Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 2:10 - 2:10
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Col_2:10. Καί ἐστε ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρ .] still depending on ὅτι : and (since) ye are filled in Him, i.e. and since the πληρότης which ye possess rests on Him, the bodily Bearer of the divine πλήρωμα . The two are correlative: from the πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος , which dwells in the exalted Christ, flows the πεπληρωμένον εἶναι of the Christian, which has its basis, therefore, in no other than in Christ, and in nothing else than just in fellowship with Him. Filled with what? was self-evident to the consciousness of the reader. It is the dynamic, charismatic πλήρωσις , which Christians, in virtue of their union of life with the Lord, whose Spirit and ζωή are in them, have received, and continuously possess, out of the metaphysical πλήρωμα dwelling in Christ, out of the πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος .
The emphasis is not upon ἐστέ , but, as shown by the subsequent relative definitions, upon ἐν αὐτῷ . If the πεπληρωμένον εἶναι depends on Him, on nothing and on no one but on Him, then everything else which men may teach you, and with which they may wish to seize you and conduct you in leading strings, is οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν . With due attention to this emphasis of ἐν αὐτῷ , we should neither have expected ὑμεῖς (in opposition to de Wette; comp. Estius and others: “et vos”) nor have explained ἐστέ in an imperative sense (in opposition to Grotius, Bos, Heumann); which latter view is to be rejected, because the entire connection is not paraenetic, and generally because, whilst a πληροῦσθε (Eph_5:18) or γίνεσθε πεπληρ . may, ἐστε πεπληρ . cannot, logically be enjoined.[94] There is, moreover (comp. also Hofmann), nothing to be supplied with πεπληρ . (usually: τῆς θεότητος , see Theophylact and Huther; de Wette, Bleek: τοῦ πληρώμ . τ . θεότ .), since the specifically ontological sense of the purposely-chosen θεότητος would not even be consistent with the supposed equalization of the Christians with Christ ( οὐδὲν ἔλαττον ἔχετε αὐτοῦ , ἀλλὰ πεπληρωμένοι καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐστε τῆς θεότητος , Theophylact), and this equalization does not exist at all, because Paul has not written καὶ ὑμεῖς . In what their being filled consisted, was known to the readers from their own experience, without further explanation; their thoughts, however, were to dwell upon the fact that, since their being full depended on Christ, those labours of the false teachers were of quite another character than κατὰ Χριστόν .
ὅς ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ κ . τ . λ .] This, as also Col_2:11, now supplies confirmatory information regarding the fact that they have their being filled not otherwise than just in Christ; namely, neither through ἀρχαὶ κ . ἐξουσίαι , since Christ is the head of every ἀρχή and ἐξουσία ; nor yet through circumcision, since they have received in Christ the real ethical circumcision.
πάσης ἀρχ . κ . ἐξουσ .] is not more precisely defined as in Eph_3:10; hence, in virtue of the munus regium of the Lord quite generally: every principality and power, but with the tacit apologetic reference: consequently also of the angelic powers (Col_1:16) belonging to these categories and bearing these names, to whose mediation, to be attained through θρησκεία , the false teachers direct you,—a reference which Hofmann, understanding the expressions in the sense of spiritual beings ruling arbitrarily and in opposition to God especially over the Gentile world (notwithstanding the fact that Christ is their Head!), groundlessly denies; see Col_2:18. If Christ be the Head of every ἀρχή and ἐξουσία , i.e. their governing sovereign, the Christian cannot have anything to expect from any angelic powers subordinate to Christ,—a result involved in the union in which He stands to the Higher, to Christ Himself.
With the reading ὅ ἐστιν (see the critical remarks), which is also preferred by Ewald,[95] Lachmann has placed καί ἐστε ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρ . in a parenthesis. But, while this important thought would neither have motive nor be appropriate as a mere parenthesis, it would also be improper that the neuter subject ΤῸ ΠΛΉΡΩΜΑ Τ . ΘΕΌΤ . should be designated as Ἡ ΚΕΦΑΛῊ Κ . Τ . Λ ., which applies rather to the personal possessor of the ΠΛΉΡΩΜΑ , to Christ.
[94] Calovius has well said: “Beneficium Christi, non nostrum officium;” comp. Wolf. In complete opposition to the context, Grotius brings out the sense: “illo contenti estote,” which he supports by the remark: “quia quod plenum est, nihil aliud desiderat.”
[95] Inasmuch as he takes ὅ ἐστιν directly as scilicet, utpote, and regards this usage as a linguistic peculiarity of this Epistle. But this rendering is not required either in Col_1:24 or in Col_3:17; and respecting Col_1:27, see the critical remarks.