Jump directly to the Content
Jump directly to the content
Article
Colossians (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible)
Colossians (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible)
Christopher R. Seitz
Brazos Press, 2014
240 pp., 36.1

Buy Now

Robert Gundry


Theological Seitz in Paul's Letter to the Colossians

Biblical interpretation and the "rule of faith."

The series Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible has as its goal an interpretation of the Old and New Testaments according to an overall theological understanding, as opposed to piecemeal exegesis based on supposedly unprejudiced historical criticism and philology. Where is this understanding, this "rule of faith," to be found? Primarily in the Nicene creed. And where are examples of biblical interpretation based on the rule of faith to be found? Primarily in what the Series Preface calls "the great cloud of premodern interpreters," though the series aims to add to their number.

It is said that the need for a rule of faith to guide interpretation arises out of the Bible as "vast, heterogeneous, full of confusing passages and obscure words, and difficult to understand." So absent a rule of faith, the doctrine of Scripture's clarity suffers deeper-than-usual qualification. Yet not only is the content of this rule of faith admittedly a subject of debate. Even one and the same early church father Irenaeus used "terms and formulations" that "shift[ed]" from time to time and from circumstance to circumstance. Also questionable is the legitimacy of equating a "rule of faith" with a "creed."[1] Nevertheless, says the series editor R. R. Reno, figures so diverse as Gregory the Great, Bonaventure, John Calvin, and Hans Urs von Balthasar (among many others) agree that the rule of faith includes at least "the covenant with Israel, the coming of Christ, [and] the gathering of the nations into the church." Put more specifically, "God the Father … sends his only begotten Son to die for us and for our salvation" and "raises the crucified Son in the power of the Holy Spirit so that the baptized may be joined in one body." Despite disagreements over details, then, and against the view that doctrine has encrusted the biblical text and thereby obscured its meaning, the Brazos series regards the doctrine represented by the rule of faith/Nicene tradition as clarifying the Bible's meaning.

To what extent, then, has the rule of faith/Nicene tradition affected Christopher Seitz's comments on the apostle Paul's letter to the Colossians in ways that differentiate this commentary from typically "modern" commentaries on Colossians? And whatever its extent, has the differentiation helped or hurt our understanding of Colossians? (I leave to philosophers the question, How can we recognize help and hurt?)

Though most commentators in the Brazos series are theologians, Seitz is a biblical scholar, but not in the field of New Testament studies—rather, in that of Old Testament studies. His theological interests shine brightly, however, as evident for example in his frequent citations of early church fathers, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and other theologically attuned premoderns (though not to the exclusion of modern commentators), and also in his devotion to canonical interpretation, that is, to relating the message of Colossians to other sectors of Scripture, and vice versa. Because of an overarching rule of faith, the tendency is (admittedly on Seitz's part) to minimize distinctiveness in a letter like Colossians and to amalgamate Colossians with the rest of Scripture, in this case especially with Paul's other letters and most especially with his other prison epistles: Ephesians (above all), Philemon, and (somewhat) Philippians.

Naturally, such an amalgamation inclines Seitz toward Pauline authorship of Colossians and Ephesians (disputed in higher critical circles because of differences from undisputed Paulines like Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, and Galatians) as well as of Philemon and Philippians (likewise undisputed). Yet Seitz supports his inclination with standard higher critical arguments. And good ones they are, beginning with what is meant by authorship in reference to ancient practices of writing. Those who doubt Paul's authorship of Colossians should consider carefully and especially Seitz's setting out the problems of harmonizing a theory of pseudepigraphy with the thick interpersonal elements in Colossians 4.

In line with his devotion to canon-criticism, Seitz discusses the present canonical order of Paul's letters; but it is hard to see that this order materially affects his interpretation of Paul's text. Chronology, common authorship, and identical or similar circumstances seem much more decisive, just as in noncanonical but conservative higher critical interpretations.

Against the opinion of many scholars, however, Seitz deemphasizes Paul's authorial intention to correct the so-called "Colossian heresy" of which Epaphras is thought to have informed him. This deemphasis could be credited to Seitz's rule-of-faith and canon-critical tendency toward amalgamation, so that the specificity of a Colossian heresy recedes. But Seitz argues more exegetically within the letter's confines than on the larger canvas of the canon, and does so by appealing to Paul's starting the letter with autobiographical and christological notes before mentioning any possible elements in a Colossian heresy. The highly christological passage in 1:15-20 can be taken, nevertheless, as a deft, preliminary counter-blow against a heretical demotion of Christ; and the introductory autobiographical notes can be taken as Paul's portraying himself as an authoritative and reliable corrector of a heresy about which he has been informed. After all, he had neither founded nor visited the church in Colossae and therefore needed to establish his bona fides.

Seitz goes so far as to propose that "Paul is writing a letter whose occasion is borne of his own self-reflection and a new understanding of his apostleship in Christ, the result of prayer and companionship in prison, in the later years of his life." That is to say, Paul reflects on the change in his apostleship from itinerant evangelism to prayer and letter-writing. But he had been in prison before and written letters during itineration, and in another prison epistle he looks forward to further itineration (see Phil. 2:24).

Undeterred, though, Seitz proposes additionally that Paul had come to the surprising realization that his letters would be collected and enjoy a scriptural afterlife for the whole church. Apparently, then, the expectation of a soon return of Christ had waned (contrast Phil. 4:5b). Seitz compares the collection with that of the twelve minor prophets, and compares the respective locations of these collections within the larger divisions of Old and New Testaments.

One can wholeheartedly agree that we should not read Paul's letters in isolation from each other, or from the rest of Scripture; but resistance to their individual peculiarities threatens to take away theological particulars in favor of theological generalities. If so it happens, the result will be a head-in-the-clouds rule of faith rather than the down-to-earth practicalities of belief and behavior. Think here of the difference between expository preaching, which ties itself to the specifics of the biblical text seriatim, and topical preaching, which even at its best tends to limit itself to the high points of the rule of faith as crystallized in the Nicene creed—which, as N. T. Wright likes to point out, omits the entirety of Jesus' teaching about the kingdom of God. To be fair, Seitz does not want such a heady, impractical result; but his emphasis tends in the direction of a relatively minimal though robust rule of faith.

Back to the collection of Paul's letters, including Colossians: Seitz writes in an appendix a lengthy paraphrase in Paul's own words, not his actual words but words as Seitz imagines them to be in a supposed cover letter accompanying both Colossians and a letter coming to Colossae from Laodicea (Col. 4:16). In the paraphrase Paul references his memorization of the earlier Scriptures both in the original Hebrew and in Greek translation (the Septuagint), compares his letters to the twelve minor prophets, casts the letters as ecclesiologically inclusive rather than limited to the local churches addressed, takes responsibility for ordering the letters in a collection so as to give Romans pride of place as a prologue to his remaining letters, and even intimates that he urged Peter, James, and John to take up a ministry of letter-writing just as he has done.

As an Old Testament scholar and devotee of canon-criticism after the pattern of his teacher Brevard Childs, Seitz wrestles repeatedly with the absence from Colossians of explicit quotations of the Old Testament. Naturally, this absence poses something of a problem in a view that wants to amalgamate the books of the Bible with each other. By way of contrast, the Greek for "the Bible," ta biblia, means "the books" and by means of a plural underlines scriptural variety. So Seitz has to satisfy himself with saying that "the [Old Testament] scriptures are declaring their own christological purpose … in a way that Paul may only partly comprehend but not fully track or encompass." Yet "through careful study" we can surpass Paul in comprehension.

To this explanation, Seitz adds that Paul's audience in Colossae, consisting at least mainly of non-Jews, did not know the Old Testament and therefore would not have resonated with quotations therefrom. But Paul quotes the Old Testament extensively and argues from it repeatedly in Romans and Galatians, both of which were addressed to largely non-Jewish audiences. One may therefore be excused for thinking it still a problem that Colossians does not contain so much as one explicit quotation of the Old Testament.

Surprisingly, given his expertise in the Old Testament and devotion to canon-criticism, Seitz does not take up C. F. Burney's article, "Christ as the 'Aρχή of Creation," in comments on "the Christ hymn" of Colossians 1:15-20. Seitz does describe the article as "astonishingly fresh and full of insight," but does not tell what that insight is. According to Burney, Paul played on the multiple meanings—"beginning," "firstborn," and "head"—of the very first Hebrew word (a noun) in Genesis 1:1, and on the multiple meanings—"through," "in," and "for"—of the Hebrew preposition prefixed to that noun.[2]

On the whole, though, Seitz offers a wealth of canonical and theological commentary on the text of Colossians. One may disagree at points: for example, in his surprising denial that "bodily" in 2:9 refers to the specifics of the incarnation and in his affirmation of the cruciality of baptism as the means by which the Holy Spirit transforms us (including babies?). But such disagreements pale before a vast array of wide-ranging, perceptive comments. By and large, readers will be enriched both theologically and historically.

For Seitz, then, has the rule of faith clarified the meaning of Paul's text? Whatever Seitz might say, I would say that for him as well as for me, Paul's text clarifies the meaning of the rule of faith and along with the rest of Scripture stands in judgment over the many rules of faith that now exist. For the manifold creedal statements of innumerable Christian institutions amount to rules of faith. If it be objected that the meaning of the biblical text is subject to disagreements that call for adjudication by a rule of faith, it may be answered that the meaning of a rule of faith, including the earliest such rule (whatever that was), is likewise subject to disagreements that call for adjudication by Scripture. So the question boils down to one of priority, Scripture versus a rule of faith, whether in respect to chronology or in respect to importance. Here you see the difference between an Episcopalian, like Seitz, and Reno, an Episcopalian-turned-Roman Catholic, on the one hand, and a Baptist, like me, on the other hand. But happily for me, Seitz's commentary, while paying due attention to the history and importance of theological interpretation as represented in the Nicene tradition, seems to prioritize the scriptural text. Well done!

Robert Gundry is scholar-in-residence and professor emeritus at Westmont College.

1. See Everett Ferguson, Church History (Zondervan, 2005), Vol. 1, pp. 109?112.

2. Burney's article was published in Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 27 (1926), pp. 160-77. When moving into a semidetached house in Manchester, England, to start doctoral work, I found on a desk in the living room a penholder inscribed with the name "C. F. Burney." Being even more ignorant then than I am now, I trashed it, only to discover later the significance of that name in New Testament scholarship.

Most ReadMost Shared