Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 1:9 - 1:9
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Col_1:9. Intercession, down to Col_1:12.
διὰ τοῦτο ] on account of all that has been said from ἀκούσαντες in Col_1:4 onward: induced thereby, we also cease not, etc. This reference is required by ἀφʼ ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκούσαμεν , which cannot correspond to the δηλώσας ἡμῖν , belonging as that does merely to an accessory thought, but must take up again (in opposition to Bleek and Hofmann) the ἀκούσαντες which was said in Col_1:4. This resumption is emphatic, not tautological (Holtzmann).
καὶ ἡμεῖς ] are to be taken together, and it is not allowable to join καί either with διὰ τοῦτο (de Wette), or even with προσευχ . (Baumgarten-Crusius). The words are to be rendered: We also (I and Timothy), like others, who make the same intercession for you, and among whom there is mentioned by name the founder of the church, who stood in closest relation to them.
προσευχ .] “Precum mentionem generatim fecit, Col_1:3; nunc exprimit, quid precetur” (Bengel).
καὶ αἰτούμενοι ] adds the special (asking) to the general (praying). Comp. 1Ma_3:44; Mat_21:22; Mar_11:24; Eph_6:18; Php_4:6. As to the popular form of hyperbole, οὐ παυόμ ., comp. on Eph_1:16. On ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν , so far as it is also to be taken with κ . αἰτούμ ., comp. Lys. c. Alc. p. 141.
ἵνα πληρωθ .] Contents of the asking in the form of its purpose. Comp. on Php_1:9. The emphasis lies not on πληρωθ . (F. Nitzsch, Hofmann), but on the object (comp. Rom_15:14; Rom_1:29, al.), which gives to the further elucidation in Col_1:9-10 its specific definition of contents.
τὴν ἐπίγν . τοὺ θελ . αὐτοῦ ] with the knowledge of His will, accusative, as in Php_1:11; αὐτοῦ applies to God as the subject, to whom prayer and supplication are addressed. The context in Col_1:10 shows that by the θέλημα is meant, not the counsel of redemption (Eph_1:9; Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and many others, including Huther and Dalmer), but, doubtless (Mat_6:10), that which God wills in a moral respect (so Theodoret, who makes out a contrast with the νομικαῖς παρατηρήσεσιν ). Comp. Rom_2:18; Rom_12:2; Eph_5:17; Eph_6:6; Col_4:12. The distinction between γνῶσις and ἐπίγνωσις , which both here and also in Col_1:10; Col_2:2; Col_3:10, is the knowledge which grasps and penetrates into the object, is incorrectly denied by Olshausen. See on Eph_1:17.
ἐν πάσῃ κ . τ . λ .] instrumental definition of manner, how, namely, this πληρωθῆναι τὴν ἐπίγν . τ . θελ . αὐτοῦ (a knowledge which is to be the product not of mere human mental activity, but of objectively divine endowment by the Holy Spirit) must be brought about: by every kind of spiritual wisdom and insight, by the communication of these from God; comp. on Eph_1:8. A combination with the following περιπατῆσαι (comp. Col_4:5 : ἐν σοφίᾳ περιπ .), such as Hofmann suggests, is inappropriate, because the two parts of the whole intercession stand to one another in the relation of the divine ethical foundation, (Col_1:9), and of the corresponding practical conduct of life (Col_1:10 f.); hence the latter portion is most naturally and emphatically headed by the expression of this Christian practice, the περιπατῆσαι , to which are then subjoined its modal definitions in detail. Accordingly, περιπατῆσαι is not, with Hofmann, to be made dependent on τοῦ θελήμ . αὐτοῦ and taken as its contents, but τ . θελ . τ . Θ . is to be left as an absolute idea, as in Col_4:12. On πνευματικός , proceeding from the Holy Spirit,[16] comp. Rom_1:11; 1Co_2:13; 1Co_12:1; Eph_1:3; Eph_5:19, et al. The σύνεσις is the insight, in a theoretical and (comp. on Mar_12:33) practical respect, depending upon judgment and inference, Eph_3:4; 2Ti_2:7. For the opposite of the pneumatic σύνεσις , see 1Co_1:19. It is related to the σοφία as the special to the general, since it is peculiarly the expression of the intelligence in the domain of truth,[17] while the ΣΟΦΊΑ concerns the collective faculties of the mind, the activities of knowledge, willing, and feeling, the tendency and working of which are harmoniously subservient to the recognised highest aim, if the wisdom is πνευματική ; its opposite is the ΣΟΦΊΑ ΣΑΡΚΙΚΉ (2Co_1:12; Jam_3:15), being of man, and not of God, in its aim and efforts. According as ΦΡΌΝΗΣΙς is conceived subjectively or objectivized, the ΣΎΝΕΣΙς may be considered either as synonymous with it (Eph_1:8; Dan_2:21; Plat. Crat. p. 411 A), or as an attribute of it (Sir_1:4 : σύνεσις φρονήσεως ).
[16] Hence ἡ ἄνωθεν σοφία , Jam_3:15; Jam_3:17. The predicate, although in the case of divine endowment with σοφία and σύνεσις obvious of itself (as Hofmann objects), was yet all the more apposite for expressly bringing the point into prominence, the greater the danger which threatened Colossae from non-divine, fleshly wisdom; comp. Col_2:23.
[17] Comp. Dem. 269. 24: σύνεσις , ᾖ τὰ καλὰ καὶ αἰσχρὰ διαγινώσκεται .