Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 2:9 - 2:9
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Col_2:9. Since indeed in Him dwells, etc. This is not “a peg upon which the interpolator hangs his own thoughts” (Holtzmann). On the contrary, Paul assigns a reason for the οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν just said, with a view more effectually to deter them from the false teachers. The force of the reason assigned lies in the fact that, if the case stand so with Christ, as is stated in Col_2:9 ff., by every other regulative principle of doctrine that which is indicated in the words κατὰ Χριστόν is excluded and negatived. Others make the reason assigned refer to the warning: βλέπετε κ . τ . λ ., so that ὅτι adduces the reason why they ought to permit this warning to be addressed to them (Hofmann, comp. Huther and Bleek); but, in opposition to this view, it may be urged that the ἐν αὐτῷ placed emphatically first (in Him and in no other) points back to the immediately preceding οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν (comp. Chrysostom and Calvin); there is therefore nothing to show that the reference of ὅτι ought to be carried further back (to βλέπετε ). In Christ the whole fulness of Godhead—what a contrast to the human παράδοσις and the στοιχεῖα of the world!
κατοικεῖ ] The present, for it is the exalted Christ, in the state of His heavenly δόξα , that is in view. Comp. Col_1:15. In Him the entire πλήρωμα has its κατοικητήριον (Eph_2:22), so that He is the personal bearer of it, the personal seat of its essential presence.
πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα (comp. on Col_1:19) is here more precisely defined by the “vocabulum abstractum significantissimum” (Bengel) τῆς θεότητος , which specifies what dwells in Christ in its entire fulness, i.e. not, it may be, partially, but in its complete entirety. On the genitive, comp. Rom_11:25; Rom_15:29. It is not the genitive auctoris (Nösselt: “universa comprehensio eorum, quae Deus per Christum vellet in homines transferre”); the very abstract θεότητ . should have been a sufficient warning against this view, as well as against the interpretation: “id quod inest θεότητι ” (Bähr). ἡ θεότης , the Godhead (Lucian, Icarom. 9; Plut. Mor. p. 415 C), the abstract from ὁ Θεός , is to be distinguished from ἡ θειότης , the abstract from θεῖος (Rom_1:20; Wis_18:19; Lucian, de calumn. 17). The former is Deitas, the being God, i.e. the divine essence, Godhead; the latter is divinitas, i.e. the divine quality, godlikeness. See on Rom_1:20. Accordingly, the essence of God, undivided and in its whole fulness, dwells in Christ in His exalted state, so that He is the essential and adequate image of God (Col_1:15), which He could not be if He were not possessor of the divine essence. The distinction between what is here said about Christ and what is said about Him in Col_1:19 is, that the πλήρωμα is here meant metaphysically, of the divina essentia, but in the former passage charismatically, of the divina gratia, and that κατοικεῖν is conceived here as in present permanence, but in the former passage historically (namely, of Christ’s historical, earthly appearance). See on Col_1:19. The erroneous attempts that have been made to explain away the literal meaning thus definitely and deliberately expressed by Paul, are similar to those in Col_1:19. One of these, in particular, is the mis-explanation referring it to the church as the God-filled organ of divine self-revelation (Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, Schenkel) which has its dwelling-place in Christ.[92] Already Theodoret (comp. τινές in Chrysostom), indeed, quotes the explanation that Christ signifies the church in which the πλήρωμα dwells, but on account of σωματικῶς hesitates to agree to it, and rather accedes to the common view, thereby deviating from his interpretation of Col_1:19. Theophylact is substantially right (comp. Chrysostom and Oecumenius): εἰ τί ἐστιν ὁ Θεὸς λόγος , ἐν αὐτῷ οἰκεῖ , so that the fulness of the Godhead in the ontological, and not in the simply mystical or morally religious sense (de Wette) is meant.
But how does it dwell in Christ? σωματικῶς , in bodily fashion, i.e. in such a way that through this indwelling in Christ it is in a bodily form of appearance, clothed with a body. Comp. also Hofmann in loc., and Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 29; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 428, ed. 2. It is not in Christ ( ἀσωμάτως ), as before the Incarnation it was in the λόγος ( Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος , Joh_1:1), but (comp. also Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 260 ff.) it is in His glorified body (Php_3:21), so that the ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ and ἰσα Θεῷ εἶναι , which already existed in the λόγος ἄσαρκος (Php_2:6), now in Christ’s estate of exaltation—which succeeded the state of humiliation, whereby the μορφὴ Θεοῦ was affected—have a bodily frame, are in bodily personality.[93] Of course the θεότης does not thereby itself come into the ranks of the σωματικαὶ οὐσίαι (Plat. Locr. p. 96 A), but is in the exalted Christ after a real fashion σωματικῷ εἴδει (Luk_3:22), and therefore Christ Himself is the visible divine-human image of the invisible God (Col_1:15). In this glory, as Possessor of the Godhead dwelling in Him bodily, He will also appear at the Parousia—an appearance, therefore, which will manifest itself visibly (1Jn_3:2) as the actual ἐπιφάνεια τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ (Tit_2:13). The reference of the whole statement, however, to the exalted Christ is placed beyond question by the use of the present κατοικεῖ , which asserts the presently existing relation, without requiring a νῦν along with it (in opposition to Huther). The renderings: essentialiter, οὐσιωδῶς (Cyril, Theophylact, Calvin, Beza, and others, including Usteri, Steiger, Olshausen, Huther, Bisping), in which case some thought of a contrast to the divine ἐνέργεια in the prophets (see Theophylact), and: realiter (Augustine, Erasmus, Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Schoettgen, Wolf, Nösselt, Bleek, and others), in which was found the opposite of τυπικῶς (Col_2:17), are linguistically inappropriate; for σωματικός never means anything else than corporeus. Comp. on the adverb, Plut. Mor. p. 424 D. The less justifiable is the hypothesis of Rich. Schmidt (Paul. Christol. p. 191), that in the term σωματικῶς the contrast of Col_2:17 was already present to the apostle’s mind. Those who adopt the erroneous explanation of πλήρωμα as referring to the church, assign to σωματικῶς the meaning: “so that the church stands related to Him as His body” (Baumgarten-Crusius and Schenkel), which issues in the absurdity that the body of Christ is held to dwell in Christ, whereas conversely Christ could not but dwell in His body. It is true that the church is related to Christ as His body, not, however, in so far as it dwells in Him (and, according to the context, this must have been the case here, if the explanation in question be adopted), but either in so far as He dwells in it, or in so far as He is its Head, which latter thought is quite foreign to the connection of the passage; for even in Col_2:10 Christ is not called the Head of the church. It is, morever, to be observed, that the adverb is placed emphatically at the end. The special reason, however, on account of which the κατοικεῖν κ . τ . λ . is thus prominently set forth as bodily, cannot, indeed, be directly shown to have been supplied by the circumstances of the Colossians, but is nevertheless to be recognised in an apologetic interest of opposition to the false teachers, who by their doctrines concerning the angels (comp. Col_2:10 : ἀρχῆς κ . ἐξουσ .) must have broken up, in a spiritualistic sense, the πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος .
[92] Thus, indeed, the fulness of the Godhead has been removed from Christ, but there has only been gained instead of it the unbiblical idea that the church dwells in Christ. The church has its support in Christ as the corner-stone (Eph_2:20-21), but it does not dwell in Him. On the contrary, Christ dwells in the church, which is His body, and the πλήρωμα filled by Him (see on Eph_1:23), namely, in virtue of the Spirit dwelling in the church (see on Eph_2:22), which is the Spirit of Christ (Rom_8:9; Gal_4:6; Php_1:19).
[93] It is now only worth remarking historically, but is almost incredible, how the Socinians have twisted our verse. Its sense in their view is: “quod in doctrina ipsius tota Dei voluntas integre et reapse est patefacta,” Catech. Racov. 194, p. 398, ed. Oeder. Calovius gives a refutation in detail.