Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges - Colossians 1:16 - 1:16

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges - Colossians 1:16 - 1:16


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

16. ὅτι. “Because”; justifying the preceding title (πρωτότοκος πάσ. κτίσ.).

ἐν αὐτῷ, stronger than the διʼ αὐτοῦ in the second part of the verse, and in Joh 1:3 a, and even than χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν, Joh 1:3 b. It is like Col 1:17, τά πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν. We grasp, or think we grasp, the sense of the latter phrase without much difficulty, that all things find their coherence in Him alone, but we sometimes fail to appreciate its complement, that they must have had their immediate origin in Him alone, who is “the creative centre of all things, the causal element of their existence” (Ell.). Hence He is called ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, Rev 3:14.

For a similar use of ἐν, but with reference to the Father, see Act 17:28. Wis 9:1 b, ὁ ποιήσας τὰ πάντα ἐν λόγῳ σου, is parallel in form alone, for it is a literal translation of the Hebrew בִּדְבָרֶךָ which in such a phrase would naturally mean “by Thy word.”

ἐκτίσθη. κτίζω is used in the N.T. only of God’s action, and so almost universally in the LXX., the exceptions being Lev 16:16 of the tabernacle being set up, 1Es 4:53 of founding a city (a classical usage), Hag 2:9 apparently of building the temple, and possibly also Jeremiah 39(32):15 as a var. lect. for κτηθήσονται. Aquila and after him Sym. and Theod. frequently substitute it for a less exact term in the LXX. when the Hebrew has ברא, e.g. Gen 1:1; Gen 1:27.

τὰ πάντα See notes on Textual Criticism. Almost certainly to be separated from the following words, partly because in the right text no article follows (yet cf. Eph 3:15), partly because τὰ πάντα occurs so often alone, both with κτίζω (e.g. the end of this verse, Eph 3:9; Rev 4:11 bis; Sir 23:20) and with other somewhat similar phrases (e.g. Col 1:20; Eph 1:10-11; Eph 1:23; Eph 4:10).

Observe (1) τὰ πάντα, as contrasted with πάντα, regards the several parts as forming a whole, cf. 1Co 15:27-28. (2) τὰ πάντα, afterwards denned as ἐν οὐρ. κ.τ.λ., not barely τὸν οὐρανὸν κ. τ. γῆν, because St Paul is laying stress on Christ’s relation not to the universe generally but to creatures, particularly sentient creatures, in it. (3) τὰ πάντα, not τὰ ἄλλα, or τὰ λοιπά, thus absolutely excluding the πρωτότοκος from being Himself a κτίσις (cf. Lightfoot).

ἐν τοις οὐρανοῖς κ. ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. “In the heavens and on the earth,” recalling Gen 1:1 and especially Col 2:1, all things whether above or below. Perhaps οὐρανοί here (contrast 1Co 8:5, εἴτε ἐν οὐρανῷ κ.τ.λ.) to include a reference to the seven stages of the heavenly regions so frequently spoken of in the apocalyptic literature (cf. Introd. p. xxiii.), a theory which can hardly have been absent from the false teaching that St Paul was combating, and one which he himself accepted in some measure (2Co 12:2).

τά ὁρατὰ† καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, “the visible and the invisible.” ὁρατός occurs elsewhere in the Greek Bible in this sense only in Job 37:21. ἀόρατος (see Col 1:15) is used nowhere else in the Greek Bible or the Hexapla fragments of invisible things absolutely (contrast Rom 1:20 in reference to God), but it is used in Isa 45:3, 2Ma 9:5 of things unseen before a certain time, and in Gen 1:2 of chaos.

The two words together comprise all existing things regarded from the side of human vision. Compare Plato’s τὸ ὁρατόν and τὸ ἀειδές. They practically correspond to our “material and immaterial” but avoid the probable error, philosophical and scientific, of such a division, ὁρατά probably includes both stellar and earthly powers; ἀόρατα perhaps solely super-terrestrial beings, “angels” of every kind, but hardly souls of men on earth.

θρόνοι. Here only in St Paul. The throne, from being the mere symbol of power (Luk 1:52), easily becomes the synonym for it (e.g. Rev 13:2; cf. 2Sa 14:9; 1Ki 1:37; 1Ki 1:47; 1Ki 2:33, etc.).

Here, with the three following terms, it is personified, St Paul perhaps preferring personifications of abstract terms to direct personal appellations, as more suitable to the vague and mysterious nature of these exalted beings—if as is probable from Col 2:10; Col 2:15 beings are intended.

The exact reference of θρόνοι here (a) cannot be to beings that merely support God’s throne, for this would separate θρόνοι from the class of the three following terms, which have a distinctly active sense; and (b) can hardly be definitely to those who occupy thrones surrounding the throne of God, Rev 4:4 (Abbott), for we should then expect some definite reference in the following terms as well; but (c) the reference is probably to the beings, whatever they were, called by this name in the current pseudepigraphical literature. See Slavonic Enoch XX. 1, and Asc. Isaiah, “worship neither throne nor angel which belongs to the six heavens” (7:21); “when I have raised thee to the seventh heaven … thou shalt know that there is nothing hidden from the thrones and from those that dwell in the heavens and from the angels” (7:27); “It is He alone to whose voice all the heavens and thrones give answer” (8:8). Testt. XII Patriarchs, “and in the heaven next to this are thrones, dominions, in which hymns are ever offered to God” (Levi, iii. Sinker’s trans.).

κυριότητες, dominationes Vulg., dominaciouns Wycl., Eph 1:21; 2Pe 2:10; Jud 1:8†. Not in LXX. or Hexapla fragments. As κύριος seems to have taken much of its later connotation from the fact of its being the Greek equivalent of Dominus, the Latin title of the Roman Emperor (cf. especially Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 330), so probably κυριότης borrowed part of its meaning from dominatio. If so it probably has the connotation of despotism which is lacking in θρόνος. Translated into personal and modern terms the two are “Kings, Czars.” But in this case also the reference is doubtless to angelic beings: cf. the “Greek Legend” of Asc. Isa. vii. 21, μὴ προσκυνήσῃς μήτε ἀγγέλους μήτε ἀρχαγγέλους μήτε κυριότητας μήτε θρόνους (Charles’ Edition, p. 144).

ἀρχαὶ, ἐξουσίαι, “ether princeheedis, ether powers,” Wycl. The two words frequently come together, Col 2:10; Col 2:15; Eph 1:21 (ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς κ. ἐξουσίας κ. δυνάμεως κ. κυριότητος κ. παντὸς ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένου κ.τ.λ.), Col 3:10, Col 4:12.

Of the two titles ἀρχαί is doubtless the higher, expressing as it does a priority of rank and rule, ἐξουσίαι being more general, contrasting the possessors of ἐξουσία with those, whoever they may be, over whom it is exercised. For ἀρχαί without ἐξουσία see Rom 8:38-39. On ἐξουσία cf. Col 1:13 note. For the use of these two words compare the phrase “all the angels of power and all the angels of principalities” (Eth. Enoch, lxi. 10). Observe

(1) The terms are in a descending scale, generally but perhaps not in detail. For in Eph 1:21 κυριότης follows ἐξουσία.

(2) The supposition (P. Ewald) that they are in two pairs has no support either from Eph 1:21 or from the use of the terms in the pseudepigraphical books. Hence we have no right to regard the ἀρχαί and ἐξουσίαι as standing in closer relation (by opposition or assistance) to believers than the θρόνοι and κυριότητες.

(3) They include only supernatural powers, for there is no hint that the Colossians were in danger of worshipping human beings (contrast Col 2:18).

(4) Though St Paul believed in the existence of angels (1Co 6:3), and probably in grades of them (because such a belief was very common in his time), yet he here employs not strictly official, much less personal, names—contrast e.g. Eth. Enoch. Bk Jub.—but only personifications of abstract terms. This looks as though here he purposely expressed himself vaguely. He found the terms in common use, e.g. among the Colossians, and he uses them, but he neither affirms nor denies their personality.

On the other hand it is hard to see here any signs of his “impatience with this elaborate angelology” (Lightfoot).

ταʼ πάντα. Emphatic repetition, introducing new facts.

διʼ αὐτοῦ. Regarding the Son (Col 1:13) as the means by which all things have been created. So often, e.g. Joh 1:3; Joh 1:10; 1Co 8:6; Heb 1:2; cf. Rom 11:36. Compare Philo, de Mon. ii. 5 (II. p. 225), λόγος … διʼ οὗ σύμπας ὁ κόσμος ἐδημιουργεῖτο. But Lightfoot points out that Philo regarded the Logos as a passive tool or instrument, and therefore “frequently and consistently used the simple instrumental dative ᾧ to describe the relation of the Word to the Creator,” e.g. Leg. All. iii. 31 § 96, Wendland (I. p. 106), ὁ λόγος … ᾧ καθάπερ ὀργάνῳ προσχρησάμενος. But this the N.T. cannot and does not do.

καὶ εἰς αὐτόν. The Son is here regarded as the final aim to which all things tend. “The Eternal Word is the goal of the universe, as He was the starting-point. It must end in unity, as it proceeded from unity: and the centre of this unity is Christ. This expression has no parallel, and could have none, in the Alexandrian phraseology and doctrine” (Lightfoot).

In Rom 11:36 we find stated of God, without regard to the hypostatic distinctions, ὅτι ἐξ αὐτοῦ κ. διʼ αὐτοῦ κ. εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα, and in 1Co 8:6, expressly of the Father, ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὖ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, where, however, the reference is verbally limited to the Father as the supreme object of the Christian life.

But observe that St Paul could surely not have used εἰς αὐτόν of God, in one place as such, of the Father in another place, and, here, of the Son, unless he had recognised the Son as wholly Divine. Pearson (Creed, p. 115), after pointing out the testimony that Col 1:16-17 bear to the greatness and the work of the Son, adds that even “if they were spoken of the Father they could be no way injurious to His majesty, Who is nowhere more plainly or fully set forth unto us as the Maker of the world.”

ἔκτισται. The perfect is chosen because he is passing from the thought of creating (Col 1:15 b, 16) to that of sustaining (Col 1:17).