Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 1:21 - 1:21
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Col_1:21. As far as Col_1:23, an application to the readers of what had been said as to the reconciliation, in order to animate them, through the consciousness of this blessing, to stedfastness in the faith (Col_1:23).
καὶ ὑμᾶς κ . τ . λ .] you also, not: and you, so that it would have to be separated by a mere comma from the preceding verse, and νυνὶ δὲ … θανάτου would, notwithstanding its great importance, come to be taken as parenthetical (Lachmann), or as quite breaking off the discourse, and leaving it unfinished (Ewald). It begins a new sentence, comp. Eph_2:1; but observe, at the same time, that Ephesians 2 is much too rich in its contents to admit of these contents being here compressed into Col_1:20-21 (in opposition to Holtzmann, p. 150). As to the way in which Holtzmann gains an immediate connection with what precedes, see on Col_1:19. The construction (following the reading ἀποκατηλλάγητε , see the critical notes) has become anacoluthic, inasmuch as Paul, when he began the sentence, had in his mind the active verb (which stands in the Recepta), but he does not carry out this formation of the sentence; on the contrary, in his versatility of conception, he suddenly starts off and continues in a passive form, as if he had begun with καὶ ὑμεῖς κ . τ . λ . See Matthiae, p. 1524; Winer, p. 527 ff. [E. T. 714]; and upon the aorist, Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 171 [E. T. 197].
ἀπηλλοτρ . κ . τ . λ ] when ye were once in the state of estrangement, characterizes their heathen condition. As to ἀπηλλοτρ ., see on Eph_2:12; from which passage ἀπὸ τῆς πολιτείας τ . Ἰσρ . is here as unwarrantably supplied (Heinrichs, comp. Flatt), as is from Eph_4:14 τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ (Bähr). In conformity with the context, seeing that previously God was the subject as author of reconciliation, the being estranged from God ( τοῦ Θεοῦ ), the being excluded from His fellowship, is to be understood. Comp. ἄθεοι ἐν τ . κόσμῳ , Eph_2:12. On the subject-matter, Rom_1:21 ff.
ἐχθρούς ] sc. τῷ Θεῷ , in a passive sense (comp. on Rom_5:10; Rom_11:28): invisos Deo,[55] as is required by the idea of having become reconciled, through which God’s enmity against sinful men, who were τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς (Eph_2:3), has changed into mercy towards them.[56] This applies in opposition to the usual active interpretation, which Hofmann also justly rejects: hostile towards God, Rom_8:7; Jam_4:4 (so still Huther, de Wette, Ewald, Ritschl, Holtzmann), which is not to be combined with the passive sense (Calvin, Bleek).
τῇ διανοίᾳ and ἘΝ ΤΟῖς ἜΡΓΟΙς Τ . Π . belong to both the preceding elements; the former as dative of the cause: on account of their disposition of mind they were once alienated from God and hateful to Him; the latter as specification of the overt, actual sphere of life, in which they had been so (in the wicked works, in which their godless and God-hated behaviour had exhibited itself). Thus information is given, as to ἀπηλλ . and ἘΧΘΡΟΎς , of an internal and of an external kind. The view which takes Τῇ ΔΙΑΝΟΊᾼ as dative of the respect (comp. Eph_4:18): as respects disposition (so, following older expositors, Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald), would no doubt suit the erroneous active explanation of ἐχθρ ., but would furnish only a superfluous definition to it, as it is self-evident that the enmity towards God resides in the disposition. Luther incorrectly renders: “through the reason;” for the διάν . is not the reason itself, but its immanent activity (see especially, Plato, Soph. p. 263 E), and that here viewed under its moral aspect; comp. on Eph_4:18. Beza (“mente operibus malis intenta”), Michaelis, Storr, and Bähr attach ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις κ . τ . λ . to Τῇ ΔΙΑΝΟΊᾼ . This is grammatically admissible, since we may say ΔΙΑΝΟΕῖΣΘΑΙ ἘΝ , animo versari in (Psa_73:8; Sir_6:37; Plato, Prot. p. 341 E), and therefore the repetition of the article was not necessary. But the badness of the disposition was so entirely self-evident from the context, that the assumed more precise definition by ἐν τοῖς ἔργ . τ . πονηρ . would appear tediously circumstantial.
The articles Τῇ and ΤΟῖς denote the disposition which they have had, and the works which they have done. In the latter case the subjoined attributive furnished with the article ( τοῖς πονηροῖς ) is not causal (“because they were bad,” Hofmann), but emphatically brings into prominence the quality, as at Eph_6:13; 1Co_7:14, and often (Winer, p. 126 [E. T. 167]).
νυνὶ δὲ ἀποκατηλλάγητε ] as if previously ὙΜΕῖς Κ . Τ . Λ . were used (see above): Ye also … have nevertheless now become reconciled. On δέ after participles which supply the place of the protasis, as here, where the thought is: although ye formerly, etc., see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 374 ff.; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 136; Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 7. 8, Anab. vi. 6. 16. On νυνί , with the aorist following, comp. Col_1:26; Rom_7:6; Eph_2:13; Plat. Symp. p. 193 A: πρὸ τοῦ … ἓν ἦμεν , νυνὶ δὲ διὰ τὴν ἀδικίαν διῳκίσθημεν ὑπὸ τ . θεοῦ . Ellendt, Lex Soph. II. p. 176; Kühner, II. 2, p. 672. It denotes the present time, which has set in with the ἀποκατηλλ . (comp. Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 171 [E. T. 197]); and the latter has taken place objectively through the death of Christ, Col_1:22, although realized subjectively in the readers only when they became believers—whereby the reconciliation became appropriated to them, and there existed now for them a decisive contrast of their νυνί with their ΠΟΤΈ .[57] The reconciling subject is, according to the context (Col_1:19-20), not Christ (as at Eph_2:16), through whom (comp. Rom_5:10; 2Co_5:18) the reconciliation has taken place (see Col_1:20), but, as at 2Co_5:19, God (in opposition to Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Calovius, Heinrichs, and others, including de Wette and Ewald). For the reference to Christ even the reading ἀποκατήλλαξεν would by no means furnish a reason, far less a necessity, since, on the contrary, even this active would have, according to the correct explanation of εὐδόκησε in Col_1:19, to be taken as referring to God (in opposition to Hofmann).
[55] Compare the phrase very current in the classical writers, from Homer onward, ἐχθρὸς θεοῖς , quem Dii oderunt.
[56] See Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 276 ff., who aptly explains καταλλάσσεσθαί τινι : in alicujus favorem venire, qui antea succensuerit. Comp. Philippi, Glaubensl. IV. 2, p. 265 ff., ed. 2. The reconciliation of men takes place, when God, instead of being further angry at them, has become gracious towards them,—when, consequently, He Himself is reconciled. Comp. Luk_18:13; 2Co_5:19. So long as His wrath is not changed, and consequently He is not reconciled, men remain unreconciled. 2Ma_7:33 : ὁ ζῶν κύριος … βραχέως ἑπώργισται καὶ πάλιν καταλλαγήσεται τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ δούλοις , comp. 2Ma_8:29, 2Ma_1:5, 2Ma_5:20; Clem. Cor. I. 48: ἱκετεύοντες αὐτόν (God), ὅπως ἵλεως γενόμενος ἐπικαταλλαγῇ ἡμῖν . In Constt. Apost. viii. 12. 14, it is said of Christ that He τῷ κόσμῳ κατήλλαξε God, and § 17, of God: σοῦ καταλλαγέντος αὐτοῖς (with believers).
[57] Comp. Luthardt, vom freien Willen, p. 403.