Col 1:1-2. SALUTATION OF PAUL AND TIMOTHY TO THE CHRISTIANS OF COLOSSÆ.
Col 1:2. Paul does not address the Church as a Church. This has been explained by the fact that he stood in no official relation to the community, and therefore addressed individuals. But he does not mention the Church in Philippians, though he had founded it. The omission may be accidental; but he seems to have changed his custom in his later Epistles, since it occurs in all his letters to Churches from Romans downwards.-ἁγίοις may be an adjective (so Kl.[1], Weiss and others), but more probably a substantive (so Mey., Ell., Lightf., Ol., Sod., Haupt, Abb.), since Paul seems not to use it in the plural in an adjectival sense, except in Eph 3:5, and in the salutations of 2 Cor., Eph. and Phil. it is certainly a substantive. Like ἀδελφοῖς it may be joined with ἐν Χ., but should more probably be taken by itself. The saints are those who are set apart for God, as belonging to His holy people, the Israel of God (Gal 6:16); the privileges of the chosen nation under the Old Covenant being transferred to Christians under the New.-πιστοῖς: not to be taken in the passive sense (as by Ew., Ell., Lightf., Abb., R.V.) = “steadfast,” “faithful,” with tacit reference to the falling away to false doctrine. Combined with ἀδελφ. its meaning would be faithful to Paul, which would have no point here. It should be taken here, as by most commentators, in the sense of “believing”.-ἐν Χριστῷ. It is significant that Χριστός occurs alone very frequently in this Epistle, but Ἰησοῦς never (though Κυρίου ἡμ. Ἰησοῦ, Col 1:3; Κυρ. Ἰησ., Col 3:17). No doubt this is to be accounted for by the need for emphasis on the doctrine of the Person of Christ.-χάρις ὑμῖν κ. εἰρήνη. This combination is found in all the Epistles that claim to be Paul’s except the Pastorals, where it is modified. The formula, which was probably constructed by Paul, combines the Greek and Hebrew forms of salutation.-ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν. This is not added in 1 Thess. The other Epistles add καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. No importance is to be attached to their omission here. Cf. the similarly shortened form ἡ χάρις μεθʼ ὑμῶν (Col 4:18).
[1] Klöpper.
Col 1:3-8. PAUL’S THANKSGIVING FOR THE TIDINGS HE HAS RECEIVED OF THE SPIRITUAL WELFARE OF THE COLOSSIANS. According to his usual custom (so in Thess., 1 Cor., Rom., Phil., Philm.), Paul begins his letter with an expression of his thankfulness to God for the Christian graces of his readers. There is, however, a certain conventional element in these greetings, as may be seen from a comparison of similar formulæ in letters found among recently discovered papyri (see articles by Prof. Rendel Harris in The Expositor for Sept. and Dec., 1898). Eph 1:15-17 is parallel to Col 1:3-4; Col 1:9.
Col 1:4. Paul now introduces the grounds of his thankfulness, the good report he has heard as to the faith and love of the Colossians. He refers to it again (Col 1:9).-πίστιν ἐν Χ. ἐν may be equivalent to εἰς, but probably indicates “the sphere in which their faith moves rather than the object to which it is directed” (Lightf.). This faith rests upon Christ. πίστ. is wrongly taken by Ewald to mean “fidelity”.-πάντας, i.e., all Christians throughout the world, whose unity in the universal Church was a thought much in Paul’s mind at this time.
Col 1:5. διὰ τὴν ἐλπίδα. This is connected by Bengel, followed by several recent commentators (Hofm., Kl[2], Ol., Haupt, Weiss, Abb.), with εὐχαριστοῦμεν. Having heard of their faith and love, Paul gives thanks for the hope laid up for them in heaven. Lightfoot and Soden urge that in this way the triad of Christian graces, faith, hope and love, is broken up. But “hope” is objective here, not the grace of hope, but the object of that hope. It is true that Paul glides from the subjective to the objective use of ἐλπίς in Rom 8:24, but if this combination had been intended here he would probably have simply co-ordinated the three terms. A more serious objection is that εὐχαριστ. is so far away, though Haupt urges that διὰ τ. ἐλπ. could not have come in earlier. Further, Paul never uses this constr. εὐχαριστ. διὰ. It is also his custom, at the beginning of his Epistles, to give thanks for the Christian character of his readers (which he hardly does in Col 1:4), not for the heavenly reward that awaits them. Others (De W., Lightf., Sod.) connect it with τ. πίστιν … καὶ τ. ἀγάπην. This gives a good sense, their faith and love have their ground in their hope of reward. But we should have expected the article before a clause thus added to substantives. It is simplest to refer it to τὴν ἀγ. ἣν ἔχετε (Chrys., Mey., Ell., Alf., Franke), and interpret it of the love which is due to the hope of a heavenly reward. It is urged that a love of this calculating kind is foreign to Paul, but Cf. 2Co 9:6, Gal 6:9.-ἐν τ. οὐρανοῖς. Cf. the reward or treasure in heaven (Mat 5:12; Mat 6:20; Mat 19:21), the citizenship in heaven (Php 3:20), the inheritance reserved in heaven (1Pe 1:4).-ἣν προηκούσατε. The reference in προ. is disputed. Bengel and Klöpper think it means before the writing of this letter; Meyer, Hofmann and Haupt before its fulfilment. But more probably it is to be taken of their first hearing of the Gospel (so Lightf., Ol., Abb.), perhaps in tacit contrast to the false teaching they had recently heard. Haupt, it is true, denies that there is any reference to the false teachers in Col 1:2-8; but though none can be proved, it is surely probable that the turn of several expressions should be determined by the subject which was uppermost in the Apostle’s mind, and that he should thus prepare his readers for the direct attack.-λόγῳ τῆς ἀληθείας τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. Cf. Eph 1:13, according to which τ. εὐαγγ. should be taken as in apposition to λόγ. τ. ἀλ., “the word of truth, even the Gospel,” though it is often explained as the word of truth announced in the Gospel. It is not clear what λόγ. τ. ἀλ. means. Several give the genitive an adjectival force, “the true word,” but more probably it expresses the content, the word which contains the truth. Perhaps here also there is a side-thrust at the false teachers.
[2] Klöpper.
Col 1:6. This word of the truth has been defined as the Gospel, but Paul now proceeds to indicate more precisely what he means by this term. It is that Gospel which they have already received, not the local perversion of it that has recently been urged on their notice, but that which is spreading in the whole world, its truth authenticated by its ever-widening area and deepening influence on its adherents, and which manifests the same inherent energy among the Colossians themselves, in the form in which they learnt it from their teacher Epaphras.-καθὼς καὶ ἐν παντὶ … ἐν ὑμῖν. According to the TR. καὶ ἔστι, two statements are made-that the Gospel is present with the Colossians as it is present in all the world, and that it is bearing fruit and increasing as it is among the Colossians. The omission of καὶ before ἐστὶν καρ. creates a little awkwardness, since καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν seems then superfluous. Lightfoot takes ἐστ. καρ. together as a periphrasis for καρποφορεῖται, but this construction is very rare in Paul. The symmetry of clauses is much better preserved if, with Soden and Haupt, we write ἔστιν, καρ. We thus get the same double comparison as with the TR., Paul passing from the special to the general, and from the general back to the special. For the hyperbole ἐν π. τ. κόσμῳ, Cf. 1Th 1:8, Rom 1:8; Rom 10:18. As Gess points out (Christi Person und Werk, ii., 1, p. 228), Paul wishes here and in Col 1:23 to widen the outlook of the Colossians, since the more isolated the community the greater the danger from seducers. For the similar feeling that local idiosyncrasies are to be controlled by the general custom of the Church, Cf. 1Co 11:16; 1Co 14:36 (Cf. 33).-καρποφορούμενον καὶ αὐξανόμενον. The former of these participles expresses the inward energy of the Gospel (dynamic middle) in its adherents, the latter its extension in the world by gathering in new converts.-ἀφʼ ἧς ἡμέρας. This expresses the further fact that the progress of the Gospel has been continuous from the first in the Colossian Church.-ἠκούσατε … Θεοῦ. It is uncertain whether χάριν is governed by both verbs (so Lightf., Kl[3], Ol., Sod., Abb.) or by the latter only (so Mey., Ell., Haupt). In the former case ἠκούς. will mean “were instructed in”. But it is simpler to translate “ye heard it [i.e., the Gospel] and knew the grace of God”, ἐπέγνωτε should strictly imply full knowledge, but as the reference is to the time of their conversion it seems doubtful whether this shade of meaning should be pressed. ἐπίγνωσις is in his mind. The word occurs twice in the context. The grace of God is probably mentioned in opposition to the false teachers doctrine of ordinances and rigorous asceticism.-ἐν ἀληθείᾳ: not to be taken as if an adjective with χάριν, “the true grace of God,” for there is no false grace of God, but with ἐπεγ. in the sense that they knew the Gospel as it truly is, in its genuine reality, in opposition to the travesty of it recently introduced.
[3] Klöpper.
Col 1:7. καθὼς, i.e., in the manner in which. Paul thus sets the seal of his approval on the form of the Gospel which they had learnt from their teacher, and also on the teacher himself.-Ἐπαφρᾶ. Epaphras was apparently the founder of the Colossian Church, ἐμάθετε referring to the same time as ἠκούσατε. He had remained in connexion with it (Col 4:12), and seems to have come to Paul to inform him of the teaching that was threatening its welfare. He is not to be identified with Epaphroditus (Php 2:25 sq., Php 4:18), who was connected with Philippi. The name was common.-ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. This is probably the correct reading; Epaphras is a minister to the Colossians on Paul’s behalf, since he has accomplished a task which belonged to Paul’s sphere as the Apostle of the Gentiles. The reading ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν may be taken in two ways, either (preferably) that he was a minister of Christ for the sake of the Colossians, in which case we should probably have had ὑμῖν or ἐν ὑμῖν or simply ὑμῶν; or that he ministered to Paul as the representative of the Colossians, for which we should have expected “my minister” instead of “minister of Christ”.
Col 1:8. τὴν ὑμῶν ἀγάπην may be taken in the general sense of Col 1:4, though many think it is their love to Paul that is meant; and this is favoured by δηλ. ἡμ., and perhaps by καὶ ἡμεῖς in Col 1:9. ἐν πνεύματι is added to show that this love is in the Holy Spirit.
Col 1:9-14. PAUL’S UNCEASING PRAYER FOR THAT MORAL DISCERNMENT WHICH WILL ENABLE THEM TO PLEASE GOD IN ALL THEIR CONDUCT, THAT STRENGTH WHICH WILL GIVE THEM ENDURANCE IN FACE OF ALL PROVOCATION AND TRIAL, AND THAT THANKFULNESS TO GOD, WHICH BEFITS THE GREAT DELIVERANCE HE HAS ACHIEVED FOR THEM THROUGH HIS SON.
Col 1:10. περιπατῆσαι ἀξίως τοῦ Κυρίου (Cf. Eph 4:1). This lofty wisdom and insight is not an end in itself. It must issue in right practice. Doctrine and ethics are for Paul inseparable. Right conduct must be founded on right thinking, but right thinking must also lead to right conduct. The infinitive expresses result “so as to walk”. τοῦ Κυρ., i.e., of Christ, not of God (Hofm., Ol.). In 1Th 2:12 τοῦ Θεοῦ is used, but ὁ Κύρ. in Paul means Christ.-ἀρεσκείαν in classical Greek used generally in a bad sense, of obsequiousness. But it often occurs in Philo in a good sense; see the note on the word in Deissmann’s Bible Studies, p. 224. καρποφοροῦντες καὶ αὐξανόμενοι. For the collocation Cf. Col 1:6. The participles should probably be connected with περιπατῆσαι, not (as by Beng., Hofm., Weiss) with πληρωθῆτε, which is too far away. The continuation of an infinitive by a nominative participle instead of the accusative is frequent in classical Greek, and occurs several times in Paul (Col 2:2, Col 3:16, Eph 4:2-3). They should not be separated. The whole clause should be translated “bearing fruit and increasing in every good work by the knowledge of God”. Fruit bearing is one of Paul’s favourite metaphors.-τῇ ἐπιγνώσει: not as R.V. and Moule “in the knowledge,” for Paul has already spoken of this in Col 1:9, but “by the knowledge,” the knowledge of God being the means of their spiritual growth. Meyer, against the overwhelming weight of evidence, reads εἰς τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν, “as regards the knowledge”. This would make knowledge the goal of conduct (Cf. Joh 7:17), whereas previously the relation is reversed.
Col 1:11. ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμει: “with all power,” ἐν being instrumental. κατὰ τὸ κράτος τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ. The equipment with power is proportioned not simply to the recipient’s need, but to the Divine supply. God’s glory is His manifested nature, here as manifested in might.-εἰς πᾶσαν ὑπομονὴν καὶ μακροθυμίαν. This equipment with Divine power is not, as we might have expected, said to be given with a view to deeds of great spiritual heroism, but for the practice of passive virtues, since this often puts the greater strain on the Christian’s strength. ὑπομ. is endurance, steadfastness in face of trials, temptations and persecutions; μακροθ. is forbearance, the patience of spirit which will not retaliate. “The one is opposed to cowardice or despondency, the other to wrath or revenge” (Lightf.). There seems to be no reference in μακροθ., as Alford supposes, to their attitude in conflict with error.-μετὰ χαρᾶς: not to be taken (as by Mey., Ell., Hofm., Weiss, Abb.) with εὐχαριστ., which would be tautological and throw a false emphasis on these words, but with ὑπομ. κ. μακροθ. It forms a very necessary addition, for the peculiar danger of the exercise of those qualities is that it tends to produce a certain gloominess or sourness of disposition. The remedy is that the Christian should be so filled with joy that he is able to meet all his trials with a buoyant sense of mastery.
Col 1:12. εὐχαριστοῦντες: not to be taken with οὐ παυόμεθα, Col 1:9 (Chrys., Beng.). Usually it is co-ordinated with the two preceding participial clauses. Haupt objects that it would be strange if thankfulness for participation in salvation were mentioned only after its consequences for Christian conduct had been deduced. He thinks it is a more precise development of μετὰ χαρᾶς; joy being produced by our thankful consciousness of the benefits thus secured to us. There is force in this, though the form of expression strongly suggests the common view, and considerations of order should not, perhaps, be so rigidly pressed.-τῷ πατρὶ. The word is selected to emphasise God’s Fatherly love as the source of their redemption; though Soden thinks that, as in Rom 6:4, Paul has in mind God’s relation to Christ (so Alf.).-τῷ ἱκανώσαντι ὑμᾶς: “who qualified you”. The reference is to status rather than character.-εἰς τὴν μερίδα … φωτί. Lightfoot thinks τ. μερ. τ. κλ. is the portion which consists in the lot, κλήρου being a genitive of apposition (so Sod., Abb.). But probably κλ. is the general inheritance in which each individual has his μέρ. The lot is the blessedness awaiting the saints. More controverted is the connexion of ἐν τῷ φωτί. Meyer connects it with ἱκανώς. and takes ἐν as instrumental “by the light”. This is harsh, and φωτί in contrast to σκότους (Col 1:13) cannot mean the Gospel. Others connect it with ἁγίων, either in the sense of angels (so Kl[5], Franke and Lueken) or saints (so Ol. and others). But the angels are never in the N.T. called οἱ ἅγιοι, though this term is used for them in the O.T. and Jewish Apocalyptic. Further, the contrast with the “darkness” of Col 1:13 loses its force unless the “holy ones” are Christians as opposed to non-Christians. And if Paul had meant this he would have expressed himself more plainly. Nor is any such reference probable in an Epistle directed especially against over-valuation of the angels. If saints are meant, unless (with Ol.) we give φωτί merely an ethical sense, they must be saints in heaven, for which we should have expected τῶν ἐν φωτί, as the object of the addition would be to distinguish them from saints on earth. ἐν φωτί should therefore be connected either with μερίδα (Beng.), μερίδα τ. κλήρου (Alf., Lightf.), or κλήρου (De W., Ell., Sod., Haupt). The difference is slight, and it seems simplest to connect with κλ., “the lot of the saints [situated] in the light”; ἐν being probably local, and not expressing, as in Act 8:21, the idea of a share in the light. The precise sense of φῶς is disputed. Oltramare takes it of the state of holiness in which Christians live, so that the distinction between saints on earth and in heaven does not arise. But the immediate impression of the phrase is that the heavenly kingdom, where God dwells in light, is referred to.
[5] Klöpper.
Col 1:13. Paul now explains how God has qualified them for their share in the heavenly inheritance. On this passage Act 26:18 should be compared; the parallels extend to Col 1:12; Col 1:14 also.-ἐρύσατο. The aorist refers to the time of conversion. The metaphor implies the miserable state of those delivered and the struggle necessary to deliver them.-ἐξουσίας: “ubi τῇ βασιλείᾳ opponitur, est tyrannis” (Wetstein, so also Chrys., Lightf., Kl[6]). This would heighten the contrast between the power of darkness and the “kingdom of the son of His love”. But Abbott argues forcibly against this view, especially with relation to the N.T. usage. He quotes Rev 12:10, ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ ἐξουσία τοῦ Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ, where the contrast obviously cannot be maintained. Grimm takes the term as a collective expression for the demoniacal powers; and Klöpper says that in Paul ἐξ. is not a mere abstract term, but signifies the possessors of power. Here, however, he rightly sees that the contrast to βας. makes this meaning inappropriate, and that for it ἐρύς. ἀπό would have been expected rather than ἐρύς. ἐκ. Accordingly he interprets it as the dominion possessed by the (personified) darkness.-τοῦ σκότους: taken by Hofmann as a genitive of apposition, but the obvious interpretation is to take it as a subjective genitive, the dominion which darkness exercises. We should have expected simply “out of darkness” to correspond to “in light,” but Paul changes the form, partly to insist that the darkness is not a mere state but exercises an active authority, partly to secure a parallel with the kingdom of God’s Son. But we are not justified (with Mey., Kl[7]) in personifying σκότος, for the primary contrast is with φωτί not υἱοῦ.-μετέστησεν. Wetstein quotes Jos., Ant., ix., 11, 1 (Tiglath-Pileser’s deportation of N.E. Israel), and Lightfoot thinks that this use of the word suggested the choice of it here, and this is made more probable by the addition of εἰς τ. βας. Meyer, however, quotes a striking parallel from Plato, where no such reference is present: ἔκ τε φωτὸς εἰς σκότος μεθισταμένων καὶ ἐκ σκότους εἰς φῶς (Rep., p. 518 A).-βασιλείαν. Meyer insists that this is the Messianic kingdom, and as the realisation of this lay in the future to Paul the clause must have a proleptic reference, citizenship in the kingdom being guaranteed by their conversion. But the argument rests on a false premiss, for in 1Co 4:20, Rom 14:17, the sense is not eschatological. Nor, indeed, can it be so here, for the translation into the kingdom must have taken place at the same time as the deliverance.-υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ. Augustine, followed by Olshausen and Lightfoot, takes ἀγάπης as a genitive of origin, and interprets, the Son begotten of the essence of the Father, which is love. This has no parallel in the N.T., and rests, as Meyer points out, on a confusion of the metaphysical with the ethical essence of God. The phrase is practically equivalent to His beloved Son, but is chosen for the sake of emphasis to indicate His greatness and the excellence of His kingdom. There is, perhaps, the further thought that the love which rests on the Son must rest also on those who are one with Him.
[6] Klöpper.
[7] Klöpper.
Col 1:14. This verse is parallel to Eph 1:7. ἐν ᾧ: not by whom, but in whom; if we possess Christ, we possess in Him our deliverance.-ἔχομεν: (present) we have as an abiding possession.-ἀπολύτρωσιν: “deliverance”. The word is generally interpreted as ransom by payment of a price, for which Mar 10:45, δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν, may be compared. But it is not certain that the word ever has this meaning. It is very rare in Greek writers (see reff.). The passage from Plutarch refers to pirates holding cities to ransom. But obviously the word here does not mean that we procure release by paying a ransom. The word is often used simply in the sense of “deliverance,” the idea of ransom having disappeared. (So in Rom 8:23, Eph 4:30, Luk 21:28.) It is best therefore to translate “deliverance” here, especially as this suits better the definition in the following words. The remission of sins is itself our deliverance, whereas it stands to the payment of the ransom as effect to cause. The elaborate discussion in Oltramare may be referred to for fuller details, with the criticism in Sanday and Headlam’s note on Rom 3:24; also Abbott on Eph 1:7; Westcott on Heb., pp. 295, 296; Ritschl, Rechtf. und Versöhn. ii., 222 sq.-τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν. The similar definition of ἀπολ. in Eph 1:7 tells against Lightfoot’s view that it is added here against erroneous definitions by the false teachers, who very probably did not employ the term. The precise phrase does not occur elsewhere in Paul. τ. ἁμ. depends simply on τ. ἀφ., not, as Hofmann thinks, on it and τ. ἀπολ., for the latter is not used with the object from which deliverance is effected.
Col 1:15-21. THIS SON IN WHOM WE HAVE OUR DELIVERANCE IS THE MANIFESTATION OF GOD, THE LORD OF THE UNIVERSE, THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS IN HEAVEN AND EARTH, INCLUDING THE ANGELIC POWERS, AND HE IS THE GOAL FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN CREATED. AND AS HE IS THE FIRST IN THE UNIVERSE, SO ALSO HE IS HEAD OF THE CHURCH, WHO HAS PASSED TO HIS DOMINION FROM THE REALM OF THE DEAD, THAT HE MIGHT BECOME FIRST IN ALL THINGS. FOR THE FATHER WILLED THAT IN HIM ALL THE FULNESS OF DIVINE GRACE SHOULD DWELL, AND THUS THAT HE SHOULD RECONCILE TO HIM THROUGH HIS BLOOD ALL THINGS NOT ON EARTH ONLY BUT ALSO IN THE HEAVENS, IN WHICH RECONCILIATION THE COLOSSIANS HAVE THEIR PART.
Col 1:16. Paul now gives the ground for the designation of the Son as πρωτότ. π. κτίσεως. In Him τὰ πάντα were created. From this it follows that the Son cannot be a creature, for creation is exhausted by the “all things” which were so created in Him (“omnem excludit creaturam,” Bengel).-ἐν αὐτῷ: this does not mean “by Him”. The sense is disputed. The schoolmen, followed by some modern theologians, explain that the Son is the archetype of the universe, the κόσμος νοητός, the eternal pattern after which the physical universe has been created. So Philo held that the Logos was the home wherein the eternal ideas resided. But it is by no means clear that Alexandrian influence can be traced in the Epistle. Further, the notion of creation is not suitable to the origin of the ideal universe in the Son. If the Son was from eternity the archetype of the universe, then ἐκτίσθη ἐν αὐτῷ ought not to have been used, both because the aorist points to a definite time and the idea of creation is itself inapplicable. But that the ideal universe was at some time created in the Son is an highly improbable, if it is even an intelligible, idea. Again, the sense of ἐκτίσθη is controlled by that of κτίσις, which does not refer to the ideal universe. It must therefore refer to the actual creation of the universe. If Paul had intended to speak of the realisation in creation of the ideal universe which had in the Son its eternal home he would have said ἐξ αὐτοῦ. Others (Mey., Ell., Moule) take ἐν αὐτῷ to mean simply that the act of creation depended causally on the Son. This is perhaps the safest explanation, for Haupt’s interpretation that apart from His Person there would have been no creation, but with His Person creation was a necessity-in other words, that creation was “given” in Christ-seems with the aorist and the choice of the word ἐκτίσθη to be inconsistent with the eternal existence of the Son.-τὰ πάντα, i.e., the universe in its widest sense regarded as a collective whole.-ἐν τ. οὐρανοῖς κ. ἐπὶ τ. γῆς. As Lightfoot points out, “a classification by locality,” while τὰ ὁρατὰ κ. τ. ἀόρατα is a “classification by essence”. The two do not precisely correspond, for the divisions cross each other to some extent, though some confine the things in heaven to the world of spirits, and the things on earth to the world of men, in which case they would correspond to things invisible and things visible. Against this see above on π. κτίσεως.-εἴτε θρόνοι κ.τ.λ. This is not an exhaustive definition of τὰ πάντα, for Paul selects for mention those creatures to whom worship was paid by the false teachers. The names, as in similar lists, denote angels and not earthly powers. For some of them occur in Jewish angelology, and a reference to earthly dignities would be irrelevant to the polemical purpose of the passage. These angels, Paul insists, so far from being superior or equal to Christ, were as inferior to Him as the creature is to the Creator. They owed their very existence to Him, and could not therefore be allowed for one moment to usurp His place. Lightfoot thinks that Paul is expressing no opinion as to their objective existence, but is simply repeating subjective opinions; and that both here and in Col 2:18 he shows a “spirit of impatience with this elaborate angelology”. But in face of the detailed proof that he accepted the doctrine of various orders of angels (given most fully by Everling), this cannot be maintained, nor is there any polemical reference in Eph 1:21. It may be questioned whether any inference can be drawn as to the order of the ranks of angels. The order in the parallel list, Eph 1:21, is ἀρχή, ἐξουσία, δύναμις, κυριότης, on which Godet remarks that in Col. the question is of creation by Christ from whom all proceed, hence the enumeration descends; but in Eph. of the ascension of the risen Christ above all orders, hence the enumeration ascends. But it must be urged against this not merely that only three out of the four titles coincide, but that the order is not fully inverted. Possibly Paul employs here the order of the false teachers (so Kl[8]). The order apparently descends, but it is questionable if this is intentional, for if the highest orders were inferior to Christ, a fortiori the lower would be. θρόνοι: taken by some to be the angels of the throne, that is angels who, like the cherubim, bear the throne of God. But it is more probable that they are those seated on thrones (cf. Rev 4:4). On these orders, cf. the Slavonic Enoch, xx. 1. In the seventh heaven Enoch saw “a very great light and all the fiery hosts of great archangels, and incorporeal powers and lordships and principalities and powers; cherubim and seraphim, thrones and the watchfulness of many eyes”. Also Enoch, lxi. 10, “and all the angels of powers and all the angels of principalities”. Test., xii., Patr. Levi., 3, ἐν δὲ τῷ μετʼ αὐτόν εἰσι θρόνοι, ἐξουσίαι, ἐν ᾧ ὕμνοι ἀεὶ τῷ Θεῷ προσφέρονται.-κυριότητες: apparently inferior to θρόνοι.-ἀρχαὶ … ἐξουσίαι usually occur together and in this order.-τὰπάντα … συνέστηκεν: thrown in as a parenthesis.-διʼ αὐτοῦ. The Son is the Agent in creation (cf. 1Co 8:6); this definitely states the pre-existence of the Son and assumes the supremacy of the Father, whose Agent the Son is.-εἰς αὐτὸν. That the Son is the goal of creation is an advance on Paul’s previous teaching, which had been that the goal of the universe is God (Rom 11:36; cf. 1Co 8:6, ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν). It is urged by Holtzmann and others as decisive against the authenticity of the Epistle as it stands. But in 1Co 15:25 sq. all things have to become subject to the Son before He hands over the kingdom to the Father. We find the same thought in Mat 28:18 and Heb 2:8. And, as Oltramare and others point out, in 1Co 8:6, διʼ οὗ τὰ πάντα is said of Christ, but of God in Rom 11:36. Yet this difference is not quoted to show that Romans and Corinthians cannot be by the same hand, and it is equally illegitimate to press εἰς αὐτ. as inconsistent with Pauline authorship.-ἔκτισται. The perfect, as distinct from the aorist, expresses the abiding result as distinct from the act at a definite point of time (cf. Joh 1:3, ἐγένετο followed by γέγονεν).
[8] Klöpper.
Col 1:17. αὐτός ἐστιν. αὐτ. is emphatic, He and no other. Lightfoot (followed by Westcott and Hort and Ellicott) accents ἔστιν, “He exists,” on account of the present, and compares ἐγὼ εἰμί (Joh 8:58). But there ἐγὼ εἰμί stands alone, whereas here αὐτ. ἐστ. is completed by πρὸ πάντων. Besides, there is no object in the assertion of the existence of the Son here. The sense of ἐστὶν depends to some extent on that of πρὸ πάντων. If, as is usual, πρὸ is taken here as temporal, αὐτός will be the pre-incarnate Son. If, however, with Haupt, it be taken to assert superiority in rank, αὐτός will be the exalted Christ, and the present will be quite regular. It is urged that for this some other preposition, such as ἐπὶ or ὑπέρ, would have been expected. Gess says that in each of the eleven other passages in which it occurs in Paul it is temporal, and in the other N.T. passages (37) it is used of place or, as generally, of time, except in Jam 5:12, 1Pe 4:8, where it is used of rank. It is used, however, in classical Greek in this latter sense. Perhaps it is safest to allow the general Pauline usage to determine the sense here. In this case πρὸ is temporal and ἐστιν a timeless present. πάντων is, of course, neuter, like τὰ πάντα, not masculine.-συνέστηκεν: “hold together”. The Son is the centre of unity for the universe. He keeps all its parts in their proper place and due relations and combines them into an ordered whole. Apart from Him it would go to pieces. Philo ascribes a similar function to the Logos. Haupt thinks that this thought that Christ is the principle of coherence for the universe is not in the passage, which means no more than that He sustains it (cf. Heb 1:3, φέρων τὰ πάντα).
The interpretation of Col 1:15-17 given by Oltramare should not be passed over. He eliminates the idea of pre-existence from the passage, and says that the reference is throughout to Christ as Redeemer. God had in creation to provide by a plan of Redemption for the entrance of evil into the universe, and only on that condition could it take place. So since Christ is the Redeemer, creation is based upon Him, He is the means to it, and the end which it contemplates. He objects to the common view on the following grounds: (1) Elsewhere Paul speaks of God, not Christ, as the Creator and goal of the universe; (2) Paul starts from the Christ in whom we have redemption as πρωτότ. π. κτίσεως, and in Col 1:18, which refers to the same Person as Col 1:17, He is spoken of as the Head of the Church, therefore the context is against any reference to a pre-incarnate Christ; (3) He carefully avoids saying that the Son has created all things, though he has to change the subject of the sentence. In reply to (1) it may be said that the Son acts as Agent of the Father, and so creation may be referred to either, and that while Paul contemplates the final surrender by the Son of the kingdom to the Father, he also contemplates a prior subjection of everything to the Son. Oltramare himself, for another purpose, points to apparent inconsistency in John (Joh 1:2 compared with Rev 3:14; Rev 4:11; Rev 10:6) and the author of Hebrews (Heb 1:2 compared with Heb 2:10, Heb 11:3). If these writers did not find the two views incompatible, why should Paul have done so? In reply to (2) it may be urged that Paul’s hold on the personal identity of the Son in the states through which He passed was strong enough to enable Him to glide from one to the other without any sense of incongruity. As to (3), the change in the form of sentence is probably to prepare for διʼ αὐτοῦ κ. εἰς αὐτὸν. There is a similar change at Col 1:19, where ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ corresponds to ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ (Col 1:16). His own view is open to fatal objections. It is not clear that the creation of the angels who did not fall would be conditional on provision being made for Redemption, nor yet how this would prove the superiority of the Redeemer to these angels. The insuperable difficulty, however, is that the thought is so far-fetched and not naturally suggested by the words. ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα can hardly be consistent with the creation of the universe long before the Son came into existence. Nor can διʼ αὐτοῦ mean merely that the Son was an indispensable condition for the creation of the universe, it implies active agency. Nor is any adequate explanation of τ. πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν given. Besides, Php 2:5-8 sufficiently proves that Paul believed in the pre-existence of Christ, and that makes it less than ever justifiable to take the passage in other than its plain sense.-Gess, it may be added, explains that the firstborn is the one who opens for those who follow the path of life, and by his consecration to God must purchase for them the Divine good pleasure. Exo 13:2; Exo 13:12 sq. and Num 3:12 sq. are quoted to prove this, but neither says anything of the purchase of Divine favour for those born after. Exo 4:22 and Psa 89:27 are explained to mean, accordingly, that Israel and David, not the nations and their kings, are objects of God’s good pleasure and mediators of it to the world. πρωτότ. π. κτ. is therefore explained as the opener of the path of life and mediator of God’s love to every creature. But this is to overlook the fact that in Psalms 89. the firstborn is further defined as the highest of the kings of the earth.
Col 1:18. The false teachers not only wrongly represented the relation of the angel powers to the universe, but they assigned them a false position in the work of redemption and a false relation to the Church. Hence Paul passes from the pre-eminence of the Son in the universe to speak of Him as Head of the Body. He is thus supreme alike in the universe and the Church.-ἡ κεφαλὴ τ. σώματος (cf. Col 2:19, Eph 1:22-23; Eph 4:15-16; Eph 5:23). For Christ as Head simply, cf. 1Co 11:3. For the Church as the body of Christ, Col 1:24, Eph 4:2, 1Co 12:27, Rom 12:5. For Christians as the members of Christ’s body, Eph 5:30, 1Co 12:27. For Christians as “severally members one of another,” Rom 12:5. By this metaphor of “the head of the body” is meant that Christ is the Lord and Ruler of His Church, its directing brain, probably also that its life depends on continued union with Him. The Church is a body in the sense that it is a living organism, composed of members vitally united to each other, each member with his own place and function, each essential to the body’s perfect health, each dependent on the rest of the body for its life and well-being, while the whole organism and all the individual members derive all their life from the Head and act under His guidance. And as the body needs the Head, to be the source of its life and the controller of its activities, and to unify the members into an organic whole, so the Head needs the body to be His instrument in carrying out His designs. It is only in Colossians and Ephesians that Christ appears as Head of the Church, but the emphasis in Colossians is on the Headship, in Ephesians on the Church.-τῆς ἐκκλησίας: often taken as in apposition to σώματος. For this we should have expected τ. σώμ. αὐτοῦ τ. ἐκκλ. (cf. Col 1:24). It may also be taken as epexegetical of σώματος (so Weiss and Haupt, who quotes 1Co 5:8, 2Co 5:5, Rom 4:11; Rom 8:21; Rom 15:16 as parallels, all of which, however, are not clear). ἐκκλ. is here the universal Church.-ὅς ἐστιν: inasmuch as He is. Paul is giving a reason for the position of the Son as ἡ κεφ. τ. σώματος.-ἀρχή is not to be taken in the sense of ἀπαρχή, nor is it certain that it has, as Lightfoot and others think, the sense of originating power. It is defined by πρωτότ. ἐκ τ. νεκρῶν, and this seems to throw the stress rather on the idea of supremacy than that of priority. There is perhaps a tacit reference to ἀρχαὶ (Col 1:16).-πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν: “firstborn from among the dead”. In Rev 1:5 we have ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν, which expresses a different idea. If the temporal reference in πρ. is the more prominent, the meaning will be that He is the first to pass out of the dominion of death. But if sovereignty is the leading idea, the meaning is that from among the dead He has passed to His throne, where He reigns as the living Lord, who has overcome death, and who, before He surrenders the kingdom to the Father, will abolish it.-ἵνα … πρωτεύων: the purpose for which He is ἀρχή, πρωτότ. ἐκ τ. νεκρῶν. He is supreme in the universe. He has to become supreme in relation to the Church. αὐτὸς is emphatic; ἐν πᾶσιν neuter not masculine, on account of the context.
Col 1:19. This verse with Col 1:20 shows how the Son was able to hold the position assigned to Him in Col 1:18. Further, this verse leads up to Col 1:20. The thought is then: All the fulness dwelt in the Son, therefore reconciliation could be accomplished through the blood of His cross, and so He became the Head of the body.-εὐδόκησεν. Three views are taken as to the subject of the verb. (1) Meyer, Alford, Lightfoot, Oltramare, Haupt and the great majority of commentators supply ὁ Θεός as the subject. (2) Ewald, Ellicott, Weiss, Soden and Abbott make πλήρωμα the subject. (3) Conybeare, Hofmann and Findlay supply ὁ υἱός or Χριστός. In favour of (3) the unique emphasis on the sovereignty of Christ in this passage is urged, also that it prepares the way for the reference of ἀποκαταλλάξαι and εἰρηνοποιήσας to Christ, in accordance with Eph 2:14-16; Eph 5:27. It is also true that the subject from Col 1:15 is, for the most part, the Son. But the usage of Paul leads us to think of the Father, not of the Son, as the One who forms the eternal purpose (Eph 1:9, 2Co 5:19). Nor does Col 1:20 run on naturally. If the Son is the subject of “was well pleased,” the obvious interpretation of διʼ αὐτοῦ ἀποκ. is to reconcile through the fulness, which is highly improbable. We should accordingly have to give to διʼ αὐτοῦ a reflexive sense, and translate “through Himself,” which is grammatically possible, but not natural. There is the further objection which it shares with (1) that a change of subjects to the infinitives is required, πλήρωμα being the subject of κατοικ., while that to ἀποκατ. is Θεός or υἱός. But it is less awkward in (1) than in (3), for the former does not make the Son at once the originator and the Agent of the plan of reconciliation. Against (1), besides the objection just mentioned, it may be said that the construction with εὐδόκ. is unusual, for its subject is elsewhere in the N.T. the subject of the following infinitive (this tells against (3) also), and that in a passage of such importance the subject could not have been omitted. But for the omission of the subject Lightfoot compares Jam 1:12; Jam 4:6. What, however, is really decisive in its favour is the difficulty of accepting (2). The expression “all the fulness was well pleased” is very strange in itself. But what is much stranger is that the fulness was not only pleased to dwell in Him, but through Him to reconcile all things unto Him. And the only natural course is to refer εἰρνηνοπ. to the subject of εὐδόκ., but the masculine makes it difficult to regard πλήρ. as that subject. We should therefore translate “God” [or “the Father”] “was well pleased”.-πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα. On πλήρωμα the detached note in Lightfoot, pp. 255-271, should be consulted, with the criticism of it in an article on “The Church as the Fulfilment of the Christ,” by Prof. J. Armitage Robinson (Expositor, April, 1898), also Oltramare’s note. Lightfoot urges in opposition to Fritzsche that πλήρωμα has always a genuinely passive sense, not the pseudo-passive sense “id quo res impletur” which Fritzsche gave it, and which is really the active “id quod implet,” but that which is completed. The basis of the decision is that substantives in -μα, since they are derived from the perfect passive, must have a passive sense. But, as Prof. Robinson points out, these substantives have their stem not in -μα but in -ματ, and therefore are not to be connected with the perfect passive. He reaches the conclusion that if a general signification is to be sought for, we may say that these nouns represent “the result of the agency of the corresponding verb”. If the verb is intransitive the substantive will be so; if it is transitive and the substantive corresponds to its object the noun is passive, but if the substantive is followed by the object of the verb in the genitive it is active. According to the double use of πληροῦν to “fill” and to “fulfil,” πλήρωμα may mean that which fills or that which fulfils, the fulness, fulfilment or complement. Oltramare comes to the conclusion that the word means perfection, and interprets this passage to mean that ideal perfection dwelt in Christ. Accordingly he escapes the question what genitive should be supplied after it. It does not seem, however, that the word meant moral perfection. Many think that θεότητος should be supplied after πλήρωμα, as is actually done in Col 2:9. Serious difficulties beset this view. If we think of the eternal indwelling, we make it dependent on the Father’s will, an Arian view, which Paul surely did not hold. Alford’s reply to this (endorsed by Abbott) that all that is the Son’s right “is His Father’s pleasure, and is ever referred to that pleasure by Himself,” is anything but cogent, for εὐδόκησεν refers to a definite decree of the Father, and the obvious meaning of the words is that it lay within the Father’s choice whether the πλήρωμα should dwell in the Son or not. It might refer to the exaltation of Christ, in which the Son resumed that of which He had emptied Himself in the Incarnation. This would follow the reference to the resurrection in Col 1:18. But the order does not indicate the true logical or chronological sequence. Col 1:19-20 give the ground (ὅτι) on which the Son’s universal pre-eminence rests, and Col 1:20 is quite incompatible with this reference to the exalted state, co-ordinated as κατοικ. and ἀποκατ. are by καὶ. But neither does it suit the incarnate state, which was a state of self-emptying and beggary; even if we could attach any very definite meaning to the words that in the Incarnate Son the Father was pleased that all the fulness of the Godhead should dwell. We should, therefore, probably reject the view that τὸ πλήρωμα means the fulness of the Godhead. Since the co-ordinate clause speaks of reconciliation through the blood of the cross, it seems probable that we should regard Col 1:19 as asserting such an indwelling as made this possible. We should therefore with Meyer explain τὸ πλ. as the fulness of grace, “the whole charismatic riches of God” (so also De W., Eadie, Alf., Findl.). Haupt thinks that the full content of the Divine nature is referred to, but with special reference to the Divine grace, and so far he agrees with Meyer. We should also, with Meyer, interpret the indwelling as having reference to the sending of the Son in the incarnation. The Father was pleased that He should come “with the whole treasure of Divine grace”. Thus equipped His death procured reconciliation. Gess takes it similarly, though he thinks, on the whole, that a gradual process is referred to. Findlay’s modification of this in favour of a reference to the Ascension (for which he compares Eph 1:20-23) must be rejected on the grounds mentioned above. The decree of the Father may be supra-temporal, as Haupt thinks, the aorist being used as in Rom 8:29, though it is more obvious to take it as referring to the time when He was sent. Two other interpretations of τὸ πλ. may be mentioned. Theodoret and other Fathers, followed by some moderns, have explained it to mean the Church. But the indwelling of the πλ. prepares the way for the reconciliation, in consequence of which the Church first becomes possible. Nor could πλ. by itself mean this; in Eph 1:22 the reference is supplied by the context. More possible is the view that it means the universe = τὰ πάντα, Col 1:16 (Hofm., Cremer, Godet, who compares “the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness of it”). In that case the genitive supplied would be τῶν πάντων from Col 1:20. But if the reference in this be to the summing up of all things in Christ (Eph 1:10), it is excluded by the fact that the indwelling of the fulness is contemporaneous with the incarnate state. A more plausible interpretation would be to regard τὰ πάντα as dwelling in Christ before His death, and by sharing that death, attaining reconciliation with God. This would be an extension of the Pauline thought that all men died when Christ died (2Co 5:14). But it would be an extension precisely corresponding to that of the scope of redemption in Col 1:20, for which, indeed, it would admirably prepare the way, the universe dwelling in the Son that His death might be universal in its effects. That the Son is not only Head of the race, but Head also of the universe, is a familiar thought in these Epistles, and as His acts are valid for the one so also for the other. Nothing more is implied for the relation of the universe to Christ than of the race, and if the main stress be thrown on angels and men, there is nothing incongruous in the idea. Whether Paul would have used it in this sense without fuller explanation is uncertain; but in any case a genitive has to be supplied. A further question must be briefly referred to, that of the origin of the term. Several scholars think it was already in use as a technical term of the false teachers at the time when the letter was written. This is possible, and in its favour is its absolute use here; but, if so, it is strange that Paul should use it with such different applications. It is more probable that its origin is due to him.-κατοικῆσαι. The word expresses permanent abode as opposed to a temporary sojourn. Bengel says aptly “Haec inhabitatio est fundamentum reconciliationis”.
Col 1:20. To this verse Eph 1:10; Eph 2:16, are partially parallel. It supplies the basis for the Son’s pre-eminence (Col 1:18) in His reconciling death.-διʼ αὐτοῦ: through the Son.-ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα εἰς αὐτόν. The choice of ἀποκατ. instead of the more usual καταλλ. is for the sake of strengthening the idea, and by insisting on the completeness of the reconciliation accomplished to exclude all thought that reconciliation by angels is needed to supplement that made by Christ. The reconciliation implies previous estrangement. It is the universal sweep of this passage that makes it at once fascinating and mysterious. Numerous expedients have been devised by exegetes to avoid the plain meaning of the words. The natural sense is that this reconciliation embraces the whole universe, and affects both things in heaven and things on the earth, and that peace is made between them and God (or Christ). The point which creates difficulty is the assertion that angels were thus reconciled. Some have evaded this by interpreting τὰ πάντα of the things in heaven below the angels and those on earth below man. It might be possible to parallel the latter reconciliation with Paul’s prophecy of the deliverance of animate and inanimate nature (excluding man) from the bondage of corruption (Rom 8:19-23). But the two are not identical, for one is and the other is not eschatological, and reconciliation is not deliverance from the bondage of corruption. And this helps us little to explain what the reconciliation of all things in heaven is. Nor is any such limitation legitimate; on the contrary, it is precisely in the opposite direction that any limitation would have to be made; for in its full sense reconciliation can only be of beings endowed with moral and spiritual nature. In Col 1:16-17 angelic powers are explicitly included in τὰ πάντα. It is plain that εἰς αὐτὸν excludes the view that a reconciliation of angels and men is intended. This is so even if with Chrysostom and others (including apparently Abbott) we make τὰ ἐπὶ τ. γῆς and τὰ ἐν τ. οὐραν. depend on εἰρηνοπ. For this still leaves unexplained ἀποκ. τ. πάντα εἰς αὐτόν, which makes the reference to angels undeniable. Bengel’s note, “Certum est angelos, Dei amicos, fuisse inimicos hominum Deo infensorum,” may be perfectly true. But it is irrelevant here, for only by forcing the words can εἰρηνοπ … οὐραν. be regarded as other than epexegetical of the preceding clause, and in particular τ. ἐπὶ τ. γῆς and τὰ ἐν τ. οὐραν. as a resolution of τ. πάντα. Abbott’s suggestion that τὰ ἐν. τ. οὐραν. may be inhabitants of other worlds may be true, though for Paul the thought is far-fetched, but does nothing towards excluding the angels. He urges that ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς is not necessarily equivalent to “in heaven”. But not only did Jewish angelology place the angels in the heavens, but Paul did so too, and has done so only just before in this passage, defining τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐραν. as the various orders of angels (Col 1:16). Further, not only is this exclusion of the angels from the scope of reconciliation inconsistent with the terms of the passage, it omits a very important point in Paul’s polemic. To the angels the false teachers probably ascribed the function of procuring the reconciliation of men with God. (Cf. Enoch xv. 2, “And go, say to the watchers of heaven, who have sent thee to intercede for them: you should intercede for men, and not men for you”.) How effective is Paul’s reply that these angels needed reconciliation themselves! Assuming, then, that angels are included among those reconciled, and that this is also referred to in the words “having made peace through the blood of His cross,” the question arises, What did Paul mean by this? Meyer says that in consequence of the fall of the evil angels the angelic order as a whole was affected by the hostile relation of God to them, and the original relation will be fully restored when the evil angels are finally cast into hell. But apart from the speculative nature of this explanation, and the injustice it imputes to God, the reference is certainly not eschatological. Godet lays stress on εἰ αὐτὸν, and suggests that the reconciliation is not to God but with reference to God. He thinks that the passing over of sins by God (Rom 3:25) might cause the angels, who had been mediators in the giving of the law, difficulties as to the Divine righteousness. This was met and removed by the cross, which revealed God’s attitude to sin and reconciled them to His government. We do not know that the angels needed this vindication, which, of course, it was a function of Christ’s death to give, though it is possible (Eph 3:10, 1Pe 1:12). But this interpretation seems to be excluded by the explanation of reconciliation as making peace. And εἰς αὐτὸν was probably chosen instead of αὐτῷ on account of εἰς αὐτὸν (Col 1:16), and because it was stronger and expressed the thought of God or Christ as the goal. The explanation that the angels were confirmed, and thus made unable to fall, is altogether inadequate. Harless, Oltramare and others admit a reconciliation of men and angels to God, but without asserting that τὰ ἐν τ. οὐρ. needed reconciliation. Wherever it was needed Christ effected it. But Paul’s division of τὰ π. into two categories marked by εἴτε … εἴτε shows that the statement has reference not simply to these classes taken together as a whole, but to each taken singly. Alford, in his suggestive note, after saying that such a reconciliation as that between man and God is not to be thought of, since Christ did not take on Him the seed of angels or pay any propitiatory penalty in the root of their nature, gives as his interpretation “all creation subsists in Christ: all creation therefore is affected by His act of propitiation: sinful creation is, in the strictest sense, reconciled from being at enmity: sinless creation, ever at a distance from His unapproachable purity, is lifted into nearer participation and higher glorification of Him, and is thus reconciled, though not in the strictest, yet in a very intelligible and allowable sense”. Unfortunately this cannot be accepted, for the strict is the only allowable sense. But it is on the right lines, and indicates the direction in which a solution must be sought. This, as several recent scholars have urged (Kl[9], Gess, Everling and others), is through taking account of the Biblical and Jewish doctrine of angels. That the angels are divided into the sharply separated classes of sinless and demoniacal is a view on which this passage remains inexplicable. Nor is it the Old Testament or the Jewish doctrine, or, it may be added, the doctrine of Paul. Perhaps we need not, with Gess, think of an intermediate class, or, with Ritschl, of the angels of the Law. To Jewish thought angels stood in the closest relations with men, and were regarded as sharing a moral responsibility for their acts. The angelic princes of earthly kingdoms in Daniel, and the angels of the Churches in the Apocalypse, are Biblical examples of this. A large number of Pauline passages harmonise with the view that the angelic world needed a reconciliation. The detailed proof of this cannot be given here; it belongs to the discussion of the angelology of the Epistle. (See Introd., section ii.) But if the angels needed it, how could it be effected through the blood of the cross? It is not enough to answer with Haupt that the reconciliation of men affected the angels who were closely united with them. A direct effect seems to be intended, and the difficulty is that stated by Holtzmann, that with the flesh all capacity is absent from the angels of Paul, to share in the saving effects of the death of God’s Son, which was made possible through the assumption of the flesh, and in which sin in the flesh is condemned. In answer to it these considerations may be urged. The Son is Head of the angels, as He is Head of humanity; therefore His acts had an effect on them independently of their effect on men. His death must not be narrowly conceived as physical only, as the destruction of the material flesh. It was the destruction of the sinful principle; and therefore is independent in its effects of the possession of material bodies by those whom it saves. And this cannot be set aside by the fact that Paul uses such a physical term as blood of the cross, for the death of Christ was surely more to him than a mere physical incident. So far, then, as the angel world was affected by sin, it needed reconciliation, and received it in the atoning and sin-destroying death of Christ its Head. That in this reconciliation evil angels are not included is clear from the fact that Paul does not regard it as having had effect on them corresponding to that on men. Lueken points out that Paul adds “through Him” to the words “through the blood of His cross,” and refers the latter to the reconciliation of men and the former to that of angels, so that they are simply said to be reconciled through Christ. But the διʼ αὐτοῦ is an emphatic resumption of διʼ αὐτοῦ at the beginning of the verse.-εἰς αὐτόν. It is uncertain whether this should be referred to God or Christ. The former is possible, for αὐτός may be reflexive, and reconciliation is usually to God (so Eph 2:16, also 2Co 5:18-20, Rom 5:10). We should also have expected διʼ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτόν if Christ had been meant. On the other hand, the reference to Christ is favoured by the fact that elsewhere in this passage αὐτός always refers to Christ, and by the parallel with Col 1:16, ἐν αὐτῷ … διʼ αὐτοῦ … εἰς αὐτόν. Decision is difficult; it is perhaps safest to let the Pauline usage determine the reference, and interpret “unto Himself”.-εἰρηνοποιήσας. In Ephesians great emphasis is laid on the peace between Jew and Gentile, established by the cross, an emphasis quite to be expected where the unity of the Church is the leading thought; but not to be found here, for the peace is obviously between God on the one side and men and angels on the other; besides which the thought would have no relevance in this connexion.-διὰ τ. αἵματος τ. σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ. The combination of the two terms is perhaps for the sake of insisting on the historical fact of the reconciling death against the tendency to seek peace with God through angelic mediators.-τὰ ἐπὶ τ. γῆς, probably governed by ἀποκατ., rather than εἰρηνοπ., since it and the companion phrase seem to be epexegetical of τὰ πάντα.
[9] Klöpper.
Col 1:21. For this verse cf. Eph 2:1; Eph 2:12. Usually καὶ ὑμᾶς is made to begin a new sentence. Even with the reading ἀποκατήλλαξεν the construction is not quite regular, but with the probably correct reading, ἀποκατηλλάγητε, a violent break in the context is involved, since Paul begins with the second person as the object and suddenly makes it the subject. Such an anacoluthon is possible in dictation, but very improbable unless several words had intervened, so that the beginning of the sentence should be forgotten. This is not the case here. Lachmann (followed by Lightf. and others) takes νυνὶ δὲ … θανάτου as a parenthesis, in which case παραστῆσαι depends on εὐδόκησε, and ὑμᾶς is repeated “to disentangle the construction”. The irregularity is thus avoided. Haupt objects that it is unlikely that Paul should have continued after so long a sentence as Col 1:20 with the same construction, and also that the thought in this part of the sentence, “to present you holy,” is not co-ordinated to the thoughts in κατοικ. and ἀποκατ. For in the latter the thought is that it is the Son in whom the fulness dwells and through whom reconciliation is effected. But this thought of the pre-eminence of the Son in the work of salvation is not continued in Col 1:22, where the thought is of the Christian standing of the Colossians before God. It is therefore unlikely that παραστ. should depend on εὐδοκ. Accordingly, with Haupt and Weiss, a comma should be placed at the end of Col 1:20, and a full stop at the end of Col 1:21. ὑμᾶς in Col 1:21 will then depend on ἀποκατ. It might seem an anti-climax after the wide sweep of Col 1:20 to narrow down the reference to the Colossians. But we have a similar case in Col 1:6, and the personal application of a universal truth is anti-climax only to a rhetorician. The danger of the Colossians makes it peculiarly appropriate here.-καὶ ὑμᾶς: “you also”.-ὄντας emphasises that this state was continuous.-ἀπηλλοτριωμένους: “estranged,” i.e., from God, probably not to be taken as counted as aliens by God, but as expressing their attitude to God.-ἐχθροὺς τῇ διανοίᾳ. Meyer takes ἐχθ. as passive, regarded as enemies by God, but the qualification τῇ διαν. and the further addition ἐν. τ. ἔργ. τ. πον. makes this very improbable. It involves the translation of τῇ διαν. “on account of your state of mind,” for which διά with the accusative would have been expected. But it is much simpler to take διαν. as dative of the part affected, and ἐχθ. as active, hostile to God in your mind. διανοία (used only here and Eph 2:3; Eph 4:18 by Paul) means the higher intellectual nature, but specially on the ethical side; it is usually in the LXX the translation of “heart”. Cremer defines it as “the faculty of moral reflexion”. ἐν τ. ἔργοις τοῖς πονηροῖς: to be connected with ἀπηλλ. καὶ ἐχθ. The preposition indicates the sphere in which they were thus estranged and enemies.
Col 1:22-23. THEIR RECONCILIATION WILL RESULT IN THE PRESENTATION OF THEMSELVES AS BLAMELESS BEFORE GOD, IF THEY ARE STEADFAST IN THE GOSPEL THEY HAVE HEARD, WHICH IS NO OTHER THAN THAT PREACHED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
Col 1:23. εἴ γε with the indicative expresses the Apostle’s confidence that the condition will be fulfilled.-ἐπιμένετε. This abiding in faith is the only, as it is the sure way, to this presentation of themselves κατ. αὐτ. This is directed against the false teachers’ assurance that the gospel they had heard needed to be supplemented if they wished to attain salvation. It needs no supplementing, and it is at the peril of salvation that they lose hold of it.-τεθεμελιωμένοι refers to the firm foundation, ἑδραῖοι to the stability of the building.-μὴ μετακινούμενοι. The perfect participle here gives way to the present, expressing a continuous process. It may be passive or middle, probably the former.-ἀπὸ τ. ἐλπίδος τοῦ εὐαγγελίου: to be taken with μετακιν. alone, not, assuming a zeugma, with the three co-ordinate expressions (Sod.), for it is not at all clear that the last of these keeps up the metaphor of a building. The hope of the Gospel is the hope given by or proclaimed in the Gospel.-οὗ ἠκούσατε. Paul again sets his seal on the form of the Gospel which they had received, and again insists on the universality of its proclamation, its catholicity as guaranteeing its truth (see on Col 1:5-7).-ἐν πασῇ κτίσει: “in presence of every creature”; π. κτ., as in Col 1:15, with the limitation τ. ὑ. τ. οὐρ.-οὗ ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ Παῦλος διάκονος: cf. Eph 3:7. This phrase contains a certain stately self-assertion; the Apostle urges the fact that he is a minister of this Gospel as a reason why they should remain faithful to it. His apostolic authority, so far from being impugned by the false teachers, was more probably invoked; so Paul throws it in the balance against them. It is also true that the Gentile mission was so bound up in his own mind with his apostleship that a reference to the one naturally suggested a reference to the other. By this clause Paul effects the transition to Col 1:24.
Col 1:24-29. PAUL REJOICES THAT HIS SUFFERINGS ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHURCH, IN WHOSE SERVICE HE FULFILS HIS DIVINELY APPOINTED TASK, OF FULLY PREACHING THE LONG HIDDEN BUT NOW REVEALED MYSTERY OF THE GOSPEL, WHICH IS UNIVERSAL IN ITS SCOPE, A TASK IN WHICH HE USES ALL THE MIGHTY STRENGTH WITH WHICH GOD HAS ENDOWED HIM.
Col 1:25. ἧς ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ διάκονος. With these words Paul returns to Col 1:23, speaking of himself here, however, as a minister of the Church, there of the Gospel. Because he is a minister of the Church, it is a joy to suffer for its welfare. He proceeds to explain what his peculiar (ἐγὼ emphatic) ministry is.-κατὰ τὴν οἰκονομίαν: cf. Eph 3:2. οἰκ. is “stewardship” rather than “dispensation” (cf. 1Co 9:17). τ·Θεοῦ indicates that this office is held in the house of God, or that it has been entrusted to him by God.-εἰς ὑμᾶς: to be taken with δοθ. as in Eph 3:2, not with πληρ. (as by Chrys. and Hofm.). It means towards you Gentiles, that is for your benefit. The context shows that the Gentiles are uppermost in his thought.-πληρῶσαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ: “to fulfil the word of God”. πλ. is taken by some of the completion by this letter of the teaching already given to the Colossians. But Paul is speaking of the function specially entrusted to him. Generally this is explained of the geographical extension of the Gospel. Haupt thinks the geographical point of view is not present here. An essential characteristic of the Gospel is its universality. Paul’s special mission is to bring this to realisation. This he does by proclaiming the Gospel to the Gentiles, thus making clear the true nature of the Gospel. This suits the context better, for Paul proceeds to define the mystery entrusted to him as the universality of salvation, not the wide extension of the Gospel. Other interpretations may be seen in Meyer or Eadie.
Col 1:26. Partially parallel to Eph 3:9. How great the honour conferred on Paul is, appears from the fact that he is entrusted with the duty of declaring the long concealed secret which is the distinguishing mark of his Gospel.-τὸμυ μυστήριον. Lightfoot thinks that the term is borrowed by Paul from the Greek mysteries, and that it is intentionally chosen to point the contrast between those secret mysteries and the Gospel which is offered to all. But for the mysteries the plural was employed. And there would be more justification for this Interpretation in Mat 13:11 = Luk 8:10, where the disciples are told by Jesus that to them it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom, but not to others. But it will not be seriously supposed that Christ borrowed the term from the Greek mysteries. A mystery is a truth which man cannot know by his natural powers, so that if it is known it must be revealed.-τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν γενεῶν. Usually ἀπὸ is taken as temporal, and this agrees with the fact that similar references in Paul are temporal (1Co 2:7, Rom 16:25), and with the use of ἀπὸ as in ἀπʼ αἰῶνος and ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου (Mat 25:34). ἀπὸ καταβολῆς occurs with κρύπτω (Mat 13:35). But elsewhere ἀπὸ after κρύπτω or ἀποκρύπτω) indicates those from whom a thing is concealed. In favour of this meaning here is the order, for if ἀπὸ τ. αἰ. were temporal ἀπὸ τ γεν. would be included as a matter of course. It has been so taken here, not by Klöpper, who suggests it as possible, but does not accept it, but by Franke. He thinks both are terms for angels, and in itself such a reference is not improbable, for it is through the Church that the principalities and powers come to learn the manifold wisdom of God (Eph 3:9, where just before the mystery is said to have been concealed ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων). But we have no evidence that γενεαί was ever used in this way, and no parallel for this use of αἰῶνες in N.T. Without identifying the terms with personal existences, we may with Haupt (cf. also Soden) take αἰῶνες of the ages before the world, and γενεαί of the generations of human history. This will be practically the same as saying that the mystery was concealed from angels and men. This is probably the meaning of Bengel’s note: “Aeones referuntur ad angelos; generationes, ad homines”. Theodoret, followed by Klöpper, thinks that there is a polemical reference here to the antiquity of the Gospel and its consequent superiority to the Law. Abbott thinks the point of the reference to the long concealment and recent disclosure is that the acceptance of the false teaching is thus explained. But the non-polemical character of parallel passages makes these suggestions very uncertain.-νῦν δὲ ἐφανερώθη. The construction here changes, and the perfect participle is continued by the aorist indicative (Winer-Moulton, p. 717). The anacoluthon is caused by Paul’s intense joy that the long silence has been broken; he is content with nothing short of a definite statement of the glorious fact νῦν is equally appropriate whether ἀπὸ is temporal or not, for the antithesis of past and present lies in the nature of the case.-τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ: i.e., to Christians generally, not to the Jewish Christians (Hofm.), who certainly were not specially enlightened on this matter, nor the Apostles and prophets of the New Covenant, even though in the parallel Eph 3:5 they are chosen for mention, nor the angels, in spite of Eph 3:10. The words must be taken in their obvious sense.
Col 1:27. Cf. for a partial parallel Eph 1:18.-οἷς ἠθέλησεν ὁ Θεὸς: “inasmuch as to them God willed”; ἠθέλ. is chosen to express the idea that the revelation had its source solely in God’s will.-τί τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης.: cf. Rom 9:23, Php 4:19, Eph 1:18; Eph 3:16. The expression does not mean the glorious riches, but rather how rich is the glory. The use of “glory” immediately after in the sense of the Messianic kingdom favours the adoption of that meaning here. But as it is an attribute of the mystery it probably expresses its glorious character.-ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν is generally taken with τί τὸ πλ. κ.τ.λ., and this gives an excellent sense, for it was as manifested in the Gentile mission that the glory of the Gospel was especially displayed. There is a little awkwardness, since the definition Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν seems to make ἐν τ. ἔθν. unnecessary. The glory of the mystery was itself Χ. ἐν ὑμ. if we take ἐν ὑμῖν to mean among you Gentiles. This hardly justifies us in connecting the words with γνωρίσαι (Haupt), for it already has the recipients of knowledge attached to it (οἷς).-ὅ ἐστι answers τί τὸ πλοῦτος κ.τ.λ. The riches of the glory of the mystery consist in Χ. ἐν ὑμ. ἡ ἐλπ. τ. δ. Usually ὃ is taken to refer to μυστηρίου alone. Perhaps the practical difference is not great.-Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης. Haupt thinks no comma should be placed after ὑμῖν, and that the meaning is that the special glory of the Gospel is that Christ among them is the hope of glory. But the usual view which makes, not the fact that Christ among them guarantees their future blessedness, but the presence of Christ itself, the great glory of the mystery seems much finer. Χ. ἐν ὑμ., and not what Χ. ἐν ὑμ. is, constitutes the riches of the glory. The context shows that ὑμῖν must mean “you Gentiles”. It does not necessarily follow from this that ἐν must be translated “among,” though this is favoured by ἐν τ. ἔθν. It may refer to the indwelling of Christ in the heart, and this is rendered probable by the addition of ἐλπὶς τ. δόξης. The indwelling Christ constitutes in Himself a pledge of future glory. For this combination of the indwelling Christ with the Christian hope, cf. Rom 8:10.
Col 1:28. δν: i.e., Χριστὸν ἐν ὑμῖν.-ἡμεῖς: (emphatic) we in contrast to the false teachers. But the reference seems to be simply to Paul, not to Timothy and Epaphras as well. For throughout the section he is speaking of his own special mission.-νουθετοῦντες. Meyer points out that admonishing and teaching correspond to the two main elements of the evangelic preaching, repent and believe. Haupt thinks on the ground of the order that Paul is not referring to elementary Christian teaching, but has this epistle in his mind. The order might, however, suggest warning to non-Christians followed by teaching of new converts. But the addition of ἐν π. σοφίᾳ and τέλειον support the view that it is warning against error, and advanced teaching that he has in view.-πάντα ἄνθρωπον: emphatically repeated here. The Gospel is for all men, in opposition to any exclusiveness, and for each individual man in particular. And the ideal is only attained when each individual has reached completeness. The exclusiveness might be, as with the Judaisers, of a sectarian type, or, as with the Gnostics, and possibly here, of an intellectual, aristocratic type. Since such is the Apostle’s task, he addresses a Church the members of which are unknown to him.-ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ is taken by some to express the content of the teaching, everyone may be fully instructed in the whole of Christian wisdom. This forms a good contrast to the probable practice of the false teachers of reserving their higher teaching for an inner circle. But for this we should have expected the accusative. Probably the words express the manner of teaching. If the phrase is taken with both participles the content of the teaching is excluded.-παραστής.: probably to present at the judgment.-τέλειον. Here also allusion to the mysteries is discovered by Lightfoot. The term is said to have been employed to distinguish the fully initiated from novices. But, even if this be correct, the word is used in Mat 5:48; Mat 19:21, where such a reference is out of the question. Probably Paul is contrasting the completeness he strives to secure with that promised by the false teachers.
Col 1:29. εἰς ὃ: to achieve which end.-κοπιῶ expresses toil carried to the point of weariness.-ἀγωνιζόμενος: a metaphor from the arena. Meyer takes the reference to be to inward striving against difficulties and hostile forces. Perhaps both inward and outward struggle are referred to (De W.).-κατὰ. The struggle is carried on in proportion not to his natural powers, but to the mightily working energy of Christ within him.-ἐνεργουμένην: a dynamic middle (cf. Col 1:6).
1. Paul an Apostle. I have already, in repeated instances, explained the design of such inscriptions. As, however, the Colossians had never seen him, and on that account his authority was not as yet so firmly established among them as to make his private name (278) by itself sufficient, he premises that he is an Apostle of Christ set apart by the will of God. From this it followed, that he did not act rashly in writing to persons that were not known by him, inasmuch as he was discharging an embassy with which God had intrusted him. For he was not bound to one Church merely, but his Apostleship extended to all. The term saints which he applies to them is more honorable, but in calling them faithful brethren, he allures them more willingly to listen to him. As for other things, they may be found explained in the foregoing Epistles.
(278) “Son simple et priué nom;” — “His simple and private name.”
3. We give thanks to God. He praises the faith and love of the Colossians, that it may encourage them the more to alacrity and constancy of perseverance. Farther, by shewing that he has a persuasion of this kind respecting them, he procures their friendly regards, that they may be the more favourably inclined and teachable for receiving his doctrine. We must always take notice that he makes use of thanksgiving in place of congratulation, by which he teaches us, that in all our joys we must readily call to remembrance the goodness of God, inasmuch as everything that is pleasant and agreeable to us is a kindness conferred by him. Besides, he admonishes us, by his example, to acknowledge with gratitude not merely those things which the Lord confers upon us, but also those things which he confers upon others.
But for what things does he give thanks to the Lord? For the faith and love of the Colossians. He acknowledges, therefore, that both are conferred by God: otherwise the gratitude were pretended. And what have we otherwise than through his liberality? If, however, even the smallest favors come to us from that source, how much more ought this same acknowledgment to be made in reference to those two gifts, in which the entire sum of our excellence consists?
To the God and Father. (279) Understand the expression thus — To God who is the Father of Christ. For it is not lawful for us to acknowledge any other God than him who has manifested himself to us in his Son. And this is the only key for opening the door to us, if we are desirous to have access to the true God. For on this account, also, is he a Father to us, because he has embraced us in his only begotten Son, and in him also sets forth his paternal favor for our contemplation.
Always for you, Some explain it thus — We give thanks to God always for you, that is, continually. Others explain it to mean — Praying always for you. It may also be interpreted in this way, “Whenever we pray for you, we at the same time give thanks to God;” and this is the simple meaning, “We give thanks to God, and we at the same time pray.” By this he intimates, that the condition of believers is never in this world perfect, so as not to have, invariably, something wanting. For even the man who has begun admirably well, may fall short in a hundred instances every day; and we must ever be making progress while we are as yet on the way. Let us therefore bear in mind that we must rejoice in the favors that we have already received, and give thanks to God for them in such a manner, as to seek at the same time from him perseverance and advancement.
(279) “A Dieu qui est le Pere. Il y auroit mot a mot, A Dieu et Pere;” — “To God who is the Father. It were literally, To God and Father.”
4. Having heard of your faith. This was a means of stirring up his love towards them, and his concern for their welfare, when he heard it that they were distinguished by faith and love. And, unquestionably, gifts of God that are so excellent ought to have such an effect upon us as to stir us up to love them wherever they appear. He uses the expression, faith in Christ, that we may always bear in mind that Christ is the proper object of faith.
He employs the expression, love towards the saints, not with the view of excluding others, but because, in proportion as any one is joined to us in God, we ought to embrace him the more closely with special affection. True love, therefore, will extend to mankind universally, because they all are our flesh, and created in the image of God, (Gen 9:6;) but in respect of degrees, it will begin with those who are of the household of faith. (Gal 6:10.)
5. For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven. For the hope of eternal life will never be inactive in us, so as not to produce love in us. For it is of necessity, that the man who is fully persuaded that a treasure of life is laid up for him in heaven will aspire thither, looking down upon this world. Meditation, however, upon the heavenly life stirs up our affections both to the worship of God, and to exercises of love. The Sophists pervert this passage for the purpose of extolling the merits of works, as if the hope of salvation depended on works. The reasoning, however, is futile. For it does not follow, that because hope stimulates us to aim at upright living, it is therefore founded upon works, inasmuch as nothing is more efficacious for this purpose than God’s unmerited goodness, which utterly overthrows all confidence in works.
There is, however, an instance of metonymy in the use of the term hope, as it is taken for the thing hoped for. For the hope that is in our hearts is the glory which we hope for in heaven. At the same time, when he says, that there is a hope that is laid up for us in heaven, he means, that believers ought to feel assured as to the promise of eternal felicity, equally as though they had already a treasure laid up (280) in a particular place.
Of which ye heard before. As eternal salvation is a thing that surpasses the comprehension of our understanding, he therefore adds, that the assurance of it had been brought to the Colossians by means of the gospel; and at the same time he says in the outset, (281) that he is not to bring forward anything new, but that he has merely in view to confirm them in the doctrine which they had previously received. Erasmus has rendered — it the true word of the gospel. I am also well aware that, according to the Hebrew idiom, the genitive is often made use of by Paul in place of an epithet; but the words of Paul here are more emphatic. (282) For he calls the gospel, καψ ἐξοχήν, (by way of eminence,) the word of truth, with the view of putting honor upon it, that they may more steadfastly and firmly adhere to the revelation which they have derived from that source. Thus the term gospel is introduced by way of apposition (283)
(280) “Vn tresor en seure garde;” — “A treasure in safe keeping.”
(281) “Il dit auant que passer plus outre;” — “He says before proceeding farther.”
(282) “Ont yci plus grande signifiance, et emportent plus;” — “Have here more significancy, and are more emphatic.”
(283) The term apposition, in grammar, signifies the putting of two nouns in the same case. — Ed.
6. As also in all the world it brings forth fruit. This has a tendency both to confirm and to comfort the pious — to see the effect of the gospel far and wide in gathering many to Christ. The faith of it does not, it is true, depend on its success, as though we should believe it on the ground that many believe it. Though the whole world should fail, though heaven itself should fall, the conscience of a pious man must not waver, because God, on whom it is founded, does nevertheless remain true. This, however, does not hinder our faith from being confirmed, whenever it perceives God’s excellence, which undoubtedly shews itself with more power in proportion to the number of persons that are gained over to Christ.
In addition to this, in the multitude of the believers at that time there was beheld an accomplishment of the many predictions which extend the reign of Christ from the East to the West. Is it a trivial or common aid to faith, to see accomplished before our eyes what the Prophets long since predicted as to the extending of the kingdom of Christ through all countries of the world? What I speak of, there is no believer that does not experience in himself. Paul accordingly had it in view to encourage the Colossians the more by this statement, that, by seeing in various places the fruit and progress of the gospel, they might embrace it with more eager zeal. Αὐξανόμενον, which I have rendered propagatur , (is propagated,) does not occur in some copies; but, from its suiting better with the context, I did not choose to omit it. It also appears front the commentaries of the ancients that this reading was always the more generally received. (284)
Since the day ye heard it, and knew the grace. Here he praises them on account of their docility, inasmuch as they immediately embraced sound doctrine; and he praises them on account of their constancy, inasmuch as they persevered in it. It is also with propriety that the faith of the gospel is called the knowledge of God’s grace; for no one has ever tasted of the gospel but the man that knew himself to be reconciled to God, and took hold of the salvation that is held forth in Christ.
In truth means truly and without pretense; for as he had previously declared that the gospel is undoubted truth, so he now adds, that it had been purely administered by them, and that by Epaphras. For while all boast that they preach the gospel, and yet at the same time there are many evil workers, (Phi 3:2,) through whose ignorance, or ambition, or avarice, its purity is adulterated, it is of great importance that faithful ministers should be distinguished from the less upright. For it is not enough to hold the term gospel, unless we know that this is the true gospel — what was preached by Paul and Epaphras. Hence Paul confirms the doctrine of Epaphras by giving it his approbation, that he may induce the Colossians to adhere to it, and may, by the same means, call them back from those profligates who endeavored to introduce strange doctrines. He at the same time dignifies Epaphras with a special distinction, that he may have more authority among them; and lastly, he presents him to the Colossians in an amiable aspect, by saying that he had borne testimony to him of their love. Paul everywhere makes it his particular aim, that he may, by his recommendation, render those who he knows serve Christ faithfully, very dear to the Churches; as, on the other hand, the ministers of Satan are wholly intent on alienating, by unfavourable representations, (285) the minds of the simple from faithful pastors.
(284) “This” (καὶ αὐξανόμενον) “is the reading of the Vatican and all the most ancient authorities.” — Penn. — Ed
(285) “Par faux rapports et calomnies;” — “By false reports and calumnies.”
Love in the Spirit I take to mean, spiritual love, according to the view of Chrysostom, with whom, however, I do not agree in the interpretation of the preceding words. Now, spiritual love is of such a nature as has no view to the world, but is consecrated to the service of piety, (286) and has, as it were, an internal root, while carnal friendships depend on external causes.
(286) “Mais est commencee et comme consacree a l’adueu de la piete et cognoissance de Dieu;” — “But is commenced and, as it were, consecrated to the service of piety and the knowledge of God.”
9. For this cause we also. As he has previously shewn his affection for them in his thanksgivings, so he now shews it still farther in the earnestness of his prayers in their behalf. (288) And, assuredly, the more that the grace of God is conspicuous in any, we ought in that proportion specially to love and esteem them, and to be concerned as to their welfare. But what does he pray for in their behalf? That they may know God more fully; by which he indirectly intimates, that something is still wanting in them, that he may prepare the way for imparting instruction to them, and may secure their attention to a fuller statement of doctrine. For those who think that they have already attained everything that is worthy of being known, despise and disdain everything farther that is presented to them. Hence he removes from the Colossians an impression of this nature, lest it should be a hinderance in the way of their cheerfully making progress, and allowing what had been begun in them to receive an additional polish. But what knowledge does he desire in their behalf? The knowledge of the divine will, by which expression he sets aside all inventions of men, and all speculations that are at variance with the word of God. For his will is not to be sought anywhere else than in his word.
He adds — in all wisdom; by which he intimates that the will of God, of which he had made mention, was the only rule of right knowledge. For if any one is desirous simply to know those things which it has pleased God to reveal, that is the man who accurately knows what it is to be truly wise. If we desire anything beyond that, this will be nothing else than to be foolish, by not keeping within due bounds. By the word συνέσεως which we render prudentiam , (prudence,) I understand — that discrimination which proceeds from intelligence. Both are called spiritual by Paul, because they are not attained in any other way than by the guidance of the Spirit.
For the animal man does not perceive the things that are of God.
(1. o 2:14.)
So long as men are regulated by their own carnal perceptions, they have also their own wisdom, but it is of such a nature as is mere vanity, however much they may delight themselves in it. We see what sort of theology there is under the Papacy, what is contained in the books of philosophers, and what wisdom profane men hold in estimation. Let us, however, bear in mind, that the wisdom which is alone commended by Paul is comprehended in the will of God.
(288) “Comme il a ci dessus demonstré l’amour qu’il auoit enuers eux, en protestant qu’il s’esiouit de leurs auancemens, et en rend graces a Dieu, aussi le fait — il maintenant en son affection vehemente, et continuation de prier;” — “As he has already shewn the love which he cherished towards them, by declaring that he rejoices in their proficiency, and gives thanks to God for it, so he does the same now by his intense eagerness and perseverance in prayer.”
10. That ye may walk worthy of God. In the first place he teaches, what is the end of spiritual understanding, and for what purpose we ought to make proficiency in God’s school — that we may walk worthy of God, that is, that it may be manifest in our life, that we have not in vain been taught by God. Whoever they may be that do not direct their endeavors towards this object, may possibly toil and labor much, but they do nothing better than wander about in endless windings, without making any progress. (289) Farther, he admonishes us, that if we would walk worthy of God, we must above all things take heed that we regulate our whole course of life according to the will of God, renouncing our own understanding, and bidding farewell to all the inclinations of our flesh.
This also he again confirms by saying — unto all obedience, or, as they commonly say, well-pleasing. Hence if it is asked, what kind of life is worthy of God, let us always keep in view this definition of Paul — that it is such a life as, leaving the opinions of men, and leaving, in short, all carnal inclination, is regulated so as to be in subjection to God alone. From this follow good works, which are the fruits that God requires from us.
Increasing, in the knowledge of God. He again repeats, that they have not arrived at such perfection as not to stand in need of farther increase; by which admonition he prepares them, and as it were leads them by the hand, to an eagerness for proficiency, that they may shew themselves ready to listen, and teachable. What is here said to the Colossians, let all believers take as said to themselves, and draw from this a common exhortation that we must always make progress in the doctrine of piety until death.
(289) “Mais ils ne feront que tracasser çà et là, et tourner a l’entour du pot (comme on dit) sans s’auancer;” — “But they will do nothing else than hurry hither and thither, and go about the bush (as they say) without making progress.”
11. Strengthened with all might. As he has previously prayed that they might have both a sound understanding and the right use of it, so also now he prays that they may have courage and constancy. In this manner he puts them in mind of their own weakness, for he says, that they will not be strong otherwise than by the Lord’s help; and not only so, but with the view of magnifying this exercise of grace the more, he adds, according to his glorious power. “So far from any one being able to stand, through dependence on his own strength, the power of God shews itself illustriously in helping our infirmity.” Lastly, he shews in what it is that the strength of believers ought to display itself — in all patience and long-suffering. For they are constantly, while in this world, exercised with the cross, and a thousand temptations daily present themselves, so as to weigh them down, and they see nothing of what God has promised. They must, therefore, arm themselves with an admirable patience, that what Isaiah says may be accomplished,
In hope and in silence shall be your strength. (290)
(Isa 30:15.)
It is preferable to connect with this sentence the clause, with joy. For although the other reading is more commonly to be met with in the Latin versions, this is more in accordance with the Greek manuscripts, and, unquestionably, patience is not sustained otherwise than by alacrity of mind, and will never be maintained with fortitude by any one that is not satisfied with his condition.
(290) Lowth’s rendering of the passage is similar: “In silence, and in pious confidence, shall be your strength.” — Ed.
12. Giving thanks. Again he returns to thanksgiving, that he may take this opportunity of enumerating the blessings which had been conferred upon them through Christ, and thus he enters upon a full delineation of Christ. For this was the only remedy for fortifying the Colossians against all the snares, by which the false Apostles endeavored to entrap them — to understand accurately what Christ was. For how comes it that we are carried about with so many strange doctrines, (Heb 13:9) but because the excellence of Christ is not perceived by us? For Christ alone makes all other things suddenly vanish. Hence there is nothing that Satan so much endeavors to accomplish as to bring on mists with the view of obscuring Christ, because he knows, that by this means the way is opened up for every kind of falsehood. This, therefore, is the only means of retaining, as well as restoring pure doctrine — to place Christ before the view such as he is with all his blessings, that his excellence may be truly perceived.
The question here is not as to the name. Papists in common with us acknowledge one and the same Christ; yet in the mean time how great a difference there is between us and them, inasmuch as they, after confessing Christ to be the Son of God, transfer his excellence to others, and scatter it hither and thither, and thus leave him next to empty, (292) or at least rob him of a great part of his glory, so that he is called, it is true, by them the Son of God, but, nevertheless, he is not such as the Father designed he should be towards us. If, however, Papists would cordially embrace what is contained in this chapter, we would soon be perfectly agreed, but the whole of Popery would fall to the ground, for it cannot stand otherwise than through ignorance of Christ. This will undoubtedly be acknowledged by every one that will but consider the main article (293) of this first chapter; for his grand object here is that we may know that Christ is the beginning, middle, and end — that it is from him that all things must be sought — that nothing is, or can be found, apart from him. Now, therefore, let the readers carefully and attentively observe in what colors Paul depicts Christ to us.
Who hath made us meet. He is still speaking of the Father, because he is the beginning, and efficient cause (as they speak) of our salvation. As the term God is more distinctly expressive of majesty, so the term Father conveys the idea of clemency and benevolent disposition. It becomes us to contemplate both as existing in God, that his majesty may inspire us with fear and reverence, and that his fatherly love may secure our full confidence. Hence it is not without good reason that Paul has conjoined these two things, if, after all, you prefer the rendering which the old interpreter has followed, and which accords with some very ancient Greek manuscripts. (294) At the same time there will be no inconsistency in saying, that he contents himself with the single term, Father. Farther, as it is necessary that his incomparable grace should be expressed by the term Father, so it is also not less necessary that we should, by the term God, be roused up to admiration of so great goodness, that he, who is God, has condescended thus far. (295)
But for what kindness does he give thanks to God? For his having made him, and others,meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints. For we are born children of wrath, exiles from God’s kingdom. It is God’s adoption that alone makes us meet. Now, adoption depends on an unmerited election. The Spirit of regeneration is the seal of adoption. He adds, in light, that there might be a contrast — as opposed to the darkness of Satan’s kingdom. (296)
(292) ”Ils le laissent quasi vuide et inutile;” — “They leave him in a manner empty and useless.”
(293) Statum The term is commonly employed among the Latins like στάσις among the Greeks, to mean the point at issue. See Cic. Top. 25. — Ed
(294) It is stated by Beza, that some Greek manuscripts have τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ, (to God and the Father,) and that this is the reading in some copies of the Vulgate. Wiclif (1380) reads, “To God and to the Fadir.” Rheims (1582) “To God and the Father.” — Ed
(295) “S’est abbaisé iusques là de vouloir estre nostre Pere;” — “Has abased himself so far as to be willing to be our Father.”
(296) “Afin qu’il y eust vne opposition entre les tenebres du royaume de Satan, et la lumiere du royaume de Dieu;” — “That there might be a contrast between the darkness of Satan’s kingdom, and the light of God’s kingdom.”
13. Who hath delivered us. Mark, here is the beginning of our salvation — when God delivers us from the depth of ruin into which we were plunged. For wherever his grace is not, there is darkness, (297) as it is said in Isa 60:2
Behold darkness shall cover the earth, and thick darkness the nations; but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.
In the first place, we ourselves are called darkness, and afterwards the whole world, and Satan, the Prince of darkness, (298) under whose tyranny we are held captive, until we are set free by Christ’s hand. (299) From this you may gather that the whole world, with all its pretended wisdom and righteousness, is regarded as nothing but darkness in the sight of God, because, apart from the kingdom of Christ, there is no light.
Hath translated us into the kingdom. These form already the beginnings of our blessedness — when we are translated into the kingdom of Christ, because we pass from death into life. (1. o 3:14.) This, also, Paul ascribes to the grace of God, that no one may imagine that he can attain so great a blessing by his own efforts. As, then, our deliverance from the slavery of sin and death is the work of God, so also our passing into the kingdom of Christ. He calls Christ the Son of his love, or the Son that is beloved by God the Father, because it is in him alone that his soul takes pleasure, as we read in Mat 17:5, and in whom all others are beloved. For we must hold it as a settled point, that we are not acceptable to God otherwise than through Christ. Nor can it be doubted, that Paul had it in view to censure indirectly the mortal enmity that exists between men and God, until love shines forth in the Mediator.
(297) “Là il n’y a que tenebres;” — “There is nothing but darkness.”
(298) “One of the names which the Jews gave to Satan was חש — darkness” — Illustrated Commentary. — Ed
(299) “Iusqu’a ce que nons soyons deliurez et affranchis par la puissance de Christ;” — “Until we are delivered and set free by the power of Christ.”
14. In whom we have redemption. He now proceeds to set forth in order, that all parts of our salvation are contained in Christ, and that he alone ought to shine forth, and to be seen conspicuous above all creatures, inasmuch as he is the beginning and end of all things. In the first place, he says that we have redemption (300) and immediately explains it as meaning the remission of sins; for these two things agree together by apposition (301) For, unquestionably, when God remits our transgressions, he exempts us from condemnation to eternal death. This is our liberty, this our glorying in the face of death — that our sins are not imputed to us. He says that this redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated. Let us, therefore, bear in mind, that this is the sole price of reconciliation, and that all the trifling of Papists as to satisfactions is blasphemy. (302)
(300) “Redemption et deliurance;” — “Redemption and deliverance.”
(301) The following explanation of the meaning of the term apposition is furnished in a marginal note in our author’s French version: “C’est quand deux noms substantifs appartenans a vne mesme chose, sont mis ensemble sans conionction, comme par declaration l’vn et l’autre;” — “This is when two substantive nouns, relating to the same thing, are placed together without being conjoined, as if by way of explanation, the one and the other.”
15. Who is the image of the invisible God. He mounts up higher in discoursing as to the glory of Christ. He calls him the image of the invisible God, meaning by this, that it is in him alone that God, who is otherwise invisible, is manifested to us, in accordance with what is said in Joh 1:18,
— No man hath ever seen God: the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, hath himself manifested him to us.
I am well aware in what manner the ancients were accustomed to explain this; for having a contest to maintain with Arians, they insist upon the equality of the Son with the Father, and his (ὁμοουσίαν) identity of essence, (303) while in the mean time they make no mention of what is the chief point — in what manner the Father makes himself known to us in Christ. As to Chrysostom’s laying the whole stress of his defense on the termimage, by contending that the creature cannot be said to be the image of the Creator, it is excessively weak; nay more, it is set aside by Paul in 1. o 11:7, whose words are — The man is the IMAGE and glory of God
That, therefore, we may not receive anything but what is solid, let us take notice, that the term image is not made use of in reference to essence, but has a reference to us; for Christ is called the image of God on this ground — that he makes God in a manner visible to us. At the same time, we gather also from this his (ὁμοουσία) identity of essence, for Christ would not truly represent God, if he were not the essential Word of God, inasmuch as the question here is not as to those things which by communication are suitable also to creatures, but the question is as to the perfect wisdom, goodness, righteousness, and power of God, for the representing of which no creature were competent. We shall have, therefore, in this term, a powerful weapon in opposition to the Arians, but, notwithstanding, we must begin with that reference (304) that I have mentioned; we must not insist upon the essence alone. The sum is this — that God in himself, that is, in his naked majesty, is invisible, and that not to the eyes of the body merely, but also to the understandings of men, and that he is revealed to us in Christ alone, that we may behold him as in a mirror. For in Christ he shews us his righteousness, goodness, wisdom, power, in short, his entire self. We must, therefore, beware of seeking him elsewhere, for everything that would set itself off as a representation of God, apart from Christ, will be an idol.
The first-born of every creature. The reason of this appellation is immediately added — For in him all things are created, as he is, three verses afterwards, called the first-begotten from the dead, because by him we all rise again. Hence, he is not called the first-born, simply on the ground of his having preceded all creatures in point of time, but because he was begotten by the Father, that they might be created by him, and that he might be, as it were, the substance or foundation of all things. It was then a foolish part that the Arians acted, who argued from this that he was, consequently, a creature. For what is here treated of is, not what he is in himself, but what he accomplishes in others.
(303) See Calvin on the Corinthians, vol. 1, p. 196, n. 1.
(304) “Relation et correspondance;” — “Reference and correspondence.”
16. Visible and invisible. Both of these kinds were included in the foregoing distinction of heavenly and earthly things; but as Paul meant chiefly to make that affirmation in reference to Angels, he now makes mention of things invisible. Not only, therefore, have those heavenly creatures which are visible to our eyes, but spiritual creatures also, been created by the Son of God. What immediately follows, whether thrones, etc., is as though he had said — “by whatever name they are called.”
By thrones some understand Angels. I am rather, however, of opinion, that the heavenly palace of God’s majesty is meant by the term, which we are not to imagine to be such as our mind can conceive of, but such as is suitable to God himself. We see the sun and moon, and the whole adorning of heaven, but the glory of God’s kingdom is hid from our perception, because it is spiritual, and above the heavens. In fine, let us understand by the term thrones that seat of blessed immortality which is exempted from all change.
By the other terms he undoubtedly describes the angels. He calls them powers, principalities, and dominions, not, as if they swayed any separate kingdom, or were endowed with peculiar power, (305) but because they are the ministers of Divine power and dominion. (306) It is customary, however, that, in so far as God manifests his power in creatures, his names are, in that proportion, transferred to them. Thus he is himself alone Lord and Father, but those are also called lords and fathers whom he dignifies with this honor. Hence it comes that angels, as well as judges, are called gods. (307) Hence, in this passage also, angels are signalized by magnificent titles, which intimate, not what they can do of themselves, or apart from God, but what God does by them, and what functions he has assigned to them. These things it becomes us to understand in such a manner as to detract nothing from the glory of God alone; for he does not communicate his power to angels as to lessen his own; he does not work by them in such a manner as to resign his power to them; he does not desire that his glory should shine forth in them, so as to be obscured in himself. Paul, however, designedly extols the dignity of angels in terms thus magnificent, that no one may think that it stands in the way of Christ alone having the pre-eminence over them. He makes use, therefore, of these terms, as it were by way of concession, as though he had said, that all their excellence detracts nothing from Christ, (308) however honorable the titles with which they are adorned. As for those who philosophize on these terms with excessive subtlety, that they may draw from them the different orders of angels, let them regale themselves with their dainties, but they are assuredly very remote from Paul’s design.
(305) “Ayent vertu ou puissance d’eux — mesmes;” — “Have power or authority of themselves.”
(306) “Sont executeurs de la puissance Diuine, et ministres de sa domination;” — “Are the executors of God’s power, and ministers of his dominion.”
(307) See Calvin on John, vol. 1: p. 419.
(308) “N’oste rien a la gloire de Christ;” — “Takes nothing from the glory of Christ.”
17. All things were created by him, and for him. He places angels in subjection to Christ, that they may not obscure his glory, for four reasons: In the first place, because they were created by him; secondly, because their creation ought to be viewed as having a relation to him, as their legitimate end; thirdly, because he himself existed always, prior to their creation; fourthly, because he sustains them by his power, and upholds them in their condition. At the same time, he does not affirm this merely as to angels, but also as to the whole world. Thus he places the Son of God in the Highest seat of honor, that he may have the pre-eminence over angels as well as men, and may bring under control all creatures in heaven and in earth.
18. The head of the body. Having discoursed in a general way of Christ’s excellence, and of his sovereign dominion over all creatures, he again returns to those things which relate peculiarly to the Church. Under the term head some consider many things to be included. And, unquestionably, he makes use afterwards, as we shall find, of the same metaphor in this sense — that as in the human body it serves as a root, from which vital energy is diffused through all the members, so the life of the Church flows out from Christ, etc. (Col 2:19.) Here, however, in my opinion, he speaks chiefly of government. He shews, therefore, that it is Christ that alone has authority to govern the Church, that it is he to whom alone believers ought to have an eye, and on whom alone the unity of the body depends.
Papists, with the view of supporting the tyranny of their idol, allege that the Church would be (ἀκέφαλον) without a head, (309) if the Pope did not, as a head, exercise rule in it. Paul, however, does not allow this honor even to angels, and yet he does not maim the Church, by depriving her of her head; for as Christ claims for himself this title, so he truly exercises the office. I am also well aware of the cavil by which they attempt to escape — that the Pope is a ministerial head. The name, however, of head is too august to be rightfully transferred to any mortal man, (310) under any pretext, especially without the command of Christ. Gregory shews greater modesty, who says (in his 92. d Epistle, 4. h Book) that Peter was indeed one of the chief members of the Church, but that he and the other Apostles were members under one head.
He is the beginning. As ἀρχὴ is sometimes made use of among the Greeks to denote the end, to which all things bear a relation, we might understand it as meaning, that Christ is in this sense (ἀρχὴ) the end. I prefer, however, to explain Paul’s words thus — that he is the beginning, because he is the first-born from the dead; for in the resurrection there is a restoration of all things, and in this manner the commencement of the second and new creation, for the former had fallen to pieces in the ruin of the first man. As, then, Christ in rising again had made a commencement of the kingdom of God, he is on good grounds called the beginning; for then do we truly begin to have a being in the sight of God, when we are renewed, so as to be new creatures. He is called the first-begotten from the dead, not merely because he was the first that rose again, but because he has also restored life to others, as he is elsewhere called the first-fruits of those that rise again. (1. o 15:20.)
That he may in all things. From this he concludes, that supremacy belongs to him in all things. For if he is the Author and Restorer of all things, it is manifest that this honor is justly due to him. At the same time the phrase in omnibus (in all things) may be taken in two ways — either over all creatures, or, in everything. This, however, is of no great importance, for the simple meaning is, that all things are subjected to his sway.
(309) See Institutes, vol. 2, p. 11.
(310) “Est si honorable et magnifique qu’il ne pent estre transferé a homme mortel;” — “Is so honorable and magnificent, that it cannot be transferred to a mortal man.”
19. Because it hath pleased the Father that in him. With the view of confirming what he has declared respecting Christ, he now adds, that it was so arranged in the providence of God. And, unquestionably, in order that we may with reverence adore this mystery, it is necessary that we should be led back to that fountain. “This,” says he, “has been in accordance with the counsel of God, that all fullness may dwell in him. ” Now, he means a fullness of righteousness, wisdom, power, and every blessing. For whatever God has he has conferred upon his Son, that he may be glorified in him, as is said in Joh 5:20. He shews us, however, at the same time, that we must draw from the fullness of Christ everything good that we desire for our salvation, because such is the determination of God — not to communicate himself, or his gifts to men, otherwise than by his Son. “Christ is all things to us: apart from him we have nothing.” Hence it follows, that all that detract from Christ, or that impair his excellence, or rob him of his offices, or, in fine, take away a drop from his fullness, overturn, so far as is in their power, God’s eternal counsel.
20. And by him to reconcile all things to himself. This, also, is a magnificent commendation of Christ, that we cannot be joined to God otherwise than through him. In the first place, let us consider that our happiness consists in our cleaving to God, and that, on the other hand, there is nothing more miserable than to be alienated from him. He declares, accordingly, that we are blessed through Christ alone, inasmuch as he is the bond of our connection with God, and, on the other hand, that, apart from him, we are most miserable, because we are shut out from God. (311) Let us, however, bear in mind, that what he ascribes to Christ belongs peculiarly to him, that no portion of this praise may be transferred to any other. (312) Hence we must consider the contrasts to these things to be understood — that if this is Christ’s prerogative, it does not belong to others. For of set purpose he disputes against those who imagined that the angels were pacificators, through whom access to God might be opened up.
Making peace through the blood of his cross. He speaks of the Father, — that he has been made propitious to his creatures by the blood of Christ. Now he calls it the blood of the cross, inasmuch as it was the pledge and price of the making up of our peace with God, because it was poured out upon the cross. For it was necessary that the Son of God should be an expiatory victim, and endure the punishment of sin, that we might be the righteousness of God in him. (2. o 5:21.) The blood of the cross, therefore, means the blood of the sacrifice which was offered upon the cross for appeasing the anger of God.
In adding by him, he did not mean to express anything new, but to express more distinctly what he had previously stated, and to impress it still more deeply on their minds — that Christ alone is the author of reconciliation, as to exclude all other means. For there is no other that has been crucified for us. Hence it is he alone, by whom and for whose sake we have God propitious to us.
Both upon earth and in heaven. If you are inclined to understand this as referring merely to rational creatures, it will mean, men and angels. There were, it is true, no absurdity in extending it to all without exception; but that I may not be under the necessity of philosophizing with too much subtlety, I prefer to understand it as referring to angels and men; and as to the latter, there is no difficulty as to their having need of a peace maker in the sight of God. As to angels, however, there is a question not easy of solution. For what occasion is there for reconciliation, where there is no discord or hatred? Many, influenced by this consideration, have explained the passage before us in this manner — that angels have been brought into agreement with men, and that by this means heavenly creatures have been restored to favor with earthly creatures. Another meaning, however, is conveyed by Paul’s words, that God hath reconciled to himself. That explanation, therefore, is forced.
It remains, that we see what is the reconciliation of angels and men. I say that men have been reconciled to God, because they were previously alienated from him by sin, and because they would have had him as a Judge to their ruin, (313) had not the grace of the Mediator interposed for appeasing his anger. Hence the nature of the peace making between God and men was this, that enmities have been abolished through Christ, and thus God becomes a Father instead of a Judge.
Between God and angels the state of matters is very different, for there was there (314) no revolt, no sin, and consequently no separation. It was, however, necessary that angels, also, should be made to be at peace with God, for, being creatures, they were not beyond the risk of falling, had they not been confirmed by the grace of Christ. This, however, is of no small importance for the perpetuity of peace with God, to have a fixed standing in righteousness, so as to have no longer any fear of fall or revolt. Farther, in that very obedience which they render to God, there is not such absolute perfection as to give satisfaction to God in every respect, and without the need of pardon. And this beyond all doubt is what is meant by that statement in Job 4:18, He will find iniquity in his angels. For if it is explained as referring to the devil, what mighty thing were it? But the Spirit declares there, that the greatest purity is vile, (315) if it is brought into comparison with the righteousness of God. We must, therefore, conclude, that there is not on the part of angels so much of righteousness as would suffice for their being fully joined with God. They have, therefore, need of a peace maker, through whose grace they may wholly cleave to God. Hence it is with propriety that Paul declares, that the grace of Christ does not reside among mankind alone, and on the other hand makes it common also to angels. Nor is there any injustice done to angels, in sending them to a Mediator, that they may, through his kindness, have a well grounded peace with God.
Should any one, on the pretext of the universality of the expression, (316) move a question in reference to devils, whether Christ be their peace maker also? I answer, No, not even of wicked men: though I confess that there is a difference, inasmuch as the benefit of redemption is offered to the latter, but not to the former. (317) This, however, has nothing to do with Paul’s words, which include nothing else than this, that it is through Christ alone, that, all creatures, who have any connection at all with God, cleave to him.
(311) “Bannis de la compagnie de Dieu;” — “Banished from the society of God.”
(312) “Tant excellent soit-il;” — “However excellent he may be.”
(313) “A leur confusion et ruine;” — “To their confusion and ruin.”
(314) “En eux;” — “Among them.”
(315) “Que la plus grande purete qu’on pourroit trouuer, ne sera que vilenie et ordure;” — “That the greatest purity that could be found will be nothing but filth and pollution.”
(316) “Sous ombre de ce mot, Toutes choses;” — “Under the pretext of this word, All things.”
(317) “Est offert aux meschans et reprouuez, et non pas aix diables;” — “Is offered to the wicked and reprobate, but not to devils.”
21. And whereas ye were formerly. The general doctrine which he had set forth he now applies particularly to them, that they may feel that they are guilty of very great ingratitude, if they allow themselves to be drawn away from Christ to new inventions. And this arrangement must be carefully observed, because the particular application of a doctrine, so to speak, affects the mind more powerfully. Farther, he leads their views to experience, that they may recognize in themselves the benefit of that redemption of which he had made mention. “You are yourselves a sample (318) of that grace which I declare to have been offered to mankind through Christ. For ye were alienated, that is, from God. Ye were enemies; now ye are received into favor: whence comes this? It is because God, being appeased by the death of Christ, has become reconciled to you.” At the same time, there is in this statement a change of person, for what he has previously declared as to the Father, he now affirms respecting Christ; for we must necessarily explain it thus, in the body of HIS flesh
The term διανοίας (thought) I explain, as employed by way of amplification, as though he had said, that they were altogether, and in the whole of their mental system, alienated from God, that no one may imagine, after the manner of philosophers, that the alienation is merely in a particular part, as Popish theologians restrict it to the lower appetites. “Nay,” says Paul, “what made you odious to God, had taken possession of your whole mind.” In fine, he meant to intimate, that man, whatever he may be, is wholly at variance with God, and is an enemy to him. The old interpreter renders it (sensum ) sense. Erasmus renders it mentem , (mind.) I have made use of the term cogitationis , to denote what the French call intention. For such is the force of the Greek word, and Paul’s meaning requires that it should be rendered so.
Farther, while the term enemies has a passive as well as active signification, it is well suited to us in both respects, so long as we are apart from Christ. For we are born children of wrath, and every thought of the flesh is enmity against God. (Rom 8:7.)
In wicked works. He shews from its effects the inward hatred which lies hid in the heart. For as mankind endeavor to free themselves from all blame, until they have been openly convicted, God shews them their impiety by outward works, as is more amply treated of in Rom 1:19. Farther, what is told us here as to the Colossians, is applicable to us also, for we differ nothing in respect of nature. There is only this difference, that some are called from their mother’s womb, whose malice God anticipates, so as to prevent them from breaking forth into open fruits, while others, after having wandered during a great part of their life, are brought back to the fold. We all, however, stand in need of Christ as our peace maker, because we are the slaves of sin, and where sin is, there is enmity between God and men.
(318) “Vn miroir;” — “A mirror.”
22. In the body of his flesh. The expression is in appearance absurd, but the body of his flesh means that human body, which the Son of God had in common with us. He meant, therefore, to intimate, that the Son of God had put on the same nature with us, that he took upon him this vile earthly body, subject to many infirmities, that he might be our Mediator. When he adds, by death, he again calls us back to sacrifice. For it was necessary that the Son of God should become man, and be a partaker of our flesh, that he might be our brother: it was necessary that he should by dying become a sacrifice, that he might make his Father propitious to us.
That he might present us holy. Here we have the second and principal part of our salvation — newness of life. For the entire blessing of redemption consists mainly in these two things, remission of sins, and spiritual regeneration. (Jer 31:33.) What he has already spoken of was a great matter, that righteousness has been procured for us through the death of Christ, so that, our sins being remitted, we are acceptable to God. Now, however, he teaches us, that there is in addition to this another benefit equally distinguished — the gift of the Holy Spirit, by which we are renewed in the image of God. This, also, is a passage worthy of observation, as shewing that a gratuitous righteousness is not conferred upon us in Christ, without our being at the same time regenerated by the Spirit to the obedience of righteousness, as he teaches us elsewhere, that
Christ is made to us righteousness and sanctification.
(1. o 1:30.)
The former we obtain by a gratuitous acceptance; (319) and the latter by the gift of the Holy Spirit, when we are made new creatures. There is however an inseparable connection between these two blessings of grace.
Let us, however, take notice, that this holiness is nothing more than begun in us, and is indeed every day making progress, but will not be perfected until Christ shall appear for the restoration of all things. For the Cœlestinians (320) and the Pelagians in ancient times mistakingly perverted this passage, so as to shut out the gracious benefit of the remission of sins. For they conceived of a perfection in this world which could satisfy the judgment of God, so that mercy was not needed. Paul, however, does not by any means shew us here what is accomplished in this world, but what is the end of our calling, and what blessings are brought to us by Christ.
(319) “Par l’acceptation gratuite de Dieu, c’est a dire pource qu’il nous accepte et ha agreables;” — “By God’s gratuitous acceptance, that is, because he accepts of us, and regards us with favor.”
(320) The followers of Cœlestius, who, along with Pelagius, held views subversive of the doctrine of original sin, the necessity of divine grace, and other doctrines of a kindred character. — Ed.
23. If ye continue. Here we have an exhortation to perseverance, by which he admonishes them that all the grace that had been conferred upon them hitherto would be vain, unless they persevered in the purity of the gospel. And thus he intimates, that they are still only making progress, and have not yet reached the goal. For the stability of their faith was at that time exposed to danger through the stratagems of the false apostles. Now he paints in lively colors assurance of faith when he bids the Colossians be grounded and settled in it. For faith is not like mere opinion, which is shaken by various movements, but has a firm steadfastness, which can withstand all the machinations of hell. Hence the whole system of Popish theology will never afford even the slightest taste of true faith, which holds it as a settled point, that we must always be in doubt respecting the present state of grace, as well as respecting final perseverance. He afterwards takes notice also of a relationship (321) which subsists between faith and the gospel, when he says that the Colossians will be settled in the faith only in the event of their not falling back from the hope of the gospel; that is, the hope which shines forth upon us through means of the gospel, for where the gospel is, there is the hope of everlasting salvation. Let us, however, bear in mind, that the sum of all is contained in Christ. Hence he enjoins it upon them here to shun all doctrines which lead away from Christ, so that the minds of men are otherwise occupied.
Which ye have heard. As the false apostles themselves, who tear and rend Christ in pieces, are accustomed proudly to glory in the name of the gospel, and as it is a common artifice of Satan to trouble men’s consciences under a false pretext of the gospel, that the truth of the gospel may be brought into confusion, (322) Paul, on this account, expressly declares, that that was the genuine, (323) that the undoubted gospel, which the Colossians had heard, namely, from Epaphras, that they might not lend an ear to doctrines at variance with it. He adds, besides, a confirmation of it, that it is the very same as was preached over the whole world. It is, I say, no ordinary confirmation when they hear that they have the whole Church agreeing with them, and that they follow no other doctrine than what the Apostles had alike taught and was everywhere received.
It is, however, a ridiculous boasting of Papists, in respect of their impugning our doctrine by this argument, that it is not preached everywhere with approbation and applause, inasmuch as we have few that assent to it. For though they should burst, they will never deprive us of this — that we at this day teach nothing but what was preached of old by Prophets and Apostles, and is obediently received by the whole band of saints. For Paul did not mean that the gospel should be approved of by the consent of all ages (324) in such a way that, if it were rejected, its authority would be shaken. He had, on the contrary, an eye to that commandment of Christ,
Go, preach the gospel to every creature; (Mar 16:15;)
which commandment depends on so many predictions of the Prophets, foretelling that the kingdom of Christ would be spread over the whole world. What else then does Paul mean by these words than that the Colossians had also been watered by those living streams, which, springing forth from Jerusalem, were to flow out through the whole world? (Zec 14:8.)
We also do not glory in vain, or without remarkable fruit and consolation, (325) that we have the same gospel, which is preached among all nations by the commandment of the Lord, which is received by all the Churches, and in the profession of which all pious persons have lived and died. It is also no common help for fortifying us against so many assaults, that we have the consent of the whole Church — such, I mean, as is worthy of so distinguished a title. We also cordially subscribe to the views of Augustine, who refutes the Donatists (326) by this argument particularly, that they bring forward a gospel that is in all the Churches unheard of and unknown. This truly is said on good grounds, for if it is a true gospel that is brought forward, while not ratified by any approbation on the part of the Church, it follows, that vain and false are the many promises in which it is predicted that the preaching of the gospel will be carried through the whole world, and which declare that the sons of God shall be gathered from all nations and countries, etc. (Hos 1:10.) But what do Papists do? Having bid farewell to Prophets and Apostles, and passing by the ancient Church, they would have their revolt from the gospel be looked upon as the consent of the universal Church. Where is the resemblance? Hence, when there is a dispute as to the consent of the Church, let us return to the Apostles and their preaching, as Paul does here. Farther, lest any one should explain too rigidly the term denoting universality, (327) Paul means simply, that it had been preached everywhere far and wide.
Of which I am made. He speaks also of himself personally, and this was very necessary, for we must always take care, that we do not rashly intrude ourselves into the office of teaching. (328) He accordingly declares, that this office was appointed him, that he may secure for himself right and authority. And, indeed, he so connects his apostleship with their faith, that they may not have it in their power to reject his doctrine otherwise than by abandoning the gospel which they had embraced.
(321) “Vne relation et correspondence mutuelle;” — “A mutual relationship and correspondence.”
(322) “Demeure en confus, et qu’on ne scache que c’est;” — “May remain in confusion, and it may not be known what it is.”
(323) “Vray et naturel;” — “True and genuine.”
(324) “Car Sainct Paul n’ a pas voulu dire que l’approbation de l’Euangile dependist du consentement de tous siecles;” — “For St. Paul did not mean to say, that the approbation of the Gospel depended on the consent of all ages.”
(325) “Ne sans vn fruit singulier et consolation merueilleuse;” — “Not without remarkable fruit, and wonderful consolation.”
(326) The Donatists were a sect that sprung up in Africa during the fourth century, and were, vigorously opposed by Augustine. — Ed.
(327) “Ce mot, Toute ;” — “This word, All. ”
(328) “De prescher et enseigner;” — “Of preaching and teaching.”
24. I now rejoice. He has previously claimed for himself authority on the ground of his calling. Now, however, he provides against the honor of his apostleship being detracted from by the bonds and persecutions, which he endured for the sake of the gospel. For Satan, also, perversely turns these things into occasions of rendering the servants of God the more contemptible. Farther, he encourages them by his example not to be intimidated by persecutions, and he sets forth to their view his zeal, that he may have greater weight. (329) Nay more, he gives proof of his affection towards them by no common pledge, when he declares that he willingly bears for their sake the afflictions which he endures. “But whence,” some one will ask, “arises this joy ?” From his seeing the fruit that springs from it. “The affliction that I endure on your account is pleasant to me, because I do not suffer it in vain.” (330) In the same manner, in his First Epistle to the Thessalonians, he says, that he rejoiced in all necessities and afflictions, on the ground of what he had heard as to their faith. (1. h 3:6.)
And fill up what is wanting. The particle and I understand as meaning for, for he assigns a reason why he is joyful in his sufferings, because he is in this thing a partner with Christ, and nothing happier can be desired than this partnership. (331) He also brings forward a consolation common to all the pious, that in all tribulations, especially in so far as they suffer anything for the sake of the gospel, they are partakers of the cross of Christ, that they may enjoy fellowship with him in a blessed resurrection.
Nay more, he declares that there is thus filled up what is wanting in the affliction of Christ. For as he speaks in Rom 8:29,
Whom God elected, he also hath predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ, that he may be the first-born among the brethren.
Farther, we know that there is so great a unity between Christ and his members, that the name of Christ sometimes includes the whole body, as in 1. o 12:12, for while discoursing there respecting the Church, he comes at length to the conclusion, that in Christ the same thing holds as in the human body. As, therefore, Christ has suffered once in his own person, so he suffers daily in his members, and in this way there are filled up those sufferings which the Father hath appointed for his body by his decree. (332) Here we have a second consideration, which ought to bear up our minds and comfort them in afflictions, that it is thus fixed and determined by the providence of God, that we must be conformed to Christ in the endurance of the cross, and that the fellowship that we have with him extends to this also.
He adds, also, a third reason — that his sufferings are advantageous, and that not merely to a few, but to the whole Church. He had previously stated that he suffered in behalf of the Colossians, and he now declares still farther, that the advantage extends to the whole Church. This advantage has been spoken of in Phi 1:12. What could be clearer, less forced, or more simple, than this exposition, that Paul is joyful in persecution, because he considers, in accordance with what he writes elsewhere, that we must
carry about with us in our body the mortification of Christ, that his life may be manifested in us? (2. o 4:10.)
He says also in Timothy,
If we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him: if we die with him, we shall also live with him, (2. i 2:11)
and thus the issue will be blessed and glorious. Farther, he considers that we must not refuse the condition which God has appointed for his Church, that the members of Christ may have a suitable correspondence with the head; and, thirdly, that afflictions must be cheerfully endured, inasmuch as they are profitable to all the pious, and promote the welfare of the whole Church, by adorning the doctrine of the gospel.
Papists, however, disregarding and setting aside all these things, (333) have struck out a new contrivance in order that they may establish their system of indulgences. They give the name of indulgences to a remission of punishments, obtained by us through the merits of the martyrs. For, as they deny that there is a gratuitous remission of sins, and allege that they are redeemed by satisfactory deeds, when the satisfactions do not fill up the right measure, they call into their help the blood of the martyrs, that it may, along with the blood of Christ, serve as an expiation in the judgment of God. And this mixture they call the treasure of the Church (334), the keys of which they afterwards intrust to whom they think fit. Nor are they ashamed to wrest this passage, with the view of supporting so execrable a blasphemy, as if Paul here affirmed that his sufferings are of avail for expiating the sins of men.
They urge in their support the term ὑστερήματα, (things wanting,) as if Paul meant to say, that the sufferings which Christ has endured for the redemption of men were insufficient. There is no one, however, that does not see that Paul speaks in this manner, because it is necessary, that by the afflictions of the pious, the body of the Church should be brought to its perfection, inasmuch as the members are conformed to their head. (335) I should also be afraid of being suspected of calumny in repeating things so monstrous, (336) if their books did not bear witness that I impute nothing to them groundlessly. They urge, also, what Paul says, that he suffers for the Church. It is surprising that this refined interpretation had not occurred to any of the ancients, for they all interpret it as we do, to mean, that the saints suffer for the Church, inasmuch as they confirm the faith of the Church. Papists, however, gather from this that the saints are redeemers, because they shed their blood for the expiation of sins. That my readers, however, may perceive more clearly their impudence, allow that the martyrs, as well as Christ, suffered for the Church, but in different ways, as I am inclined to express in Augustine’s words rather than in my own. For he writes thus in his 84. h treatise on John: “Though we brethren die for brethren, yet there is no blood of any martyr that is poured out for the remission of sins. This Christ did for us. Nor has he in this conferred upon us matter of imitation, but ground of thanksgiving.” Also, in the fourth book to Bonifacius: “As the only Son of God became the Son of man, that he might make us sons of God, so he has alone, without offense, endured punishment for us, that we may through him, without merit, obtain undeserved favor.” Similar to these is the statement of Leo Bishop of Rome; “The righteous received crowns, did not give them; and for the fortitude of believers there have come forth examples of patience, not gifts of righteousness. For their deaths were for themselves, and no one by his latter end paid the debt of another.” (337)
Now, that this is the meaning of Paul’s words is abundantly manifest from the context, for he adds, that he suffers according to the dispensation that was given to him. And we know that the ministry was committed to him, not of redeeming the Church, but of edifying it; and he himself immediately afterwards expressly acknowledges this. This is also what he writes to Timothy,
that he endures all things for the sake of the elect, that they may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus.
(2. i 2:10.)
Also, in 2. o 1:4, (338) that
he willingly endures all things for their consolation and salvation.
Let, therefore, pious readers learn to hate and detest those profane sophists, who thus deliberately corrupt and adulterate the Scriptures, in order that they may give some color to their delusions.
(329) “Et monstre le grand zele qu’il auoit, afin qu’il y ait plus de poids et authorite en ce qu’il dit;” — “And shews the great zeal that he had, that there may be greater weight and authority in what he says.”
(330) “M’est douce et gracieuse, pouree qu’elle n’est point inutile;” — “Is sweet and agreeable to me, because it is not unprofitable.”
(331) “Ceste societe et conionction;” — “This fellowship and connection.”
(332) “It is worthy of remark, that the Apostle does not say παθηματα, the passion of Christ, but simply θλιψεις, the aff1. ctions; such as are common to all good men who bear a testimony against the ways and fashions of a wicked world. In these the Apostle had his share, in the passion of Christ he could have none.” — Dr. A. Clarke. — Ed.
(333) “Mais quoy? Les Papistes laissans tout ceci;” — “But what? Papists leaving all this.”
(334) See Calvin’S Institutes, vol. 2, p. 237, and Calvin on Corinthians, vol. 1, p. 68.
(335) “We are not to suppose that our Lord left any sufferings to be endured by Paul, or any one else, as the expiation of the sins or the ransom of the souls of his people... The filling up spoken of by the Apostle is not the supplementing Christ’s personal sufferings, but it is the completing that share allotted to himself as one of the members of Christ, as sufferings which, from the intimacy of union between the head and the members, may be called his sufferings. Christ lived in Paul, spoke in Paul, wrought in Paul, suffered in Paul; and in a similar sense, the sufferings of every Christian for Christ are the sufferings of Christ.” — Brown’s Expository Discourses on Peter, vol. 3, pp. 69, 70. — Ed.
(337) The reader will find the same passage as above quoted by Calvin in the Institutes, vol. 2, pp. 238, 239. See also Calvin on the Corinthians, vol. 1, p. 69, n. 1. — Ed.
(338) The reference would seem to be more appropriately directed towards 2. o 1:6 — probably a typesetting error in the original text. — fj.
25. Of which I am made a minister. Mark under what character he suffers for the Church — as being a minister, not to give the price of redemption, (as Augustine dexterously and piously expresses himself,) but to proclaim it. He calls himself, however, in this instance, a minister of the Church on a different ground from that on which he called himself elsewhere, (1. o 4:1,) a minister of God, and a little ago, (Col 1:23,) a minister of the gospel. For the Apostles serve God and Christ for the advancement of the glory of both: they serve the Church, and administer the gospel itself, with a view to promote salvation. There is, therefore, a different reason for the ministry in these expressions, but the one cannot subsist without the other. He says, however, towards you, that they may know that his office has a connection also with them.
To fulfill the word. He states the end of his ministry — that the word of God may be effectual, as it is, when it is obediently received. For this is the excellence of the gospel, that it is the
power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.
(Rom 1:16.)
God, therefore, gives efficacy and influence to his word through means of the Apostles. For although preaching itself, whatever may be its issue, is the fulfilling of the word, yet it is the fruit that shews at length (339) that the seed has not been sown in vain.
(339) “Toutesfois c’est a proprement parler, le fruit qui monstre en fin;” — “Yet it is, properly speaking, the fruit that shews at last.”
26. Hidden mystery. Here we have a commendation of the gospel — that it is a wonderful secret of God. It is not without good reason that Paul so frequently extols the gospel by bestowing upon it the highest commendations in his power; for he saw that it was
a stumblingblock to the Jews, and foolishness to the Greeks.
(1. o 1:23.)
We see also at this day, in what hatred it is held by hypocrites, and how haughtily it is contemned by the world. Paul, accordingly, with the view of setting aside judgments so unfair and perverse, extols in magnificent terms the dignity of the gospel as often as an opportunity presents itself, and for that purpose he makes use of various arguments, according to the connection of the passage. Here he calls it a sublime secret, which was hid from ages and generations, that is, from the beginning of the world, through so many revolutions of ages. (340) Now, that it is of the gospel that he speaks, is evident from Rom 16:25, Eph 3:9, and other similar passages.
The reason, however, why it is so called, is demanded. Some, in consequence of Paul’s making express mention of the calling of the Gentiles, are of opinion, that the sole reason why it is so called is, that the Lord had, in a manner, contrary to all expectation, poured out his grace upon the Gentiles, whom he had appeared to have shut out for ever from participation in eternal life. Any one, however, that will examine the whole passage more narrowly, will perceive that this is the third reason, not the only one, in so far, I mean, as relates to the passage before us, and that other in the Romans, to which I have referred. For the first is — that whereas God had, previously to the advent of Christ, governed his Church under dark coverings, both of words and of ceremonies, he has suddenly shone forth in full brightness by means of the doctrine of the gospel. The second is — that whereas nothing was previously seen but external figures, Christ has been exhibited, bringing with him the full truth, which had lain concealed. The third is, what I have mentioned — that the whole world, which had up to this time been estranged from God, is called to the hope of salvation, and the same inheritance of eternal life is offered to all. An attentive consideration of these things constrains us to reverence and adore this mystery which Paul proclaims, however it may be held in contempt by the world, or even in derision.
Which is now revealed. Lest any one should turn aside to another meaning the term mystery, as though he were speaking of a thing that was still secret and unknown, he adds, that it has now at length been published, (341) that it might be known by mankind. What, therefore, was in its own nature secret, has been made manifest by the will of God. Hence, there is no reason why its obscurity should alarm us, after the revelation that God has made of it. He adds, however, to the saints, for God ’s arm has not been revealed to all, (Isa 53:1,) that they might understand his counsel.
(340) “D’annees et sieclcs;” — “Of years and ages.”
(341) “Publié et manifesté;” — “Published and manifested.”
27. To whom God was pleased to make known. Here he puts a bridle upon the presumption of men, that they may not allow themselves to be wise, or to inquire beyond what they ought, but may learn to rest satisfied with this one thing that it has so pleased God. For the good pleasure of God ought to be perfectly sufficient for us as a reason. This, however, is said principally for the purpose of commending the grace of God; for Paul intimates, that mankind did by no means furnish occasion for God’s making them participants of this secret, when he teaches that he was led to this of his own accord, and because he was pleased to do so. For it is customary for Paul to place the good pleasure of God in opposition to all human merits and external causes.
What are the riches. We must always take notice, in what magnificent terms he speaks in extolling the dignity of the gospel. For he was well aware that the ingratitude of men is so great, that notwithstanding that this treasure is inestimable, and the grace of God in it is so distinguished, they, nevertheless, carelessly despise it, or at least think lightly of it. Hence, not resting satisfied with the term mystery, he adds glory, and that, too, not trivial or common. For riches, according to Paul, denote, as is well known, amplitude. (342) He states particularly, that those riches have been manifested among the Gentiles; for what is more wonderful than that the Gentiles, who had during so many ages been sunk in death, so as to appear to be utterly ruined, are all on a sudden reckoned among the sons of God, and receive the inheritance of salvation?
Which is Christ in you. What he had said as to the Gentiles generally he applies to the Colossians themselves, that they may more effectually recognize in themselves the grace of God, and may embrace it with greater reverence. He says, therefore, which is Christ, meaning by this, that all that secret is contained in Christ, and that all the riches of heavenly wisdom are obtained by them when they have Christ, as we shall find him stating more openly a little afterwards. He adds, in you, because they now possess Christ, from whom they were lately so much estranged, that nothing could exceed it. Lastly, he calls Christ the hope of glory, that they may know that nothing is wanting to them for complete blessedness when they have obtained Christ. This, however, is a wonderful work of God, that in earthen and frail vessels (2. o 4:7) the hope of heavenly glory resides.
28. Whom we preach. Here he applies to his own preaching everything that he has previously declared as to the wonderful and adorable secret of God; and thus he explains what he had already touched upon as to the dispensation which had been committed to him; for he has it in view to adorn his apostleship, and to claim authority for his doctrine: for after having extolled the gospel in the highest terms, he now adds, that it is that divine secret which he preaches. It was not, however, without good reason that he had taken notice a little before, that Christ is the sum of that secret, that they might know that nothing can be taught that has more of perfection than Christ.
The expressions that follow have also great weight. He represents himself as the teacher of all men; meaning by this, that no one is so eminent in respect of wisdom as to be entitled to exempt himself from tuition. “God has placed me in a lofty position, as a public herald of his secret, that the whole world, without exception, may learn from me.”
In all wisdom. This expression is equivalent to his affirming that his doctrine is such as to conduct a man to a wisdom that is perfect, and has nothing wanting; and this is what he immediately adds, that all that shew themselves to be true disciples will become perfect. See the second chapter of First Corinthians. (1. o 2:6.) Now, what better thing can be desired than what confers upon us the highest perfection? He again repeats, in Christ, that they may not desire to know anything but Christ alone. From this passage, also, we may gather a definition of true wisdom — that by which we are presented perfect in the sight of God, and that in Christ, and nowhere else. (343)
(343) “Et non en autre;” — “And not in another.”
29. For which thing. He enhances, by two circumstances, the glory of his apostleship and of his doctrine. In the first place, he makes mention of his aim, (344) which is a token of the difficulty that he felt; for those things are for the most part the most excellent that are the most difficult. The second has more strength, inasmuch as he mentions that the power of God shines forth in his ministry. He does not speak, however, merely of the success of his preaching, (though in that too the blessing of God appears,) but also of the efficacy of the Spirit, in which God manifestly shewed himself; for on good grounds he ascribes his endeavors, inasmuch as they exceeded human limits, to the power of God, which, he declares, is seen working powerfully in this matter.
(344) “Son travaille et peine;” — “His labor and trouble.”
