Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 2:6 - 2:6
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Col_2:6 f. From the warning given in Col_2:4 and having its ground assigned in Col_2:5, follows ( οὖν ) the positive obligation to make Christ, as He had been communicated to them through the instruction which they had received, the element in which ( ἐν αὐτῷ ) their conduct of the inner and outer life moves ( περιπατεῖτε ), whereupon the more precise modal definitions are subjoined by ἐῤῥιζωμένοι κ . τ . λ .
ὡς ] according as. Observe that in the protasis παρελάβετε and in the apodosis περιπατεῖτε (not ἐν αὐτῷ , as Hofmann thinks) have the emphasis, in which case the addition of an οὕτως was not necessary. Their walk in Christ is to be in harmony with the instruction, by means of which they have through Epaphras received Christ.
παρελάβετε ] have received (Col_1:7; Eph_4:20), comp. Gal_1:9; Gal_1:12; 1Th_2:13; 1Th_4:1; 2Th_3:6; 1Co_11:23. Christ was communicated to them as the element of life.[84] The rendering: have accepted (Luther, Bähr, Böhmer, Huther, Hofmann), is not contrary to Pauline usage (de Wette; but see on Php_4:9; 1Co_15:1); but it is opposed to the context, in which after Col_2:4 (see especially Col_2:7 : καθὼς ἐδιδάχθητε , and Col_2:8 : ΚΑΤᾺ ΤῊΝ ΠΑΡΆΔΟΣΙΝ ΤῶΝ ἈΝΘΡ .) the contrast between true and false Christian instruction as regulative of the walk, and not the contrast between entrance into the fellowship of Christ and the walk therewith given (Hofmann), predominates.[85]
ΤῸΝ Χ . Ἰ . ΤῸΝ ΚΎΡΙΟΝ ] A solemnly complete designation, a summary of the whole confession (1Co_12:3; Php_2:11), in which τὸν κύριον , conformably with its position and the entire connection, is to be taken in the sense: as the Lord, consequently attributively, not as a mere apposition (de Wette, Bleek, Ellicott, and others), in which Hofmann includes also Ἰησοῦν , a view which is not warranted by Eph_3:1.
Col_2:7. ἘῤῬΙΖΩΜ . Κ . ἘΠΟΙΚΟΔ . ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ ] introduces the ethical habitus in the case of the required περιπατεῖν ἐν Χ . But the vivid conception, in the urgency of properly exhausting the important point, combines very dissimilar elements; for the two figures, of a plant and of a building, are inconsistent as such both with ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤΕῖΤΕ and with one another. Comp. Eph_3:17 f. By beginning a new sentence with ἘῤῬΙΖΩΜΈΝΟΙ Κ . Τ . Λ ., and thus construing it in connection with Col_2:8 (Schenkel, Hofmann), we should gain nothing in symmetry, and should only lose without sufficient reason in simplicity of construction; while we should leave the ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤΕῖΤΕ in Col_2:6 in a disproportionately bald and isolated position. This conjunction, moreover, of heterogeneous figures might quite as legitimately have been made by the apostle himself as by an interpolator, whose hand Holtzmann thinks that he here discovers.
Observe further the difference in time of the two participles, whereby the stedfastness of the ἐν Χριστῷ εἶναι (figuratively represented by ἘῤῬΙΖΩΜ .) is denoted as a subsistent state, which must be present in the case of the περιπατεῖν ἐν αὐτῷ , while the further development of the Christian condition (figuratively represented by ἐποικοδ .) is set forth as a continuing process of training; comp. Act_20:32.
ἘΠΟΙΚΟΔ .] becoming built up, in which ἐπί exhibits the building rising on the foundation. Comp. 1Co_3:10; 1Co_3:12; Eph_2:20; Xen. Anab. iii. 4. 11; Plat. Legg. v. p. 736 E. The building up may in itself be also regarded as an act accomplished (through conversion), as in Eph_2:20 : ἐποικοδομηθέντες , which, however, as modal definition of ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤ ., would not have suited here. The progress and finishing of the building (de Wette, following Act_20:32, where, however, the simple form οἰκοδ . should be read) are conveyed by the present, not by ἘΠΟΙΚΟΔ . in itself (comp. Eph_2:22). Nor does the latter represent the readers as stones, which are built up on the top of those already laid (Hofmann); on the contrary, they are in their aggregate as a church (comp. on Eph. l.c.) represented as an οἰκοδομή in the course of being built (i.e. of a more and more full development of their Christian common life), in regard to which the ἐπί in ἘΠΟΙΚΟΔ . presupposes the foundation laid by Epaphras, namely, Christ (1Co_3:11); and the building materials, including the stones, are not the persons, but the doctrines, by means of which the builders accomplish their work (see on 1Co_3:12).
ἐν αὐτῷ ] belongs to both participles, so that Christ is to be conceived doubtless as the soil for the roots striking downwards (Eph_3:17), and as the foundation (1Co_3:11) for the building extending upwards; but the expression is determined by the conception of the thing signified, namely, the ἐν Χριστῷ εἶναι , as in ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤ ., and not by the figures; hence Paul has not written ἐπʼ αὐτόν (1Co_3:12), or ἘΠʼ ΑὐΤῷ (Eph_2:20), which would have been in harmony with the latter participle, but he exhibits Christ as the Person, in whom that which is meant by the being rooted and becoming built up has its specific being and nature, and consequently the condition of endurance and growth.[86] Comp. on Eph_2:21.
καὶ βεβαιούμ . τῇ πίστ .] And to this being rooted and becoming built up there is to be added the being stablished by the faith, as the development of quality in the case, in order that no loose rooting may take place, nor any slack building be formed. The dative τῇ πίστει (see the critical remarks) is to be taken as instrumental, not: with respect to (in opposition to de Wette), since the following modal definition περισσ . ἐν αὐτῇ specifies, not how they are to be stablished in respect of the faith, but how they are to be stablished by it, by the fact, namely, that they are rich in faith; poverty in faith would not be sufficient to bring about that establishment. In like manner we should have to take the reading ἐν τ . πίστει , which Hofmann defends. He, however, joins this ἘΝ Τ . ΠΊΣΤΕΙ not with ΒΕΒΑΙΟΎΜ ., but with the following ΠΕΡΙΣΣΕΎΟΝΤΕς ,—a connection which is excluded by the genuineness of ἘΝ ΑὐΤῇ , but which is, even apart from this, to be rejected, because Paul would, in order to be fairly intelligible, have inserted the ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ only after ΒΕΒΑΙΟΎΜΕΝΟΙ , to which it would also refer.
ΚΑΘῺς ἘΔΙΔΆΧΘ .] namely, to become stablished by the faith. For this they have received (from Epaphras, Col_1:7) the instructions which are to guide them.
περισσεύοντες κ . τ . λ .] is subordinate to the ΒΕΒΑΙΟΎΜ ., and that as specifying the measure of the faith, which must be found in them in order that they may be stablished through faith; while at the same time the requisite vital expression, consecrated to God, of the piety of the believing heart is brought out by ἐν εὐχαρ .: while ye are abounding in the same amidst thanksgiving, i.e. while ye are truly rich in faith, and at the same time giving thanks to God for this blessing of fulness of faith. The emphasis is upon περισσ ., in which lies the more precisely defining element; περισσεύειν ἐν is nothing else than the usual abundare aliqua re, to have abundance of something (Rom_15:13; 1Co_8:7; Php_1:9, et al.), and ἐν εὐχαρ . indicates an accompanying circumstance in the case, the ethical consecration of grateful piety, with which the richness in faith must be combined; comp. Col_3:17, Col_1:12. It is well explained, in substance, by Theophylact: περισσόν τι ἐνδείκνυσθαι ἐν τῇ πίστει , εὐχαριστοῦντες τῷ θεῷ , ὅτι ἠξίωσεν ἡμᾶς τοιαύτης χάριτος , καὶ μὴ ἑαυτοῖς τὴν προκοπὴν ἐπιγράφοντας . Rightly also by Oecumenius, who takes ἘΝ ΕὐΧΑΡ . as equivalent to ΣῪΝ ΕὐΧΑΡ . Comp. Castalio, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Bähr, Steiger, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Dalmer, Hofmann, and others. Others, however, regard ἘΝ ΕὐΧΑΡ . as belonging to ΠΕΡΙΣΣ . Such is the view not only of the majority who reject ἘΝ ΑὐΤῇ on critical grounds (as Ewald), but also of Luther, Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, Huther (that the Colossians in their faith towards God … are to show themselves abundantly grateful). De Wette favours this rendering on the ground that the clause is not attached by καί , which, however, is quite in keeping with the circumstance that ΠΕΡΙΣΣ Κ . Τ . Λ . is subordinate to the ΒΕΒΑΙΟΎΜ . Κ . Τ . Λ . In opposition to the combination ΠΕΡΙΣΣ . ἘΝ ΕὐΧΑΡ . there may be urged, first, the arrangement of the words in itself; secondly, the fact that ἘΝ ΑὐΤῇ would be superfluous; and thirdly, that all the other elements of the verse refer to the nature of faith, and hence the latter, in harmony with the context, is to be regarded also in the last participial clause as the object of the discourse, whereas ἐν εὐχαρ . is to be treated as a relation associated with the faith.
[84] To this conception ἐν αὐτῷ refers subsequently. Chrysostom and his followers take this ἐν so, that Christ is regarded as the way. But this Johannine conception nowhere occurs in Paul’s writings; nor does it accord with παρελάβετε , with which, however, the extremely common Pauline idea of the ἐν Χρεστῷ εἶναι is in harmony.
[85] Eph_3:17 f., by comparing which Holtzmann discovers in our passage the hand of the interpolator, is both as regards contents and form too diverse for that purpose.
[86] Hofmann inappropriately, since in the case of ἐποικοδ . at any rate we have to think of the foundation, takes ἐν αὐτῷ in the sense that Christ surrounds the building.