Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 1:13 - 1:13
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Col_1:13. A more precise elucidation of the divine benefit previously expressed by τῷ ἱκανώσαντι … φωτί . This verse forms the transition, by which Paul is led on to the instructions as to Christ, which he has it in view to give down to Col_1:20.[21]
ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσ . τοῦ σκοτ .] τοῦ σκοτ . is not genitive of apposition (Hofmann), but, corresponding to the εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν that follows, genitive of the subject: out of the power, which darkness has. The latter, as the influential power of non-Christian humanity (of the κόσμος , which is ruled by the devil, Eph_2:2), is personified; its essence is the negation of the intellectual and ethical divine ἀλήθεια , and the affirmation of the opposite. Comp. Luk_22:53; Mat_4:16; Act_26:18; Rom_13:12; Eph_5:8; Eph_6:12, et al. The act of the ἑῤῥύσατο has taken place by means of the conversion to Christ, which is the work of God, Rom_8:29 f.; Eph_2:4 ff. It is to be observed, that the expression ἐκ τ . ἐξουσ . τ . σκότους is chosen as the correlative of ἐν τῷ φωτί in Col_1:12.
καὶ μετέστησεν ] The matter is to be conceived locally ( εἰς ἕτερον τόπον , Plat. Legg. vi. p. 762 B), so that the deliverance from the power of darkness appears to be united with the removing away into the kingdom, etc. Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 518 A: ἔκ τε φωτὸς εἰς σκότος μεθισταμένων καὶ ἐκ σκότους εἰς φῶς .
εἰς τὴν βασιλ . κ . τ . λ ., that is, into the kingdom of the Messiah, Eph_5:5; 2Pe_1:11; for this and nothing else is meant by ἡ βασιλεία Χριστοῦ ( τοῦ Θεοῦ , τῶν οὐρανῶν ) in all passages of the N. T. Comp. Col_4:11; and see on Rom_14:17; 1Co_4:20; Mat_3:2; Mat_6:10. The aorist μετέστ . is to be explained by the matter being conceived proleptically ( τῇ γὰρ ἐλπίδι ἐσώθημεν , Rom_8:24), as something already consummated (comp. on ἐδόξασε , Rom_8:30). Thus the kingdom which is nigh is, by means of their fellowship of life with their Lord (Eph_2:6), as certain to the redeemed as if they were already translated into it. The explanation which refers it to the Christian church (so still Heinrichs, Bähr, Huther, and most expositors) as contrasted with the κόσμος , is just as unhistorical as that which makes it the invisible inward, ethical kingdom (see especially Olshausen, following an erroneous view of Luk_17:21), to which also Bleek and Hofmann ultimately come. Certainly all who name Christ their Lord are under this king (Hofmann); but this is not yet his βασιλεία ; that belongs to the future αἰών , Eph_5:5; 1Co_6:9 f., 1Co_15:24; 1Co_15:50; Gal_5:21, et al.; Joh_18:36.
τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ ] in essential meaning, indeed, nothing else than τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ (Mat_3:17; Mat_17:5, et al.), or τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ αὐτοῦ (Mat_12:18; Mar_12:6), but more prominently singling out the attribute (Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 141 [E. T. 162]): of the Son of His love, that is, of the Son who is the object of His love, genitive of the subject. Comp. Gen_35:18 : υἱὸς ὀδύνης μου . Entirely parallel is Eph_1:6 f.: ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ , ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν κ . τ . λ . Augustine, de Trin. xv. 19, understood it as genitive of origin, making ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ denote the divine substantia.[22] So again Olshausen, in whose view the expression is meant to correspond to the Johannine ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΉς . This is entirely without analogy in the N. T. mode of conception, according to which not the procreation (Col_1:15), but the sending of the Son is referred to the divine love as its act; and the love is not the essence of God (in the metaphysical sense), but His essential disposition (the essence in the ethical sense), even in 1Jn_4:8; 1Jn_4:16. Consequently it might be explained: “of the Son, whom His love has sent,” if this were suggested by the context; so far, however, from this being the case, the language refers to the exalted Christ who rules ( βασιλείαν ). The expression itself, Ὁ ΥἹῸς Τῆς ἈΓΆΠ . ΑὐΤΟῦ , is found in the N. T. only here, but could not he chosen more suitably or with deeper feeling to characterize the opposite of the God-hated element of σκότος , which in its nature is directly opposed to the divine love. The view, that it is meant to be intimated that the sharing in the kingdom brings with it the ΥἹΟΘΕΣΊΑ (Huther, de Wette), imports what is not expressed, and anticipates the sequel. Holtzmann without ground, and unfairly, asserts that in comparison with Eph_1:6 our passage presents “stereotyped modes of connection and turns of an ecclesiastical orator,” under which he includes the Hebraizing Ὁ ΥἹῸς Τῆς ἈΓΆΠΗς ΑὐΤ . as being thoroughly un-Pauline—as if the linguistic resources of the apostle could not even extend to an expression which is not indeed elsewhere used by him, but is in the highest degree appropriate to a specially vivid sense of the divine act of love; something sentimental in the best sense.
[21] This Chiristological outburst runs on in the form of purely positive statement, although having already in view doctrinal dangers of the kind in Colossae. According to Holtzmann, the Christology belongs to the compiler; the whole passage, vv. 14–20, is forced and without motive, and it is only in ver. 21 that we find the direct sequel to ver. 13. The latter statement is incorrect. And why should this excursus, as a grand basis for all the exhortations and warnings that follow, be held without due motive? Holtzmann forms too harsh a judgment as to the whole passage Col_1:9-23, when he declares it incompatible with any strict exegetical treatment.
[22] Theodore of Mopsuestia finds in the expression the contrast that Christ was the Son of God οὐ φύσει , ἀλλʼ ἀγάπῃ τῆς υἱοθεσίας .