Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 4:12 - 4:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Col_4:12. Ἐπαφρᾶς ] See Col_1:7 and Introd.
It is to be observed that, according to Col_4:11, Epaphras, Luke, and Demas (Col_4:14) were no Jewish-Christians, whereas Tiele in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 765, holding Luke to be by birth a Jew, has recourse to forced expedients, and wishes arbitrarily to read between the lines. Hofmann, refining groundlessly (see on Col_4:14), but with a view to favour his presupposition that all the N. T. writings were of Israelite origin,[175] thinks that our passage contributes nothing towards the solution of the question as to Lake’s descent; comp. on Luke, Introd. § 1.
ὁ ἐξ ὑμῶν ] as in Col_4:9, exciting the affectionate special interest of the readers; ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν afterwards thoughtfully corresponds.
δοῦλος Χ . is to be taken together with πάντοτε ἀγωνιζ ., but ὁ ἐξ ὑμῶν is not to be connected with δοῦλος (Hofmann); on the contrary, it is to be taken by itself as a special element of recommendation (as in Col_4:9): Epaphras, your own, a servant of Christ who is always striving, etc.
ἀγωνιζ .] Comp. Rom_15:30. The more fervent the prayer for any one is, the more is it a striving for him, namely, in opposition to the dangers which threaten him, and which are present to the vivid conception of him who wrestles in prayer. Comp. also Col_2:1. The striving of Epaphras in prayer certainly had reference not merely to the heretical temptations to which the Colossians, of whose church he was a member, were exposed, but—as is evident from ἵνα στῆτε κ . τ . λ . (purpose of the ἀγωνιζ . κ . τ . λ .)—to everything generally, which endangered the right Christian frame in them.
στῆτε ] designation of stedfast perseverance; in which there is neither wavering, nor falling, nor giving way. To this belongs ἐν παντὶ θελήμ τ . Θ ., expressing wherein (comp. 1Pe_5:12) they are to maintain stedfastness; in every will of God, that is, in all that God wills. Comp. on στῆναι ἐν in this sense, Joh_8:44; Rom_5:2; 1Co_15:1; 1Co_16:13. This connection (comp. Bengel and Bleek) recommends itself on account of its frequent occurrence, and because it completes and rounds off the whole expression; for στῆτε now has not merely a modal definition, τέλ . κ . πεπληρ ., but also a local definition, which admirably corresponds to the figurative conception of standing. This applies, at the same time, in opposition to the usual mode of construction with τέλ . κ . πεπληρ ., followed also by Hofmann, according to which ἐν π . θελ . τ . Θ . would be the moral sphere, “within which the perfection and firm conviction are to take place,” Huther.[176]
ΤΈΛΕΙΟΙ ΚΑῚ ΠΕΠΛΗΡΟΦΟΡΗΜΈΝΟΙ ] perfect and with full conviction, (comp. Col_2:2; Rom_4:21; Rom_14:5; and see on Luk_1:1) obtain through the context ( στῆτε ἐν π . θελ . τ . Θ .) their more definite meaning; the former as moral perfection, such as the true Christian ought to have (Col_1:28); and the latter, as stedfastness of conscience, which excludes all scruples as to what God’s will requires, and is of decisive importance for the τελειότης of the Christian life; comp. Rom_14:5; Rom_14:22 f.
[175] This postulate, wholly without proof, is also assumed by Grau, Entwickelungsgesch. d. neutest. Schriftth. I. p. 54.
[176] If we follow the Recepta πεπληρωμένοι (see the critical remarks), on the other hand, we must join, as is usually done, following Chrysostom and Luther, ἐν π . θελ . τ . Θεοῦ to πεπληρωμ .: filled with every will of God, which, instead of being transformed into “voluntatis divinae verae et integrae cognitio” (Reiche, comp. Beza), is rather to be understood as denoting that the heart is to be full of all that God wills, and that in no matter, consequently, is any other will than the divine to role in the believer. Respecting ἐν , comp. on Eph_5:18. Bähr incorrectly renders: “by virtue of the whole counsel of God,” which is not possible on account of the very absence of the article in the case of παντί . Grotius, Heinrichs, Flatt, and others, erroneously hold that ἐν is equivalent to εἰς .