106 gregory p. fewster
body is characteristically Pauline.”63 so also Wilson writes: “even if Paul
did not write col., he prepared the way for our present passage.”64 such
statements imply a perspective that sees a closer relationship between
colossians/ephesians and the undisputed letters. on the other hand, edu-
ard lohse sees this development as a key indication that the author is not
Paul but a “Pauline theologian,”65 a comment that distances colossians
from the undisputed Paulines in a more decisive manner. such readings
are a result of a building momentum that distinguishes the disputed and
undisputed letters, where stark distinction is made between the elements
of the body motif in romans and 1 corinthians and the body/head motif in
colossians and ephesians. When applied to this issue, a functional author-
ship perspective does not necessitate such interpretive moves. there is no
a priori reason to see these images as distinct based upon one’s status as
pseudepigraphical. in fact, given that these motifs appear in letters shar-
ing the same author-signature, appreciating similarity may be an appro-
priate place to begin. in that case, it is not necessary to assume theological
development in terms of cosmic christology or a universalized ecclesiol-
ogy. at least, christ’s headship is not necessarily a feature of such christo-
logical/ecclesiological perspectives.
my approach to the interpretation of the head/body motif in colossians
and ephesians is a result of my functional author perspective. Both letters
are defined by their status within the Pauline corpus and can be under-
stood in terms of a dialogue between their corpus relationships and the
particularities of each individual letter. i am attentive to relevant thematic
elements as they intersect with related themes in other Pauline texts and
within their own specific contexts. the relevant themes in this case are
body and head, realized in the greek lexemes σῶμα and κεφαλή. the refer-
ences to the body and head are sporadically scattered throughout colos-
sians and ephesians, and, while there are points of intersection, they can
also appear independent of one another. Below i have provided all the
ecclesial body references, headship references, and combined body-head
references in the epistles.66
63 dunn, Colossians and Philemon, 186. this is a striking assertion given dunn’s percep-
tion of the authorship of colossians, i.e., it is not written by Paul but cannot be adequately
deemed “post-Pauline” either (see pp. 37–38).
64 r. mcl. Wilson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Colossians and Philemon
(icc; london: t&t clark, 2005), 145. see also Best, One Body in Christ, 155, who suggests
that the addition of the head terminology is not an “unnatural extension.”
65 eduard lohse, Colossians and Philemon (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: fortress, 1971), 55.
o’Brien rejects such a conclusion (o’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, 49).
66 these translations are my own.