Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 2:19 - 2:19
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Col_2:19. Καί ] annexing to εἰκῆ φυσιούμενος κ . τ . λ . a further, and that a negative, modal form of the ἃ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύων . This ἐμβατεύειν into what is seen takes place, namely, in such a way, that one is puffed up by fleshly reason, and does not hold the Head, etc. So much is it at variance with the nature and success, as respects unity, of the church![128]
οὐ κρατῶν κ . τ . λ .] not holding fast (but letting it go, comp. Son_3:4 : ἐκράτησα αὐτὸν καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκα αὐτόν ) the Head, inasmuch, namely, as they seek angelic mediation. Bengel aptly observes: “Qui non unice Christum tenet, plane non tenet.”
ἐξ οὗ κ . τ . λ .] represents the whole objectionableness of this οὐ κρατῶν τ . κεφ ., and the absolute necessity of the opposite. This οὗ is not to be referred to the verbal idea (Bengel’s suggestion: “ex quo sc. tenendo caput”), but applies objectively (comp. Eph_4:15 f.) to that which was designated by τὴν κεφαλ . In this view it may be masculine, according to the construction κατὰ σύνεσιν (Kühner, II. 1, p. 49), as it is usually taken, but it may also—and this is preferable, because here the personality is not, as in Eph_4:15 f., specially marked—be neuter, so that it takes up the Head, not personally (though, it is Christ), but in accordance with the neuter idea: from which. See Matthiae, p. 988; Kühner, II. 1, p. 55. Comp. Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 201. The τ . κεφαλ . might also be taken attributively: not holding fast as the Head Him, from whom, etc. (Ewald), which would be, however, less simple and less forcibly descriptive. ἐξ denotes the causal issuing forth of the subsequently expressed relation, comp. Eph_4:16.
τᾶν τὸ σῶμα ] consequently no member is excepted, so that no member can expect from any other quarter what is destined for, and conveyed to, the whole body from the head. The conception of the church as the body of Christ, the Head, is not in our Epistle and the Ephesian letter different from that of the other Epistles (in opposition to Holtzmann, p. 239 ff.). Comp. on 1Co_12:12 f., 1Co_6:15; Rom_12:4 f.; also Rom_11:3. Any pressing contrary to the author’s design of the thought of a σῶμα , which strictly taken is a trunk, is in this particular case excluded by the graphic delineation of the constantly living and active connection of the members with the Head. Every comparison, indeed, when pressed, becomes halting.
διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν κ . συνδεσμῶν ἐπιχορ . κ . συμβιβ .] The participial relation to the following verb is this: from the Head the whole body is furnished and bound together and grows in this way, so that ἐξ οὗ therefore is to be referred neither to the participles only, nor to the verb only, but to both; and διὰ τ . ἁφ . κ . συνδεσμ . specifies by what means the ἐπιχορ . κ . συμβιβ ., proceeding from the Head, is brought about, viz. through the (bodily) nerve-impulses (not joints, as it is usually explained; see on Eph_4:16), which are conveyed from the Head to the body, and through the bands, which, proceeding from the Head, place the whole in organic connection. Observe that ἐπιχορ . refers to διὰ τ . ἁφῶν , and συμβιβ . to κ . συνδεσμ . Theophylact (comp. Theodoret) has aptly illustrated the former by the action of the nerves which is diffused from the head through the entire body, so that ἀπὸ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἐστι πᾶσα αἴσθησις κ . πᾶσα κίνησις . As, therefore, the body receives its efficiency from the head through the contact of impulses effected by means of the network of nerves, so would the church, separated from Christ—from whom the feelings and impulses in a spiritual sense, the motions and activities of the higher ζωή , are conveyed to it—be without the supply in question. Comp. the idea of the figure of the vine. Further: as, starting from the head, the whole body, by means of the bands which bind member to member, is bound together into one organic whole; so also is the entire church, starting from Christ, by means of the bands of Christian communion ( κοινωνία ), which give to the union of individuals the coherence of articulate unity. Faith is the inner ground of the ἁφαί , not the latter themselves (in opposition to Bengel); so also is love the inner ground of the συνδεσμοί of the mystical body, not these latter themselves (in opposition to Tertullian, Zanchius, Estius, Bengel, and others); and the operative principle on the part of Christ the Head is the Holy Spirit (Eph_4:4; 1Co_12:3 f., 7, et al.). Theodoret erroneously (comp. Ewald) explains the συνδεσμοί as the ἀπόστολοι κ . προφῆται κ . διδάσκαλοι , and Böhmer takes the ἁφαί and συνδεσμ . as the believers. The latter, as also the teachers, are in fact the members, and share in experiencing what is here asserted of the entire body.
ἐπιχορηγούμ .] receiving supply, being furnished. Comp. on the passive expression, which is not un-Pauline (Holtzmann), but in harmony with the general passive usage (Kühner, II. 1, p. 109), Polyb. iv. 77. Colossians 2 : πολλαῖς ἀφορμαῖς ἐκ φύσεως κεχορηγημένος , iii. 75. 3, et al.; Diod. Sic. i. 73; Sir_44:6; 3Ma_6:40. The compound, not expressing “in addition besides” (Bleek), denotes that the χορηγία is coming to, is being conveyed towards. Comp. 2Co_9:10; Gal_3:5; Dion. Hal. x. 54. But it is not said with what the body is provided, as χορηγεῖν (comp. also ἐπιχορ ., Sir_25:22) is often used absolutely (see e.g. the passages from Polybius in Schweighäuser, Lex. p. 663), and admits of its more precise definition being supplied from the context, which, however, here points not to nourishment (Grotius, de Wette), but to that which is accomplished through the feelings ( ἁφῶν ), namely, the vital activity, of which the body would be destitute in the absence of the different impulses. Comp. Chrysostom: τὸ εἶναι καὶ το καλῶς εἶναι , Theophylact: πᾶσα αἴσθησις κ . πᾶσα κίνησις , and in the application: λαμβάνει τὸ ζῇν κ . αὔξειν πνευματικῶς .
τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ ] denoted by the article as the divine growth absolutely; τοῦ Θεοῦ is the genitive auctoris: which God confers (1Co_3:6-7), with which ἐξ οὗ is not at variance (as Bähr thinks), since God is ranked above Christ (1Co_11:3), and is the supreme operating principle in the church (1Co_12:6; Eph_4:6). At once weak, and suggested by nothing in the text, is the view: “incrementum, quod Deus probat” (Calvin, Bähr[129]). What is meant is the gradual growth of Christians collectively toward Christian perfection. The circumstance that αὔξει as an intransitive only occurs again in Eph_2:21, comp. Col_4:15, and αὔξησις only in Eph_4:16, cannot prove it to be an un-Pauline mode of expression (Holtzmann). Respecting the connection of the verb with the more precisely defined cognate noun, see Winer, p. 210 [E. T. 281]; Lobeck, Paralip. p. 507 f.; Kühner, II. 2, p. 262 f.
[128] The conduct of those men is the negation of this holy relation, a separation from the organism of the body of Christ as an unity. The compressed characterizing of this articulated organism is therefore as suitable here as in Eph_4:16, and by no means an opus supererogationis on the part of the author (Holtzmann).
[129] Comp. Chrysostom and Oecumenius, who explain τοῦ Θεοῦ by κατὰ Θεόν .