What
follows is a largely a summary of Gregory E. Sterling’s paper, Prepositional
Metaphysics in Jewish Wisdom Speculation and Early Christian Liturgical Texts.[1] This rather intimidating
title disguises a fascinating essay with significant Christological
implications, particularly pertaining to New Testament texts which ascribe to
Christ a role in the creation of all things.
Sterling
begins his paper by highlighting the role that significant prepositional phrases
in the New Testament played in the Arian controversy. He notes that ‘The tutor of the future emperor
Julian had argued that the use of ἐξ
οὖ in reference to the Father and δι’ οὖ in reference
to the Son [in 1 Cor 8:6] marked a distinction between the two since dissimilar
terms imply dissimilar natures.’[2]
He
then asks whether early Christians used such prepositional phrases in the
technical way in which they were used in Hellenistic philosophy.
For
instance, the pseudonymous author of De mundo (c. 3rd century
BC) wrote: ‘all things are from God (ἐκ θεοῦ)
and through God (διὰ
θεοῦ) hold together for us’.[3] Aelius Aristides (2nd
century AD) addressed the god Serapis with the words, ‘For all things
everywhere are through you (διὰ
σοῦ) and have become for us on account of you
(διὰ σέ)’.[4]
Aetius
the doxographer (between 2nd century BC and 1st century
AD) states the following concerning Plato’s view of causation:
Plato
held there were three causes. He says: ‘by which (ὑφ’ οὖ),
out of which (ἐξ
οὖ), to which (πρὸς ὅ)’. He considers the by which (τὸ ὑφ’ οὖ)
to be the most important. This was that which creates, that is the mind.[5]
Hellenistic
Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria (1st century AD) held a Middle
Platonic position which described four causes:
For
many things must come together for the generation of something: the by which (τὸ ὑφ’ οὖ),
the from which (τὸ
ἐξ οὖ), the through which (τὸ δι’ οὖ),
and the for which (τὸ
δι’ ὅ)…The
by which (τὸ ὑφ’ οὖ)
is the cause (τὸ
αἴτιον), the from which (τὸ ἐξ οὖ) is the matter (ἡ ὑλη),
the through which (τὸ
δι’ οὖ)
is the tool (τὸ
ἐργαλεῖον), the for which (τὸ δι’ ὅ)
is the purpose (ἡ
αἰτία).[6]
Philo
identifies each of these with reference to the cosmos:
[the]
cause (αἴτιον) is God, by whom (ὑφ’ οὖ)
it came into existence, its material (ἡ ὑλη) is
the four elements out of which (ἐξ
ὧν) it has been composed, its instrument (ὄργανον) is the Logos of God (λόγος θεοῦ) through whom (δι’ οὗ)
it was constructed, the purpose (αἰτία)
of its construction is the goodness of the Demiurge.[7]
He
goes on to note that Philo does not speak exclusively of the Logos as the
instrument of creation; he also uses the same expression for Wisdom (which he elsewhere
equates with the Logos).[8]
Broadly
speaking, Sterling identified two Hellenistic philosophical models for
explaining causation: the Stoic model and the Middle Platonic. The former view
holds that there is one cause which can be described in various ways (as in
Pseudo-Aristotle and Aelius Aristides) while the latter holds that there are
several causes which can be identified (as in Aetius’ citation of Plato, and
Philo). The key claim of Sterling’s paper are that the NT texts which use
prepositional phrases metaphysically do so with their technical philosophical
meanings – some using Stoic formulations for God and others using Middle
Platonic formulations for Christ.[9]
Sterling
then turns to exegesis of New Testament texts which use such prepositional
phrases metaphysically to denote cause, which is ‘almost always signaled through
the reference to “all things” (πάντα)’.[10] He observes that these
texts are all regarded as reflecting early Christian liturgical practice in
some way.[11]
He
regards Rom. 11:36 and Heb. 2:10 as Stoic formulations for God. In the former
case, Paul wrote, ‘for all things are from him (ἐξ αὐτοῦ) and through him (δι’ αὐτοῦ) and for him (εἰς
αὐτόν)’.[12] In the latter case, the
author wrote, ‘it is fitting for him for whom (δι’ ὅν)
are all things and through whom (δι’ οὖ) are all things…’[13] In both cases, multiple
prepositional constructions (notably including διὰ + genitive) are used to refer to a single cause.
Another
group of texts (Heb. 1:2; John 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16) uses Platonic formulations
to describe the Son’s role in creation. Heb. 1:2 says concerning the Son, ‘through
whom (δι’ οὖ) he made the worlds’.[14] This formulation makes a
clear distinction between God and the agent of creation. In this way it aligns
with Middle Platonism which developed the instrumental agency which developed
in the first century BCE. (Sterling 233)
John
1:3, 10 says concerning the Logos (who is evidently personal at least in v. 10),
‘the cosmos came into existence through him (δι’ αὐτοῦ)’.[15] Col. 1:16 uses three
distinct prepositional phrases to describe Christ’s relationship to creation:
the familiar ‘through him’ (δι’ αὐτοῦ), as well as ‘in him’ (ἐν αὐτῷ) and ‘for him’ (εἰς αὐτόν). On this, Sterling comments, ‘I suggest
that the Christians who first set out this material were expanding the
cosmological functions of Christ just as Philo expanded the functions for the
Logos’.[16]
Is
Col. 1:16 referring to the original creation or only the new creation? Sterling
thinks that a careful analysis of the literary structure of the passage reveals
that it consists of three units: one cosmological (Col. 1:15-16), one
soteriological (Col. 1:18-20) and a middle unit which makes the transition
between the two (Col. 1:17). He concludes,
The
close parallels between the first and third units suggest that the cosmological
material became the basis for the soteriological, i.e. the distinctive
Christian contribution lies in the soteriological application of the
pre-existing cosmological schema.[17]
Most
intriguing of all is what Sterling describes as a ‘mixed text’ which brings both
cosmological and soteriological concerns together: 1 Cor. 8:6. This verse
states, ‘But for us there is one God the Father, from whom (ἐξ αὐτοῦ) are all things and we for him (εἰς αὐτόν), and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom
(δι’ οὖ) are all things and we through him (δι’ αὐτοῦ)’.[18] Here, ‘The first half of
each phrase is cosmological; the second half is soteriological’.[19]
Sterling
points out the parallel in the contrast of prepositions with 1 Cor. 11:12,
which says, ‘For just as the woman is from the man (ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρός), so is the man also through the woman (διὰ τῆς γυναικός)’.[20]
Sterling
concludes by asking what was the source of early Christian use of metaphysical
formulations such as those above. He hypothesizes that ‘Stoic and Platonic
formulations of prepositional metaphysics found their way into Jewish synagogue
liturgies in association with both attempts to present God in philosophical
categories and in Wisdom speculations’.[21] The early church adopted
these formulations, Christianized them, and added a soteriological dimension.
The
Christological implications of the texts discussed above are quite clear,
especially in light of Sterling’s study: they imply Christ’s personal
pre-existence and active participation in creation. The minority of
scholars who deny this, notably Dunn, generally do so on the grounds that these
texts are not actually talking about Christ himself, but about Christ as the
embodiment of God’s power. For instance, Dunn in Christology of the Making
comments on Col. 1:15-20,
The
two strophes become quite consistent as soon as we realize that throughout the hymn
we are not talking about God’s creative power per se, nor of Christ per se, but
of Christ whom Christians came to recognize as the embodiment and definition of
that power… Is then the Colossian hymn writer trying to say any more than that
the creation and Christ must be understood in relation to each other; now that
Christ has been raised from the dead the power and purpose in creation cannot
be fully understood except in terms of Christ, and so too Christ cannot be
fully understood except in terms of that wise activity of God which has made
the world what it is (ἐν),
which gives the world its meaning (διά)
and which will bring the world to its appointed end (εἰς).[22]
Dunn
offers a dubious interpretation of διὰ here in view
of the genitive accompanying noun. Furthermore, while we can agree with him –
especially in light of Sterling’s analysis of Philo’s Middle Platonism – that Jewish
ideas about Wisdom lie behind the Christology of the hymn of Col. 1:15-20,[23] Dunn’s exegesis faces a significant
problem that is obvious to lay and academic readers alike: ‘The first stanza is
about a person, not merely the power of God exhibited in creation’.[24] Indeed, Dunn himself
conceded that ‘it would appear to be clear that both Paul and the pre-Pauline
hymn are attributing pre-existence to Christ’ in Col. 1:16[25] (Dunn, p. 189), and
furthermore that ‘it is hard to imagine any first-century reader interpreting
the first strophe except as a reference to the “old” creation’.[26] Dunn’s reading of this
text is too complex to be convincing, leaving little doubt that this text says
what it appears to say – that Christ actively participated in the creation of
heaven and earth and everything in them.[27]
Schenck follows Dunn in taking a similar approach to Heb. 1:2c. Schenck states, ‘To
speak of Christ as creator is to recognize that he is the wisdom of God par
excellence, the final goal and purpose of God for creation.’[28] This neglects the point
that the writer could have made precisely this point simply by following διὰ with an accusative pronoun. That he instead followed it with a
genitive pronoun implies that he intended something different - namely, Christ’s direct involvement
in creation. Hence, Talbert rightly states, ‘Pre-existence is implied in the
prologue’s statement that Christ is the agent of creation (1:2).’[29]
Similar
arguments apply to 1 Cor. 8:6. A careful analysis of these texts leaves me confident
that I made the right choice to leave behind the unitarian Christology which I
was taught growing up and acknowledge Jesus as the pre-existent Lord of all creation.
[1] Sterling, G.E. (1997). Prepositional
Metaphysics in Jewish Wisdom Speculation and Early Christian Liturgical Texts. The Studia Philonica annual, 9, 219-238.
[2] Sterling 1997: 219.
[3] Pseudo-Aristotle, De Mundo 397b,
cited Sterling 1997: 223.
[4] Aelius Aristides 45.14, cited
Sterling 1997: 223-224.
[5] Aetius, Plac. 1.11.2, cited in
Sterling 1997: 226.
[6] Philo, On the Cherubim 124-127,
cited in Sterling 1997: 227.
[7] Philo, On the Cherubim 124-127,
cited in Sterling 1997: 227.
[8] See Sterling 1997: 229.
[9] Sterling 1997: 232.
[10] Sterling 1997: 232.
[11] Sterling 1997: 231.
[12] trans. Sterling 1997: 233.
[13] trans. Sterling 1997: 233.
[14] trans. Sterling 1997: 233.
[15] trans. Sterling 1997: 233.
[16] Sterling 1997: 235.
[17] Sterling 1997: 235.
[18] trans. Sterling 1997: 235.
[19] Sterling 1997: 236.
[20] trans. Sterling 1997: 235. This can assist
us in understanding the sense of the διὰ
+ genitive as used for Christ’s role in creation. It clearly does not mean ‘because
of’ or ‘for the sake of’, but implies a direct, instrumental role.
[21] Sterling 1997: 237.
[22] Dunn,
J.D.G. (1980). Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the
Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. London: SCM Press, pp. 193-194.
[23] Note Moo’s comment: “however common or
basic such parallels might be, Paul’s identification of Christ with Wisdom
constitutes no reason to deny personal preexistence in the key texts.” (Moo,
D.J. (2005). The Christology of the Early Pauline Letters. In R.N. Longenecker
(Ed.), Contours of Christology in the New Testament (pp. 169-192). Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 178.)
[24] Witherington, B. III. (2007). The
Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 132.
[25] Dunn 1980: 189.
[26] Dunn 1980: 190.
[27] On the qualification of the ‘all things’
into various categories in in Col. 1:16, Wilson remarks: ‘These words emphasize
the absolute completeness of τὰ
πάντα… it is the whole of creation that is in
view, things invisible as well as those which can be seen. This includes the
thrones, dominions, rulers and powers: they are part of the creation, and
therefore subordinate to the one ‘‘in whom” all things were created.’ (Wilson,
R. McL. (2005). Colossians and Philemon. London: T&T Clark, p. 139).
[28] Schenck, K. (1997). Keeping His
Appointment: Creation and Enthronement in Hebrews.
Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 19(66), 91-117. Here p. 106.
[29] Talbert, C.H. (2011). The Myth of a
Descending-Ascending Redeemer in Mediterranean Antiquity. In The development
of Christology during the first hundred years and other
essays on early Christian Christology (pp. 83-112). Leiden: Brill, p. 107.
