Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Colossians 2:1 - 2:15
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Col_2:1. For I would that ye knew (1Co_11:3; Php_1:12; Rom_11:25).—“For” links this to the foregoing, and according to the context, to “striving” (1:29); with good reason did he speak of conflicts in this Epistle, since he was anxious about the Colossians also.
What great conflict I have for you.— Ἡëßêïí (only in Jam_3:5, where it is used twice of little fire and great wood), derived from ἧëéî (one of the same age, a companion), describes the manner, the vehemence and importance rather than the extent (Meyer and others), as ðçëßêïéò (Gal_6:11)=qualibus. Hesychius: ðïäáðüí , ὁðïῖïí . [Ellicott: qualitative adjective.—R.] Ἀãῶíá ἔ÷ù denotes the continuance of his anxiety. [Eadie: “intense and painful anxiety.” Any reference to outward sufferings (Ellicott) is very doubtful.—R.] Ðåñὶ ὑìῶí indicates the readers as the object; what is more prominent in ὑðÝñ , viz., for their benefit, is put in the back ground. And them at Laodicea adds a neighboring church in the same situation (see Introd. § 4.).
And as many as have not seen my face in the flesh.—On ἑþñáêáí (see Winer’s Gram. p. 73). Col_2:2 : áὐôῶí , requires us to understand this of persons belonging together and grouped together. It is improper to imply it either to those unknown to Paul in other places, in contrast with those in Colosse and Laodicea (Theodoret, Schultz in Stud. und Krit., 1829, p. 135 sq.). Paul having been in both places, or to those Colossians and Laodiceans who remained unknown to him (Rohr, Wiggers), Paul merely adds a category for his readers; they had not seen him. [Alford: êáß is not copulative, but generalizing. See his remarks on the grammatical inference that Paul had not been at Colosse—so most modern editors.—Wordsworth is decided in favor of the other view, following Theodoret. The passage so naturally suggests the thought that Paul had not been there, as to require far stronger evidence than has yet been adduced to sustain any other view.—R.] He adds to ðñüóùðüí ìïõ (1Th_2:17; 1Th_3:10) ἐí óáñêß , since the contrast between spiritual presence and lack of personal acquaintanceship (Col_2:5) readily suggested this concrete strengthening (bodily face). The reason for it is not to be found in the spiritual physiognomy (Olshausen), nor is it to be joined with ἑþñáêáí (Chrysostom and others). It marks rather, that the readers need not be surprised at the Apostle’s concern, when they did not know each other, that he included all Christians, known and unknown, in his sympathy as brethren, than that the motive of his concern was the fact of his not having himself founded and instructed this Church (Schenkel), or his having only an uncertain idea of it (Bleek). Bengel: Paulus se omnium gentium debitorum statuit.
Col_2:2. That their hearts might be comforted.—This is the purpose of the conflict ( ἵíá ). The verb means accurately, “to call upon,” then “to admonish” (Php_4:2), “to entreat” (Phm_1:10), [rendered “beseech” in both cases in E. V.—R.], “to comfort” (2Co_1:4), so that trust, confidence, strength is there, not doubt, uncertainty, wavering (4:8; Eph_6:22); hence also “to strengthen, confirm” (Jam_4:3; Isa_35:3). [Alford insists that the idea of confirming predominates here. But Meyer, Eadie, Ellicott agree in upholding the usual meaning.—R.] The Apostle regards the danger from false teachers as misfortune, affliction (Chrysostom: ïὔôå êáôçãïñῶí ïὔôå ἀðáëëÜôôùí áὐôïὺò êáôçãïñßáò ). This comfort and tranquillity should first affect the heart, the centre.—Being knit together in love.— ÓõìâéâáóèÝíôåò according to the sense, as though it were áὐôïß , 3:16; Eph_4:2-3, Winer’s Gram. p. 532. On the meaning, comp. 2:19; Eph_4:16. The participle denotes the way, the mode of the comfort; union in love according to the context: in amore fidelium mutuo, brotherly love, as the ethical element (Meyer) in which the “knitting together” was consummated. The Vulgate (instructi) is incorrect, and Luther also: comprehended (coördinate to “comforted”).
And unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the full knowledge of the mystery of God [even Christ. Ellicott. God Christ, Wordsworth.—R.]— Êáß joins coördinately the end ( åἰò ) of the union, and in a two-fold direction; formally and quantitatively, “all riches of the fulness of assurance of understanding,” materially and qualitatively, “to the full knowledge of the mystery of God.” It is not sufficient to maintain, to know individual matters, the understanding must extend to the whole, in its fulness, and must attain to knowledge of the mystery. Comp. 1:9.; Eph_3:18; in fellowship we advance to full knowledge.—On ðëçñïöïñßá , see 1Th_1:5; Heb_6:11; Heb_10:22; it denotes full conviction, excludes incompleteness, includes joyous self-certainty. [Eadie: “the fixed persuasion that you comprehend the truth, and that it is the truth which you comprehend.” What is commonly termed “assurance of knowledge,” rather than “assurance of faith.”—R.]—On “the mystery of God” see Eph_1:9. If ×ñéóôïῦ is inserted, this could not be regarded as dependent on èåïῦ (against Huther, Meyer, Schenkel), since the article is wanting, and every clear ground for it in the text, but only as in apposition to èåïῦ , so that Christ is called God, a singularity which is not Pauline, notwithstanding Rom_9:5; Eph_5:5; Tit_2:13 (against Steiger)—nor is it in apposition to ìõóôçñßïí , as a gloss indicates. [Rejecting the reading of the Rec. as untenable, but one other than the shortest, has a claim upon our attention, the one referred to above: ôïῦ èåïῦ ×ñéóôïῦ . Braune refers to the three interpretations suggested. The first: the “mystery of the God of Christ,” is harsh, as well as open to the grammatical objection he urges. The second is defended by Wordsworth, following Hilary: “the mystery of the God Christ,” i.e. the mystery of the Divine nature of the Man Christ Jesus. His notes are worthy of attention. The third, making ×ñéóôïῦ in apposition with ìõóôçñßïí seems far preferable: “the mystery of God, even Christ.”—It is well supported by Ellicott, and the gloss above referred to ( ὅ ἐóôéí ×ñéóôüò ), is not without weight in determining the reading and the interpretation. Even Meyer, in adopting the interpretation “the mystery of the God of Christ,” says: In Christ God has comprehended and consummated the decree of Redemption (the ìõóôÞñéïí ). To him who has acknowledged God as the God of Christ, the divine mystery is thereby revealed.” Of course the meaning of ìõóôÞñéïí is widely extended by taking Ellicott’s view. It includes not simply the mystery of the Incarnation, but also of Redemption as involved in the Incarnation. The next verse can certainly be interpreted more readily, if this view be accepted.—R.]
Col_2:3. In which— Ἐíῷ refers to ìõóôçñßïí . [E. V., “in whom”—(with the marginal reading “wherein,”) refers it to Christ. If ×ñéóôïῦ is retained above, and then taken in apposition to ìõóôçñßïí , the meaning is the same. Unless the reference be to Christ in some direct way, it seems scarcely likely that Paul would say that in it were “hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” So wide a predicate is best applied to Christ.—R.]—Are.— Åἰóßí stands first for emphasis, to lay stress upon the fact that in God all mysteries are actually present.—All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, ðÜíôåò ïἱ èçóáõñïὶ ôῆò óïößáò êáὶ ôῆò ãíþóåùò .— Óïößá is the practical wisdom, to which every Christian attains, ãíῶóéò is the dialectic science, which is found only in a mentally gifted and cultivated Christian. [ Óïößá , the more general, ãíῶóéò , the more special, Meyer, Eadie, Alford, Ellicott.—R.] Calvin is incorrect: duplicatio ad augendum valet. Bengel: èçóáõñïß , hinc ðëïῦôïò , óïößá hinc óýíåóéò , ãíῶóéò hinc ἐðßãíùóéò . Hence the mystery must needs be revealed for the treasures are hid, ἀðüêñõöïé , in it. The adjective is a closer definition of the existence of the treasures in the mystery, and not a description of the treasures in themselves, therefore not an attributive joined to èçóáõñïß (Bengel, Meyer, Schenkel). [Alford defends most fully the interpretation: “the secret treasures.” Eadie upholds the view not noticed by Braune, that the treasures are “laid up.” Ellicott, whose notes here are valuable, makes it a “secondary predicate of manner,” i.e., the treasures, etc., are in the mystery or in Christ, they are so suddenly; until revealed and made the object of “full knowledge” as above (Col_2:2). This recognizes the emphatic position of the verb, takes the adjective in its natural meaning, and accords better with the context. It seems to be Braune’s view. Davies refers to the gnostical stamp of the terms in this verse. There is probably an allusion to the false doctrine at Colosse.—R.] The church did not need another system of doctrine, only more profound exposition.
Brief sketch of the Situation. Col_2:4-5.
Col_2:4. And this I say, refers to Col_2:1-3, not to Col_2:3 alone (Œkumen, Calvin, Baehr and others). In Col_2:5 he proves his ëÝãù by his sympathy. The danger which environs his readers, on account of which he cannot be silent, corresponds with his inward conflict about and for them: that no one should beguile you.—The verb ( ðáñáëïãßæçôáé , only here and Jam_1:22,) denotes, through ðáñá , as in ðáñáâáßíù , ðáñÜäïîïò , a deviation, violation, of the ëüãïò , the ëïãßæåóèáé , to miscalculate, to be deceived through sophisms (Passow, sub voce).
With enticing words, ἐí ðéèáíïëïãßᾳ denotes especially the danger. Ðéèáíüò means “adapted to convince, persuading,” like ðåéèüò , and ëïãßá denotes the mode in which this skill appears, viz.: in speech; it is stronger than ἐí ðåéèïῖò óïößáò ëüãïéò (1Co_2:4); it is found here only and in malam partem. Luther is incorrect—“with rational speech.” The formal side of the false doctrine, the sophistical, rhetorical, insinuating method is noted, there is nothing from which the purport of the false doctrine can be inferred. [Ellicott: “the preposition ἐí has that species of instrumental force, in which the object is conceived as existing in the means,” rather than indicating merely “the element in which the deceit works” (Alford).—R.]
Col_2:5. For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit.—Comp. 1Co_3:5. External, bodily absence, and spiritual presence, strongly marked by óὺí ὑìῖí , are here contrasted. There is no hint here of a previous presence at Colosse (Wiggers, Stud. und Krit. 1838, p. 181). [Nor does ἐí ðíåýìáôé refer to the Holy Spirit, even secondarily (Davenant).—R.] There is no proof here of the danger of enticement to which the Colossians were exposed, nor of the greatness of the Apostle’s anxiety, though these are involved. This proof lies in what follows; a description of the possessions endangered through the dangerous false teachers: joying and beholding your order and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ.—“Joying and beholding”. describe the mode of Paul’s presence. The joy is emphasized by the position, in order to point to the noble possessions which it concerns: his joy on this account enchains him, so that he stands there as a spectator. The representations made by Epaphras were sufficient to bring him into this attitude, although he was then unknown and absent. The object of the “joying and beholding” is, first, “your order;” its opposite is ἀôáîßá . It is the external appearance of the Church in good order—fixed, orderly deportment (1Co_14:40); ὑìῶí , placed first, indicates the contrast with the false teachers, who disturb such order. Secondly, “and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ,” describes sharply and definitely the internal state of the Church. ÓôåñÝùìá , firmamentum, like ôÜîéò , is a military word, a fortification into and upon which they could and should fall back; perhaps suggested by ἀãῶíá (Col_2:1). 1Pe_5:9 : óôåñåïὶ ôῇ ðßóôåé is similar. It is incorrect to regard the participles as a hendiadys: cum gaudeo videns (Bengel), or gaudeo videns (Grotius), nor is êáß causal: quia video (Calvin), nor explicative: to wit (Winer’s Gram. p. 438), nor can the order of words be called illogical. Neither should another object than that of âëÝðùí be given to ÷áßñùí : his spiritual presence with the readers (Meyer, Schenkel), or about you (Winer), [apparently Ellicott, see Alford also.—R.] ÓôåñÝùìá is not= óôåñÝïôçò (Huther and others). [Alford: not any abstract quality, but as all nouns in - ìá , the concrete product of the abstract quality.—R.] Finally we cannot limit this to a part of the Church (Flatt) which was unseduced, or apply it to the whole, hypothetically, were this the case (Baumgarten-Crcsius). [Ellicott: “after these words we have no reason for doubting that the church at Colosse—was substantially sound in the faith.”—R.]
Admonition to fidelity in walk, Col_2:6-7.
Col_2:6. As then ye have received Christ Jesus the Lord.—The emphasis rests upon ὡò ; on which account êáèþò is repeated (Col_2:7). “Ye have been taught” there corresponds to “ye have received” here. Comp. ver 8: êáôὰ ôὴí ðáñÜäïóéí ; Eph_4:20 : ἐìÜèåôå ; 1Th_2:13 : ðáñáëáâüíôåò — ἐäÝîáóèå . It is not then: have accepted [angenommen habt (Luther and others); it refers to correct instruction. “Christ Jesus the Lord” [lit., the Christ, Jesus the Lord.—R.] sets forth the object, and “the summary of the whole confession” (Meyer), giving stronger prominence to the Person. “The Lord” marks, in apposition, what Jesus is for us, whom Paul had named “the Christ” over against God: ôὸíêýñéïí is not to be interpreted, ut dominum (Bengel and others). [Ellicott well remarks: “Though the reference seems mainly to reception by teaching, the object is so emphatically specified, as apparently to require a more inclusive meaning; they received not merely the doctrinam Christi, but Christ Himself, in Himself the sum and substance of all teaching.”—R.] From the favorable state of the Christian cause, the Apostle deduces ( ïὗí ), according to the received instruction, the obligation: walk in him !— Ἐíáὐôῷ standing first, is emphasized; He is the Life-element. “Walk” includes in agreement, external and internal mode and conduct of life. “In Him” is still further explained by
Col_2:7. Rooted and built up, ἐῤῥéæùìÝíïé êáὶ ἐðïéêïäïìïõÝíïé , [lit. “having been rooted and being built up.”—R.]—The perfect denotes a concluded and still efficient fact,—the present, a continuing state, a process of becoming, a progressing development; hence it is not ἐðïéêïäïìçèÝíôåò (Eph_2:20) or ôåèåìåëéùìÝíïé (Eph_3:18). Bengel: præteritum pro initio, præsens etiam in progressu. The figures are different, yet related. Lucian de saltat., 34: ῥßæáé êáὶ èåìÝëéïé . Comp. Eph_3:18. Thus the readers are more closely characterized in their relation to Christ, and obligated to Christian walk. [The mixed figures mark “the stable growth and organic solidity of those who truly walk in Christ.” “The accessory idea of the foundation is admirably conveyed by the ἐðß in the compound verb” (Ellicott).—R.] Schenkel is incorrect in beginning a new sentence here, because the participles do not correspond with “walk.”—In him, is of course to be joined with both participles according to the figure. Christ is first regarded as the soil, and then as the corner stone, [foundation,—R.]; but not as the bond of the root-fibres and the parts of the building (Schenkel).
And stablished by faith.—To the objective ground of life, the subjective element is thus added. Âåâáéïýìåíïé , also in the present, denotes a progressing development, the means of which is indicated by ôῇ ðßóôåé ; the Christian is fortified by means of appropriating faith; it is almost= äéὰ ôῆò ðßóôåùò (Theophylact), and not the dative of reference: “as to the faith” (De Wette). [The former view is that of Meyer, and Eadie, if ἐí , be omitted. Alford and Ellicott, rejecting ἐí , adopt the latter view. If ἐí áὐôῇ , below, be retained, “faith” must be considered subjective, a view which is preferable on other grounds.—R.]—As ye have been taught.— Êáèþò connects with ôῇ ðßóôåé , and ἐäéäÜ÷èçôå reminds of Epaphras (i. 7).—Abounding therein with thanksgiving, is subordinate to “stablished,” in order to denote the tone in which the “becoming established” acts upon the extension and enlargement of the measure of faith. [Ellicott; “mainly reiterating with a quantitative, what had previously been expressed with a, qualitative reference.—R.] Hence ðåñéóóåýïíôåò ἐí áὐôῇ is abundantes ea, i. e., fide (Php_1:9; Rom_15:13; 2Co_8:7), which is felt to be a privilege, a great gift; ἐí åὐ÷áñéóôßᾳ = óὺí åὐ÷áñéóôßᾳ (Œkumen). [Alford: “the field of operation in which that abundance is manifested.” Ellicott more accurately distinguishes: “the accompaniment with which ðåñéóó . ἐí ðßóôåé was associated and as it were, environed.”—R.] Luther incorrectly joins (reichlich dankbar) “abundantly thankful:” the position of the words and the context, which treats of faith, are against this.
Warning against apostasy. Col_2:8.
Col_2:8. Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh you his booty.—The future indicative ( ἔóôáé ) denotes an impending danger, whose entrance is feared as certain. (Heb_3:12; comp. Luk_11:35; Gal_4:11. Winer’s Gram. p. 469.) Õ ̓ ìᾶò ἔóôáé ὁ óõëáãùãῶí is not = óõëáãùãῇ : it marks the continuance of this state; it is not simply that one or another one deceives them, but there is one or another there, who in character and action is a deceiver, ever misleads others. Winer’s Gram. p. 326. ‘ Õìᾶò , emphatically placed, makes perceptible the advantages described in Col_2:4, which they have above others [as well as indicating that they themselves were the booty to be carried away.—R.] The verb, occurring only here in New Testament, means prædam abigere (Bengel: qui non de vobis, sed vos ipsos spoliam faciat): they themselves were made a spoil, lost to the Lord. Luther is incorrect; who may rob you; and the Vulgate (decipiat).
Through philosophy and vain deceit.—The means employed by the seducers. Since the preposition and article are not repeated, one means, a category is here presented. Bengel: quod adversarii jactabant esse philosophiam et sapientiam, id Paulus inanem fraudem esse dicit. [Not “philosophy” in general, but what they called such, which was “vain deceit.”—R.] In distinction from “enticing words,” Col_2:4, “philosophy” refers to the substance, the thought and doctrine (against Theodoret, Calvin and others); in distinction from óýíåóéò , ἐðßãíùóéò , ἐðéóôÞìç (against Tittmann), to a system; according to the state of the Church and the context, an Oriental, and according to Col_2:11; Col_2:16; Col_2:18, somewhat Judaistic system, although the future ( ἔóôáé ) may point to one just arising. It is not to be regarded as Hellenic philosophy (tertullian), nor more particularly as Epicurean (Clemens Alex.), or as Platonic and Stoic (Heumann), or Pythagorean (Grotius): nor yet as Gnosticism or Kabbalism (Brucker) whose germs were just discernible. Philo had already called the Jewish religion ôὴí ðÜôñéïí öéëïóïößáí , and Josephus speaks of the three doctrinal systems of the Essenes, Sadducees and Pharisees, as ôñåῖò öéëïóïößáò ; yet it is by no means equivalent on this account to cultus divinus (Heinrich). Paul does not mean philosophy in itself (CalixTus: si dicam, vide, ne decipiat vinum, nec vinum damno, nee usum ejus accusc, sed de vitando abusu moneo), but a certain Judaistico-oriental one (Meyer) which was in itself “vain deceit.” Eph_5:6. On this account the Apostle characterizes it more closely:
After the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world.—Emphatically asyndetic, with the preposition repeated; co-ordinate clauses, which are to be joined, not with the verb, but with what immediately precedes. The first: êáôὰ ôὴí ðáñÜäïóéí ôῶí ἀíèñþðùí marks the origin as purely human in contrast with the revelation from God (Bengel: antitheton, deitatis). The other: êáôὰ ôὰ óôïé÷åῖá ôïῦ êüóìïõ marks the substance (Bengel: antitheton, corporaliter, Col_2:9). Ôὰ óôïé÷åῖá , used in a physical sense 2Pe_3:10; 2Pe_3:12, is here, as in Col_2:20; Gal_4:3; Gal_4:9; Heb_5:12, used in a spiritual, didactic sense; beginnings in education, the A B C of knowledge, upon which childish thoughts the Christian as a man looks down (1Co_13:11). It is incorrect to interpret: principles of the moral life in the world (Huther); precepts of the world (Luther); rudimenta legis ritualia is too limited (Schaubach: Commentatio, qua exponitur quid óô . ô . êïó . in N.T. sibi veluit). Comp. on Col_2:20. [Wordsworth’s interpretation, following that of the Fathers, is curious: “The physical elements, such as the Sun and Moon, regulating times and seasons; and according to superstitious observances of times, Fasts, New Moons, and Seventh Day Sabbaths ordered thereby, as if they were of the same importance as articles of faith, and equally necessary to salvation.” Ellicott’s view is to be preferred: “all rudimental religious teaching of non-Christian character, whether heathen or Jewish or a commixture of both,—the first element possibly slightly predominating in thought here, the second in Col_2:20.” Whether the immediate reference be to Judaistic errors or not, the phrase must not be limited to Jewish worship (Eadie) or ritualistic observances (Alford), for the Apostle is not describing the things themselves, but giving the category ( êáôÜ ) to which they belong. A careful investigation of his use of the phrase will not justify any such limitation. Comp. Galatians, pp. 96, 105.—R.]—And not after Christ.—Sharply conclusive, comprehensive negative. Comp. Eph_1:21; 2Co_5:17. Incorrect: after the doctrine of Christ (Erasmus and others). [Meyer: “The activity of this óõëáãùãåῖí does not have Christ as its objective norm.” Eadie: “True Christian science has Him for its centre and Him for its object.” On the whole verse the notes of Wordsworth are very full and interesting as grouping the patristic authorities respecting the angel-worship of the early heretics.—R.]
Praise of the glory of Christ and His work. Col_2:9-15.
Col_2:9. Because in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.—̔́ Ïôé confirms the warning against a doctrine which does not have its norm in Christ, supposing it can transcend Him and yet not attaining to Him. By “in Him dwelleth” ( êáôïéêåῖ not êáôῴêçóå ) Jesus, whose importance is to be portrayed, is described as a habitation, whose value rests upon what is at home there. [“In him” is emphatic, in him and in none other than him (Ellicott).—R.] This is then “all the fulness of the Godhead” (1:19; comp. Rom_15:29; Rom_11:25). èåüôçò must be distinguished from èåéüôçò (Rom_1:20); the former, vocabulum abstractum significantissimum (Bengel), means Deitas, Godhead [das Gottsein], the Divine Essence; the latter, Divinitas, Divinity [Göttlichkeit, the Divine Quality; what is here viewed metaphysically is regarded in 1:19, charismatically (Meyer). èåüôçò is not to be understood as meaning God’s will (the Socinians), Divine grace and gift (Schleiermacher), nor does “all the fulness of the Godhead” refer to the Christian Church (Heinrich, Schenkel and others). Óùìáôéêῶò , placed last for emphasis, limits “dwelleth,” which refers, in the present, to the permanent state of the present and exalted Christ, founded (1:15) upon His nature, and is to be regarded, in contrast with “rudiments of the world” (Col_2:8), and “shadows” (Col_2:17), as indicating the full nature of the matter, and from the relation of ïἷêïò and óῶìá (2Co_5:1 sq.) with a reference to the Incarnation (Hoffmann, Schriftbew. II. pp. 27 sq, 533; Schmid, Bibl. Theologie, 2, p. 301). Hence it is neither= ïὐóéùäῶò (Cyril, Steiger, Huther), since there is no contrast between ïὐóßá in Christ and ἐíÝñãåéá in the prophets, nor= ἐí ôῷ óþìáôé , whether this be referred to the Church (Schenkel) or to the body, which He assumed of the Virgin, that is now glorified (Meyer): before the Incarnation He was å ̇ í ìïñöῇ èåïῦ (Php_2:6). Beyond Christ there is no eternal truth; beyond Him is away from Him. [Wordsworth interprets: 1, substantially and truly (Hilary); 2, bodily, in distinction from “soul” (Council of Antioch),—quoting Augustine, who combines both views. But the literal interpretation is far preferable: “in bodily fashion” (Ellicott). “Before His Incarnation the fulness dwelt in Him, as the ëüãïò ἄóáñêïò , but not óùìáôéêῶò , as now that He is the ëüãïò ἔíóáñêïò ” (Alford). If this be the correct view, then with Meyer we must regard the present, êáôïéêåῖ , as referring the whole expression to the glorified Christ. He also finds an apologetic design in the emphasis given to the adverb, “bodily,” since the false teachers, “by their doctrine of angels (comp. Col_2:10), appear to have spiritualistically split up the ðëÞñùìá ôῆò èåüôçôïò .”—R.]
Col_2:10. And ye are made full in him.—[Perhaps to bring out the double predication involved in the position of the words, it were better to render: “And ye (being) in Him are made full.”—R.] K áß is a simple copulative, making the clause depend upon ὄôé . ̔ ÅóôÝ (not ãßíåóèå ) standing first is pregnant: “ye are,” need not first become so; the “being” is more strongly marked than the subject, in contrast to Christ; hence ὑìåῖò is not expressed. It is not the imperative (Grotius and others): Beneficium Christi, non nostrum officium (Calov.). But only in Him are they ðåðëçñùìÝíïé . Erasmus: Christo cum sitis semel insiti; Bengel: ipse plenus, nos replete. Luther is incorrect: vollkommen. [E. V. also—“complete.” Eadie’s translation is given above; Alford: “filled up;” Ellicott, as above, also “filled full,”—Rhemish, “in Him replenished.”—R. ] The perfect excludes the further effect of the fact. Neither ôῆò èåüôçôïò (Theophylact and others) nor sapientia et virtute (Bengel) is to be Bupplied; the first is not indicated by the text, which does not read êáὶ õìåῖò , nor the second by the context. Divine Truth, Power, Life are treated of. Comp. Eph_3:19; Joh_1:16.—[Meyer: “Out of the ‘fulness of the Godhead’ which dwells in Christ, flows the being made full of the Christian, which therefore has its ground in none other than Christ and in nothing else than fellowship with Him. Filled with what? The answer is self-evident to the consciousness of the reader. It is the charismatic ðëÞñùóéò which Christians in virtue of their vital union with the Lord have received and continually possess, out of the metaphysical ðëÞñùìá dwelling in Christ, out of the ‘fulness of the Godhead.’ ”—R.]
Who is the head of all principality and power.—This affirms the absolute dignity of Christ over against the angelic world (Col_2:18). Comp. 1:18. In Him they may, must have enough.
Col_2:11. In whom ye also were circumcised.—[ Ê á ß , “also,” emphasizes the fact stated by the verb, which is a historical aorist: hence “were” not “are” (E. V.).—R.] The reference is to their entrance into Christianity, to conversion, regeneration in Christ. The Christian is circumcised, not indeed as the Judaistic teachers required, with the Jewish circumcision, but: with a circumcision made without hands, ðåñéôïῇ ἀ÷åéñïðïéÞôῳ [“not hand-wrought,” Ellicott.—R.]—The Jewish external rite was ÷åéñïðïßçôïò (Eph_2:11). Comp. Rom_2:28-29; Deu_10:16; Deu_30:6; Jer_9:26; Eze_44:7; Act_7:51. He then sets forth, wherein this spiritual circumcision of the heart, which is better than the Jewish, consists : in the putting off the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ.—[The E. V. not only retains “of the sins,” but is faulty in punctuation; the second ἐí also it renders “by,” when it is parallel to the first.—R.] The first clause is in contrast with the externality, the second with the “hand” that performs it; according to the former this circumcision is a moral advance, according to the latter an act of Christ. “In the putting off the body of the flesh” describes the body on which it takes place, as belonging to the flesh ( óÜñî ), entirely corresponding with the context, and parallel to “the body of sin” (Rom_6:6), which lives in the flesh, so that it is not indifferent (see Eph_2:3). The material, earthly body is not spoken of here, as in 1:22, but the sinfully sensuous organism, “the old man” (Rom_7:14). The substantive ἀðÝêäõóéò (only here) is emphatic and in contrast with the circumcision, which severs only a small part. It is joined with ôïῦóþìáôïò , which naturally neither means, massa, totality (Calvin and others), nor refers to Christ’s body and His death (Schneckenburger), since áὐôïῦ is wanting. Luther, retaining ôῶíἀìáñôéῶí renders incorrectly: “the sinful body in the flesh.”—“In the circumcision of Christ” presents nothing new or important, except in the genitive, which denotes the author (Theodoret: áἴôéïò ) of the circumcision. [Ellicott: “the originating cause; Christ by union with Himself brings about the circumcision and imparts it to believers.”—R.] It is incorrect to apply it to the circumcision to which Christ was subjected (Schöttgen), or to view Christ only as the Mediator of it (Meyer). Nor should we on account of ἀ÷åéñïðïéÞôïõ apply it to baptism (Storr [Alford apparently], and others).
Col_2:12. Buried with him in baptism.—The participle óõíôáöÝíôåò , following ðåñéåôìÞèçôå (Col_2:11), denotes the progress of the entrance of conversion. “Putting off the body” reminded of death; “being buried” was readily suggested. Áὐôῶ , governed by óýí in composition, denotes the fellowship with Christ, which is consummated “in baptism,” that is a water bath and a water grave for the “old man.” Comp. Rom_6:3-4. We live Christ’s life, with and through Him, symbolically, ethically, spiritually, but actually and really. [“Burial implies a previous death.” “The reality of death is evinced by burial.” “This point of burial they had reached—when they were baptized—for then they personally professed a faith which implied the death of sin within them” (Eadie). The reference to burial in connexion with baptism, suggests, that death to sin had already taken place, hence this ordinance has not in itself any efficacy “in the putting off the body of the flesh.” There is no doubt that the participle describes an action nearly contemporaneous with that of the preceding verb. This rite would speedily follow the “putting off;” though Alford is scarcely correct: “the new life being begun at baptism.”—Braune admits, as must be done, an allusion to immersion in baptism, but enters into no discussion as to the mode; the question is not deemed so important in Germany as it has been made here. Eadie says: “Whatever may be otherwise said in favor of immersion, it is plain that here the burial is wholly ideal.—Believers are buried in baptism, but even in immersion they do not go through a process having any resemblance to the burial and resurrection of Christ.” Alford correctly admits an allusion to the êáôÜäõóéò and ἀíÜäõóéò in baptism, but adds, “To maintain from such a circumstance that immersion is necessary in baptism, is surely the merest trifling, and a resuscitation of the very ceremonial spirit which the Apostle here is arguing against.” A fair exegesis must allow that the passage proves immersion to be baptism; whether baptism is immersion turns on something else than exegesis; see controversial works on both sides of the question. A list will be found, Lange’s Com. Matthew, p. 560.—R.]
In whom ye were also raised together through the faith.—[So Braune renders. The aorist óõíçãÝñèçôå , must be rendered “were raised.” Whether raised “together” or “with Him,” depends upon the reference in ἐíᾧ : in baptism or in Christ.—R.] Ἐí ᾧ is parallel to ἐíᾧ (Col_2:11), and refers like ὄò (Col_2:10) to Christ and not to baptism; êáὶ óõíçãÝñèçôå does not confirm the latter reference, but requires the former, since êáß renders prominent an advance from the “burial” in immersion at baptism—the new life would not enter with the immersion but with the emersion, and we should find ἐî ïὗ or äé ’ ïὗ [i.e., were the reference to baptism.—R.]. The fellowship with the life of Christ (“raised together”) rests upon union with His Person ( ἐí ᾧ ). [So Davenant, Meyer, Eadie. For the other view, see Alford and Ellicott in loco.—R.] Hence there is no pleonasm here (De Wette), nor any reference to the resurrection of the body, which is an ideal possession before the parousia, but becomes a reality with it (Meyer, the Greek Fathers: êáὶ ãὰñ ἐãçÝñìåèá ôῇ äõíÜìåé , åἰ êáὶ ìῆ ôῇ ἐíåñãåé ̇ á ). ÓõíçãÝñèçôå notes an accomplished fact, corresponding with that accomplished in baptism, and like this, actual, but according to the context, spiritual, ethical. After the negative side of dying to sin, the positive side of a new life is set forth, prominence being given to the subjective appropriation, äéὰ ôῆò ðßóôåùò , hinted at already in ἐíᾧ Bengel is excellent: ut mors est ante resurrectionem, sic baptismus natura præcedit fidem adultam. The genitive depending on ðßóôåùò : of the operation of God, can only set forth the object, since only this (Eph_3:12; Php_1:27; Php_3:9; Rom_3:22; Gal_2:16; Gal_2:20; Gal_3:22), or the believing subject (Col_2:5; Col_1:4; 1Th_1:3; 1Th_3:2) is denoted by the genitive. [Ellicott, while taking this as the genitive objecti, considers the statement of Meyer, referred to above, and endorsed by Eadie and Alford, as not perfectly certain.—R.] Luther is incorrect: “which God works.”
God is then characterized : who hath raised him from the dead, because the syllogism runs: Has God raised Christ, then can He also bring me to new life (comp. Eph_1:19-20). It is precisely through faith in such an “operation of God,” that this is experienced.
Col_2:13. And you being dead in your sins.—[“When you were dead,” Ellicott.—R.] See on Eph_2:1-5. Here the “being dead” is more strongly marked, than the “being;” there the simple dative marks the cause of this condition, here the results manifesting the condition are added; there inward motions ( ἀìáñôßá ) are added to outward transgressions ( ðáñáðôþìáôá ), here is added: and the uncircumcision of your flesh (the preposition “in” is supplied in thought).—This means the uneradicated, sensuous, sinful nature which marked the heathen. “Uncircumcision” according to the context is ethical, spiritual (Deu_10:16; Jer_4:4), and is more closely characterized by the genitive. This is epexegetical, óÜñî being used, as in Col_2:11, in the ethical sense, so that the carnal nature is regarded as their uncircumcision (Bleek). Bengel: exquisita appellatio peccati originalis. Meyer is incorrect in taking íÝêñïõò and ἀêñïâõóôéá literally, and óÜñî as indifferent. [Meyer seems to place the moral significance in ôῆòóáñêüò hence ἀêñïâõóôßá , which is their state still, is now indifferent (Alford). This gives to ἀêñïâ . its literal meaning. Eadie takes the whole phrase literally: “Uncircumcision of the flesh was the physical mark of a heathen state.” Ellicott gives a slight ethical force to óáñêüò , which he considers a possessive genitive—they were heathens, unconverted heathens as their very bodies could attest. Braune’s view seems more in accordance with the context.—R.]
You hath he quickened together with him, óõíåòùðïß ͅ çóåí ὑìᾶò óýí áὐô