Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 2:2 - 2:2
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Col_2:2. The end aimed at ( ἵνα ) in this conflict: in order that their hearts may be comforted, viz. practically by the fact, that they are united in love, etc. Accordingly, συμβιβασθ . κ . τ . λ . contains the mode of that comforting, which ensues, when through loving union the evil of heretical division, whether threatening or already rampant, is removed. Most thoughtfully and lovingly Paul designates the concern of his solicitude as παράκλησις τῶν καρδιῶν αὐτῶν , not impeaching them on account of the heretical seductions, but making those temptations to be felt as a misfortune, in the presence of which one requires comfort (Vulgate: “ut consolentur”). Chrysostom remarks aptly (comp. Theophylact): ἤδη λοιπὸν σπεύδει καὶ ὠδίνει ἐμβαλεῖν εἰς τὸ δόγμα , οὔτε κατηγορῶν οὔτε ἀπαλλάττων αὐτοὺς κατηγορίας . The explanation which makes παρακαλ . mean, like àîõ (LXX. Deu_3:28; Job_4:3), to strengthen, confirm (so Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius), is quite opposed to the Pauline usage, according to which it means to exhort (so Luther here), to give consolation (so Hofmann; comp. Bleek), to entreat, to encourage, to comfort; the latter in particular when, as here, it is joined with καρδία . Comp. Col_4:8; Eph_6:22; 2Th_2:17 (also Sir_30:23).
συμβιβασθέντες ] referred to the logical subject of the foregoing, i. e. to the persons, of whom αἱ καρδίαι αὐτῶν was said. See on Eph_4:2. It means here not instructi (Vulgate; comp. 1Co_2:16, and the LXX.), nor yet introduced,[78] which linguistic usage does not permit, but brought together, united, compacti (Col_2:19; Eph_4:16; Thuc. ii. 29. 5; Herod. i. 74; and see Wetstein and Valckenaer, Schol. I. p. 453 f.). In connection therewith, ἐν ἀγάπῃ , which denotes Christian brotherly love, is the moral element, in which the union is to subsist; to which is then added the telic reference of συμβιβασθ . by καὶ εἰς κ . τ . λ .: united in love and for behoof of the full richness, etc., i.e. in order, by that union, to attain the possession of this full richness, which could not be attained, but only hindered, by division and variance, καὶ εἰς is not to be joined with παρακλ . (Storr, Flatt), since the καί rather adds to the ἐν -relation of the συμβιβ . its εἰς -relation, and is therefore merely the simple and, not etiam (Bengel, Hofmann); but not to be explained either as et quidem (Bähr, Böhmer), or by an ἔλθωσι to be supplied (Olshausen permits a choice between the two).
τῆς πληροφ . τῆς συνέσ .] The full certainty of Christian insight is the lofty blessing, the whole riches of which, i.e. its blissful possession as a whole, they are to attain, so that in no element of the σύνεσις and in no mode thereof does there remain any lack of completely undoubting conviction;[79] comp. 1Th_1:5; Heb_6:11; Heb_10:22; Rom_4:21; Rom_14:5. On the conception of πληροφορεῖν , see Bleek on Hebr. II. 2, p. 233 f. As to σύνεσις , intelligence, both theoretical and practical, comp. on Col_1:9; that here also what is specifically Christian is meant κατʼ ἐξοχήν , is plain from the context. See the sequel. The cumulative fulness of the description πᾶν τὸ πλ . τ . πληρ . τ . συνέσ . is naturally and earnestly called forth by the consideration of the dangers which threatened the πληροφ . τ . συνέσ . through the attempts of false teachers (Col_2:4). Οἶδα , ὃτι πιστεύετε , ἀλλὰ πληροφορηθῆναι ὑμᾶς βούλομαι · οὐκ εἰς τὸν πλοῦτον μόνον , ἀλλʼ εἰς πάντα τὸν πλοῦτον , ἵνα καὶ ἐν πᾶσι καὶ ἐπιτεταμένως πεπληροφορημένοι ἦτε , Chrysostom.
εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κ . τ . λ .] parallel to the preceding εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλοῦτος κ . τ . λ ., and destined to bring in with emphasis the great object of the σύνεσις (the divine counsel of redemption, τὸ μυστήριον , see on Col_1:26); so that what was previously set forth at length by εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλοῦτος τ . πληροφ . τ . συνέσ . is now succinctly summed up for the sake of annexing the object by εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν . Thus the distinction between ἐπίγνωσις and γνῶσις (Col_2:3) is brought out clearly.[80] Comp. on Col_1:9. But τοῦ μυστ . τ . Θ . is not to be attached also to τῆς συνέσεως (Hofmann), so that the τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν would occupy an interrupting position.
τοῦ Θεοῦ ] Genitive of the subject; it is God, whose decree the μυστ . is. The reading to be approved, τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ (see the critical remarks), means: of the God of Christ, i.e. to whom Christ belongs in a special way, as to His Father, Sender, Head, etc.; see on Eph_1:17; comp. Joh_20:17; Mat_27:46. The separation of Χριστοῦ , however, from τ . Θεοῦ , and the taking it as apposition to τοῦ μυστηρ . τοῦ Θεοῦ , so that Christ Himself appears as the personal secret of God, “because He is personally the truth contained in God and revealed from God” (Hofmann, comp. Holtzmann, p. 215), must be rejected, because Paul would thus have expressed himself in a way as much exposed to misapprehension as possible. He would either have inserted an ὅ ἐστι after τοῦ Θεοῦ (Col_1:24; 1Co_3:11), or have omitted τοῦ Θεοῦ , which would have made τὸ μυστήριον Χριστοῦ , as in Eph_3:4, the mystery contained personally in Christ. But as the apostle has actually written, the reader could only understand the mystery of the God of Christ. If Christ is God’s (see on 1Co_3:23; comp. Luk_2:26; Luk_9:20; Act_4:26), then God is also the God of Christ. After Θεοῦ , therefore, no comma is to be inserted. Finally, the view of Hilary (“Deus Christus sacramentum est”), that ὁ Θεός is Christ Himself (so Steiger and Bisping, also Philippi, Glaubensl. IV. 1, p. 460, ed. 2), is wholly without Pauline analogy, and is not to be supported by such passages as Rom_9:5; Tit_2:13; Eph_5:5; in fact, even the lofty predicates employed in Col_1:15 ff., Col_2:9, draw the line of distinction between God and Christ. Moreover, the expression itself is not harsher (de Wette), or even more inconceivable (Olshausen), more unsuitable and obscure (Reiche), than the phrase ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ κυρίου ἡμ . Ἰησοῦ Χ . in Eph_1:17; since in connection with the notion “the God of Christ,” the designation of the latter as our Lord is unessential. The addition Χριστοῦ finds its motive in the connection, because it was just in Christ that God formed the decree of redemption (the μυστήριον ), and has carried it out (Eph_3:10 f., et al.). Whosoever has known God as the God of Christ, has the divine μυστήριον therewith unveiled to him.
[78] So Hofmann, who couples it in this sense with εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλοῦτος , taking ἐν ἀγάπῃ adverbially, and explaining the καί , which stands in the way, in the sense of “even,” to the effect that this introduction into all riches of the understanding has as its presupposition another introduction, viz. that into the faith. This is a sophistically forced mode of disposing of the καί , suggested by nothing in the context, especially since faith by no means, either of itself or in vv. 5–7, falls to be considered as a preliminary stage, as if the πληροφορία κ . τ . λ ., like a new stadium, had to be entered upon through a second introduction; on the contrary, this πληροφορία is the full rich development of faith in the inner life. We may add that συμβιβάζειν =to introduce is nothing but a lexicographical fiction invented by Hofmann. Chrysostom already says rightly: ἵνα ἑνωθῶσι .
[79] Neither Greek authors, nor the LXX., nor the Apocrypha have πληροφορία . In Ptol. Tetr. p. 4. 9, πληροφόρησις is found.
[80] According to Holtzmann, p. 303, in the frequent mention of γνῶσις and ἐπίγνωσις , of σοφία and σύνεσις , of γνωρίζειν and φωτίζειν , of μυστήριον ἀποκεκρυμμ . and φανέρωσις τοῦ μυστ ., we may detect already the terminology of the Grecian mysteries. As if these ideas and expressions were not sufficiently Pauline, and their intentional application were not sufficiently intelligible in the light of theosophic aberrations. Comp. also on Col_1:23; and Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 420, ed. 2.