Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 1:15 - 1:15
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Col_1:15. As to Col_1:15-20, see Schleiermacher in the Stud. u. Krit. 1832, p. 497 ff. (Werke z. Theol. II. p. 321 ff.), and, in opposition to his ethical interpretation (of Christ as the moral Reformer of the world), Holzhausen in the Tüb. Zeitschr. 1832, 4, p. 236 ff.; Osiander, ibid. 1833, 1, 2; Bähr, appendix to Komment. p. 321 ff.; Bleek on Heb_1:2. See generally also Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 153 ff., II. 1, p. 357 ff.; Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 446 f.
After having stated, in Col_1:14, what we have in Christ (whose state of exaltation he has in view, see Col_1:13, τὴν βασιλείαν ), Paul now, continuing his discourse by an epexegetical relative clause, depicts what Christ is, namely, as regards His divine dignity—having in view the influences of the false teachers, who with Gnostic tendencies depreciated this dignity. The plan of the discourse is not tripartite (originator of the physical creation, Col_1:15 f.; maintainer of everything created, Col_1:17; relation to the new moral creation, Col_1:18 ff.,—so Bähr, while others divide differently[23]), but bipartite, in such a way that Col_1:15-17 set forth the exalted metaphysical relation of Christ to God and the world, and then Col_1:18 ff., His historical relation of dignity to the church.[24] This division, which in itself is logically correct (whereas Col_1:17 is not suited, either as regards contents or form, to be a separate, co-ordinate part), is also externally indicated by the two confirmatory clauses ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κ . τ . λ . in Col_1:16 and Col_1:19, by which the two preceding[25] affirmations in Col_1:15 and Col_1:18 are shown to be the proper parts of the discourse. Others (see especially Bengel, Schleiermacher, Hofmann, comp. also Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 77) have looked upon the twice-expressed ὅς ἐστιν in Col_1:15 and Col_1:18 as marking the beginning of the two parts. But this would not be justifiable as respects the second Ὅς ἘΣΤΙΝ ; for the main idea, which governs the whole effusion, Col_1:15-20, is the glory of the dominion of the Son of God, in the description of which Paul evidently begins the second part with the words καὶ αὐτός , Col_1:18, passing over from the general to the special, namely, to His government over the church to which He has attained by His resurrection. On the details, see below.
ὅς ἐστιν κ . τ . λ .] It is to be observed that Paul has in view Christ as regards His present existence, consequently as regards the presence and continuance of His state of exaltation (comp. on. Col_1:13-14); hence he affirms, not what Christ was, but what He is. On this ἐστίν , comp. Col_1:17-18, and 2Co_4:4. Therefore not only the reference to Christ’s temporal manifestation (Calvin, Grotius, Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), but also the limitation to Christ’s divine nature or the Logos (Calovius, Estius, Wolf, and many others, including Bähr, Steiger, Olshausen, Huther) is incorrect. The only correct reference is to His whole person, which, in the divine-human state of its present heavenly existence, is continually that which its divine nature—this nature considered in and by itself—was before the incarnation; so that, in virtue of the identity of His divine nature, the same predicates belong to the exalted Christ as to the Logos. See Php_2:6; Joh_17:5.
εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου ] image of God the invisible. Comp. on 2Co_4:4. As, namely, Christ in His pre-existence[26] down to His incarnation already possessed the essential divine glory, so that He was as to nature ἴσα Θεῷ , and as to form of appearance ἘΝ ΜΟΡΦῇ ΘΕΟῦ ὙΠΆΡΧΩΝ (see on Php_2:6); so, after He had by means of the incarnation divested Himself, not indeed of His God-equal nature, but of His divine ΔΌΞΑ , and had humbled Himself, and had in obedience towards God died even the death of the cross, He has been exalted again by God to His original glory (Php_2:9; Joh_17:5), so that the divine ΔΌΞΑ now exists (comp. on Col_2:9) in His glorified corporeal manifestation (Php_3:21); and He—the exalted Christ—in this His glory, which is that of His Father, represents and brings to view by exact image God, who is in Himself invisible. He is ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ Τῆς ΔΌΞΗς ΚΑῚ ΧΑΡΑΚΤῊΡ Τῆς ὙΠΟΣΤΆΣΕΩς ΘΕΙῦ (Heb_1:3),[27] and, in this majesty, in which He is the exactly similar visible revelation of God, He will present Himself to all the world at the Parousia (Mat_16:27; Mat_25:31; Php_3:20; 2Th_1:7; 1Pe_4:13; Tit_2:13, et al.). The predicate τοῦ ἀοράτου , placed as it is in its characteristically significant attributive position (Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. xxxvi.; Bernhardy, p. 322 f.) behind the emphatic τοῦ Θεοῦ , posits for the conception of the exact image visibility (Heb_12:14; 2Co_3:18; Act_22:11); but the assumption that Paul had thus in view the Alexandrian doctrine of the Logos, the doctrine of the hidden and manifest God (see Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 308; comp. Bähr, Olshausen, Steiger, Huther), the less admits of proof, because he is not speaking here of the pre-existence, but of the exalted Christ, including, therefore, His human nature; hence, also, the comparison with the angel Metatron of Jewish theology (comp. Hengstenberg, Christol. III. 2, p. 67) is irrelevant. The Fathers, moreover, have, in opposition to the Arians, rightly laid stress upon the fact (see Suicer, Thes. I. p. 415) that, according to the entire context, εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ is meant in the eminent sense, namely of the adequate, and consequently consubstantial, image of God ( μόνος … καὶ ἀπαραλλάκτως εἰκών , Theophylact), and not as man (Gen_1:26; comp. also 1Co_11:7; Col_3:10) or the creation (Rom_1:20) is God’s image. In that case, however, the invisibility of the εἰκών is not at all to be considered as presupposed (Chrysostom, Calovius, and others); this, on the contrary, pertains to the Godhead in itself (1Ti_1:17; Heb_11:27), so far as it does not present itself in its εἰκών ; whereas the notion of ΕἸΚΏΝ necessarily involves perceptibility (see above); “Dei inaspecti aspectabilis imago,” Grotius. This visibility—and that not merely mental (Rom_1:20)—had been experienced by Paul himself at his conversion, and at Christ’s Parousia will be fully experienced by all the world. Different from this is the (discursive) cognoscibility of God, which Christ has brought about by His appearance and working. Joh_1:18; Joh_14:9. This applies against the view of Calvin, Clericus, and many others, including de Wette: “in His person, appearance, and operation … God has made Himself as it were visible;” comp. Grotius: “Adam imago Dei fuit, sed valde tenuis; in Christo perfectissime apparuit, quam Deus esset sapiens, potens, bonus;” Baumgarten-Crusius: “the affinity to God (which is held to consist in the destination of ruling over the spirit-world) as Christ showed it upon earth.” Thus the substantiality of the exact image is more or less turned into a quasi or quodammodo, and the text is thus laid open to every kind of rationalizing caprice. We may add that Christ was already, as λόγος ἄσαρκος , necessarily the image of God, but ἘΝ ΜΟΡΦῇ ΘΕΟῦ , in purely divine glory; not, as after His exaltation, in divine-human δόξα ; consequently, the doctrine of an eternal humanity of Christ (Beyschlag) is not to be based on ΕἸΚῺΝ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ . Comp. Wis_7:26, and Grimm, Handb. p. 161 f. The idea, also, of the prototype of humanity, which is held by Beyschlag here to underlie that of the image of God (comp. his Christol. p. 227), is foreign to the context. Certainly God has in eternity thought of the humanity which in the fulness of time was to be assumed by His Son (Act_15:18); but this is simply an ideal pre-existence (comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 41 ff.), such as belongs to the entire history of salvation, very different from the real antemundane existence of the personal Logos.
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως ] After the relation of Christ to God now follows His relation to what is created, in an apologetic interest of opposition to the Gnostic false teachers; βούλεται δεῖξαι , ὅτι πρὸ πάσης τῆς κτίσεώς ἐστιν ὁ υἱός · πῶς ὤν ; διὰ γενήσεως · οὐκοῦν καὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων πρότερος , καὶ οὕτως ὥστε καὶ αὐτὸς ἔκτισεν αὐτούς , Theophylact. The false teachers denied to Christ the supreme unique rank in the order of spirits. But he is first-born of every creature, that is, born before every creature—having come to personal existence,[28] entered upon subsistent being, ere yet anything created was extant (Rom_1:25; Rom_8:39; Heb_4:13). Analogous, but not equivalent, is Pro_8:22 f. It is to be observed that this predicate also belongs to the entire Christ, inasmuch as by His exaltation His entire person is raised to that state in which He, as to His divine nature, had already existed before the creation of the world, corresponding to the Johannine expression ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος , which in substance, although not in form, is also Pauline; comp. Php_2:6. Philo’s term πρωτόγονος , used of the Logos, denotes the same relation; but it is not necessary to suppose that Paul appropriated from him this expression, which is also current among classical authors, or that the apostle was at all dependent on the Alexandrian philosophic view. The mode in which he conceived of the personal pre-existence of Christ before the world as regards (timeless) origin, is not defined by the figurative πρωτότοκος more precisely than as procession from the divine nature (Philo illustrates the relation of the origin of the Logos, by saying that the Father ἀνέτειλεν Him), whereby the premundane Christ became subsistent ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ and ἴσα Θεῷ (Php_2:6). The genitive πάσης κτίσεως , moreover, is not the partitive genitive (although de Wette still, with Usteri, Reuss, and Baur, holds this to be indubitable), because the anarthrous πᾶσα κτίσις does not mean the whole creation, or everything which is created (Hofmann), and consequently cannot affirm the category or collective whole[29] to which Christ belongs as its first-born individual (it means: every creature; comp. on πᾶσα οἰκοδομή , Eph_2:21[30]); but it is the genitive of comparison, corresponding to the superlative expression: “the first-born in comparison with every creature” (see Bernhardy, p. 139), that is, born earlier than every creature. Comp. Bähr and Bleek, Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, I. p. 241; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 424; Philippi, Glaubensl. II. p. 214, ed. 2. In Rev_1:5, πρωτότοκ . τῶν νεκρῶν , the relation is different, τ . νεκρῶν pointing out the category; comp. πρωτότοκ . ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδ ., Rom_8:29. The genitive here is to be taken quite as the comparative genitive with πρῶτος ; see on Joh_1:15, and generally, Kühner, II. 1, p. 335 f. The element of comparison is the relation of time ( πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι , Joh_17:5), and that in respect of origin. But because the latter in the case of every ΚΤΊΣΙς is different from what it is in the case of Christ, neither πρωτόκτιστος nor πρωτόπλαστος is made use of,[31]—terms which would indicate for Christ, who is withal Son of God, a similar mode of origin as for the creature—but the term πρωτότοκος is chosen, which, in the comparison as to time of origin, points to the peculiar nature of the origination in the case of Christ, namely, that He was not created by God, like the other beings in whom this is implied in the designation κτίσις , but born, having come forth homogeneous from the nature of God. And by this is expressed, not a relation homogeneous with the κτίσις (Holtzmann), a relation kindred to the world (Beyschlag, Christol. p. 227), but that which is absolutely exalted above the world and unique. Theodoret justly observes: οὐχ ὡς ἀδελφὴν ἔχων τὴν κτίσιν , ἀλλʼ ὡς πρὸ πᾶσης κτίσεως γεννηθείς . At variance with the words, therefore, is the Arian interpretation, that Christ is designated as the first creature; so also Usteri, p. 315, Schwegler, Baur, Reuss. With this view the sequel also conflicts, which describes Christ as the accomplisher and aim of creation; hence in His case a mode of origin higher and different from the being created must be presupposed, which is, in fact, characteristically indicated in the purposely-chosen word πρωτότοκος . The Socinian interpretation is also incorrect[32] (Grotius, Wetstein, Nösselt, Heinrichs, and others), that κτίσις denotes the new ethical creation, along with which there is, for the most part, associated the reference of πρωτότοκ . to the highest dignity (Pelagius, Melanchthon, Cameron, Hammond, Zachariae, and others, including Storr and Flatt; comp. de Wette), which is assumed also by many who understand it of the physical creation. It is decisive against this interpretation, that κτίσις would necessarily require for the moral notion a more precise definition, either by a predicate ( καινή , 2Co_5:17; comp. Barnabas, ep. c. xvi.: λαβόντες τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ ἐλπίσαντες ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου , ἐγενόμεθα καινοὶ , πάλιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς κτιζόμενοι ), or at least by a context which admitted of no doubt; also, that πρωτότοκος never means the most excellent, and can only have this sense ex adjuncto (as at Psa_89:28; Rom_8:29), which in this passage is not by any means the case, as the context (see Col_1:16, and πρὸ πάντων in Col_1:17; comp. also πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν in Col_1:18) brings prominently forward the relation of time. Chrysostom justly says: οὐχὶ ἀξίας κ . τιμῆς , ἀλλὰ χρόνου μόνον ἐστὶ σημαντικόν , and already Theophilus, ad Autol. ii. 31, p. 172: ὅποτε δὲ ἠθέλησεν ὁ Θεὸς ποιῆσαι ὅσα ἐβουλεύσατο , τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ἐγέννησε προφορικόν , πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως . This πρωτότοκον εἶναι belongs to the high dignity of Christ (comp. Rev_3:14 : ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ ), but it does not signify it. Comp. Justin, c. Tr. 100: πρωτότοκον μὲν τοῦ Θεοῦ κ . πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων . The ethical[33] interpretation of the passage appears all the more mistaken, since according to it, even if πρωτότοκ . is understood temporally (Baumgarten-Crusius: “ ΚΤΊΣΙς is that which is remodelled, and πρωτότοκος , He who has come first under this category, has first received this higher spiritual dignity”), Christ is made to be included under the κτίσις , which is at variance both with the context in Col_1:16 f., and with the whole N. T. Christology, especially the sinlessness of Christ. If, however, in order to obviate this ground of objection, ΠΡΩΤΌΤΟΚΟς is combined as an adjective with ΕἸΚΏΝ , we not only get a complicated construction, since both words have their genitival definition, but ΠΡΩΤΌΤΟΚΟς (instead of ΠΡΩΤΌΤΥΠΟς ) would be an inappropriate predicate for εἰκών . This applies against Schleiermacher, who, taking ΚΤΊΣΙς as “disposition and arrangement of human things,” educes the rationalizing interpretation, that Christ is in the whole compass of the spiritual world of man the first-born image, the original copy of God; that all believers ought to be formed in the image of Christ, and thence the image of God would likewise necessarily arise in them—an image of the second order. In the interest of opposition to heresy, some, following Isidore of Pelusium, Ep. iii. 31, p. 237, and Basil the Great, c. Eunom. iv. p. 104, have made the first-born even into the first-bringer-forth ( πρωτοτόκος , as paroxytone, according to the classical usage, Hom. Il. xvii. 5; Plat. Theaet. p. 161 A, 151C; Valckenaer, Schol. II. p. 389), as, with Erasmus in his Annot. (but only permissively) Erasmus Schmid and Michaelis did, although πρωτοτόκος in an active sense occurs only of the female sex, and the very ΠΡΩΤΌΤΟΚΟς ἘΚ Τ . ΝΕΚΡ . of Col_1:18 ought to have dissuaded from such an idea, to say nothing of the unfitness and want of delicacy of the figure[34] as relating to Christ’s agency in the creation of the world, and of the want of reference in the πρῶτον to the idea of a δεύτερον —an idea which, with the usual interpretation, is implied in κτίσεως .
Col_1:15 f. is, moreover, strikingly opposed to that assumption of a world without beginning (Schleiermacher, Rothe).
[23] e.g. Calovius: “Redemptoris descriptio a Deitale: ab opere creationis,” and “quod caput ecclesiae sit.” Comp. Schmid, Bibl. Theol. II. p. 299 f.
[24] Olshausen brings the two divisions under the exegetically erroneous point of view that, in vv. 15–17, Christ is described without reference to the incarnation, and in vv. 18–20, with reference to the same.
[25] In conformity with the confirmatory function of the ὅτι , according to which not the clause introduced by ὅτι , but the clause which it is to confirm, contains the leading thought, to which ὅτι κ . τ . λ . is logically subordinated. Hence the two parts are not to be begun with the two clauses ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ themselves (so Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 182), in which case, moreover, ver. 15 is supposed to be quite aloof from this connection—a supposition at variance with its even verbally evident association with ver. 16.
[26] Sabatier, p. 290, without reason represents the apostle as in a state of indistinct suspense in regard to his conception of this pre-existence. And Pfleiderer (in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1871, p. 533) sees in the pre-existence a subjective product, the consequence, namely, of the fact that Christ is the ideal of the destiny of the human mind, hypostasized in a single person, to which is transferred the eternity and unchanged self-equality of the idea.
[27] This is the chief point of agreement between our Epistle and the Epistle to the Hebrews; and it is explained by the Pauline basis and footing, on which the author of the latter stood. The subsequent πρωτότοκος πασ . κτίσ ., however, has nothing to do with πρωτότοκος , Heb_1:6, where the absolute word is rather to be explained in accordance with Rom_8:29. We make this remark in opposition to Holtzmann, according to whom “the autor ad Ephesios as to his Christology walks in the track opened by the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Other apparent resemblances to this letter are immaterial, and similar ones can be gathered from all the Pauline letters.
[28] According to Hofmann (Schriftbew.), the expression is also intended to imply that the existence of all created things was brought about through Him. But this is only stated in what follows, and is not yet contained in πρωτότοκος by itself, which only posits the origin of Christ (as λόγος προφορικός ) in His temporal relation to the creature; and this point is the more purely to he adhered to, seeing that Christ Himself does not belong to the category of the κτίσις Calvin also has understood it as Hofmann does; comp. also Gess, v. d. Pers. Chr. p. 79, and Beyschlag, p. 446, according to whom Christ is at the same time to be designated as the principle of the creature, whose origin bears in itself that of the latter.
[29] Comp. Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 608 C. The article would necessarily be added, as πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις , Jdt_16:14, or ἡ πᾶσα κτίσις , 3Ma_6:2, or ἡκτίσις πᾶσα . Comp. also ὅλη ἡ κτίσις , Wis_19:6.
[30] Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 156: “In relation to all that is created, Christ occupies the position which a first-born has towards the household of his father.” Essentially similar is his view in his Heil. Schr. N. T., p. 16, where π . κτίσ . is held to mean “all creation,” and to signify “all that is created in its unity,” which is also the opinion of Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 211. The interpretation of Hofmann (comp. Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 79) is incorrect, because there would thereby be necessarily affirmed a homogeneous relation of origin for Christ and all the κτίσις The κτίσις would stand to Christ in the relation of the μετατεχθείς , to the πρωτότεκις , of the ἐπίγονος to the πρωτόγονος . Hofmann indeed (Heil. Schr. in loc.) opines that πάσης κτίσεως is simply genitive “of the definition of relation.” But this, in fact, explains nothing, because the question remains, What relation is meant to be defined by the genitive? The πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως is not at all to be got over so easily as it is by Hofmann, namely, with a grammatically erroneous explanation of the anarthrous πᾶσα κτίσις , and with appeal to Psa_89:28 (where, in fact, πρωτότοκος stands without genitive, and áÌÀëå̇ø in the sense of the first rank).
[31] How much, however, the designations πρωτόκτιστος , κτίσμα , κτίζειν κ . τ . λ ., as applied to the origin of the Son, were in use among the Alexandrians (following Pro_8:22, where Wisdom says: κύριος ἔκτισέ με , comp. Sir_1:4; Sir_24:8 f.), may be seen in Gieseler, Kirchengesch. I. 1, p. 327, ed. 4.
[32] The Socinian doctrine argues thus: “primogenitum unum ex eorum numero, quorum primogenitus est, esse necesse est;” but Christ could not be “unus e rebus conditis creationis veteris,”—an assumption which would be Arian; He must consequently belong to the new creation, from which it follows, at the same time, that He does not possess a divine nature. See Catech. Racov. 167, p. 318, ed. Oeder.
[33] Both errors of the Socinians, etc., are already present in Theodore of Mop-suestia, namely, that πρωτότοκος πάτ . κτίτ does not stand ἐτὶ χρόνου , but ἐπὶ προτιμήσεως and signifies ἐτὶ χρόνου ; and that the following ἐν αὐτῷ κ . τ . λ . does not denote τὴν πρώτην , but τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ γενομένην ἀνάκτισιν . Comp. also Photius, Amphil. 192.
[34] πρῶτον αὐτὸν τετοκέναι , τοῦτʼ ἐστι πιποιηκέναι τὴν κτίσιν , Isidore, l.c.