Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 1:17 - 1:17
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Col_1:17. Καὶ αὐτός ] which is to be separated from the preceding by a comma only (see on Col_1:16), places, in contradistinction to the created objects in Col_1:16 ( τὰ πάντα ), the subject, the creating self: “and He Himself, on His part, has an earlier existence than all things, and the collective whole subsists in Him.” Never is αὐτός in the nominative[39] the mere unemphatic “he” of the previous subject (de Wette), either in Greek authors or in the N. T., not even in passages such as Buttmann (Neut. Gr. p. 94 [E. T. 107]) brings forward; see Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 47; Winer, p. 141 f. [E. T. 187]; Kühner, II. 1, p. 563.
πρὸ πάντων ] like ΠΡΩΤΌΤΟΚΟς , referring to time, not to rank (as the Socinians, Nösselt, Heinrichs, Schleiermacher, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others hold); Paul thus repeatedly and emphatically lays stress on the pre-existence of Christ. Instead of ἐστί , he might have written ἦν (Joh_1:1); but he makes use of the former, because he has in view and sets forth the permanence of Christ’s existence, and does not wish to narrate about Him historically, which is done only in the auxiliary clauses with ὅτι , Col_1:16; Col_1:19. On the present, comp. Joh_8:58. His existence is more ancient than that of all things ( ΠΆΝΤΩΝ , not masculine, as the Vulgate and Luther translate).
ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ ] as in Col_1:16, referring to the causal dependence of the subsistence of all existing things on Christ.
συνέστηκε ] denotes the subsistence of the whole, the state of lasting interdependence and order,—an idea which is not equivalent to that of creation, but presupposes it. Reiske, Ind. Dem. ed. Schaef. p. 481: “Corpus unum, integrum, perfectum, secum consentiens esse et permanere.” Comp. 2Pe_3:5; Plat. Rep. p. 530 A: ξυνεστάναι τῷ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ δημιουργῷ αὐτόν τε καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ , Tim. 61 A: γῆν … ξυνεστηκυῖαν , Legg. vii. p. 817 B: ἡ πολιτεία ξυνέστηκε μίμησις τοῦ καλλίστου … βίου . Herod. vii. 225; Philo, quis rer. div. haer. p. 489: ὁ ἔναιμος ὄγκος , ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ διαλυτὸς ὢν καὶ νεκρὸς , συνέστηκε κ . ζωπυρεῖται προνοίᾳ Θεοῦ κ . τ . λ . It expresses that there is in Christ not merely the creative cause, but also the cause which brings about organic stability and continuance in unity (preserving and governing) for the whole of existing things. Comp. Heb_1:3. Of attempts at explanation under the moral interpretation, we may note that of Schleiermacher: the consolidating of earthly relations and institutions; and that of Baumgarten-Crusius: “in this new world He is Lord in recognition and in sway”
[39] Bengel correctly observes on ver. 16: “Ipse hic saepe positum magnam significat majestatem et omnem excludit creaturam.”
REMARK.
The intentional prominence given to the fact of the creation of all things through Christ, and in particular of the creation of the angels in their various classes, justifies the supposition that the false teachers disparaged Christ in this respect, and that they possessed at least elements of the Gnostic-demiurgic doctrine which was afterwards systematically elaborated. There is no evidence, however, of their particular views, and the further forms assumed by the Gnostic elements, as they showed themselves according to the Fathers in Simon Magus (Iren. Haer. i. 20 “Eunoiam … generare angelos et potestates, a quibus et mundum hunc factum dixit;” comp. Epiph. Haer. xxi. 4), Cerinthus, etc., and especially among the Valentinians, while certainly to be recognised as fundamentally akin to the Colossian doctrinal errors (comp. Heinrici, Valentinian. Gnosis, 1871), are not to be identified with them; nor are those elements to be made use of as a proof of the post-apostolic origin of the epistle, as still is done by Hilgenfeld (see his Zeitschr. 1870, p. 246 f.), and more cautiously by Holtzmann. Of Ebionitism only Essene elements are to be found in Colossae, mingled with other Gnostic doctrines, which were not held by the later Ebionites. In particular, the πρὸ πάντων εἶναι , on which Paul lays so much stress, must have been doubted in Colossae, although a portion of the Ebionites expressly and emphatically taught it ( λέγουσιν ἄνωθεν μὲν ὄντα πρὸ πάντων δὲ κτισθέντα , Epiph. Haer. XXX. 3). Moreover, the opinion that Paul derived the appellations of the classes of angels in Col_1:16 from the language of the heretics themselves (Böhmer, comp. Olshausen) is to be rejected, because in other passages also, where there is no contrast to the Gnostic doctrine of Aeons, he makes use in substance of these names (Rom_8:38; 1Co_15:24; comp. Eph_1:20 ff; Eph_3:10; Eph_6:11 ff.). They are rather to be regarded as well-known and generally-current appellations, which were derived from the terminology of later Judaism, and which heretics made use of in common with the orthodox. The anti-Gnostic element is contained, not in the technical expressions, but in the doctrinal contents of the passage; and it was strong enough to induce Marcion, who took offence at it, to omit Col_1:15-17 (Tertullian, c. Marcion, v. 19). See, besides, Räbiger, Christol. Paul. p. 51 f.; Lechler, apost. Zeit. p. 55 f.; Klöpper, l.c.