Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 2:13 - 2:13
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Col_2:13. Since that συνηγέρθητε was the awaking to eternal life, Paul now goes on to give special prominence to this great blessing, the making alive, and that in reference to the Gentile-Christian position of the readers; and to this he annexes, in Col_2:14 f., an anti-Judaistic triumphant statement reminding them of the cancelling of their debt-bond with the law.
To attach καὶ ὑμᾶς … σαρκὸς ὑμῶν still to Col_2:12, and to make it depend on ἐγείραντος (Steiger), is rendered impossible by the right explanation of τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐνεργείας τ . Θ . in Col_2:12,[101] to say nothing of the abrupt position in which συνεζωοπ . would thus appear. Καὶ ὑμᾶς goes along with συνεζωοπ ., so that ὑμᾶς is then repeated (see Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 14; Bornemann in the Sächs. Stud. 1846, p. 66; Kühner, II. 1, p. 568; Winer, p. 139 [E. T. 184]), the repetition being here occasioned by the emphasis of the συνεζωοπ .: “You also, when ye were dead … He made you alive together with Him.” The καί therefore is not the copula and, but, in harmony with the ὑμᾶς placed in the front emphatically: also, as in Eph_2:1. It has its reference in this, that the readers had been Gentiles liable to eternal death, but the συνεζωοπ . had been extended, as to all believers, so also to them. The correctness of this reference is shown by the context as well through τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ τῆς σαρκ . ὑμ ., as through the pronoun of the first person which is introduced after χαρισάμ . Extremely arbitrary is the view of Olshausen, who thinks that in Col_2:11 f. the readers are addressed as representatives of the collective community, but by καὶ ὑμᾶς in Col_2:13 personally; while Baumgarten-Crusius, in complete antagonism to the position of the words, joins καί , not to ὑμᾶς , but to the verb: “also He has called you to the new life that abideth.”
To arrive at a proper understanding of what follows we must observe: (1) That συνεζωοποίησεν is not to be taken, any more than συνηγέρθητε previously, in an ethical sense, as referring to regeneration (so usually since Oecumenius, as e.g. Grotius: “sicut Christo novam contulit vitam ex morte corporis, ita et nobis novam ex morte animorum;” comp. also Bleek and Hofmann), but in its proper sense, and that (comp. Kaeuffer, de ζωῆς αἰων . not. p. 94 f.) as referring to the everlasting life to which God[102] raised up Christ, and which He has thereby also provided for believers in virtue of their fellowship with Christ (as an ideal possession now, but to be realized at the Parousia). See also Eph_2:5. The reconciliation (which de Wette understands) is not the ζωοποίησις itself, as is plain from the compound συνεζωοπ ., but its precursor and medium. The συζωοποιεῖν stands in the same relation to the συνεγείρειν as the nature of the act to its process; but the reason why συνηγέρθ . here stands before the συζωοποιεῖν (it is different in Eph_2:5) is, that the συνηγέρθητε was correlative with the συνταφέντες in Col_2:12, hence that word is used first, while in Eph. l.c. the being dead preceded, with which the συζωοποιεῖν primarily corresponds. (2) Like συνεζωοπ ., so also νεκρούς is not to be taken in an ethical sense (so usually both here and in Eph_2:1, as e.g. Calvin, who thinks that the alienatio a Deo is meant), but, with Chrysostom and Theodoret, in its proper sense; the readers have been—this is the conception—prior to their conversion to Christ a prey of death. This is by no means to be understood, however, in the sense of physical death (for that comes from Adam’s sin, see on Rom_5:12), but in that of eternal death, to which they were liable through their sins, so that they could not have become partakers of the eternal ζωή (comp. on Rom_7:9 f.). See also on Eph_2:1. What is meant, therefore, is not a death which would have only become their eternal death in the absence of the quickening (Hofmann), but the eternal death itself, in which they already lay, and out of which they would not have come without that deliverance, nay, which on the contrary—and here we have a prolepsis of the thought—would only have completed itself in the future αἰών .[103] (3) This being dead occurred in the state ( ἐν ) of their sins ( τοῖς indicates the sins which they had committed) and of the uncircumcision of their flesh, i.e. when as respects their sinful materially-psychical nature they were still uncircumcised, and had not yet put off by conversion their Gentile fleshly constitution.[104] The ἈΚΡΟΒΥΣΤΊΑ in itself they even now had as Gentile Christians, but according to Col_2:11 it was no longer ἀκρόβ . τῆς σαρκός in their case, but was now indifferent (Col_3:11; 1Co_7:19; Gal_5:6; Gal_6:15), since they had been provided with the ethical circumcision of Christ and emptied of the σῶμα τῆς σαρκός . The ethical reference of the expression does not lie, therefore, in ἈΚΡΟΒΥΣΤΊΑ itself, but in the characteristic Τῆς ΣΑΡΚῸς ὙΜῶΝ (genitive of the subject); in this uncircumcision they were as Gentiles prior to their conversion, but were so no longer as Christians. Consequently ἀκροβ . is not to be taken figuratively (Deu_10:16; Eze_44:7; Jer_4:4) as a designation of vitiositas (so Theodoret, Beza, Grotius, Bähr, Bleek, and most expositors), but in its proper sense, in which the readers as ἀκρόβυστοι could not but have understood it, and therein withal not as a symbol of uncleanness (Huther), or of the alienatio a Deo (Calvin, comp. Hofmann), or the like; on the contrary, the entire ethical stress lies on τῆς σαρκ . ὑμ . The idea of original sin (Flacius and other dogmatic expositors, comp. Bengel: “exquisita appellatio peccati origin.”) is likewise involved, and that according to its N. T. meaning (Rom_7:14 ff.), not in ἀκροβυστ ., but doubtless in Τῆς ΣΑΡΚ . ὙΜῶΝ . Nevertheless this Τῆς ΣΑΡΚ . ὙΜῶΝ belongs only to Τῇ ἈΚΡΟΒΥΣΤΊᾼ , and not to ΤΟῖς ΠΑΡΑΠΤΏΜΑΣΙ as well (Hofmann); comp. Eph_2:11. Otherwise we should have, quite unnecessarily, two references heterogeneous in sense for the genitive; besides, the notion of ΠΑΡΆΠΤΩΜΑ presupposes not the ΣΆΡΞ , but the Ego in its relation to the divine law as the subject; hence also the expression παράπτ . τῆς σαρκ . (or ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑ Τ . Σ .) does not occur, while we find ἜΡΓΑ Τῆς ΣΑΡΚΌς in Gal_5:19. Holtzmann, p. 71, ascribes the words ΚΑῚ Τῇ ἈΚΡΟΒ . Τ . ΣΑΡΚῸς ὙΜ . to the interpolator’s love for synonyms and tautological expressions, and wishes to condemn them also in consequence of what in Col_2:11 belongs to the latter (p. 155). But they are not at all tautological; and see on Col_2:11.
ΧΑΡΙΣΆΜΕΝΟς Κ . Τ . Λ .] after having granted to us, i.e. forgiven, etc. This blotting out of our whole debt of sin was necessarily prior to the συνεζωοπ . ὑμᾶς σὺν αὐτῷ . By the fact, namely, that He remitted to us all the sins which we had committed ( πάντα τὰ παραπτ .), the causa efficiens of the being (eternally) dead was done away. Comp. Chrysostom: τὰ παραπτώματα , ἃ τὴν νεκρότητα ἐτοίει . This ΧΑΡΙΣΆΜΕΝΟς Κ . Τ . Λ . is the appropriation of the reconciliation on the part of God, which believers experienced when they believed and were baptized; the objective expiatory act through the death of Christ had preceded, and is described in Col_2:14.
ἡμῖν ] applies to believers generally.[105] This extension, embracing himself in common with others, is prepared for by καὶ ὑμᾶς , but could not have been introduced, if χαρισάμ . κ . τ . λ . had been conceived as synchronous with συνεζωοπ ., in which case Paul must logically have used ὑμῖν (not ἡμῖν ), as the reading is in B à ** Vulg. Hilary. On χαρίζεσθαι , comp. 2Co_2:10; 2Co_12:13; Eph_4:32. On the subject-matter: 2Co_5:19 ff.
[101] This applies also in opposition to Hofmann, who takes ver. 13 likewise as a continuation of the description of God given in τοῦ ἐγείρ . αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρ ., and therein makes the apostle guilty of a clumsy change of construction, viz. that he intended to make συζωοποιήσαντος follow, but, because this word would have been “inconvenient” after νεκροὺς ὄντας κ . τ . λ ., exchanged it for an independent sentence. But συζωοποιήσαντος would have been inserted without any inconvenience whatever: on the contrary, it would only have expressed the alleged idea conformably to the construction clearly and definitely. The comparison of Col_1:26 is unsuitable. Holtzmann follows substantially the view of Hofmann, but regards the change of structure as the result of dictation. There is no change of structure in the passage at all.
[102] God is the subject of συνεζωοποίησεν , not Christ (Ewald and the older expositors); for God has raised up Christ, and God is, according to the present context (it is different in Col_3:13), the forgiver of sins, and has brought about the remission of sins through the ἱλαστήριον of Christ (ver. 14). Hence also it is not to be written σ . αὑτῷ (with the aspirate). Just as God was obviously the acting subject in περιετμήθητε , in συνταφέντες , and in συνηγέρθ ., so also He is introduced in the same character emphatically in ver. 12, and remains so till the close of ver. 15.
[103] Quite correlative is the conception of the ζωή as eternal life, which the righteous man already has, although he has still in prospect the glorious perfection of it in the future αἰών .
[104] The ἐν is not repeated before τῆ ἀκροβ . because the two elements coupled by καί are conceived together so as to form the single idea of unconversion; Kühner, II. 1, p. 476. This applies also in opposition to Holtzmann, p. 156.
[105] Not specially to Jewish Christians (Hofmann, who discovers here the same idea that is expressed in Heb_9:15, and makes a new period begin with χαρισάμενος ), since Paul does not express a contrast with the Gentile-Christians, but very often passes from the second person, which refers to the readers, to the first, in which he, in accordance with the sense and connection, continues the discourse from the standpoint of the common Christian consciousness. Comp. Col_1:12; Gal_4:5-6; Eph_2:1; Eph_2:4, et al.; Winer, p. 539 [E. T. 725]. Nor does the idea of the figurative χειρόγραφον , which Hofmann urges, by any means require such a limitation—which there is nothing to indicate—of the ἡμῖν embracing himself and others.