Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 3:16 - 3:16
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Col_3:16 f. The series of exhortations begun in Col_3:12 is now closed,[157] and Paul proceeds to give, before going on in Col_3:18 to the duties of particular callings, an encouraging allusion to the Christian means of grace for furthering the common life of piety, namely, the word of Christ. This ought to dwell richly among them, so that they might by means of its operation (1) instruct and admonish each other in all wisdom with psalms, etc.; (2) by the divine grace sing to God in their hearts; and (3) let all that they do, in word or deed, be done in the name of Jesus with thanksgiving to God. Accordingly, the previous paraenesis by no means ends in a “loose aggregation” (as Hofmann objects), but in a well-weighed, steadily-progressive, and connected conclusion on the basis of the λόγος of Christ[158] placed at the very beginning. According to Hofmann, Col_3:16 f. is only meant to be an amplification of the εὐχάριστοι γίνεσθε in Col_3:15. This would be a disproportionate amplification—especially as εὐχ . γίν . is not the leading thought in the foregoing—and could only be plausibly upheld by misinterpretations in the details; see below.
ὁ λόγος τ . Χριστοῦ ] i.e. the gospel. The genitive is that of the subject; Christ causes it to be proclaimed, He Himself speaks in the proclaimers (2Co_13:3), and has revealed it specially to Paul (Gal_4:11 f.); it is His word. Comp. 1Th_1:8; 1Th_4:15; 2Th_3:1; Heb_6:1. The designation of it, according to its principal author: ὁ λ . τοῦ Θεοῦ , is more current.
ἐνοικείτω ἐν ὑμῖν ] not: among you (Luther and many others), which would not be in keeping with the conception of indwelling; nor yet: in animis vestris (Theodoret, Melanchthon, Beza, Zanchius, and others, including Flatt, Böhmer, and Olshausen), so that the indwelling which depends on knowledge and faith would be meant, since the subsequent modal definition is of an oral nature: but in you, i.e. in your church, the ὑμεῖς , as a whole, being compared to a house, in which the word has the seat of its abiding operation and rule (comp. Rom_8:11; 2Ti_1:5).
πλουσίως ] in ample measure. In proportion as the gospel is recognised much or little in a church as the common living source and contents of mutual instruction, quickening, discipline, and edification, its dwelling there is quantitatively various. De Wette explains it, not comprehensively enough, in accordance with what follows: “so that many come forward as teachers, and often.” In another way Hofmann limits it arbitrarily: the letting the word of Christ dwell richly in them is conceived as an act of gratitude. How easy it would have been for Paul to have indicated this intelligibly! But the new point which he wishes to urge upon his readers, namely, to let the divinely-powerful means of Christian life dwell richly in them, is placed by him without any link of connection, and independently, at the head of his closing exhortation.
The following ἐν πάσῃ … τῷ Θεῷ is the modal definition of the foregoing; so that ye, etc.; construction according to the logical subject, as in Col_2:2.
ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ ] Since what precedes has its defining epithet in πλουσίως , and that with all the emphasis of the adverb put at the end, and since, moreover, the symmetry of the following participial clauses, each of which begins with ἐν ( ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ … ἐν τ . χάριτι ), ought not to be abandoned without some special reason, the ἐν τ . σοφ . is to be referred to what follows (so Bos, Bengel, Storr, Flatt, Bähr, Steiger, Olshausen, Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Dalmer, Reiche, Bleek, Hofmann, and others; Böhmer hesitates, and Beza permits this reference), and not to what precedes (so Syriac, Chrysostom, Luther, and many others). Comp. Col_1:28. Every sort of (Christian) wisdom is to be active in the mutual instruction and admonition. Regarding the details, see on Col_1:28.
ἑαυτούς ] mutually, among yourselves, comp. Col_3:13.
ψαλμοῖς κ . τ . λ .] modal definition of the mutual διδάσκειν and νουθετεῖν , which are to take place by means of (see below, ἐν χάρ . ᾄδοντες κ . τ . λ .) psalms, etc. It is all the more arbitrary to refer it merely to νουθετ . (de Wette), seeing that the position of ἑαυτούς binds the two participles together, and seeing that inspired songs by no means exclude a doctrinal purport. The conceivableness of a didactic activity in mutual singing (in opposition to Schenkel and Hofmann), and that without confounding things radically different, is still clearly enough recognisable in many of our best church songs, especially in those born of the fresh spirit of the Reformation. Storr and Flatt, Schenkel and Hofmann join the words with ᾄδοντες , although the latter has already a definition both before and after it, and although one does not say ψαλμοῖς κ . τ . λ ., ᾄδειν (dative), but ψαλμοὺς κ . τ . λ . (accusative), as in Exo_14:31; Plat. Symp. 197 E, Rep. p. 388 D, and in all Greek authors. The dative of the instrument with ᾄδειν would be appropriate, if it had along with it an accusative of the object praised (as e.g. Eur. Ion. 1091). See, moreover, on Eph_5:19. Concerning the distinction between ψαλμοί (religious songs after the manner of the Psalms of the O. T., to be regarded partly as Christian songs already in use, partly as improvised effusions, 1Co_14:15; 1Co_14:26) and ὕμνοι (songs of praise), to both of which ᾠδαὶ πνευματικαί (i.e. songs inspired by the Holy Spirit) are then added as the general category,[159] see on Eph_5:19. Observe, moreover, that Paul is here also (comp. Eph. l.c.) speaking not of divine worship[160] in the proper sense of the term, since the teaching and admonition in question are required from the readers generally and mutually, and that as a proof of their abundant possession of the word of Christ, but rather of the communication one with another in religious intercourse (e.g. at meals, in the agapae and other meetings, in family circles, etc.)—in which enthusiasm makes the fulness of the heart pass from mouth to mouth, and brotherly instruction and admonition thus find expression in the higher form of psalms, etc., whether these may have been songs already well known, or extemporized according to the peculiar character and productive capacity of the individual enthusiasm, whether they may have been sung by individuals alone (especially if they were improvised), or chorally, or in the form of alternating chants (Plin. Ep. x. 97). How common religious singing was in the ancient church, even apart from divine service proper, may be seen in Suicer, Thes. II. p. 1568 f. The existence of a multitude of rhythmic songs, composed ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς by Christians, is attested by Eus. H. E. ii. 17, v. 28. Regarding singing in the agapae, see Tertullian, Apol. 39: “post aquam manualem et lumina, ut quisque de scripturis sanctis vel proprio ingenio potest, provocatur in medium Deo canere.” See generally, Augusti, Denkw. II. p. 110 ff.
The asyndetic (see the critical remarks) juxtaposition of ψαλμ ., ὕμν ., and ᾠδαῖς πν . renders the discourse more urgent and animated.
ἐν τῇ χάριτι ᾄδοντες κ . τ . λ .] is commonly regarded as subordinate to what goes before; as if Paul would say: the heart also is to take part in their singing, οὐχ ἁπλῶς τῷ στόματι , ἀλλʼ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ , ὅ ἐστι μετὰ προσοχῆς , Theophylact. But Paul himself has not in the least expressed any such contrasting reference; and how superfluous, nay, even inappropriate, would such an injunction be, seeing that the διδάσκειν and νουθετεῖν takes place in fact by the ψαλμοὶ κ . τ . λ ., and this is to be the outcome of the abundant indwelling of the gospel; and seeing, further, that there is no mention at all of a stated common worship (where, possibly, lip-service might intrude), but, on the contrary, of mutual edifying intercourse! The entire view is based upon the unfounded supposition of a degeneracy of worship in the apostolic age, which, even though it were true in itself, would be totally inapplicable here. Moreover, we should expect the idea, that the singing is to be the expression of the emotion of the heart, to be represented not by ἐν τ . καρδ ., but by ἐκ τῶν καρδ . (comp. 2Ti_2:22; Mat_12:34) or ἀπὸ τ . κ . Comp. Wis_8:21, also classical expressions like ἐκ φρενός and the like. No, the participial clause is co-ordinate with the preceding one (as also at Eph_5:19, see in loc.), and conveys—after the audible singing for the purpose of teaching and admonition, to be done mutually—as a further element of the pious life in virtue of the rich indwelling of the word of Christ, the still singing of the heart, which each one must offer to God for himself inwardly; i.e. the silent praising of God, which belongs to self-edification in the inner man. Chrysostom already indicates this view, but mixes it up, notwithstanding, with the usual one; Theophylact quotes it as another ( ἄλλως ), giving to it, moreover, the inappropriate antithesis: μὴ πρὸς ἐπίδειξιν , but adding with Chrysostom the correct illustration: κἂν γὰρ ἐν ἀγορᾷ ᾖς , δύνασαι κατὰ σεαυτὸν ᾄδειν μηδενὸς ἀκούοντος . Bengel well describes the two parallel definitions ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ κ . τ . λ . and ἐν χάριτι κ . τ . λ . as distributio of the πλουσίως , and that mutuo et seorsim.
ἐν τῇ χάριτι ] does not belong to ᾠδαῖς πνευμ . (Luther: “with spiritual pleasant songs,” also Calvin), but to ᾄδοντες as the parallel element to ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ . In the same way, namely, as the teaching and admonition above mentioned are to take place by means of every wisdom, which communicates and operates outwardly through them, so the still singing of the heart now spoken of is to take place by means of the divine grace, which stirs and moves and impels men’s minds,—a more precise definition, which is so far from being useless and idle (as Hofmann objects), that it, on the contrary, excludes everything that is selfish, vain, fanatical, and the like. Chrysostom says rightly: ἀπὸ τῆς χάριτος τοῦ πνεύματος , φησὶν , ᾄδοντες κ . τ . λ .; comp. Oecumenius: διὰ τῆς παρὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος δοθείσης χάριτος , also Estius and Steiger. Hofmann’s view is erroneous: that ᾄδειν ἔν τινι means to sing of something, thus making the grace experienced the subject-matter of the songs. This it does not mean even in the LXX. Psa_138:5, where áÌÄ is taken in a local sense.[161] The subject-matter of the singing would have been expressed by an accusative (as μῆνιν ἄειδε ), or with ΕἸς .[162] Inappropriate as to sense (since the discourse concerns singing in the heart) is the view of others: with gracefulness. So Theophylact (who, however, permits a choice between this and the true explanation), Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon (“sine confusione, εὐσχημόνως ”), Castalio, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Wetstein, Bengel, and others, including Bähr, Baumgarten-Crusius, Schenkel, Reiche. Even though the singing in public worship were spoken of, the injunction to sing gracefully, and especially with the emphasis of being placed first, would touch on too singular an element. Anselm, and in more modern times Böhmer, Huther, de Wette, and Bleek take it: with thankfulness, in which case the article, which Bleek rejects (see the critical remarks), would denote not the gratitude already required in Col_3:15 (so Huther), but that which is due. But the summons to general thanksgiving towards God (in Col_3:15, grateful conduct was meant by εὐχάρ . γίν .) only follows in Col_3:17; and inasmuch as the interpretation which takes it of the divine grace is highly suitable both to the connection and to the use of the article (which sets forth the χάρις as a conception formally set apart), and places an admirably characteristic element in the foreground, there is no reason for assuming here a call to thanksgiving.
As ἐν ταῖς καρδ . ὑμ . was contrasted with the preceding oral singing, so is τῷ Θεῷ contrasted with the destination for others; the still heart-singer sings to God. It is just for this reason that the otherwise superfluous τῷ Θεῷ is added. Comp. 1Co_14:28.
[157] Lachmann and Steiger have put ὁ λόγος … πλουσίως in a parenthesis, which just as arbitrarily sets aside the new and regulative idea introduced by ὁ λόγος , as it very unnecessarily comes to the help of the construction.
[158] This applies also in opposition to Holtzmann, p. 54 f., who finds in ver. 16 an echo of Eph_5:19, which at the same time interrupts the entire connection, and presents something un-Pauline almost in every word (p. 164). Un-Pauline, in his view, is ὁ λόγος τ . Χριστοῦ (but see 1Th_1:8; 1Th_4:15); un-Pauline the juxtaposition of ψαλμοῖς , ὕμνοις , ᾠδαῖς (the reason why it is so, is not plain); un-Pauline the ᾁδειν itself, and even the adverb πλουσίως . How strangely has the apostle, so rich in diction, become impoverished!
[159] Many arbitrary more special distinctions are to be found in expositors. See Bähr. Even Steiger distinguishes them very precariously into (1) songs accompanied by stringed instruments; (2) solemn church songs; (3) songs sung in the house and at work.
[160] This applies also in opposition to Holtzmann, who discovers here and in Eph_5:19 an already far advanced stage of worship.
[161] As in the Vulgate, and by Luther.
[162] Nevertheless, Holtzmann, p. 164, adopts the linguistically quite incorrect explanation of Hofmann: he thinks that it alone yields a tolerable sense, but that it is foreign to the linguistic usage of Paul (no, it is foreign to all linguistic usage).