Wright, N. T. Colossians & Philemon. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Intervarsity Press, 1986.
This is N. T. Wright before his notoriety regarding the New Perspective on Paul. As such, there is very little in the book. Although this is early in his career, one can find themes he will develop much later: election, monotheism, and New Creation. The commentary itself, whatever else one may say about N. T. Wright, is outstanding, more so because it is limited by the space constraints in the Tyndale Series.
While we cannot simply recommend Wright’s works, the mature reader needs to be familiar with him and give calm, rational responses to him, telling others where he is right and wrong. In my opinion, that is the best way to evaluate him. Shrill responses, even if technically correct, do more to drive people to Wright than anything else.
Authorship and Purpose
Wright does a good job making the case for Pauline authorship. In fact, one does not even need to make the case. One can simply show that the case against Pauline authorship is in fact quite weak. It will not do to say that Colossians has stylistic differences with the main body of Paul’s works. Whether it does or does not, we simply do not have that many of Paul’s works to make such a claim. Moreover, if the stylistic differences were so great, early readers would have seen that–unless, of course, we moderns are just so much smarter than they. Nor are the thematic differences that great. True, Colossians does not treat justification in the same detail that Romans and Galatians do. But neither do the Corinthian letters, and no one doubts their authorship.
For Wright, Paul is combating a latent Judaism in Colosse. I am not convinced. It is true, and he is probably correct, that the “philosophy” in chapter 2 can refer to Jewish schools. I think the real problem for his case is the syncretic elements. It does not make sense to worry about a strong Jewish presence if you also have to warn against that presence worshiping angels.
Indicative and Imperative
Although he does not call it such, one can see something of the indicative and imperative in his commentary. “Because Christ has done x, therefore….” He rightly notes that doctrine and ethics cannot be divided. We live the way we do because of who Christ is, and who we are in Him. This explains Paul’s warning against be enslaved to the commands of the old creation. “Genuine holiness, which is an anticipation of the life of the age to come into which the risen Christ has already entered (1:18; 3:1-4), is not to be had by methods whose very nature, focusing as it does on perishable things, binds them to the present age” (Wright 128).
Some Textual Notes
1:9. “The knowledge of God’s will’ is more than an insight into how God wants his people to behave: it is an understanding of God’s whole saving purpose in Christ, and hence (as in v. 10b) a knowledge of God himself” (57). The terms “knowledge,” “wisdom,” and “understanding” are best understood through their Old Testament background
- Wisdom is the “whole human person.” In a footnote, Wright references Ex. 31.3; 35.31, 35; Dt. 34.9; Is. 29.14.
- As Christians grow, they will awaken their intellectual powers.
- As the gospel bears fruit, we should bear fruit and grow in the knowledge of God. More Genesis 1 echoes.
1:12b-23
Verses 12 and 13 echo the language of the Exodus, we are delivered and given a new inheritance.
1:13. “Paul shares with the New Testament writers, and with Jesus himself, the belief in the existence of a dark power to whom the human race, and the world, is subject because of sin” (62).
1:14. A Jew reading this passage would recall the slave pens of Egypt and Pharaoh.
1:15-20. Because of who Christ is, Paul’s readers should not look to Judaism for protection against pagan principalities and powers. “Having Christ, God’s true Wisdom, they possess all they need” (68).
1:15. “The doctrine of incarnation which flows from this cannot, by definition, squeeze either ‘divinity’ or ‘humanity’ out of shape” (70).
1:21. “Thought and act are both tainted, each pushing the other into further corruption…Wrong thinking leads to vice, vice to further mental corruption” (81).
1:24. How do we “fill up the sufferings in Christ,” given that Christ’s sacrifice is perfect and complete? Wright draws upon Jewish ideas of God’s purposes. “First, there is corporate Christology…That which is true of Christ is also true of his people” (87). Second, “there is the concept of Messianic woes, which Paul alludes to also in Romans 8:18-25” (88).
1:26. “The word ‘mystery’ is…God’s secret plan, anticipated in visions and symbols by holy men of old, and now at last unveiled before all his people” (91).
2:8-15
“The context of Colossians 2 shows that here and in verse 20 the correct meaning is that of local presiding deities, the national ‘gods’ supposed to rule over the different areas and races of the world” (101-102).
2:9-10. “First, he shows that Christians have no need to pay homage to lesser supernatural beings” (103).
2:16-17. “Here he is in effect saying: even in terms of pagan religion itself, Judaism has to do with the shadow-world, not with reality” (120).
Conclusion
This commentary, although aimed at the pastor-scholar, is accessible to the educated layman. Because it is relatively early in Wright’s career, it lacks some of his–I hate to call them this–cliches about New Creation, making it quite refreshing in many ways.
A Patriot King 