Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 3:11 - 3:11
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Col_3:11. Where all the separating diversities have ceased, by which those phenomena of malevolence and passion mentioned in Col_3:8 were occasioned and nourished. Comp. Gal_3:28, of which passage Baur indeed sees here only an extended and climactic imitation.
ὅπου ] where there is not, etc.; namely there, where the old man has been put off, and the νέος κ . τ . λ . put on, Col_3:10. It represents the existing relation according to local conception, like the Latin ubi, i.e. qua in re, or in quo rerum statu, like the local ἵνα ; comp. Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 5. 1; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 331 f. The relation is one objectively real, historically occurring (comp. Gal_3:28; Rom_10:12; 1Co_12:13), present in renewed humanity. Consequently ὅπου is not to be referred to the ἐπίγνωσις , and to be interpreted within which, i.e. in the Christian consciousness (Schenkel); but just as little is the relative clause to be joined immediately with εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατʼ εἰκόνα κ . τ . λ . so that it affirms that there, where this image is found, all contrasts, etc., have vanished; so Hofmann in connection with his erroneous explanation of εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατʼ εἰκόνα κ . τ . λ ., see on Col_3:10.
Respecting ἔνι , equivalent to ἔνεστι , see on Gal_3:28.
Ἕλλην κ . Ἰουδ .] national diversity, without taking Ἕλλην , however, with Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, in the sense of proselyte.
περιτ . κ . ἀκροβ .] theocratic diversity.[152]
βάρβαρος κ . τ . λ .] In the increasing vividness of conception the arrangement by pairs is dropped, and the nouns are placed beside each other asyndetically. Paul does not couple with βάρβαρος , as he does again in the case of ΔΟῦΛΟς , its opposite, which was already adduced ( Ἕλλην , comp. on Rom_1:14), but proceeds by way of a climax: Σκύθης . Bengel (comp. Grotius) well says: “Scythae … barbaris barbariores;” they were included, however, among the barbarians (in opposition to Bengel, who thinks that the latter term indicates the Numidians). For instances in which the Scythians are termed βαρβαρώτατοι (comp. also 2Ma_4:47; 3Ma_7:5), see Wetstein. We may infer, moreover, from the passage, that among the Christians there were even some Scythians, possibly immigrants into Greek and Roman countries.
ἀλλὰ τὰ πάντα … Χριστός ] the dividing circumstances named, which, previous to the putting on of the ΝΈΟς ἌΝΘΡΩΠΟς , were so influential and regulative of social interests and conduct, have now—a fact, which was beyond doubt not recognised by the Jewish prejudice of the false teachers—since the Christian renovation (comp. 2Co_5:17) ceased to exist in the fellowship established by the latter (ideal expression of the thought: their morally separating influence is abolished); whereas Christ is the sum total of all desires and strivings, and that in all individuals, without distinction of nations, etc.; He “solus proram et puppim, ut aiunt, principium et finem tenet” (Calvin). All are one in Christ, Gal_3:28; Gal_5:15; Rom_10:12; 1Co_12:13; Eph_2:14. Comp. on this use of the τὰ πάντα in the sense of persons, who pass for everything, 1Co_15:28; Herod. iii. 157, vii. 156; Thuc. viii. 95. 1; Dem. 660. 7; Hermann, ad Viger. p. 727.
Χριστός ] the subject put at the end with great emphasis. He, in all His believers ( ἐν πᾶσι ) the all-determining principle of the new life and activity, is also the constituent of the new sublime unity, in which those old distinctions and contrasts have become meaningless and as it were no longer exist. The Hellene is no longer other than the Jew, etc., but in all it is only Christ, who gives the same specific character to their being and life.
[152] For even a Ἕλλην might be circumcised and thereby received into the theocracy.—The tact that Ἕλλην stands before. Ἰουδ (it is otherwise in Gal_3:28; 1Co_12:13; Rom_10:12, et al.) ought not to be urged, with Holtzmann, following Baur and Hökstra, against the originality of the passage. Paul does not arrange the designations mechanically, as is evident from the second clause. Holtzmann, however, justly denies, in opposition to Mayerhoff and Hökstra, that the arrangement is so inserted in antagonism to the Jewish people.