Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 1:20 - 1:20
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Col_1:20.[48] “Haec inhabitatio est fundamentum reconciliationis,” Bengel. Hence Paul continues: καὶ διʼ αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα , and through Him to reconcile the whole. As to the double compound ἀποκαταλλ ., prorsus reconciliare,[49] see on Eph_2:16. The considerations which regulate the correct understanding of the passage are: (1) that τὰ πάντα may not in any way be restricted (this has been appropriately urged by Usteri, and especially by Huther); that it consequently cannot be referred either merely to intelligent beings generally (the usual view), or to men (Cornelius a Lapide, Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), especially the Gentiles (Olshausen), or to the “universam ecclesiam” (Beza), but is, according to the context (see Col_1:16 ff.), simply to be taken as quite general: the whole of that which exists (has been created); (2) that the reconciling subject is here not Christ (Hofmann, in accordance with his incorrect reference of εὐδόκησε in Col_1:19), but God, who through Christ ( διʼ αὐτοῦ ) reconciled all things; (3) that consequently ἀποκαταλλάξαι cannot be meant of the transforming of the misrelation between the world and Christ into a good relation (Hofmann), and just as little of the reconciliation of all things with one another, of the removal of mutual hostility among the constituent elements composing τὰ πάντα , but only of the universal reconciliation with the God who is hostile to sin,[50] as is clearly evident from the application to the readers in Col_1:21. The only correct sense therefore is, that the entire universe has been reconciled with God through Christ. But how far? In answering this question, which cannot be disposed of by speculation beyond the range of Scripture as to the having entered into the finite and having returned again to the infinite (Usteri), nor by the idea imported into ἀποκαταλλ . of gathering up into the unity of absolute final aim (Baur, neut. Theol. p. 257), the following considerations are of service: (a) The original harmony, which in the state of innocence subsisted between God and the whole creation, was annulled by sin, which first obtained mastery over a portion of the angels, and in consequence of this (2Co_11:3), by means of the transgression of Adam, over all mankind (Rom_5:12). Comp. on Eph_1:10. (b) Not only had sinful mankind now become alienated from God by sin and brought upon themselves His hostility (comp. Col_1:21), but also the whole of the non-rational creation (Rom_8:19 ff.) was affected by this relation, and given up by God to ματαιότης and δουλεία τῆς φθορᾶς (see on Rom. l.c.). (c) Indeed, even the world of heavenly spirits had lost its harmony with God as it originally existed, since a portion of the angels—those that had fallen—formed the kingdom of the devil, in antagonism to God, and became forfeited to the wrath of God for the everlasting punishment which is prepared for the devil and his angels. (d) But in Christ, by means of His ἱλαστήριον , through which God made peace ( εἰρηνοποιήσας κ . τ . λ .), the reconciliation of the whole has taken place, in virtue of the blotting out, thereby effected, of the curse of sin. Thus not merely has the fact effecting the reconciliation as its causa meritoria taken place, but the realization of the universal reconciliation itself is also entered upon, although it is not yet completed, but down to the time of the Parousia is only in course of development, inasmuch, namely, as in the present αἰών the believing portion of mankind is indeed in possession of the reconciliation, but the unreconciled unbelievers (the tares among the wheat) are not yet separated; inasmuch, further, as the non-intelligent creation still remains in its state of corruption occasioned by sin (Romans 8); and lastly, inasmuch as until the Parousia even the angelic world sees the kingdom of the devil which has issued from it still—although the demoniac powers have been already vanquished by the atoning death, and have become the object of divine triumph (Col_2:15)—not annulled, and still in dangerous operation (Eph_6:12) against the Christian church. But through the Parousia the reconciliation of the whole which has been effected in Christ will reach its consummation, when the unbelieving portion of mankind will be separated and consigned to Gehenna, the whole creation in virtue of the Palingenesia (Mat_19:28) will be transformed into its original perfection, and the new heaven and the new earth will be constituted as the dwelling of δικαιοσύνη (2Pe_3:13) and of the δόξα of the children of God (Rom_8:21); while the demoniac portion of the angelic world will be removed from the sphere of the new world, and cast into hell. Accordingly, in the whole creation there will no longer be anything alienated from God and object of His hostility, but τὰ πάντα will be in harmony and reconciled with Him; and God Himself, to whom Christ gives back the regency which He has hitherto exercised, will become the only Ruler and All in All (1Co_15:24; 1Co_15:28). This collective reconciliation, although its consummation will not occur until the Parousia, is yet justly designated by the aorist infinitive ἀποκαταλλάξαι , because to the telic conception of God in the εὐδόκησε it was present as one moment in conception.
The angels also are necessarily included in τὰ πάντα (comp. subsequently, τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ); and in this case—seeing that a reconciliation of the angels who had not fallen, who are holy and minister to Christ (Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 269 ff.), considered in themselves as individuals, cannot be spoken of, and is nowhere spoken of in the N. T.[51]—it is to be observed that the angels are to be conceived according to category, in so far, namely, as the hostile relation of God towards the fallen angels affected the angelic world viewed as a whole. The original normal relation between God and this higher order of spirits is no longer existing, so long as the kingdom of demons in antagonism to God still subsists—which has had its powers broken no doubt already by the death of Christ (Col_2:14 f; Heb_2:14), but will undergo at length utter separation—a result which is to be expected in the new transformation of the world at the Parousia. The idea of reconciliation is therefore, in conformity with the manner of popular discourse, and according to the variety of the several objects included in τὰ πάντα , meant partly in an immediate sense (in reference to mankind), partly in a mediate sense (in reference to the ΚΤΊΣΙς affected by man’s sin, Romans 8, and to the angelic world affected by its partial fall);[52] the idea of ἀποκαταλλάξαι , in presence of the all-embracing τὰ πάντα , is as it were of an elastic nature.[53] At the same time, however, ἀποκαταλλ . is not to be made equivalent (Melanchthon, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Flatt, Bähr, Bleek, and others) to ἀποκεφαλαιώσασθαι (Eph_1:10), which is rather the sequel of the former; nor is it to be conceived as merely completing the harmony of the good angels (who are not to be thought absolutely pure, Job_4:18; Job_15:15; Mar_10:18; 1Co_6:3) with God (de Wette), and not in the strict sense therefore restoring it—an interpretation which violates the meaning of the word. Calvin, nevertheless, has already so conceived the matter, introducing, moreover, the element—foreign to the literal sense—of confirmation in righteousness: “quum creaturae sint, extra lapsus periculum non essent, nisi Christi gratia fuissent confirmati.” According to Ritschl, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 522 f., Paul intends to refer to the angels that had been active in the law-giving on Sinai (Deu_33:2; Ps. 67:18, LXX.), to whom he attributes “a deviation from God’s plan of salvation.” But this latter idea cannot be made good either by Col_2:15, or by Gal_3:19, or by Eph_3:10, as, indeed, there is nothing in the context to indicate any such reference to the angels of the law in particular. The exegetical device traditionally resorted to, that what was meant with respect to the angels was their reconciliation, not with God, but with men, to whom on account of sin they had been previously inimical (so Chrysostom, Pelagius, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Zanchius, Cameron, Calovius, Estius, Bengel, Michaelis, Böhmer, and others), is an entirely erroneous makeshift, incompatible with the language of the passage.
εἰς αὐτόν ] is indeed to be written with the spiritus lenis, as narrating the matter from the standpoint of the author, and because a reflexive emphasis would be without a motive; but it is to be referred, not to Christ, who, as mediate agent of the reconciliation, is at the same time its aim (Bähr, Huther, Olshausen, de Wette, Reiche, Hofmann, Holtzmann, and others; comp. Estius, also Grotius: “ut ipsi pareant”), but to God, constituting an instance of the abbreviated form of expression very usual among Greek writers (Kühner, II. 1, p. 471) and in the N. T. (Winer, p. 577 [E. T. 776]), the constructio praegnans: to reconcile to Godward, so that they are now no longer separated from God (comp. ἀπηλλοτρ ., Col_1:21), but are to be united with Him in peace. Thus εἰς αὐτ ., although identical in reality, is not in the mode of conception equivalent to the mere dative (Eph_2:16; Rom_5:10; 1Co_7:11; 2Co_5:18-20), as Beza, Calvin, and many others take it. The reference to Christ must be rejected, because the definition of the aim would have been a special element to be added to διʼ αὐτοῦ , which, as in Col_1:16, would have been expressed by καὶ εἰς αὐτόν , and also because the explanation which follows ( εἰρηνοποιήσας κ . τ . λ .) concerns and presupposes simply the mediate agency of Christ ( διʼ αὐτοῦ ).
εἰρηνοποιήσας , down to σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ , is a modal definition of διʼ αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάξαι (not a parenthesis): so that He concluded peace, etc., inasmuch, namely, as the blood of Christ, as the expiatory offering, is meant to satisfy the holiness of God, and now His grace is to have free course, Rom_5:1; Eph_6:15. The aorist participle is, as Col_1:21 shows, to be understood as contemporary with ἀποκαταλλ . (see on Eph_1:9, and Kühner, II. 1, p. 161 f.; Müller in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1872, p. 631 ff.), and not antecedent to it (Bähr), as has been incorrectly held by Ernesti in consistency with his explanation of Col_1:19 (see on Col_1:19), who, moreover, without any warrant from the context, in accordance with Eph_2:14-16, thinks of the conclusion of peace between Jews and Gentiles. The nominative refers to the subject; and this is, as in the whole sentence since the εὐδόκησεν , not Christ (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Luther, Storr, Heinrichs, Flatt, Steiger, Hofmann, and many others), but God. The verb εἰρηνοποιεῖν , occurring only here in the N. T., which has elsewhere ποιεῖν εἰρήνην (Eph_2:15; Jam_3:18), and also foreign to the ancient Greek, which has εἰρηνοποίος , is nevertheless found in Hermes, ap. Stob. Ecl. ph. i. 52, and in the LXX. Pro_10:10.
διὰ τοῦ αἵμ . τ . σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ ] that is, by means of the blood to be shed on His cross, which, namely, as the sacrificial blood reconciling with God (comp. 2Co_5:21), became the causa medians which procured the conclusion of peace between God and the world. Rom_3:25; Rom_5:9 f.; Eph_1:7. The reason, which historically induced Paul to designate the blood of Christ with such specific definiteness as the blood of His cross, is to be sought in the spiritualism of the false teachers, who ascribed to the angels a mediating efficacy with God. Hence comes also the designation—so intentionally material—of the reconciling sacrificial death, Col_1:22, which Hofmann seeks to avoid as such, namely, as respects its definite character of a satisfaction.[54]
διʼ αὐτοῦ ] not with the spiritus asper, equivalent to διʼ ἑαυτοῦ , as those take it who refer εἰρηνοποιήσας to Christ as subject ( ἑαυτὸν ἐκδούς , Theophylact), since this reference is erroneous. But neither can διʼ αὐτοῦ be in apposition to διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τ . στ . αὐτοῦ (Castalio, “per ejus sanguinem, h. e. per eum”), for the latter, and not the former, would be the explanatory statement. It is a resumption of the above given διʼ αὐτοῦ , after the intervening definition εἰρηνοποιήσας κ . τ . λ ., in order to complete the discourse thereby interrupted, and that by once more emphatically bringing forward the διʼ αὐτοῦ which stood at the commencement; “through Him,” I say, to reconcile, whether they be things on earth or whether they be things in heaven. Comp. on Eph_1:11; Rom_8:23.
εἴτε τὰ ἐπὶ τ . γ ., εἴτε τὰ ἐν τ . οὐρ .] divides, without “affected tautology” (Holtzmann), but with a certain solemnity befitting the close of this part of the epistle, the τὰ πάντα into its two component parts. As to the quite universal description, see above on τὰ πάντα ; comp. on Col_1:16. We have, besides, to notice: (1) that Paul here (it is otherwise in Col_1:16, where the creation was in question, comp. Gen_1:1) names the earthly things first, because the atonement took place on earth, and primarily affected things earthly; (2) that the disjunctive expression εἴτε … εἴτε renders impossible the view of a reconciliation of the two sections one with another (Erasmus, Wetstein, Dalmer, and others). To the category of exegetical aberrations belongs the interpretation of Schleiermacher, who understands earthly and heavenly things, and includes among the latter all the relations of divine worship and the mental tendencies of Jews and Gentiles relative thereto: “Jews and Gentiles were at variance as to both, as to the heavenly and earthly things, and were now to be brought together in relation to God, after He had founded peace through the cross of His Son.” The view of Baumgarten-Crusius is also an utter misexplanation: that the reconciliation of men (Jews and Gentiles) among themselves, and with the spirit-world, is the thing meant; and that the reconciliation with the latter consists in the consciousness given back to men of being worthy of connection with the higher spirits.
Lastly, against the reference to universal restoration, to which, according to Olshausen, at least the tendency of Christ’s atonement is assumed to have pointed, see on Eph_1:10, remark 2. Comp. also Schmid in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1870, p. 133.
[48] According to Holtzmann, p. 92, the author is assumed to have worked primarily with the elements of the fundamental passage 2Co_5:18 f., which he has taken to apply to the cosmical ἀποκαταλλαγή . But, instead of apprehending this as the function of the risen Christ, he has by διὰ τοῦ αἵματος κ . τ . λ . occasioned the coincidence of two dissimilar spheres of conception, of which, moreover, the one is introduced as form for the other. The interpolator reproduces and concentrates the thought of Eph_1:7; Eph_1:10; Eph_2:13-17, bringing the idea of a cosmical reconciliation (Eph_1:10) into expression in such a way “that he, led by the sound of the terminology, takes up at the same time and includes the thought of the reconciliation of the Jews and Gentiles.” In opposition to this view, the exegesis of the details in their joint bearing on the whole will avail to show that the passage with all its difficulty is no such confused medley of misunderstanding and of heterogeneous ideas, and contains nothing un-Pauline. The extension of the reconciliation to the celestial spheres, in particular, has been regarded as un-Pauline (see, especially, Holtzmann, p. 231 ff.). But even in the epistles whose genuineness is undisputed it is not difficult to recognise the presuppositions, from which the sublime extension of the conception to an universality of cosmic effect in our passage might ensue. We may add, that Eph_1:10 is not “the leading thought of the interpolation” at ver. 16 ff. (Holtzmann, p. 151); in ver. 16 ff. much more is said, and of other import.
[49] As if we might say in German, abversöhnen, that is: to finish quite the reconciliation. Comp. ἀφιλάσκεσθαι , Plat. Legg. ix. p. 873 A.
[50] God is the subject, whose hostility is removed, by the reconciliation (comp. on Rom_5:10); τὰ πάντα is the object, which was affected by this hostility grounded of necessity on the holiness and righteousness of God. If the hostile disposition of men towards God, which had become removed by the reconciliation, were meant (Ritschl in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 515), the universal τὰ πάντα would not be suitable; because the whole universe might, indeed, be affected by the hostility of God against sin, but could not itself be hostilely disposed towards Him. See, moreover, on ver. 21.
[51] According to Ignatius, Smyrn. 6, the angels also, ἐὰν μὴ πιστεύσωσιν εἰς τὸ αἷμα Χριστοῦ , incur judgment. But this conception of angels needing reconciliation, and possibly even unbelieving, is doubtless merely an abstraction, just as is the idea of an angel teaching falsely (Gal_1:8). It is true that, according to 1Co_6:3, angels also are judged; but this presupposes not believing and unbelieving angels, but various stages of moral perfection and purity in the angelic world, when confronted with the absolute ethical standard, which in Christianity must present itself even to the angels (Eph_3:10). Comp. on 1Co_6:3.
[52] The idea of ἀποκαταλλάξαι is not in this view to be altered, but has as its necessary presupposition the idea of hostility, as is clear from εἰρηνοποίησας and from ἐχθρούς , ver. 21, compared with Eph_2:16! Compare Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 276 ff.; Eur. Med. 870: διαλλαγῆναι τῆς ἔχθρας , Soph. Aj. 731 (744): θεοῖσιν ὡς καταλλαχθῇ χόλου , Plat. Rep. p. 566 E: πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω ἐχθροὺς τοῖς μὲν καταλλαγῇ , τοὺς δὲ καὶ διαφθείρῃ . This applies also against Hofmann’s enervating weakening of the idea into that of transposition from the misrelation into a good one, or of “an action, which makes one, who stands ill to another, stand well to him.” In such a misrelation (namely, to Christ, according to the erroneous view of εὐδόκησε ) stand, in Hofmann’s view, even the “spirits collectively,” in so far as they bear sway in the world-life deteriorated by human sin, instead of in the realization of salvation.—Richard Schmidt, l.c. p. 195, also proceeds to dilute the notion of reconciliation into that of the bringing to Christ, inasmuch as he explains the καταλλάσσειν as effected by the fact that Christ has become the head of all, and all has been put in dependence on Him. Hilgenfeld, l.c. p. 251 f., justly rejects this alteration of the sense, which is at variance with the following context, but adheres, for his own part, to the statement that here the author in a Gnostic fashion has in view disturbances of peace in the heavenly spheres (in the πλήρωμα ).
[53] Comp. Philippi, Glaubensl. IV. 2, p. 269 f., ed. 2.
[54] According to Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 362 ff., by the blood of the cross, ver. 20, the death of Christ is meant to be presented as a judicial act of violence, and “what befell Him” as an ignominy, which He allowed to be inflicted on Him with the view of establishing a peace, which brought everything out of alienation from Him into fellowship of peace with Him. ver. 22 does not affirm the expiation of sin, but the transition of mankind, which had once for all been effected in Christ, from the condition involved in their sin into that which came into existence with His death. Christ has, in a body like ours, and by means of the death to which we are subject, done that which we have need of in order that we may come to stand holy before Him. Not different in substance are Hofmann’s utterances in his Heil. Schr. N. T. But when we find it there stated: “how far Christ has hereby (namely, by His having allowed Himself to be put to death as a transgressor by men) converted the variance, which subsisted between Him and the world created for Him, into its opposite, is not here specified in detail,”—that is an unwarranted evasion; for the strict idea of reconciliation had so definite, clear, firm, and vivid (comp. ver. 14, Col_2:13 f.) a place in the consciousness of the apostle and of the church, which was a Pauline one, that it did not need, especially in express connection with the blood of the cross, any more precise mention in detail. Comp. Gal_3:13; Rom_3:25. Calvin well says: “Ideo pignus et pretium nostrae cum Deo pacificationis sanguis Christi, quia in cruce fusus.”