Cic. Nat. d. 2.15.39–40; Resp. 6.15.15; Sen. Y. Ben. 4.23.4; Iambl. Myst. 1.17, 19; condemnation of this view in 1 En. 80:7–8; Pesiq. Rab. 15:1.
40. 1 En. 80:6–8; 2 En. 4:1; 29:3; 3 En. 46:1; Ps.-Phoc. 71, 75; Philo Plant. 12, 14; Sipre Deut. 47.2.3–5; possibly 2 Bar. 51:10.
41. Plut. Isis 78, Mor. 382F.
42. Max. Tyre Or. 8.8; see also Trapp’s note (p. 76 n. 36). This image may be relevant for the lesser hosts in Col. 1:16, although the categories come closer to Jewish apocalyptic (Dan. 10:13, 21; 1 En. 40:9; 61:10; 69:3; 72:1; 75:1; 82:10–12; 3 Bar. 12:3; cf. Sir. 17:17; Jub. 15:31–32; 35:17; Mek. Shir. 2.112–18; Sipre Deut. 315.2.1).
43. Max. Tyre Or. 11.11; cf. Isaacs, Spirit, 50; Dillon, “Transcendence in Philo”; Hagner, “Vision,” 89–90. On the impossibility of full vision of God in this life, see Philo Rewards 39. Only the pure soul could envision God (Philo Conf. 92); for biblical examples, see Names 3–6; QG 4.138; Conf. 92, 146; Dreams 1.171; Abr. 57. On mysticism in Philo, see, e.g., Sterling, Ancestral Philosophy, 31–32, 169–70; perhaps excessively, Goodenough, Introduction, 134–60.
44. 1 En. 72–82 (1 En. Bk. 3). Such revelations generally included a heavenly perspective on earth as well as the heavens themselves (e.g., Moses’s revelation in L.A.B. 19:10).
45. 1 En. 14:18–20; 71:5–10; 2 En. 20:3 A; 3 En. 1; T. Levi 5; Rev. 4:2; for the source, see Isa. 6:1; Ezek. 1:22–28; Dan. 7:9.
46. See, e.g., Arbel, “Understanding.”
47. Angelic help appears in 1 En. 71:5; 87:3; 2 En. 7:1; 2 Bar. 6:3–4; note the Spirit in Ezek. 43:5; Rev. 4:2. For an arduous journey, see, e.g., 1 En. 14:9–13; later rabbis nevertheless regarded this adventure as dangerous (e.g., b. Hag. 13a, bar.; 14b, bar.; Scholem, Trends, 42–44; cf. Lieber, “Angels”).
48. For arguments for early merkabah traditions, see, e.g., Halperin, “Midrash”; Dimant and Strugnell, “Vision”; Davila, “Merkavah Mysticism.” The earliest traditions clearly grew over time, however; see Neusner, “Development.”
49. E.g., 1 En. 14:18–20; 18:8; 47:3; 71:7; 90:20; 2 En. 1a:4; 20:3; 21:1; 22:2; 3 En. 1; 4 Ezra 8:21; cf. L.A.E. 25:3–4; 28:4.
50. Ancient dream reports can include deceased persons (e.g., Plut. Caes. 69.5; Val. Max. 1.7.5; 1.7.ext.3; Abot R. Nat. 40 A), but biblical and early Christian examples, probably excepting Acts 16:9, focus on God (e.g., Gen. 20:3; 31:24; 1 Kings 3:5), angels (e.g., Gen. 28:12; 31:11; Matt. 2:13; Acts 27:23), or sometimes in early Christian sources the risen Lord Jesus (e.g., Acts 18:9; 23:11). Some view Paul himself in terms of the apocalyptic experiences that later contributed to merkabah mysticism; see, e.g., Segal, “Presuppositions,” 170; Bowker, “Visions”; Kim, Origin, 252–53. Others demur (e.g., Schäfer, “Journey”).
51. See Winston, “Mysticism”; cf. discussion in Hagner, “Vision,” 84; Wolfson, Philo, 1:282–89.
52. Philo Sacr. 8.
53. Scholars have long identified logos or wisdom Christology in Col. 1:15–20; see, e.g., Lohse, Colossians, 47–48; Schweizer, Colossians, 69; Kim, Origin, 268; Longenecker, Christology, 145; earlier, Lightfoot, Colossians, 144.
54. In the undisputed Pauline letters the plural participle of μέλλω is always contrasted with ἐνεστῶτα, “things present” (Rom. 8:38; 1 Cor. 3:22), in turn associated with the present age (Gal. 1:4; cf. 1 Cor. 7:26).
55. Cf. also 1 Cor. 8:5; 15:47; Phil. 3:20. The singular and plural appear to function interchangeably in the undisputed Pauline letters, most clearly in 2 Cor. 5:1–2 and 1 Thess. 1:10; 4:16, although Paul knows multiple heavens (2 Cor. 12:2). Others also connect the ethical section (Col. 3:5–17) with being raised with Christ (see, e.g., Moule, “New Life”).
56. For the Adamic allusion in Colossians, see, e.g., Moule, Colossians, 119; Lohse, Colossians, 142–43; Johnston, Ephesians, 65; Martin, Colossians, 107; Bird, Colossians, 102. As in Rom. 12:2, the language of renewal here (ἀνακαινόω, Col. 3:10; elsewhere in Paul in 2 Cor. 4:16, a context that similarly blends Platonic and eschatological imagery) undoubtedly evokes the new, eschatological era; see the comment on ἀνακαίνωσις at Rom. 12:2 (p. 154).
57. Πάντα καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν Χριστός.
58. For the background of the “clothing” image, see 111n416; cf. L.A.B. 27:9–10; also the LXX of Judg. 6:34; 1 Chron. 12:18; 2 Chron. 24:20.
59. See Ware, Synopsis, 273; for comment on the context in Ephesians, see, e.g., Keener, Paul, 158–59; Hoehner, Ephesians, 702–5; Thielman, Ephesians, 358–60.
60. If ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ here means not “the message about Christ” (cf. Col. 1:5; 4:3; Rom. 10:17; 16:25; Eph. 3:4) but perhaps something like “the speaking of Christ” (cf. Col. 3:17; 4:6; Rom. 9:6; 1 Thess. 2:13; perhaps Col. 1:25; cf. Christ praying in Hays, Conversion, 107), Paul could connect believers’ worship to Christ’s activity even more clearly, but the former interpretation might be likelier.
61. See pp. 99–108, esp. 105–8.
62. Cf. discussion of bodily “members” at Rom. 7:23 and Paul’s usual connection of this noun with the body. Through the death of Jesus’s fleshly body (Col. 1:22), believers are freed from the dominance of the fleshly individual body (2:11, 23) to function instead as members of Christ’s larger body (1:18, 24; 2:17; 3:15).
63. Max. Tyre Or. 11.10. For Maximus, however, contemplating stars and planets, like daimones, was simply contemplating divine works (11.12).
64. Max. Tyre Or. 2.2 (conceding that most people, however, needed images to help them).
65. Max. Tyre Or. 25.6.
66. Porph. Marc. 6.108. Passions affixed the soul to the body (Plato Phaedo 83d; Iambl. Pyth. Life 32.228).
67. Porph. Marc. 6.105–8; 7.131–34.
68. Porph. Marc. 16.267–68. Because the divinely inspired intellect was “like” God, it would be drawn to God (19.314–16); contemplation of God purified the mind (11.204). Earlier writers also agreed that reason shared the divine nature (Rhet. Alex. pref. 1420b.20–21; Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 409–10, §139D).
69. Philo Creation 157.
70. Dio Chrys. Or. 4.42–43.
71. Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.pref.11. For the “earthly” body and its influence, see Epict. Diatr. 1.9.
72. Sen. Y. Dial. 12.11.6. In much of ancient physics, air and especially fire were the lightest and highest of substances (Pliny E. N.H. 2.4.1), but heavy elements could hold lighter elements down (Pliny E. N.H. 2.4.11). Some, however, viewed the heavens as consisting of an element different from earthly ones and more divine (Arist. Heav. 1.2, 268b.11–269a.32).
73. Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.pref.6. Seneca may connect envisioning the universe mentally with overpowering vices in Nat. Q. 3.pref.10 (where he mentions them together).
74. Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.pref.7.
75. Dio Chrys. Or. 32.25; contrast Philo Spec. Laws 3.3.
76. Alciph. Farm. 11 (Sitalces to Oenopion, his son), 3.14 (trans. Benner and Forbes, LCL, 103).
77. Philost. Hrk. 33.6–7.
78. Wis. 9:16; cf. John 3:12.
79. Plato Theaet. 174A. Plato’s Socrates thus comments that philosophers must be ready for ridicule for not sharing others’ focus (Theaet. 174A–175B).
80. E.g., Aesop Fable 40, mocking an astronomer. Cf. Philost. Hrk. 1.2; 33.6–8, and comment in Maclean and Aitken, “Introduction,” lxxxi–lxxxii.
81. Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.14.
82. See discussion in Lincoln, Paradise.
83. Like other early Christians, Paul presumably affirmed a future transformation of all creation (cf. Rom. 5:17; 11:12, 15; 1 Cor. 15:24–27; Phil. 3:21); nevertheless, the hope was currently in heaven and thus would come from there (Phil. 3:20–21; 1 Thess. 1:10; 4:16).
84. In Platonic and Pythagorean sources, see, e.g., Philo QE 2.73; Max. Tyre Or. 21.7–8; Plot. Enn. 2.1–2 (noting their ordering by the universal Soul); Pythagoras in Diog. Laert. 8.1.27. In Cic. Resp. 6.17.17 everything above the moon is eternal. Cf. also, e.g., the contrast between what is earthly/mortal and heavenly/divine in Plut. Rom. Q. 78, Mor. 282F.
85. E.g., Cumont, After Life, 91–109.
86. On astral immortality, see, e.g., Martin, Body, 117.
87. For deceased heroes becoming stars, see, e.g., Virg. Aen. 7.210–11; Val. Max. 4.6.ext.3; Lucan C.W. 9.1–9; Ovid Metam. 15.749, 843–51 (Ovid hopes this for himself in 15.875–76).
88. E.g., Porph. (a much later Platonist) Marc. 6.103–8; 7.131–34; 10.180–83; 16.267–68; 26.415–16. In Val. Flacc. 3.378–82 people were originally fire, stars in heaven (also Cic. Resp. 6.15.15); they became mortals, but they eventually will return to heaven.
89. For the soul’s postmortem ascent, see, e.g., Cic. Resp. 6.16.16; 6.24.26; Philo QG 3.45; Heracl. Ep. 5; Max. Tyre Or. 9.6; 11.11; 41.5; Men. Rhet. 2.9, 414.21–23; also Aune, “Duality,” 228; for particular philosophers’ expected ascents, see Cercidas frg. 1; Eunapius Lives 469; Hdn. 1.5.6. Some portrayed this ascent as divinization (Men. Rhet. 2.9, 414.25–27), which goes beyond the closest early Christian parallels to the idea (2 Cor. 3:18; 2 Pet. 1:4).
90. Max. Tyre Or. 7.5.
91. Cic. Tusc. 1.19.43–44. Cf. Virg. Aen. 6.728–42, adapting Platonic ideas: expressions of one universal mind are imprisoned in mortal bodies but ultimately liberated after death and purgation to purity and readiness to reinhabit bodies.
92. Sen. Y. Dial. 11.9.3.
93. Cic. Resp. 6.26.29; Tusc. 1.31.75; cf. other unhappy approaches in Val. Flacc. 3.383–96; Pythagoras in Diog. Laert. 8.1.31. Val. Max. 9.3.ext.1 opines that Alexander’s evil deeds nearly prevented his ascension.
94. Pages 242, 246.