Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Colossians 1:9 - 1:23
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
(Col_1:9-23.)
Col_1:9. For this cause refers to the entire paragraph, Col_1:3-8. What the Apostle had heard of the Colossians moved him to the petition. This is required by the contents of the petition and by the accords: “since the day we heard” (Col_1:9), to which the object must be supplied from above (“your faith in Christ Jesus and love to all the saints”); Col_1:6. “since the day ye heard” and Col_1:4. “since we heard:” and also “do not cease to pray for you” (Col_1:9), and Col_1:3, “praying also for you.” After his thanks to God, Paul now gives the purport of his prayer. Certainly Col_1:9 is not connected with Col_1:8 alone, where the love of the Colossians to himself is spoken of: because he had heard this, he now prays for them (Bleek); as though Paul, like the Pharisees, prayed only for those who loved him.
We also, as in “we give thanks” (Col_1:3), is Paul and those with him, hence not Timothy merely (Meyer, Schenkel), nor is he excluded (Baehr). Êáß , “also,” refers chiefly to Epaphras, who represents and labors for the Colossians (Col_1:7-8), and then to the Colossians also, who were won to the gospel (Col_1:6) and have love to the brethren (Col_1:4; Col_1:8). It does not therefore indicate merely the reciprocity of intercourse between the Colossians and Paul (Schenkel, Meyer). [It has here its slightly contrastive force (Ellicott), and marks the change of subject; “we on our part” (Alford).—R.] It is not to be separated from ἡìåῖò and joined to äéὰ ôïῦôï (De Wette), nor by any means to ðñïòåõ÷üìåíïé (Baumgarten-Crcsius).
[Since the day we heard.—Ellicott: “incidental definition of the time with reference to ἀêïýóáíôåò , Col_1:4. Eadie: “The receipt of the intelligence produced immediate results and led to prayer. The effect was instant—and it was not spent with a single impulse.” The prayer was continuous also.—R.]
Do not cease to pray for you, and to desire.—On ïὐ ðáõüìåèá with the participles, see Eph_1:16. [Ellicott: “an exactly similar affectionate hyperbole.”—R.] The first verb denotes the wish (2Co_13:9; 3Jn_1:2; Act_27:29), addressed to any one, then in general a prayer expressing a wish; the second, the supplication, entreaty, the medium with its reflection; sibi expetere, the pressing hearty petition from a sense of fellowship. [It seems a better distinction to regard the first as general, the second as special, “the one prayer in its ordinary aspect, the other direct request.” Êáß “brings into prominence a special after a general” (Alford). The comma of the E. V. answers the same purpose here.—R.]
That ye might be filled.—(Bengel: “He made mention of his supplications generally Col_1:3; he now expresses what he supplicates.” Ἵíá indicates the aim of the petition, the purpose of the petitioner, hence not simply its purport (against Harless, Eph. 17). [On ἴíá after verbs of praying, see Alford, 1Co_14:13. “The purport and purpose become compounded in the expression.” Ellicott: “ Ἵíá has here its secondary telic force, the subject of the prayer is blended with the purpose of making it.”—R.] Ðëçñùèῆôå pre-supposes the imperfect state of those prayed for, and from its position at the beginning renders prominent the importance of progress to fulness. It occurs in this Epistle alone five times, here; Col_1:25; Col_2:10; Col_4:12; Col_4:17; in Ephesians (Eph_1:23;Eph_3:19; Eph_4:10; Eph_5:18), and in Philippians (Php_1:11; Php_2:2; Php_4:18-19), each four times.
With the knowledge of his will.— Ôὴí ἐðßãíùóéí is an accusative of reference, like Php_1:11; so óêçíïðïéὸò ôὴí ôÝ÷íçí (Act_18:3). [Ellicott: “accusative of the remoter, the quantitative object in which the action of the verb has its realization.” “The genitive marks the absolute material out of which the fulness was realized, the accusative as it were, the domain of which the fulness was evinced.”—R.] See Winer’s Gram. p. 216. Further it is not = ôῇ ἐðéãíþóåé , since they were not to be filled with the knowledge, but their knowledge should be full, perfect. The word itself describes the knowledge which grasps and penetrates the object (Meyer), as Col_1:10; Col_2:3; Col_3:10. [Wordsworth: “ ἐðßãíùóéò , full knowledge is more than ãíῶóéò , it is a gift and grace of the Holy Spirit. This word occurs oftener in this Epistle than in any other of St. Paul. He may perhaps have used it as a contrast to the false ãíῶóéò or gnosticism of the false teachers, who were beguiling the Colossians with the speciousness of their vain philosophy. They in their theories promise ãíῶóéò , but the Apostle gave ἐðßãíùóéò by his ministry.” De Wette suggests, the former is a mere impractical and theoretical, the latter full and living knowledge.—R.] “Of his will,” since it concerns the purpose of the prayer, is God’s will, and, according to the context (Col_1:10), the will of God respecting the walk and conversation of the Christian in the world. Hence not the redemptive decree, as Eph_1:9 (Steiger and others), not the will of God which operates on us and is efficient in us, but the will of God to be obeyed by us, “hence not the will of the majority (Schenkel). [The immediate context “in all wisdom,” is against this limitation of “His will.” The result of full knowledge was to be worthy walk, but the knowledge was not therefore to be limited to His will respecting walk. As a fact Christian walk is based on a far wider knowledge.—R.]
Paul now sets forth the mode in which this “being filled” was to be consummated: In all spiritual wisdom and understanding.—Hence this is not to be joined with “walk” (Col_1:10), which is otherwise defined (Theodoret and others). See Eph_1:8 : “in all wisdom and prudence.” Óýíåóéò is not identical with öñüíçóéò (Sir_1:4; óýíåóéò öñïíÞóåùò ); the latter refers more to the God-given organ, the former more to the activity of man in using it; the latter more to the original gift, the former obtained rather by exercise. [The former is perhaps seen more in practically embracing a truth, the latter more in bringing the mind to bear upon it (Ellicott).—R.] The adjective “spiritual” belongs to both substantives. It indicates that the “being filled” cannot be effected by any purely natural, development of human mental life from its own power. The wisdom is not “fleshly” (2Co_1:12; 1Co_1:26), nor is the understanding of this character; yet neither are of themselves spiritual,” they become so only through the Holy Ghost. [Eadie and Alford join ðíåõìáôéêῇ to óõíÝóåé alone, but it seems better with Ellicott to join both adjectives to both substantives. On óïößá and óýíåóéò , the general and particular, Ellicott remarks: “both appear to have a practical reference; the former is, however, a general term; the latter its more special result and application.”—R.]
The aim of the petition; Christian walk. Col_1:10-12. They were not to rest with “knowledge of His will,” but advance.
Col_1:10. That ye might walk.—The infinitive, ðåñéðáôῆóáé , depending on ðëçñùèῆôå is epexegetical (Winer’s Gram. pp. 298, 301); it is not necessary to supply åἰò or ὥóôå . The closer definition follows.—Worthy of the Lord refers to Christ [as always apparently in St. Paul’s Epistles (Ellicott).—R.], the model of the Christian. Neither 1Th_2:12, “worthy of God,” nor Eph_4:1, “followers of God,” will justify us in understanding it otherwise.—Unto all pleasing describes the manner of the worthy walk, giving prominence to the purpose ( åἰò ). ἈñÝóêåéá , only here, in a good sense, describes in classical authors the conduct of the ἄñåóêïò , the obsequious, i. e., obsequiousness. The context requires that it be understood as “pleasing Christ” not God, in spite of Mat_5:48 (Schenkel). Since Christ can be pleased in everything, “all” is added.
This is confirmed by the following characteristic of the Christian walk: Being fruitful in every work.—[Braune reads, “being fruitful and increasing in every good work,” a collocation in conformity with his view of the text and his exegesis. The order of the E. V. seems to preserve the symmetry and present the meaning better.—R.] On the nominatives êáñðïöïñïῦíôåò êáὶ áὐî ., instead of the more exact accusatives, to agree with ὑìᾶò implied after ðåñéðáôῆóáé , see Eph_4:1; Eph_4:3. Here it is readily explained, yet not by joining the participles to ðëçñùèῆôå (Bengel); the two participles are united as in Col_1:6; first bearing fruit, then growing more, as in a tree, in order to greater fruitfulness. The sphere of both is denoted by “in.” The prepositional phrase, standing first for emphasis, is not to be joined with “pleasing” (Oecumen, Steiger and others), but with the verbs [or according to the view of Alford, Ellicott and others, with the verb “being fruitful”—undoubtedly to be preferred if the instrumental dative is retained. See below.—R.] By “good works” we are to understand, works required by the will of God, growing out of faith, demanded, not merely by law, but by relations, circumstances, by the inward impulse of the conscience and the Holy Ghost.
[And increasing by the knowledge of God.] The advance is made into, up to the knowledge of God. This indeed depends upon their being “filled with the knowledge of His will” (Col_1:9). Their being fruitful and increasing in every good work aids thereto. Hence Luther is incorrect; and be fruitful in every good work and increase in the knowledge of God. [The order of the E. V. is the same.—R] Advance is made from knowledge to knowledge in the Christian walk, wherein the spirit of God guides into all truth (Joh_16:13; Joh_14:26). Åßò is neither = êáôÜ (Böhmer) nor = ἐí (Beza), nor = the dative which Huther and others read. [The close union of the two participles above and the preceding exegetical note are based on the less supported reading: åἰò ôὴí ἐðßãíùóéí . The better reading is ôῇ ἐðéãíþóåé (instrumental dative). This is to be joined with áὐîáíüìåíïé “increasing by the knowledge of God.” As the main reason for retaining the reading of the fewer MSS. is that it is more difficult, Alford remarks, supporting ôῇ ἐðéãíþóåé : “this is by far the most difficult of the three readings, the meaning of ἐí and åἰò being very obvious, the former pointing out the element, the latter the proposed measure of the increase. And hence, probably, the variations. It is the knowledge of God which is the real instrument of enlargement, in soul and life, of the believer—not a ãíῶóéò which öõóéïõ , but an ἐðßãíùóéò which áὐîÜíåé .” So Olshausen, De Wette, Huther, Eadie, Ellicott.—R.]
Col_1:11 gives a second definition of the walk, almost exactly like the first in its construction.—Strengthened with all strength, ἐí ðÜóῃ äõíÜìåé äõíáìïýìåíïé . The verb, which occurs only here, marks those walking worthy of the Lord as energized in activity, not in one direction, but in all: in will, affection and perception, in understanding, in home and calling, in all external relations. [Braune seems to regard ἐí as indicating the element, and äýíáìéò as subjective (so Alford). It seems more natural and accordant with the phrase immediately following, to take ἐí as instrumental and äýíáìéò as objective, i. e., strength from God. So Meyer, Eadie, Ellicott (Theodoret is quoted by the latter), and E. V.; in either case “all” implies that the energy extends to every department.—R.] The paranomasia, as well as the construction like that of the previous clause, forbid the separation of the prepositional phrase from the verb, to join it with what precedes.
According to the power of His glory, êáôὰ ôὸ êñÜôïò ôῆò äüîçò .—Power is requisite, the Christian does not have it in himself; the measure of it is not inconsiderable, it increases. God alone gives it in proportion to the Power which He has, in comparison with whose glory, majesty, grace and mercy, we are and have nothing. His glory ever reveals itself more and more to him who walks worthy of the Lord. The motive and measure of our strength is in the might of the majesty of God, whom we know ever better. Hence äüîá and ἰó÷ýò (Eph_1:19; Eph_6:10, “according to the power of his might”) are not to be considered as parallels and the former limited here to the Ruler’s dignity (Steiger), nor is the phrase=“glorious power” (Luther, Baehr, [E. V.], and others), as though it were ἔíäïîïí êñÜôïò .
Unto all patience and long-suffering with joy.—Through growing strength progress is made in directions the most various ( ðÜóáí , all) “unto patience” ( ὑðïìïíÞí ) which is not merely suffering ( ὑðÝ÷åé , Judges 7. only) i. e., sustinere. ὙðïìÝíåéí means the mind in suffering; ὑðïìïíÞí denotes this constancy and patience of the mind. Hence we find, not the patience of God, but “the God of patience” spoken of (Rom_15:5), it is not God, who demands, but who dispenses “patience” (Tittmann, Syn., I. p. 191). “Patience” is opposed to displeasure without power to help or change; “long-suffering,” to displeasure with power to punish, to avenge, to alter and avert. Chrysostom: “one is long-suffering towards those whom it is possible to requite, but patient towards those whom he is unable to requite.” In the former case the objects are usually men, in the latter, circumstances. It is incorrect to make “patience” refer to the extent, and “long suffering” to the continuance of the feeling (Schenkel), or to contrast timidity with the former and irritability with the latter (Huther), or to ignore the distinction (Meyer, Bleek). [Ellicott renders åἰò , “to insure, to lead you into,” marking the final destination; Eadie: “in order to.” See his notes in loco, on the distinction between “patience” and “long suffering.”—R.] That which is characteristically Christian in both is: “with joy,” which is impossible in such a case without the power of God. In “patience and long-suffering” the Christian is glad, and certain of the victory of his cause, of his reward with God both in his own heart and in heaven. It must not then be joined with “giving thanks” (Col_1:12), as is done by the Greek fathers, Estius, Huther, Meyer, Schenkel, Bleek. [And also by Tischendorf, Lachmann, Ellicott, on the ground of the parallelism in the structure of the clauses.—R.] “With joy” would be entirely superfluous in that connection; the parallelism is not compulsory, and besides it is not “in joy,” indicating the element, but “with ( ìåôÜ ), which shows that it is only an accompaniment with “patience.” [As De Wette says: by such a connection “we lose the essential idea of joyful endurance—and the beautiful train of thought, that joyfulness in suffering expresses itself in thankfulness to God” (Alford).—R.]
The third definition follows (Col_1:12-14).
Col_1:12.—Giving thanks to the Father who hath made us meet.—Even in sorrow, let there be thanksgiving; let not Him be forgotten who giveth gifts and is the Father. It is incorrect, to take the participle, not as coördinate with “being fruitful,” “increasing,” “strengthened,” but as connected with “do not cease,” Col_1:9 (Greek fathers, Calvin, Bengel); or to supply “of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Col_1:3) after “Father” (Meyer) [Alford, Ellicott.—R.], instead of regarding Him, in accordance with the context, as our Father, who however is and proves Himself such in Christ: qui idoneos fecit, fueramus enim inidonei, 2Co_3:6 (BenGel). “Us” includes the Apostle and his companions and his readers, who are Christians.—For what has He made us meet?—For the portion of the inheritance of the saints in light.—“For” ( åἰò as above) marks the aim the “making meet,” which (as aorist) shows that it is already, even though incipiently, attained. Ôὴí ìåñßäá describes the “portion,” share, which falls to one personally (Luk_10:42; Luk_12:43), and “the inheritance” ( ôïῦ êëÞñïõ ) describes the whole of which the Christian is partaker, as given sorte non pretio (Bengel), as undeserved. The expression is borrowed from the Old Testament (Psa_16:5, “the portion of my inheritance, ìåñὶò ôῆò êëçñïíïìßáò ); as the chosen people obtained Canaan ( ἡ ãῆ ôῆò êëçñïíïìßáò ) through the grace of God, and each Israelite his part in the distribution of the land, so the Christian obtains his portion in and of the kingdom of heaven. “The saints” then describes the possessors of the heritage. The position of ἐí öùôß forbids our connecting it with ἱêáíþóáíôé , “making meet” (Greek fathers, Steiger, Meyer), which besides is accomplished in another way than “in light;” or with “inheritance” (Beza, Huther, Bleek), or with “Portion” (Bengel). It is a closer description of the sphere in which “the saints,” the Christians, (Col_1:2) are found in their walk (Col_1:10), in order to mark the extent of the benefit conferred, upon them through the “aking meet,” which is the occasion of the thanksgiving. Comp. Eph_5:9; Eph_5:11; Eph_4:18 According to the context the result is the principal point here, not the means, which are introduced afterwards, but without any exposition of “in light” or any reference to it. Hence it is incorrect, to contrast with Christians as the “saints in light” other saints in darkness, under the law in the Old Testament, which is contrary to the usus loquendi and to Pauline views (Grotius: thus is shown the distinction of the law and the gospel), or to refer it to future glory (Schenkel: = ἐí ôῇ äüîῃ ). [This last view is the popular one;. “light is taken to mean “heaven,” and the passage interpreted as a thanksgiving for what God has done to prepare us for an inheritance in heaven, or inheritance with the saints in heaven. Obviously this is forbidden by the context. Eadie, who joins it with “inheritance” as descriptive of it, Alford, who connects it with, the whole phrase “portion—saints,” and Ellicott, who indicates a preference for joining it with “inheritance of the saints,” all avoid this mistake. The saints are now “in light,” and the inheritance is “in light.” “In light” as the sphere of their walk, the saints enjoy their “inheritance” which is “begun here and the meetness conferred in gradual sanctification, but completed hereafter.”—R.]
God’s act and gift, as the foundation and beginning of the Christian walk, more accurately, defined (Col_1:13-14).
Col_1:13. Who hath delivered its out of the power of darkness.—“Who” refers back to “Father.” His act is first, “hath delivered us,” i. e., has drawn, snatched us out of danger (see Passow, Lex.). Chrysostom: “He does not say delivered, but snatched ( ἐῤῥýóáôï ), showing our and their great misery and captivity.” Zanchius: “This is more than: he has liberated. For those are liberated, who are willing and desirous and deserving of being made free; those who are seized are often unwilling, as Lot from Sodom; he magnifies both the grace and the power of God.” “Out of the power of darkness” denotes the power under the dominion of which Christians were before Redemption. The first substantive describes the organized power, the second its character, as Eph_2:2 : “the power of the air;” Eph_6:12 : “powers of this darkness.” [Alford: “power i.e., in the territorial sense; darkness—not to be understood of a person but of the character of the region.” Ellicott: “evil and sin viewed objectively.” Davies refers here to the dualism of the Zend-avesta.—R.] Necessarily opposed to this is “the power of His glory” (Eph_1:11), and as a consequence “the saints” are “in light.” Here we find a justification of the exposition given above.
And translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love.—But He did not stop with this “deliverance” ( êáß ); He has “translated” ( ìåôÝóôçóåí ) us. The word denotes a local change, hence a change of relation, determining the conduct and walk. “Into the kingdom” is in contrast with “out of the power,” and “the Son of His love” with “darkness.” “The Son of His love,” which recalls both in phrase and connection Eph_1:6, occurs only here, and sets forth the Son with the greatest emphasis as the Object of His love, upon whom His entire love flows, and through Him therefore upon us. The Son is not conceived of here as “out of” the love, born out of its substance (Augustine), [i. e., “Love considered more as an essence than an attribute.”—R.]; nor is it=His beloved Son (Mat_3:17; Mat_17:25; Mat_12:18). [Nor “His dear Son” (E. V).—R.] Not only is the “power” His, but the “kingdom” also, the Messianic kingdom of heaven, which is already actually present here, but not completed in the Christian Church, and therefore not identical with it. This is not then to be understood of the church (Baehr, Huther and others). [“The term has a reference neither purely metaphorical (the church), nor ethical and inward, nor yet ideal and proleptic (Meyer), but—semi-local and descriptive—nor is this wholly future” (Ellicott).—R.]
Col_1:14 gives the modus translations (Thomas Aquinas): In whom we have redemption, even the forgiveness of sins.—Like Eph_1:7, except that “through his blood” is omitted here [retained in Rec. and E. V.—R.], the means of redemption not being made prominent; and that ἀìáñôéῶí is deeper and more internal than ðáñáðùìÜôùí . Paul’s freedom and independence are unmistakable. [The exact force is: “In whom we are having the redemption” (Ellicott).—R.] Such a possession is the result of the act of God which changes our relation to Him [through the Redeemer whom the Apostle then describes.—R.]
The exalted relation of the Mediator to God and the world. Col_1:15-17. Bengel: “He describes the glory and eminence of Christ above the highest angels; and scatters those germs from which he afterwards confutes the worshippers of angels. This so full knowledge of Christ is comprehended only by those who are experienced in the mystery of redemption.”
Col_1:15. Who is.—“Is,” not “was” or “became;” hence we have here defined, not what He became at His appearing in the flesh, but what He is, and is personally ( ôïῦ õἱïῦ — ὅò ). [Undoubtedly the subject of the whole passage is “the Son of God’s love” (Col_1:13); and this subject must be taken in its widest and most complex relations, whether as Creator or Redeemer, the immediate context defining the precise nature of the reference (Ellicott). Meyer very justly remarks: “It must be noted that Paul is viewing Christ according to His present Being, i. e., according to His present and permanent status of exaltation, and hence he expresses not what Christ was, but what He is.” Yet it cannot be denied that while this is true, there must be a distinction made in referring the various predicates to the subject, for even Meyer in objecting to this says: “The only correct reference is to His whole Person, which in the theanthropic status of his present heavenly Being is continuously what His Divine nature (considered in itself) was before the Incarnation, so that by virtue of the identity of His Divine Nature, we can attribute the same predicates to the Exalted One as to the Logos.” He thus himself implies a distinction, which he will not permit in Paul’s language. In claiming as we do with the Fathers generally, Bengel, Ellicott, Bleek, Wordsworth and many others, that the immediate reference throughout this verse is to the ëüãïò ἄóáñêïò (against Melanchthon, Barnes, Eadie, and Alford, who refer it to the ëüãïò ἔíóáñêïò ), we by no means deny that all which is here predicated is, now and forever, true of the Son of God’s love, but guard against a false interpretation of the predicates themselves. Admitting that such a distinction can be made, we find a reason for the above reference in the fact that Col_1:16, which gives a reason for the statements of this verse, must be referred to the Logos, or to the whole Person of Christ, “by virtue of the identity of His Divine Nature.” The grammatical connection with Col_1:14, which refers to the ëüãïò ἔíóáñêïò is not so close. The subject then in this verse is the Son of God’s love, as He wag before the incarnation, and as He still “is.—R.]
The image of the invisible God, åἰêὼí ôïῦ èåïῦ ἀïñÜôïõ (2Co_4:4). The first thing is His relation to God, immanent and permanent. Åἰêþí is not in itself something visible (Philo: èåïῦ ëüãïí åἰêüíá ëÝãåé èåïῦ ). Comp. Gen_1:26-27. God’s image in man is not that which is perceptible by the sense, only thus cognizable. Compare the expression with ìïñöῆ èåïῦ , ἴóá èåῷ (Php_2:6), and ἀðáýãáóìá ôῆò äüîçò êáὶ îáñáêôὴñ ôῆò ὑðïóôÜóåùò áὐôïῦ (Heb_1:3). It denotes likeness to and equality with the invisible God (Joh_1:18; 1Ti_6:18), who cannot be perceived absolutely without a Mediator and a revelation, hence is invisible to angels and the redeemed (Heb_12:14). The context here differs entirely from Joh_1:14. Here we must think of the Exalted One, transported from our sight, who yet already existed before the creation. Thus the “Son of His love” is further described (Theophylact: ìüíïò — êáὶ ἀðáñÜëëáêôïò åἰêþí ). The revelation, the making known, the rendering visible of the Father is put in the second place. It is not to be viewed as the chief point here, nor as the sole ground of this expression (Joh_14:9), as Calvin, Schenkel and others prefer; nor is it to be entirely denied (Baehr, Huther). [It is worthy of note that here, as in all the terms used in the Scriptures to express His relation to the Father, there seems to be an implication of revelation ( ëüãïò , ἀðáýãáóìá ÷áñáêôÞñ , ìïñöÞ , and even in ðñùôüôïêïò ð . êô .) On this relation, immanent and permanent, the actual revelation in the Person of Jesus Christ, indeed the context implies, in all other ways, seems to rest. Still we must be careful not to limit the meaning to this actual revelation as Eadie, Barnes and others do, for as Braune remarks:—R.] it is a sad dilution to interpret: God has as it were made Himself visible in Him (DeWette), in Christ it is manifest that God is wise, powerful, good and the like (Grotius).
The first-born before every creature, ðñùôüôïêïò ðÜóçò êôßóåùò .—[So Ellicott. Braune’s exegesis is better set forth by: the first begotten before every creature.—R.] This second predicate defines His relation to the created world. Ðñùôüôïêïò distinguishes Him as the Son from the creation ( êôßóéò ); it is = ðñùôüãïíïò , “first begotten” (Philo), but not = ðñùôüêôéóôïò , · ðñùôüðëáóôïò (among the Alexandrians, Origen). It is joined with the first predicate, closely uniting with God and distinguishing from the creation. (Theodoret: “not as having creation for a sister, but as begotten before all creation.” Chrysostom: “not significant of glory and honor, but only of time.”) It is synonymous with ἀñ÷Þ (Col_1:18; Rev_3:4). The genitive êôßóåùò depends on ðñῶôïò as ðñῶôüò ìïõ , Joh_1:15; Joh_1:30 (Winer’s Gram. p. 229). [So Meyer. It must be here remarked that Winer does not expressly sanction this view of this passage. It would not perhaps be strictly correct to say that the genitive is governed by ðñῶôïò in composition, although the Greek syntax favors such government in composition. Bengel even governs this genitive by the ðñü found in ðñῶôïò . Ellicott’s view is a safe one: “genitive of the point of view, rendered more intelligible by the latent comparative force involved in ðñῶôïò ,” though even this is but a circumlocutory statement of its dependence on ðñῶôïò , As the word is Alexandrian, the syntax has been supported by Hebrew usage, though the broad use of the Greek genitive scarcely requires this.—R.]
Since ðÜóçò denotes every kind of creature, angels and men, Christ existed before all. He does not begin the series of a category, as “first begotten of the dead” (Rev_1:15), “among many brethren” (Rom_8:29), but He is antecedent, conditioning the creation. [It is doubtful, whether it is better to take ðÜóçò êôßóåùò , collectively: “the whole creation,” or individually: “every creature,” the context favors the former, so Alford; the polemic aim of the Apostle, the latter, so Ellicott.—Braune makes this predicate refer exclusively to priority in time. On this Ellicott speaks of “His deigning by the mouth of His Apostle to institute a temporal comparison between His own generation from eternity and their creation in time,” but he admits “the possibility of “a secondary and inferential reference to priority in dignity.” Alford seems to include both views; “not only first-born, of His mother in the world, but first-begotten of His Father before the worlds—He holds the rank, as compared with every created thing, of first-born in dignity.” To the view which makes the latter thought the chief one, as held by Whitby, Barnes, Eadie (“the acting President of the Universe and therefore the first-born of every creature”), it may be objected; 1. that it confuses the aspects in which this verse refers to the Son of God’s love, see above; 2. it gives to ðñùôüôïêïò a secondary and figurative meaning, where a more literal one seems more appropriate; 3. it ignores, or at least throws too far into the back-ground, the relation to the Father which is not only expressed in ðñùôüôïêïò , but given further prominence by the close connection with the preceding clause; hence those who adopt it consistently refer that predicate also mainly to the revelation of the Father in Christ, rather than to the relation of the Son to the Father. Yet it must be admitted that there is an inferential reference to priority in dignity, a consequence of the priority in time of the Begotten to every creature; not only so, but as Braune well remarks: He ia antecedent, conditioning the creation—for the context, giving a reason ( ὅôé ) for this verse, goes on to set forth in detail His relation to tho creation. So that while His priority in time shows His independence of creation, creation is not independent of Him, as He is here described. In this His relation to the Invisible God is to be found the ground or condition of the whole creation. The 16th verse asserts that He is the causa conditionalis, this one seems to intimate that in virtue of His relation immanent and permanent to the Father, as the Image and Only Begotten, He holds the relation to the creation subsequently defined. So Wordsworth quotes Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch: “when God desired to create the world, He begat the world as ðñïöïñéêὸí , ðñùôüôïêïò ðÜóçò êôßóåùò .” While He is thus placed out of the category of the created, He is the more intimately linked with “every creature.”—R.]
Therefore the view of the Arians that He is the first creature is incorrect, as also that of the So-cinians, Grotics and others, who refer êôßóåùò to the new moral creation, in which case êáéíÞ would not be wanting (2Co_5:17). To make of the two predicates but one and join ðñùôüôïêïò as an adjective to åἰêþí (Schleiermacher, Stud. und Krit. 1832, p. 497) is not only harsh, but grammatically inadmissible. To read, ðñùôïôüêïò , “first bringer forth” (Isidore of Pelusium, Erasmus and others), is not allowable, since this is applied only to the female sex, and ðñῶôïò in that case would be irrelevant.
Col_1:16. Because in him were all things created.—This verse justifies the explanation given above. Ὃôé adds the reason that ante om-nem creaturam genitum esse filium, non creatum, before every creature the Son was begotten, not created: “in Him were all things created.” The emphasis is placed upon “in Him.” The verb requires us to understand the fact of creation as here spoken of; the historical act, as the aorist denotes. Act_10:6 has ἔêôéóå ôὸí ïὐñáíüí ê . ô . ë ., while Act_14:7, reads: ôῷ ðïéÞóáòôé ôὸí ïõñáíüí . The same interchange occurs Gen_6:7; Deu_4:22, Sir_15:14; Sir_24:9 [LXX.]. Schleiermacher should not therefore affirm that êôßîåéí is not used in Hellenistic Greek of the original creation, but means to give order, arrangement. This creation is Ýí áὐôῷ , not ὑð ’ áὐôïῦ , which would indicate the first cause. This is not the Son, but the Father, as the thought in the word is efficient in the Son, out from whom the creation is accomplished; but there is no thought of emanation, hence ἐî áὐôïῦ is not used. It is here indicated that the accomplishment of the creation rests in Him, its immediate instrumental cause is to be sought in Him, but not the last, principalis. Ἐí áὐôῷ is not to be referred to the êüóìïò íïçôüò , the idea omnium rerum, which was in Him (Schleiermacher and others), nor is it = äé ’ áὐôïῦ (Usteri); nor does ἐêôßóèç refer to the new moral creation, which reference is not supported by Eph_4:23, where the context is entirely different. [’ Åíáὐôῷ here denotes, not the causa instrumental is nor causa exemplaris, but causa conditionalis, as the conditional element pre-existent and all-including. Alford, Ellicott.—R.] Ôὰ ðÜíôá is the existing all, the totality of things [the universe, Alford.—R.], ðÜíôá would be all that actually is (Winer’s Gram. p. 105). A specification as regards place follows: in heaven and that are on earth, ôá ἐí ôïῖò ïὐñáíïῖò êáὶ ôὰ ἐðὶ ôῆò ãῆò .—Thus Paul writes instead of ïἰ ïὐñáíïß , not excluding these however, because to him all depends upon this, that nothing was created without Him; He stands in such a relation to the whole creation that He was before it and it exists first through Him. There is no reason for understanding by this, habitatores qui reconciliantur (Wettstein), or only living creatures (Baehr) or rational creatures. On ôïῖò ïὐñáíïῖò see Eph_1:10. We cannot conclude from the precedence of ïἰ ïὐñáíïß that emphasis is placed upon the creation of angels (Theophylact), nor from the omission of “under the earth,” that God has not created for the lower world (Unterwelt): the context gives no warrant for this.—Visible and invisible.—This is added to describe the nature of what was created. There is no reason for referring both exclusively either to earthly (Schleiermacher), or to heavenly things (Theodoret); nor are the former alone visible, and the latter invisible, since among the visible we must reckon sun, moon and stars, and among the invisible human souls. The Apostle places the highest, “things in heaven,” first, but here the more important follows, because he intends to give a specification of the angels. It must be borne in mind that ôὰ ðÜíôá is described. Hence “invisible” does not refer merely to the heavenly world of spirits (Meyer), though this is the main reference (Bleek).—Whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, åἴôå èñüíïé , åἴôå êõñéüôçôåò , åἴôå áñ÷áὶ , åἴôå ἐîïõóßáé . Åἴôå , thus repeated, specifies the world of angels, to which we arrive through “invisible;” at the same time it indicates an uncertainty respecting the classes of angels, or that nothing essential depends upon this classification. In Eph_1:21, we find Üñ÷Þ , Ýîïõóßá , äýòáìéò , êõñéüéçò ; äýíáìéò is not found here, nor èñüíïò there. This latter word occurs here only in the New Testament, but is applied by the Rabbins, by Dionysius the Areopagite and testamentum Levi, to the angels in the seventh or highest heaven. These classes maybe regarded as different orders, joined in pairs; èñïíïé , the highest, êõñéüôçôåò , the lowest, ἀñ÷áß and ἐîïõóßáé , the intermediate. [Ellicott, comparing Eph_1:21, “where the order seems descensive,” says, “we may possibly infer that the èñüíïé are the highest order, etc., if indeed all such distinctions are not to be deemed precarious and presumptuous. It may have been suggested by some known theosophistic speculations of the Colossians, but more probably was an incidental revelation, which the term ἀüñáôá evoked.” Pearson thus gives the intent of the passage and the force of åἴôå : “Lest in that invisible world, among the many degrees of the celestial hierarchy, any order might seem excepted from an essential dependence upon Him, he nameth those which are of greatest eminence, and in them comprehendeth the rest.”—R.] Schleiermacher most incorrectly applies ἀüñáôá to earthly empires, civil orders and legal conditions (Melanchthon similarly), and understands here magisterial offices and other functions of persons in power.
All things were created by him and for him, ôὰ ðÜíôá äé ’ áὐôïῦ êáὶåἰò áὺ ̀ ôὸí ἔêôéóôáé . [Literally, all things have been created through Him and to Him.—R.] Solemn recapitulation (Meyer). The perfect, setting the past in relation to the present, is chosen instead of the aorist, noting the factum, because we have here a dogmatic consideration of the completed and now existing creation (Winer’s Gram. p. 255). Hence also we have not merely äé ’ áὐôïῦ (instrumental), but åἰò áὐôüí , indicating Him as the ôÝëïò of creation. Bengel: ἐí denotat prius quiddam guam mox äéÜ et åἰò . Notatur initium, progressus, finis. Comp. Rom_11:36; 1Co_8:6, where åἰò áὐôüí refers to God, as here to Christ, to whom the êõñéüôçò ôῶí ðÜíôùí is committed (Mat_28:18; Php_2:9; 1Co_15:27), who is the delegated Regent of the world (Meyer). Åἰò denotes not simply for Him, but also to Him, in Him (Winer’s Gram. p. 390). That He is Lord over all is but one side therefore; the other is, that to Him the whole is directed, and thus is developed, exalted, glorified. To His exalted dignity is joined the glorifying of what is created, the participation of the creatures in His glory and blessedness. [Ellicott: ἐí áõôῷ , causa conditionalis; äé ’ áὐôïῦ , causa medians; åἰò áὐôüí , causa finalis or finis ultimus. Alford: “He is the end of creation, containing the reason in Himself, why creation is at all and why it is as it is.”—R.]
Col_1