Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 2:17 - 2:17
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Col_2:17.[116] An epexegetical relative sentence, assigning the ground for what has just been said.
ὅ , which (see the critical remarks), is not to be arbitrarily referred merely to the observance of feasts and days (Flatt and Hofmann), but to the things of the law mentioned in Col_2:16 generally, all of which it embraces.
σκιά ] not an outline ( σκιαγραφία , σκιαγράφημα ), as in the case of painters, who “non exprimunt primo ductu imaginem vivis coloribus et εἰκονικῶς , sed rudes et obscuras lineas primum ex carbone ducunt,” Calvin (so also Clericus, Huther, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), which σκιά does not mean even in Heb_8:5; Heb_10:1, and which is forbidden by the contrast of τὸ σῶμα , since it would rather be the perfect picture that would be put in opposition to the outline. It means nothing else than shadow. Paul is illustrating, namely, the relation of the legal ordinances, such as are adduced in Col_2:16, to that which is future, i.e. to those relations of the Messianic kingdom, which are to be manifested in the αἰὼν μέλλων (neither ἀγαθῶν from Heb_10:1, nor anything else, is to be supplied with τῶν μελλόντων ), and in doing so he follows the figurative conception, that the μέλλοντα , which therefore, locally considered, are in front, have cast their shadow behind, which shadow is the Mosaic ritual constitution,—a conception which admirably accords with the typical character of the latter (Heb_8:5; Heb_10:1), of which the constitution of the Messianic kingdom is the antitype. It is to be noted further: (1) The emphasis of confirmation lies not on τῶν μελλόντων (Beza), but on σκιά , in contrast to τὸ σῶμα . If, namely, the things in question are only the shadow of the Messianic, and do not belong to the reality thereof, they are—in accordance with this relatively non-essential, because merely typical nature of theirs—not of such a kind that salvation may be made dependent on their observance or non-observance, and adjudged or withheld accordingly. (2) The passage is not to be explained as if ἦν stood in the place of ἐστί , so that τὰ μέλλοντα would denote the Christian relations already then existing, the καινὴ διαθήκη , the Christian plan of salvation, the Christian life, etc. (so usually since Chrysostom); but, on the contrary, that which is spoken of is shadow, not, indeed, as divinely appointed in the law (Hofmann)—for of this aspect of the elements in question the text contains nothing—but in so far as Paul sees it in its actual condition still at that time present. The μέλλοντα have not yet been manifested at all, and belong altogether (not merely as regards their completion, as de Wette thinks, comp. also Hofmann) to the αἰὼν μέλλων , which will begin with the coming again of Christ to set up His kingdom—a coming, however, which was expected as very near at hand. The μέλλοντα could only be viewed as having already set in either in whole or in part, if ἦν and not ἐστί were used previously, and thereby the notion of futurity were to be taken relatively, in reference to a state of things then already past (comp. Gal_3:23; 1Ti_1:16), or if ἐστί were meant to be said from the standpoint of the divine arrangement of those things (Hofmann), or if this present tense expressed the logical present merely by way of enabling the mind to picture them (Rom_5:14), which, however, is inadmissible here, since the elements indicated by σκιά still continued at this time, long after Christ’s earthly appearance, and were present really, and not merely in legal precepts or in theory. (3) The characteristic quality, in which the things concerned are meant to be presented by the figurative σκιά , is determined solely by the contrast of τὸ σῶμα , namely, as unsubstantiality in a Messianic aspect: shadow of the future, standing in relation to it, therefore doubtless as typically presignificant, but destitute and void of its reality. The reference to transitoriness (Spencer, de legit, rit. p. 214 f., Baumgarten-Crusius, and others) is purely imported.
τὸ δὲ σῶμα ] scil. τῶν μελλόντων , but the body of the future.[117] Inasmuch as the legal state of things in Col_2:16 stands to the future Messianic state in no other relation than that of the shadow to the living body itself, which casts the shadow, Paul thus, remaining faithful to his figure, designates as the body of the future that which is real and essential in it, which, according to the context, can be nothing else than just the μέλλοντα themselves, their concrete reality as contrasted with the shadowy form which preceded them. Accordingly, he might have conveyed the idea of the verse, but without its figurative garb, in this way: ὅ ἐστι τύπος τῶν μελλόντων , αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ μέλλοντα Χριστοῦ .
Χριστοῦ ] scil. ἐστί , belongs to Christ. The μέλλοντα , namely, viewed under the figurative aspect of the σῶμα which casts the shadow referred to, must stand in the same relation to Christ, as the body stands in to the Head (Col_2:19); as the body now adumbrating itself, they must belong to Christ the Head of the body, in so far, namely, as He is Lord and ruler of all the relations of the future Messianic constitution, i.e. of the Messianic kingdom, of the βασιλεία τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Col_1:13; Eph_5:5). Whosoever, therefore, holds to the shadow of the future, to the things of the law (as the false teachers do and require), and does not strive after the μέλλοντα themselves, after the body which has cast that shadow, does not hold to Christ, to whom as Head the σῶμα ( τῆς σκιᾶς ) belongs as His own. This view, which is far removed from “distorting” the thought (as Hofmann objects), is required by the natural and obvious correlation of the conception of the body and its head, as also by Col_2:19. There is much inaccuracy and irrelevancy in the views of expositors, because they have not taken τὰ μέλλοντα in the sense, or not purely in the sense, of the relations of the αἰὼν μέλλων , but in that of the then existing Christian relations, which in fact still belonged to the αἰὼν οὗτος , and because, in connection therewith, they do not take up with clearness and precision the contextually necessary relation of the genitive Χριστοῦ as denoting Him, whose the σῶμα is, but resolve it into what they please, as e.g. Grotius (so also Bleek): “ad Christum pertinet, ab eo solo petenda est;” Huther: “the substance itself, to which those shadowy figures point, has appeared in Christ;” Ewald: “so far as there is anything really solid, essential, and eternal in the O. T., it belongs to Christ and to His Spirit;” Hofmann: “the body of the future is there, where Christ is, present and given with Him” (consequently as if ἐν Χριστῷ were used).
On τὸ σῶμα in contrast to σκιά , comp. Josephus, Bell. ii. 2. 5: σκιὰν αἰτησόμενος βασιλείας , ἧς ἥρπασεν ἑαυτῷ τὸ σῶμα . Philo, de conf. ling. p. 434: τὰ μὲν ῥητὰ τῶν χρησμῶν σκιάς τινας ὡσανεὶ σωμάτων εἶναι · τὰς δʼ ἐμφαινομένας δυνάμεις τὰ ὑφεστῶτα ἀληθείᾳ πράγματα . Lucian, Hermot. 29. Observe, however, that σῶμα invariably retains its strict literal sense of body, as a sensuous expression for the substantially real, in contrast to the unsubstantial shadow of it.
[116] Holtzmann, without assigning his reasons, regards the entire verse as an “extract from the Epistle to the Hebrews” (Heb_9:6; Heb_9:9 f., 25, Heb_10:1; Heb_10:11, Heb_8:5); he thinks that the whole polemic of Col_2:16-23 was intended to introduce the more developed features of later heresy into the picture of the apostolic age. But the difficulty of Col_2:18 (which Holtzmann considers utterly unintelligible) and Col_2:22 f., as well as the alleged un-Pauline character of some expressions in Col_2:19, does not furnish a sufficient basis for such an opinion. Comp. on Col_2:18-19; Col_2:22-23.
[117] The explanation of Hilgenfeld, 1873, p.199: “the mere σῶμα Χριστοῦ , a purely somatic Christianity,” is at variance with the antithetical correlation of σκιά and σῶμα , as well as with the apostle’s cherished conception of the σῶμα of Christ, which is contained immediately in ver. 19.