Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 1:16 - 1:16
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Col_1:16. For in Him were all things created,—the logically correct confirmation of πρωτότοκος πάσ . κτίσεως . For if the creation of all things took place in Christ, it is evident that He must stand before the series of created things, and be πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως .
ἐν αὐτῷ ] is not equivalent to διʼ αὐτοῦ (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Bleek, and many others), but: on Christ depended (causally) the act of creation, so that the latter was not done independently of Him—in a causal connection apart from Him—but it had in Him the ground essentially conditioning it. In Him lay, in fact, the potency of life, from which God made the work of creation proceed, inasmuch as He was the personal principle of the divine self-revelation, and therewith the accomplisher of the divine idea of the world. A well-known classical usage to denote the dependence of a state of things, the causality of which is contained in any one. See Bernhardy, p. 210; Kühner, II. 1, p. 403 f.; from the N. T., Winer, p. 364 [E. T. 521]. Not as if the “causa principalis” of the creation lay in Christ, but the organic causality of the world’s becoming created was in Him; hence the following διʼ αὐτοῦ affirms not a different state of things, but the same thing under a varied form of conception and designation, by which it is brought out in greater definiteness. The primary ground of creation is ever God, Rom_11:36; 1Co_8:6; Heb_11:3. The speculative interpretation of scholastic theology, which found here the “causa exemplaris,” according to which the idea omnium rerum was in Christ, is indeed followed in the main again by Beyschlag, as earlier by Kleuker, Böhmer, Bähr, Neander, Schleiermacher, Steiger, Julius Müller, Olshausen (the latter saying: “the Son of God is the intelligible world, the κόσμος νοητός , that is, things in their very idea; He bears their essence in Himself”), but is destitute of confirmation from the modes of conception and expression elsewhere in the N. T., and, as ἐκτίσθη denotes the historical fact of the having been created, it would require not ἐν αὐτῷ , but ἐξ αὐτοῦ , by which the coming forth of the real from the ideal existence in Christ might be expressed. Huther finds the inward connection indicated by ἐν αὐτῷ in the idea, that the eternal essence of the universe is the divine essence itself, which in Christ became man. This idea in itself has no biblical ground; and Paul is speaking here, not of the existence and essence of the universe in Christ, but of the becoming created, which took place in Christ ( ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν , Joh_1:4), consequently of a divine act depending on Christ; comp. Joh_1:3 : χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν ; Heb_1:2; and Bleek in loc. Lastly, de Wette finds in ἐν besides the instrumental agency at the same time something of a telic idea (comp. also Ewald and Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 424 f.); but this blending together of two heterogeneous references is not justified by the διʼ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτόν that follows.
ἐκτίσθη ] physical act of creation; Schleiermacher ought not to have called in question the linguistic usage to this effect, with a view to favour the ethical interpretation of the founding of the church. See Wis_1:14; Wis_10:1; Wis_11:18; Deu_4:32; comp. Gen_6:7; Sir_24:9, comp. Sir_15:14; Jdt_13:18; comp. Gen_1:1; 1Co_11:9; Eph_3:9; Rom_1:25; Rev_10:6, comp. Rev_14:7. The word may have the meaning adopted by Schleiermacher: to obtain its arrangement and constitution (Herod. i. 149, 167, 168; Thuc. i. 100; Aesch. Choeph. 484; Soph. Ant. 1101; Pind. Ol. vi. 116; 3 Esdr. 4:53), and that according to the relative nature of the notion implied in the word condere (comp. Blomf. Gloss, in Aesch. Pers. 294); but not here, where it is correlative with πάσης κτίσεως , and where the quite general and in no way to be restricted τὰ πάντα follows. Throughout the N. T., in general κτίζω , κτίσις , κτίσμα , denote the original bringing forth, never merely the arrangement of that which exists; and even in such passages as Eph_2:10; Eph_2:15; Eph_4:24, the relation is conceived, only in a popular manner, as actual creation.
Observe, moreover, the distinction of the tenses: ἐκτίσθη , which denotes the act that took place; and then ἔκτισται , which denotes the creation which has taken place and now subsists. See Winer, p. 255 [E. T. 340]; Kühner, II. 1, p. 143 f., and ad Xen. Mem. iii. 1. 4, iii. 7. 7.
τὰ πάντα ] the collective whole, namely, of what is created. This is then specified in a twofold way, as well in regard to place as in regard to nature.
τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς κ . τ . λ .] the things to be found in the heavens and those to be found on earth. This is certainly a less exact designation of all created things than that in Rev_10:6 ( τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ κ . τ . λ .; comp. Neh_9:6; Gen_2:1, et al.), but does not differ from it, as it does not exclude heaven and earth themselves, the constituent elements of which, in the popular view, are included in these two categories. Comp. 1Ch_29:11. It is incorrect, therefore, to press this expression in opposition to the explanation which refers it to the creation of the world (Wetstein: “non dicit ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ ἐκτίσθη sed τὰ πάντα , etc., quo habitatores significantur, qui reconciliantur,” comp. Heinrichs and others, also Catech. Racov. 132, p. 214, ed. Oeder), and to think, with Schleiermacher, of the kingdom of heaven; but it is arbitrary also, especially after τὰ πάντα , to make the apostle mean primarily the living (Bähr, de Wette) or rational creatures. The expression embraces everything; hence there was neither need for the mention of the lower world, nor, looking at the bipartite form of enumeration, occasion for it (it is otherwise in Php_2:10; Rev_5:3). The idea that Paul could not have adduced those under the earth as a special class of created beings, because God had not created them with the view of their being under the earth (de Wette), would imply a reflection alien to the vivid flow of the passage before us.
τὰ ὁρατὰ κ . τὰ ἀόρατα ] By the latter is meant the heavenly world of spirits, the angelic commonwealth, as is evident from the more precise enumeration which follows, and not the souls of men (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others), which, on the contrary, as animating a portion of the ὁρατά , are included among the latter. Theodoret erroneously asserts that even τὰ ὁρατά applies to heavenly things (sun, moon, and stars); it applies to everything visible, as in Plat. Phaed. p. 79 A: θῶμεν οὖν , εἰ βούλει , ἔφη , δύο εἴδη τῶν ὄντων τὸ μὲν ὁρατόν , τὸ δὲ ἀειδές .
The ἀόρατα are now more precisely specified disjunctively by εἴτε , sive … sive (put more than twice; comp. Plat. Rep. p. 612 A, 493 D; Sir_41:4). As to the four denominations of angels which follow—whose difference of rank Hofmann groundlessly denies,[35] understanding thereby merely “spirits collectively, of whatever name they may be”—see on Eph_1:21; Rom_8:38. In accordance with Eph_1:21, where the grades of angels are mentioned in descending order, the arrangement here must be understood so, that the θρόνοι are the highest and the κυριότητες the lowest class, the ἀρχαί and the ἐξουσίαι being two middle orders lying between these two extremes. At Eph. l.c. Paul names also four grades of the angelic hierarchy; but neither there nor here has he intended to give a complete enumeration of them, for in the former case he omits the θρόνοι , and in the latter the δυνάμεις . The θρόνοι are not mentioned elsewhere in the N. T. (nor yet in Ignat. ad Trail. 5), but they occur in the Test. Levi, p. 548, in which they are placed in the seventh heaven ( ἐν ᾧ ἀεὶ ὕμνοι τῷ θεῷ προσφέρονται ), also in Dionys. Areop. Hier. coel. 6 ff., and in the Rabbins (Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 1097; Schoettgen, Hor. p. 808). As regards the expression, the last three denominations are to be taken as abstracts, which represent the respective concretes, and analogously the concrete noun θρόνοι is used for those to be found on the thrones (for those enthroned); comp. Kühner, II. 1, p. 11; Ruhnken, ad Tim. p. 190. In this case the very natural supposition that the angels, whose designation by the term θρόνοι must have been in current use, were, in the imagery which gave sensuous embodiment to religious ideas, conceived as on thrones, is not to be called in question (in opposition to Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 226). They were probably conceived as enthroned round the throne of God (comp. Rev_4:4; Rev_20:4). It is to be observed, moreover, generally that Paul presupposes the various classes of angels, which he names, as well known; although we are unacquainted with the details of the case, this much is nevertheless certain, that the apostle was far removed from the dreamy fancies indulged in on this point by the later Rabbins (see Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. II. p. 374). But very soon after the apostolic age (comp. Hermas, Past. vis. iii. 4), instruction as to τοποθεσίας τὰς ἀγγελικάς was regarded as teaching for the more perfect. See Ignatius, ad Trall. 5. For the Christian faith there remains and suffices the testimony as to different and distinctively designated stages and categories in the angelic world, while any attempt to ascertain more than is written in Scripture passes into the fanciful domain of theosophy.
With ἐξουσίαι is concluded the confirmatory sentence ( ὅτι ), so that a full stop is to be placed after ἐξουσ . With τὰ πάντα begins a new sentence, in which τὰ πάντα and αὐτός correspond to one another; hence a comma only must stand after ἔκτισται . There is no reason for placing (with Lachmann) τὰ πάντα down to ἐκκλησ . in a parenthesis.
τὰ πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ κ . τ . λ .] a solemn recapitulation,[36] but in such a way that, instead of the act of creation previously mentioned, there is now presented the finished and ready result ( ἔκτισται ); the causal relation which was previously denoted by ἐν is now more precisely indicated as a relation of mediate agency ( διʼ αὐτοῦ , comp. 1Co_8:6); then in εἰς αὐτόν a new element is added, and the emphasis which in Col_1:16 lay on ἐκτίσθη , is now laid on τὰ πάντα which stands at the head of the sentence. We cannot say with Hofmann, that by διʼ αὐτοῦ and εἰς αὐτόν the Son comes to stand in contradistinction to what has been created as Creator, after by ἐν αὐτῷ the creative act has been presented as one that had taken place only not without the Son. By the latter, ἐν αὐτῷ would become too general and indefinite a thought; while διʼ αὐτοῦ in fact leaves the Father as the Creator, which He is, and predicates of the Son merely the “causa medians” of the execution of the work, just as εἰς αὐτόν predicates the “causa finalis” of the same.
εἰς αὐτόν ] in reference to Him, for Him, as the aim and end, “in quo Pater acquiescit,” Beza. Comp. Rom_11:36; 1Co_8:6; Barnab. Ep. 12: ἐν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα καὶ εἰς αὐτόν . The more exact purport of this relation is apparent from all that follows down to Col_1:20. Everything, namely, is created, in order to be dependent on Christ and to serve His will and aim.[37] Comp. on Eph_1:23; Eph_4:10; Php_2:9 ff. The final cause of the world, referred in Rom_11:36 to God, is here affirmed of Christ, and with equal right; for He, as He was the organ of God in creation, is the commissioned ruler to whom the κυριότης τῶν πάντων is committed (Mat_28:18; Php_2:9; 1Co_15:27; Heb_2:8), in order that everything created may have the ethical telic destination of serving Him.[38] More special definitions of the meaning of εἰς αὐτόν are without due warrant, and in particular, the often-repeated one: to His glorification (Beza, Flatt, Böhmer, and others); it lays down Christ in general as the legitimus finis (Calvin).
The expositors, who explain the words as referring to the new moral creation, have summoned to their aid all kinds of arbitrary conjectures in detail—a remark which applies not merely to Nösselt, Heinrichs, and others, but also to Schleiermacher, who holds (comp. Baumgarten-Crusius) that τὰ ἐν τ . οὐρ . is everything that belongs to the kingdom of heaven, and ΤᾺ ἘΠῚ Τ . Γῆς everything which belongs to civil order in earthly kingdoms; that ΤᾺ ὉΡΑΤΆ and ΤᾺ ἈΌΡΑΤΑ apply only to the latter; that the ΘΡΌΝΟΙ Κ . Τ . Λ . are magisterial offices, and the like.
[35] See, on the other hand, Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 292 f.; Philippi, Glaubensl. II. p. 308 f.; Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 559.
[36] Ewald well says: “Just at this point the discourse breaks forth as if with fresh force, so as once more to express as clearly as possible the whole in all conceivable temporal relations.”
[37] And, if the world was created not merely διʼ αὐτοῦ but also εἰς αὐτόν , conse-sequently in telic reference to Him, it is certain that with the counsel of creation there was also posited, in prospect of the entry of sin, the counsel of redemption. Comp. Thomasius, Christi Pers. u. Werk, I. p. 196 f.; Julius Müller, Dogm. Abhand. p. 121 ff.
[38] This εἰς αὐτόν is wrongly found incompatible with 1Co_8:6 (see, after Mayerhoff, Baur, and others, especially Holtzmann, p. 219), where, in fact, it is said of the ethical existence of Christians that they exist for God through Christ, inasmuch as the subject of εἰς αὐτόν (for God) and of διʼ αὐτοῦ (through Christ) is not the universe, but the ἡμεῖς . The relation of subordination between Father and Son would be only done away with at our passage, in the event of its being said of Christ that τὰ πάντα were created ἐξ αὐτοῦ . But by ἑν αὐτῷ , and by the more precise definition διʼ αὐτοῦ , it is guarded; and the subordination remains unaffected by the circumstance that the εἰς αὐτόν is laid down by God for the world as its telic aim. This εἰς αὐτόν ἔκτισται is the necessary preliminary condition, on God’s part, to the universal dominion which he has destined for Christ, and which the latter shall one day, at the goal of consummation, hand over to the Father (1Co_15:24; 1Co_15:28). Moreover, what Paul says of the κτίσις in Romans 8 is essentially connected with that εἰς αὐτόν , which does not go beyond Paul or come at all into opposition to him. The resemblance of our passage to ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος , Rev_1:17; Rev_22:13, rests upon the Christological basis of their common faith, not upon a dependence of our epistle on the Apocalypse, which would doubtless imply a post-Pauline date (in opposition to Holtzmann, p. 247).