Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 1:22 - 1:22
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Col_1:22. Ἐν τῷ σώματι κ . τ . λ .] that, by means of which they have been reconciled; corresponding to the διʼ αὐτοῦ and διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ of Col_1:20 : in the body of His flesh by means of death. Since God is the reconciling subject, we are not at liberty, with Elzevir, Scholz, and others, to read αὑτοῦ (with the spiritus asper), which would not be justified, even though Christ were the subject. We have further to note: (1) διὰ τ . θανάτου informs us whereby the being reconciled ἐν τῷ σώματι τ . σ . αὐ . was brought about, namely, by the death occurring, without which the reconciliation would not have taken place in the body of Christ. (2) Looking to the concrete presentation of the matter, and because the procuring element is subsequently brought forward specially and on its own account by διά , the ἐν is not, with Erasmus and many others, to be taken as instrumental, but is to be left as local; not, however, in the sense that Christ accomplished the ἀποκαταλλάσσειν in His body, which was fashioned materially like ours (Hofmann, comp. Calvin and others, including Bleek)—which, in fact, would amount to the perfectly self-evident point, that it took place in His corporeally-human form of being,—but, doubtless, especially as διὰ τοῦ θανάτου follows, in the sense, that in the body of Christ, by means of the death therein accomplished, our reconciliation was objectively realized, which fact of salvation, therefore, inseparably associated itself with His body; comp. ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου , Col_1:24, see also 1Pe_2:24 and Huther in loc. The conception of substitution, however, though involved in the thing (in the ἱλαστήριον ), is not to be sought in ἐν (in opposition to Böhmer and Baumgarten-Crusius). (3) The reason for the intentional use of the material description: “in the body which consisted of His flesh” (comp. Col_2:11; Sir_23:16), is to be sought in the apologetic interest of antagonism to the false teachers, against whom, however, the charge of Docetism, possibly on the ground of Col_2:23, can the less be proved (in opposition to Beza, Balduin, Böhmer, Steiger, Huther, and Dalmer), as Paul nowhere in the epistle expressly treats of the material Incarnation, which he would hardly have omitted to do in contrast to Docetism (comp. 1 John). In fact, the apostle found sufficient occasion for writing about the reconciliation as he has done here and in Col_1:20, in the faith in angels on the part of his opponents, by which they ascribed the reconciling mediation with God in part to those higher spiritual beings (who are without σῶμα τῆς σαρκός ). Other writers have adopted the view, without any ground whatever in the connection, that Paul has thus written in order to distinguish the real body of Christ from the spiritual σῶμα of the church (Bengel, Michaelis, Storr, Olshausen). The other σῶμα of Christ, which contrasts with His earthly body of flesh (Rom_1:3; Rom_8:3), is His glorified heavenly body, Php_3:21; 1Co_15:47 ff. References, however, such as Calvin, e.g., has discovered (“humile, terrenum et infirmitatibus multis obnoxium corpus”), or Grotius (“tantas res perfecit instrumento adeo tenui;” comp. also Estius and others), are forced upon the words, in which the form of expression is selected simply in opposition to spiritualistic erroneous doctrines. Just as little may we import into the simple historical statement of the means διὰ τοῦ θανάτου , with Hofmann, the ignominy of shedding His blood on the cross, since no modal definition to that effect is subjoined or indicated.
παραστῆσαι ὑμᾶς κ . τ . λ .] Ethical definition of the object aimed at in the ἀποκατηλλ .: ye have been reconciled … in order to present you, etc. The presenting subject is therefore the subject of ἀποκατηλλ ., so that it is to be explained: ἵνα παραστήσητε ὑμᾶς , ut sisteretis vos, and therefore this continuation of the discourse is by no means awkward in its relation to the reading ἀποκατηλλάγητε (in opposition to de Wette). We should be only justified in expecting ἑαυτούς (as Huther suggests) instead of ὑμᾶς (comp. Rom_12:1) if (comp. Rom_6:13; 2Ti_2:15) the connection required a reflexive emphasis. According to the reading ἀποκατήλλαξεν the sense is ut sisteret vos, in which case, however, the subject would not be Christ (Hofmann), but, as in every case since εὐδόκησε in Col_1:19, God.
The point of time at which the παραστ . is to take place (observe the aorist) is that of the judgment, in which they shall come forth holy, etc., before the Judge. Comp. Col_1:28, and on Eph_5:27. This reference (comp. Bähr, Olshausen, Bleek) is required by the context in Col_1:23, where the παραστῆσαι κ . τ . λ . is made dependent on continuance in the faith as its condition; consequently there cannot be meant the result already accomplished by the reconciliation itself, namely, the state of δικαιοσύνη entered upon through it (so usually, including Hofmann). The state of justification sets in at any rate, and unconditionally, through the reconciliation; but it may be lost again, and at the Parousia will be found subsisting only in the event of the reconciled remaining constant to the faith, by means of which they have appropriated the reconciliation, Col_1:23.
ἁγίους κ . τ . λ .] does not represent the subjects as sacrifices (Rom_12:1), which would not consist with the fact that Christ is the sacrifice, and also would not be in harmony with ἀνεγκλ .; it rather describes without figure the moral holiness which, after the justification attained by means of faith, is wrought by the Holy Spirit (Rom_7:6; Rom_8:2; Rom_8:9, et al.), and which, on the part of man, is preserved and maintained by continuance in the faith (Col_1:23). The three predicates are not intended to represent the relation “erga Deum, respectu vestri, and respectu proximi” (Bengel, Bähr), since, in point of fact, ἀμώμους (blameless, Eph_1:4; Eph_5:27; Herod, ii. 177; Plat. Rep. p. 487 A: οὐδʼ ἂν ὁ Μῶμος τό γε τοιοῦτον μέμψαιτο ) no less than ἀνεγκλ . (reproachless, 1Co_1:8) points to an external judgment: but the moral condition is intended to be described with exhaustive emphasis positively ( ἁγίους ) and negatively ( ἀμώμ . and ἀνεγκλ .). The idea of the moral holiness of the righteous through faith is thoroughly Pauline; comp. not only Eph_2:10, Tit_2:14; Tit_3:8, but also such passages as Rom_6:1-23; Rom_8:4 ff.; Gal_5:22-25; 1Co_9:24 ff.; 2Co_11:2, et al.
κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ ] refers to Christ,[58] to His judicial appearance at the Parousia, just as by the previous αὐτοῦ after ΣΑΡΚΌς Christ also was meant. The usual reference to God (so Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek) is connected with the reading ἀποκατήλλαξεν taken as so referring; comp. Jud_1:24; Eph_1:4. The objection that ΚΑΤΕΝΏΠΙΟΝ elsewhere occurs only in reference to God, is without force; for that this is the case in the few passages where the word is used, seems to be purely accidental, since ἐνώπιον is also applied to Christ (2Ti_2:14), and since in the notion itself there is nothing opposed to this reference. The frequent use of the expression “before God” is traceable to the theocratically national currency of this conception, which by no means excludes the expression “before Christ.” So ἔμπροσθεν is also used of Christ in 1Th_2:19. Comp. 2Co_5:10 : ἜΜΠΡΟΣΘΕΝ ΤΟῦ ΒΉΜΑΤΟς ΤΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ , which is a commentary on our κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ ; see also Mat_25:32.
[58] So also Holtzmann, p. 47, though holding in favour of the priority of Eph_1:4, that the sense requires a reference to God, although syntactically the reference is made to Christ. But, in fact, the one is just as consistent with the sense as the other.
REMARK.
The proper reference of παραστῆσαι κ . τ . λ . to the judgment, as also the condition appended in Col_1:23, place it beyond doubt that what is meant here (it is otherwise in Eph_1:4) is the holiness and blamelessness, which is entered upon through justification by faith actu judiciali and is positively wrought by the Holy Spirit, but which, on the other hand, is preserved and maintained up to the judgment by the self-active perseverance of faith in virtue of the new life of the reconciled (Romans 6); so that the justitia inhaerens is therefore neither meant alone (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, and others), nor excluded (Theodoret, Erasmus, Beza, and others), but is included. Comp. Calovius.