Notes

1. Frank Matera, New Testament Christology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 145.

2. Ten out of twenty-five occurrences of the title “Christ” appear after 3:1. It should be noted, however, that the strict distinction between the “theoretical” and the “practical” sections in Colossians cannot be made since the lordship of Christ over the cosmos is not to be distinguished from his authority over various areas of the lives of the believers.

3. See also 2:19, where believers are called to hold fast to Christ “the head, from which the entire body … grows with a growth from God.”

4. Udo Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 540.

5. Thus Marianne Meye Thompson, Colossians and Philemon (THNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 111: “christological statements do not stand on their own but serve to articulate convictions about the character, purposes, and work of God in the world.”

6. For the significance of this verse in the construction of a theory of atonement, see Eugene C. Best, An Historical Study of the Exegesis of Colossians 2,14 (Rome: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1956), 11–133.

7. See the recent discussion in Dale C. Allison Jr., Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010), 413–14.

8. On this point, see esp. Colin Gunton, “Christus Victor Revisited: A Study in Metaphor and the Transformation of Meaning,” JTS 36 (1985): 129–45.

9. This personal aspect must not be understood simply in “individualistic” terms, however. For the ecclesiological significance of Christ’s death, see comments on Christ’s lordship over the church, below.

10. Our discussion here presents the gift of forgiveness within the paradigm of the substitutionary atonement of Christ. For a reading of this gift within the benefaction paradigm, where the lordship of Christ is the primary framework of reference, see Richard B. Hays, “The Story of God’s Son: The Identity of Jesus in the Letters of Paul,” in Seeking the Identity of Christ: A Pilgrimage (ed. Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Richard B. Hays; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 193–95.

11. On the understanding of “firstborn” as a reference to rank and status rather than (simply) temporal priority, see comments on 1:15b.

12. Cf. Lee, “Power not Novelty: The Connotations of in the Hebrew Bible,” 199–212.

13. Barclay, Colossians and Philemon, 80, rightly notes that 1:17 points to “not merely some primeval role in bringing creation about, nor some ‘headship’ imposed from without on an alien world, but an inner relation between Christ and creation concerning its meaning and integrity.”

14. Under Roman law, the male head of the household, the paterfamilias, is likewise the only person recognized by the law; cf. Barry Nicholas, An Introduction to Roman Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1975), 65–68.

15. For a discussion on other ways Paul transforms the expectations of how the household should be managed, see the Theology in Application section on 3:18–4:1.

16. For a discussion of the use of the slave metaphor in the NT, see Combes, Metaphor of Slavery, 68–94, who claims that Paul’s prevalent use of this metaphor draws on his own experience of enslavement, which is in turn understood within the framework of Christ’s own life and acts (77).

17. The connection with idol-worshiping is made explicit in the final explanatory phrase of the verse: “which is idolatry” (v. 5).

18. This is best illustrated in another prison letter of Paul, where “thanksgiving” is contrasted with acts of “idolatry” (Eph 5:3–4). For more on this aspect of the thanksgiving motif in Paul, see Pao, Thanksgiving, 15–38.

19. It should be noted, however, that “word” in this context denotes the entire gospel message, not just the words that are uttered. The fact that the gospel is not simply such uttered words is made clear in 1 Thess 1:5: “our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction.”

20. See Karl Olav Sandnes, Paul—One of the Prophets? (WUNT 2.43; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 218. The connection of “prophets” and “apostles” is clearly noted in Eph 2:20; 3:5, a prison letter that resembles some of the thematic emphases of Colossians.

21. Cf. Nicole Frank, Der Kolosserbrief im Kontext des paulinischen Erbes: Eine intertextuelle Studie zur Auslegung und Fortschreibung der Paulustradition (WUNT 2.271; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 89–124.

22. See, e.g., Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament, 555.

23. N. T. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 238–39 [emphasis his].

24. See, e.g., “the wrath of God” (3:6) and the call to be “alert” (4:2). For more on future eschatology in this letter, see Still, “Eschatology in Colossians,” 125–38.