Colossians 1

CHAPTER I

THE GREETING

Colossians 1:1

1 Several things arrest our attention when we study this greeting although its form is stereotyped: Paul, etc.—to the saints, etc.—grace and peace! Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus through God’s will, and Timothy, the brother, to the saints and believers in Colosse as brethren in Christ: grace to you and peace from God, our Father!

“Apostle of Christ Jesus” means that Paul is writing in his official capacity as the Lord’s ambassador. The genitive is possessive. “Apostle” is to be understood in the narrow sense as also “through God’s will” indicates. The possessive genitive, however, involves agency. As an apostle Paul belongs to Christ because Christ appointed and sent him. Paul did not receive his office by fortuitous circumstances, God willed his appointment (Gal. 1:15, 16). When he writes to the Colossians, Paul is discharging his apostolic obligation and a high responsibility. The genitive and the phrase indicate the dignity and the authority of Paul and thus the way in which this epistle should be received.

It is asked why Paul associates Timothy with himself as co-writer. The reason cannot be the same as that found in I Thess., II Thess., II Cor., and Phil., for in those letters Timothy is introduced as a person that is well known to the readers, which is not the case in this epistle. Neither Paul nor Timothy had been in Colosse. We find our answer in the apposition: Timothy, “the brother,” combined with the predicative apposition: to the saints, etc., “as brethren.” The latter is distinctive in this greeting and thus makes Timothy’s designation as “the brother” more distinctive than it is in 2 Cor. 1:1.

The authority of this letter is apostolic in the fullest brotherly sense. One of the writers is only “the brother” of the readers, and both writers address them as “brethern.” As such “brethren” of Paul and Timothy, in a true fraternal spirit, the recipients are to read this letter which is both apostolic and brotherly in one. Paul could have written without a reference to Timothy and signed himself both “apostle” and “brother”; he does better than that, he lets this well-known assistant join him in sending this letter. Timothy is one who can claim as his highest position only that of a brother among brethren.

Colossians 1:2

2 By taking this view we have already indicated that we regard τοῖςἁγίοιςκαὶπιστοῖς as nouns: “to the saints and believers,” not as adjectives modifying ἀδελφοῖς: “to the holy and faithful believers.” We do not regard the first expression as a noun and the other as an adjective: “to the saints (noun) and the faithful (adjective) brethren” (our versions). Eph. 1:1, which was written at the same time, treats the two words as nouns. If the one is a noun (and ἅγιοι is regularly so used), the other must be a noun also. We have indicated why the apposition: “brethren in Christ,” is added. One article combines “the saints and believers.” “In Colosse” is placed in the attributive position. In later times a variant form “Colasse” was used.

We need not repeat all that we have noted in regard to “saints,” “believers,” and the phrase “in Christ” in Eph. 1:1; see this passage. Here we may add that making “saints” objective and “believers” subjective is an inadequate way of defining the distinction. “Saints” is passive and wider, “believers” active and narrower. We are ἅγιοι or saints as ἡγιασμένοι, as having been sanctified and separated from the world unto God and by God, the term referring to sanctification in the wider sense. Our sins are forgiven. That act took us out of the world; we are placed in a new life in which we are daily made more and more holy, are more and more drawn from the world to God. The essential part of this separation is our faith.

Brought to faith by the gospel, by faith we ever hold fast to Christ, the contents of our confidence and trust. The two words thus form a unit designation for all Christians in their relation to God and to Christ. “Brethren in Christ” makes plain what we are to each other in this relation: one family of brethren, all on an equality, but this always and in every way “in union and communion with (ἐν) Christ” alone. Paul, Timothy, the Colossians, all of them are “brethren in Christ.”

The greeting itself: “grace to you and peace from God, our Father,” is explained in Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2, which see. The only question that arises here is whether to add, as some texts do: “and the Lord Jesus Christ.” The question is one that concerns merely the text. Paul may well have abbreviated; the meaning of his greeting is quite the same as it is in the other epistles.

I

The Preparatory Part of the Letter, 1:3–29

The structure of the letter is admirable in every way and most effective. Its great purpose is to close the door of the Colossian church against the peculiar heretical teaching that had recently begun to knock for entrance. No entrance had as yet been effected, but there was danger that it might be gained. The burden of the letter thus consists of warning. Paul exposes the Judaizers and bids the Colossians “beware” (2:1–23). This is only the half of his task. Paul completes it by showing in principle and in detail (3:1–4:6) how the Colossians should meet this heretical teaching by living the true Christian life they had learned to live when they had been brought to Christ. Then comes the conclusion (4:7–18).

The development and the elaboration are concise and masterly. The situation is met in the most natural and adequate way. In Galatians, Paul enters upon his subject at once, for the churches he addresses were his own churches, and he had only recently left them. This case is different. Paul had never been with the Colossians. A preparatory section is needed in this letter, and this section must truly prepare so that the warning that follows will be fully effective, and so that the life which is the best practical answer to the error the Colossians are facing will be eagerly lived by them.

Paul’s preparation for his exhortations could not have been better. Examine it and see whether you can suggest improvement. The same may be said with regard to the other two main parts. Each paragraph with its group of thoughts leads to the next in a way that is so natural that one reads right on through the body of the letter without halt or turn. It is like an even, straight road from beginning to end. This church that had never seen Paul or even Timothy, true brethren of theirs, could not but absorb this letter word for word, and their faith and their life should rise to every exhortation that is fraternally and convincingly offered to them.

Paul and Timothy are Happy to Know the True Christian Character of the Colossian Brethren

Colossians 1:3

3 It is on this basis that the letter is written. There is no captatio benevolentiae that seeks to gain good will by flattery. Here there is genuine, grateful, sincere appreciation. “Brethren” in v. 2 is not a mere formal term. This paragraph attests how fully the Colossians deserve to be called brethren by Paul and Timothy. Yet it faces forward. That is why it touches points that some have regarded as a mere jumbling together. If we keep in mind the purpose of the letter, every statement falls into proper focus, all are perfectly in line so that they prepare for what follows to the very end.

We are thanking God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, always concerning you when praying, having heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love which you have toward all the saints because of the hope, the one laid away for you in the heavens, of which you heard in advance in the Word of the truth of the gospel present for you, even as also in all the world it is fruit-bearing and growing, even as also among you from what day on you got to hear it and to realize the grace of God in truth, even as you came to learn from Epaphras, our beloved fellow slave, who is a faithful minister of Christ on our behalf, the one also who informed us of your love in the spirit.

This is one sentence (see the two grand sentences in Eph. 1:3–23) which is formulated as one because it intends to convey one unified impression. The flexibility of the Greek makes this formulation possible; the Hebrew and the English would have to construct more than one sentence and employ other means to obtain such a unified impression. Some interpreters remind us of the fact that Paul likes to start a letter with thanksgiving. Of course he does, for his eyes are open to all the blessings he sees, nor does he write Eph. 5:20 only for others. But it is not enough to discover that Paul is ever a man who is most thankful to God; it is advisable in every instance to note what calls forth his gratitude. For he is not telling his readers what a grateful man he is but is drawing their attention to the great thankworthy things God has bestowed on them. Moreover, he does not enumerate a lot of things in general for which his readers and he himself may well thank God but names certain specific things, with specific details, which bear upon the subject and the purpose of his particular writing.

“We are thanking God” means: Timothy and I; Paul is not writing a majestic or an editorial plural. The texts vary; but just as we have Θεοῦπατρός in v. 2, so we now have Θεῷπατρὶ sine additum (no καί, and no second article): “God, our Father,” in v. 2; “God, our Lord Jesus Christ’s Father,” in v. 3. The question whether God is also “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” is answered in Eph. 1:17; it does not enter in here. We do not agree that the adverb “always” is amphibolous (R., W. P.). As one reads the Greek he naturally attaches all three: adverb, phrase, and participle, to the main verb: “We are thanking—always in regard to you when praying.” Paul is not always praying for them (our versions)—he does a few things besides; nor is he thanking God only when he prays for them and not when he prays for others.

What Paul says is that, whenever he and Timothy pray, they always include the Colossians in their thanksgiving to God. The fact that they also petition God for the Colossians is added in v. 9.

Colossians 1:4

4 The participial clause is temporal: “having heard of your faith,” etc.; note the relative clause in v. 9: “since the day we heard” (it is like the ἀφʼ ἧς clause in v. 6). R. 860 is right: “antecedent action.” Ever since Paul and Timothy came to hear how Epaphras planted the gospel in Colosse they thank God for what was accomplished. As he did in Eph. 1:15, Paul mentions both the faith of the Colossians and their love to all the saints. He acknowledges both as true. Love is ever the fruit of faith, and both are here prominently stamped as genuine because Paul intends to admonish the Colossians that they permit no one to swerve them from either. Faith connects them with Christ, love marks them as thus being united with all the saints, but certainly not with the Judaizers who had a spurious faith and did not deserve the name “saints.”

Paul and Timothy had heard about the Colossians from the beginning of the Christian work in their midst when Epaphras scored his first success, at least soon after that, and not merely since Epaphras had come to Rome. Paul thus refers to the faith and the love of the Colossians as both were first kindled and as both had continued to this time. The silent implication is that in the recent past their faith and their love were being threatened, and that if they should be destroyed, i.e., if under the influence of the Judaizers the Colossians should degenerate into a nominally Christian sect, neither Paul nor Timothy could any longer include them in their thanksgiving to God when they were praying.

When the Greek names the object of faith he uses the objective genitive: “faith of Christ.” Here and in Eph. 1:15, “faith in Christ Jesus” does not name the object (contra R., W. P.). Ἐν denotes the sphere in which faith moves. But not as C.-K. 889 supposes: faith having its root in Christ. This is a form of Deissmann’s idea (see Eph. 1:1), who states that “in” is local: “in Christ” like a bird in the air, a fish in the sea, etc. In all these phrases ἐν denotes the vital spiritual connection with Christ and not local inherence. The context indicates what this spiritual connection is; here “faith” indicates it: connecting with Christ by trustfully embracing him, confidently clinging to him. see Eph. 1:15.

Chrysostom calls faith and love “a wonderful pair of twins,” yet they are never twins, they are mother and daughter, tree and fruit (Matt. 7:17), branches and grapes (John 15). Bengel has a better statement when he calls love the characteristic mark of Christianity, John 13:35; 15:12. The early pagans commented on this Christian love: never having seen each other, Christians treated each other as brothers. This was astonishing to the pagan mind. In connection with Eph. 1:15 we have pointed to the danger of laying too much stress on love; see this passage. It is an old, most dangerous error to neglect justification and faith and to glorify love and works instead.

This error generally also alters the Biblical conception of love and makes it a love which disregards the essential matter of doctrine. It was Pietism which produced Rationalism in Germany—a grave warning to us today. Ἀγάπη is always the higher form of love, always based on true intelligence and understanding, these always coupled with corresponding purpose and action.

The reading τήν is textually inferior although it is adopted in the A. V.; ἥν is the assured reading (R. V.). Substantially there is no difference. “The love which we have for all the saints” connects us with them as “saints” but only because they and we have the identical faith in Christ Jesus. A love apart from this oneness of faith is a fictitious bond, however devoted and fervent it may be. Nor is love ever stronger than the faith from which it originates.

All of its strength comes from faith alone so that, in order to increase our love, we must first nourish and strengthen our faith. Paul places “all the saints” before the minds and the hearts of the Colossians because he intends to urge them as “saints and believers” and thus as “brethren in Christ” (v. 2) ever to remain in their blessed connection with “all the saints”; note 3:14.

Colossians 1:5

5 Paul and Timothy are thanking God concerning the Colossians because they heard of their faith and of the love “which they have for all the saints because of the hope laid away for you in the heavens,” etc. Διά with the accusative states the reason or cause of the love of the Colossians for all the other saints. Why do we love all our fellow saints? Because for us too, as for them, a great hope is laid away in the heavens. “Hope” is objective, for it is laid away in the heavens; it is the eternal “inheritance, incorruptible, and undefiled, that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for us” (1 Pet. 1:4). We love each other with intelligent and purposeful love that comes from faith because we are headed for the same great hope in heaven, for the same inheritance of glory, for the same blessed goal. That is why we cling together in love, support and help each other in love, so that none of us may fail of having that hope bestowed upon him at last.

Paul certainly has the trio: faith—love—hope. Yet it is not really the trio of 1 Cor. 13:13, for here “the hope laid away for you” is objective and not, like “faith and love,” something subjective in our hearts, hope in the sense of our hoping. Paul does not merely say: we heard of your faith (believing), of your love (loving), and of your hope (hoping). He inserts the relative clause: “the love which you have for all the saints,” so that he may add what is greater than the hope in our hearts, namely the heavenly treasure for which we hope, the mansions in our Father’s house that are ready and waiting for our arrival (John 14:2).

Paul calls this hope the cause of our love to all the saints. Making it the cause of this love thus reaches back also to our faith in Christ, the source of love. Faith is the soil from which the fruit of love springs, and hope is the sunshine which ripens this fruit of love. By faith Christ unites all believers so that, joined thus, they love each other; Christ has laid away the treasure of hope in heaven for all believers so that, united by the hope of this expected treasure, we for this reason also love each other.

We should read together: because of the hope, “the one laid away for you in the heavens of which (one) you heard in advance in the Word of the truth of the gospel present for you,” etc. The Colossians got to hear about this hope πρό, “before or in advance” of the coming bestowal of this treasure of hope, when the gospel came to them through Epaphras, the gospel they have had ever since, the gospel that is still present for them. In both Ephesians and in Colossians Paul combines sonorous genitives like this, they make the main concept weighty and rich. They are not different genitives; all three characterize. Λόγος = the Word which is full of content; in this Word the Colossians heard in advance about the hope laid away for them in the heavens; the whole content of the Word centered in this heavenly treasure. This Word is “of the truth,” i.e., is marked by the divine verity. The genitive is far stronger than the adjective “the true Word” would be.

This truth, moreover, is “of the gospel,” it has the quality of good news. Finally, this gospel has the feature that it is still present for the Colossians.

Practically every word in v. 4, 5 is significant for the purpose of this letter, which is to warn. We see this also in the relative clause. Note how often the verb “heard” occurs: v. 4, 5, 6, 9. Twice the Colossians “heard,” twice Paul and Timothy “heard” that the Colossians had “heard,” and ever since Paul and Timothy heard they are thanking God when they are praying and are also asking God for the Colossians (v. 9). Faith and love came into their hearts because of the great hope they had heard, heard from the start (πρό) in the Word, the Word that was marked by the divine truth, that truth having the character of the gospel, that gospel being still present so that they ever keep on hearing.

“For you” it is present, εἰς, which means more than “among you,” ἐν, “for you” still to hear. Another “word” has recently come that is different from “the truth” and not “the gospel” at all but false and dangerous. To hear and to accept this lying word is to lose “the hope laid away for the Colossians,” the love this hope has caused and the faith from which this love has sprung. If Paul and Timothy ever get to hear that the Colossians no longer heard the Word, the truth, the gospel that is present for them, that they no longer let the great hope fill them with love and faith, this knowledge would turn their thanksgiving into lament.

This simple construction of Paul’s clauses and phrases has been questioned. It is thought that Paul ought to say definitely for what he and Timothy are thanking God, and it is said that he does this in the διά phrase: “We are thanking God—because of the hope laid away for you,” etc. The object, we are told, is placed so far away from the verb because there is no convenient place nearer to it. But Paul could have recast the sentence. But this construction yields a strange resultant thought, namely that after hearing of the faith and love of the Colossians Paul and Timothy are thanking God, not for this faith and love as we should expect but only for the hope laid away for the Colossians, this hope treasure of which they had heard in the gospel. No ordinary reader would refer the διά phrase back so far in order to get such a thought and then pass on.

What Paul and Timothy are thanking God for appears in what they heard concerning the Colossians, and this is something that has come into the hearts of the Colossians and not something that is still far off in heaven. Besides, when we thank God in regard to certain people we may do so because God promised them or gave them something but not because of something about which there is still a doubt as to whether they will get it or not.

Nor should one say that it would be strange on Paul’s part to make our objective hope the cause only of our love. This “only” is read into the words. Love is ever the product of faith, and all beloved saints are saints and brethren only because they are believers. Does Paul not add that the Colossians heard the Word about this hope, meaning that they heard it with faith? And does he not say that this gospel about their hope is still present for them, meaning that they are ever to continue hearing it with faith? The very reason that Paul thus goes from both the faith and love of the Colossians (subjective) to this hope laid away in heaven (objective) is that they are in danger of not attaining this treasure.

If they now start to believe and to love the Judaizers they will forfeit the great treasure in heaven. The point is the same as that made in Gal. 3:3: beginning in spirit, beginning with true faith and love, and then possibly ending with flesh, missing the inheritance of hope.

Colossians 1:6

6 Paul says more about the Word of the truth of the gospel than that it is still present for the Colossians to hear as they had before heard about the heavenly hope; he adds: “even as also in all the world it is fruit-bearing and growing even as also among you from what day on you got to hear it,” etc. Read all this together as one thought. The A. V. adopts the inferior text: καὶἔστι: “present for you even as in all the word, and it is fruit-bearing,” etc., and then also lets the genitive participle mean: “which is come to-you.” Then εἰςὑμᾶς and ἐνπαντὶτῷκόσμῳ fail to harmonize as they should with καθὼςκαί being between them.

The point of Paul’s addition is the greatness of the gospel. The Colossians are to remember that its range is world-wide, the very opposite of the little Judaistic sectlet that has somehow appeared in their midst. The gospel is bearing its fruit and growing “in all the world” even as the Colossians themselves have witnessed this since the day on which they got to hear it (ingressive aorist, the day marking the start). What they witnessed in Colosse is happening “in all the world.” The commentators call the phrase a popular hyperbole, but note the periphrastic present tenses, periphrastic in order to emphasize most strongly the fact that the fruit-bearing and the growing are in full force, ever progressing, never stopping with any nation or country. The whole world, nothing less, is the field for this activity of the gospel.

Καρποφορούμενον is the middle voice, yet not with intensive force compared with the active which has extensive force but to indicate that the gospel ever goes on bearing fruit spontaneously. Αὐξανόμενον is passive; the active = “to make grow” (although it, too, came to mean “to grow”); the passive always = “to grow.” Paul has just mentioned “all the saints” (v. 4); these were at this time widely scattered over the world and were ever entering into new territory. The fruit Paul refers to is the faith and the love mentioned in v. 4, and the growing is the further development of both, not, as some suppose, the increase in number of believers.

The ἐστί with its two participles forms a unit concept so that we should not think of the fruit-bearing as one thing and the growing as another. Paul never sought to make an impression with numbers and great crowds. That is a modern emphasis always to speak of world movements, world conventions, world this and that. When Paul speaks of “all the saints” and of “all the world” he has in mind the universality of the Una Sancta and of the gospel, which is different from boastfulness. The implication is that this universality of the gospel truth shall not be converted into a narrow sectarian heresy.

The two καθὼςκαί are obviously to be paralleled: “even as also in all the world—even as also among you.” What happened in Colosse the Colossians may take as an example of what is steadily happening far and wide in the whole world. In Colosse it dates “from what day on (antecedent drawn into the relative) you got to hear and realize the grace of God in truth.” Then the great fruit-bearing and the growing of the gospel began (ingressive aorists) in Colosse. The two verbs aim to express the idea fully; they got to hear effectively, i.e., got to realize.

We do not make “in truth” adverbial: “to hear and realize truly,” for the doubling of the verbs already expresses this, as does also the strong verb ἐπέγνωτε, which implies complete knowing and realization. “The grace of God in truth” is one great concept. In v. 5 it is “the hope laid away for you in the heavens,” of which the Colossians “heard in advance”; here it is “God’s grace in truth.” The hope is the ultimate goal, the grace is the present fountain and source. Both come by hearing, are realized in the heart by this means. The Colossians are ever to hear only these two, are to keep their ears closed to every teaching that would rob them of these two.

“Grace” has the same meaning as in v. 2: God’s undeserved, unmerited favor toward guilty sinners which pardons and blesses them in Christ Jesus and grants them, who, because of their guilt, have no hope, the hope he has prepared for them in Christ. The Colossians are to lose neither. Let them listen to nothing that is not pure grace, to nothing that offers only an imaginary hope. We see why Paul does not say merely “the grace of God” but adds “in truth.” Although it is without the article, this is no other truth than that mentioned in v. 5, the absence of the article only stressing the more the quality just as it does in Eph. 4:21 and 6:14. God’s grace is ever connected with (ἐν) what is truth and nothing but truth and never is it connected with anything that is of a different quality. Both “the truth” as contained in the gospel (v. 5) and “truth” as connected with God’s grace are the opposites of all religious untruth, unreality.

The Colossians are to cling to the former and ever to keep themselves separate from the latter. Let us keep the purpose of Paul’s letter in mind. His aim is to warn, and this colors all that he says from the very beginning.

Colossians 1:7

7 The third καθώς amplifies the second and is thus not followed by καί. It is epexegetical: “even as also you got to hear and realize” = “even as you came to learn (again ingressive) from Epaphras, our beloved fellow slave who,” etc. “You came to learn” repeats by means of one verb what the two preceding verbs contain. Yet it adds a new turn of thought: one “learns” from a teacher, and Paul now wants to name the teacher. One “hears” the gospel or the Word of the truth of the gospel. When the Colossians got to learn (ἐμάθετε) they became μαθηταί, “disciples.” The reason that Paul puts his stamp of fullest approval on Epaphras is due to the fact that the Colossians are to remain with this teacher and are not to turn from him to the false Judaistic teachers who are trying to catch their ears and to make them learn from them.

We are incidentally told how the gospel work started in Colosse, namely through Epaphras. He founded the congregation. It is difficult to say whether it was he who did the same in Laodicea and in Hieropolis. It seems certain that Epaphras continued as the head of the congregation at Colosse, that he was now its head, and that he had come to Paul for help in his fight against the Judaists.

Paul supports Epaphras in his entire teaching when he calls him “our beloved fellow slave who is a faithful minister of Christ on our behalf.” Paul says that Epaphras is a slave of Jesus Christ, just as Timothy and Paul are such slaves, and that they, too, love him as such. These three are slaves, not merely in the general sense as Christians who are attached to Christ by faith and love, but in the sense in which Paul denominates himself “a slave of Jesus Christ” (Rom. 1:1), as preachers and teachers of the gospel. As slaves they have no will of their own but in all their work are dominated only by the blessed will of their great Lord and Master, Christ. The point is again that the Judaizers are not slaves of Christ, do not bow their will to this Master’s will and Word, do not teach what Christ bids his slaves teach. Let the Colossians heed Epaphras as they have done thus far, let them love him as Paul and Timothy love him. Also this thought lies in these words: that forsaking Epaphras means disowning also Paul and Timothy and their teaching. Yet Paul and Timothy were the persons who had spread the gospel in so many places which produced so many saints (v. 4) and in so many churches.

The relative clause says still more: Epaphras “is a faithful minister of Christ on our behalf,” Greek: “a faithful on our behalf minister of Christ.” The texts vary between “our” and “your” behalf. “Our” is, however, far more trenchant than “your.” The fact that Epaphras ministered to the Colossians is declared in the statement that they came to learn from him, the verb even states how he ministered, namely by teaching them. Paul now aims to show why he and Timothy regard Epaphras as such a “beloved” fellow slave. Neither of them had been able to go to Colosse, there to slave for Christ; Epaphras had gone in their stead, Epaphras rendered Paul and Timothy this free service.

Διάκονος is the proper word to express this thought: one who renders voluntary service “in behalf of” other people so that they may have the benefit. Epaphras had so served to aid Paul and Timothy. They had every reason to love him, for he had proved himself a “faithful” diakonos on their behalf. The genitive “of Christ” is not objective as though Paul would say that the ministration served Christ. We ministers are Christ’s ὑπηρέται, “underlings,” his δοῦλοι, “slaves,” and thus receive his commands; but as διάκονοι of his our service benefits the persons who need our service.

Colossians 1:8

8 “The one also who informed us of your love in the spirit” adds this thought as an apposition to the relative “who.” Epaphras had come to Rome, to Paul and to Timothy, and had told them all about the Colossians. But note how Paul writes about this. Not as though he personally has hierarchical jurisdiction over the Colossians, as though Epaphras had to report to him, the one who was in authority over him. This is a fraternal letter. It comes from two men and not from Paul alone. What Epaphras has achieved in Colosse is a free service that was rendered to Timothy as well as to Paul and thus to all others who preach the gospel and have been unable to go to other places such as Colosse.

In line with this conception is the fact that Paul does not say that Epaphras reported on his whole work, or on the state of the congregation, or on the danger that has recently arisen. There is not the faintest thought of lordship over the faith of the Colossians; Paul and Timothy are only joint helpers of their joy (2 Cor. 1:24; 1 Pet. 3:5). So Paul says that Epaphras informed him “of their love in the spirit.” With corresponding love this letter is sent by its two writers. It is love that unites writers and readers, the same love as that mentioned in v. 4; see the word in v. 4. This love Paul wants to preserve; let no Judaizers ever succeed in even lessening it.

All that this letter offers is intended for loving hearts, hearts that will read and respond in love. Although the readers and the writers had as yet not met, love unites them. The whole letter makes its appeal on this gospel basis. This is spiritual love. Some think that the last phrase means “in the Spirit” (our versions). But see the discussion on Gal. 5:16–6:8, where πνεῦμα occurs eight times and means “spirit” and not the Holy Spirit; this is also the case in numerous other passages. “Love in spirit” is love that is wholly spiritual. The fact that such love is due to the Holy Spirit goes without saying. “In spirit” the Colossians are joined by love to Paul and to Timothy and love them for their work’s sake.

Paul and Timothy also Pray and Make due Petition for the Colossian Brethren

Colossians 1:9

9 Paul proceeds with the preparatory section of this letter. Besides thanking God when they are praying in regard to the Colossians, Paul and Timothy ask God for what the Colossians need. Here, too, all that is thus asked has its direct bearing upon the special situation in Colosse, which had been made known by Epaphras; and it thus helps to prepare for the main purpose of the letter.

For this reason also we on our part from what day we came to hear do not cease praying in your behalf and duly asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding so as to walk worthily of the Lord, etc.

“For this reason also” does not refer to v. 8 alone, which is only appended as an apposition and a minor designation of Epaphras. Nor can the love of the Colossians be the reason that Paul and Timothy ask knowledge for them. Such connections in thought are linguistically and logically incongruous. “For this reason also” connects with the entire thought of the preceding paragraph. “We on our part” is scarcely in contrast with a “you” which is implied in the foregoing but is to be connected with the thought expressed in the temporal clause: “from what day we came to hear,” i.e., then, from that day onward we on our part felt the obligation not only to thank God as has been stated but for this very reason also to ask certain things of God for you. “From what day we heard” refers to v. 4, “having heard,” where what Paul and Timothy heard is stated. It is not the day when the Colossians got to hear the grace of God (v. 6); it was perhaps soon after this day. The formulation of the temporal clauses of v. 6 and v. 9 is alike, not, we think, accidentally but in order to parallel these hearings: the Colossians heard good things (v. 5, 6), and so Paul and Timothy got to hear good things about the Colossians (v. 4, 9). Shall this double blessed hearing not continue in the future?

In v. 3 Paul uses only the durative present: “we are (ever) thanking God”; now the duration of the activity is expressed by the verb itself: “we do not cease praying in your behalf and duly asking,” etc. The second of the two complementary participles expresses the main thought, for the whole expression means: “we are always in our praying asking this for you that,” etc. “Praying” is inserted as it was in v. 3: thanking and asking are naturally done by praying.

It is worth noting the middle voice of αἰτούμενοι. Blass says that this voice is used in business transactions when one asks and gives (B.-D. 316, 2); but the middle denotes an asking to which one is entitled. This may occur in a business deal, but it may also take place in far more refined relations when he of whom we ask in some way entitles us to do so. Note, for instance, that Herod had entitled Salome to ask for as much as the half of his kingdom. The reflexive idea “ask for oneself” is only the starting point of this use of the middle: ask as one who is entitled to ask. The entitling referred to here is the fact that God commands us to ask; the middle voice implies that only on this supposition do we ask.

Ἵνα is non-final and states what Paul and Timothy duly ask for: “that you may be filled with the knowledge (common accusative with passives) of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding.” This is like the gift which Paul asks for the Ephesians (1:17, etc.). In both instances this gift is related to the body of the epistle and is not a general petition. To the Ephesians, Paul presents the vision of the great Una Sancta; to see it as they should the eyes of the Ephesians must be enlightened. The very formulation fits the object of the requested knowledge (Eph. 1:17, etc.). It is so here. For the Colossians, who are faced with errorists, Paul asks the knowledge they need in order to see through these errorists; and again the wording fits the special need: that you may be filled with full knowledge (ἐπίγνωσις), with no gaps in this knowledge that may lay you open to deception. They are to know fully “his (God’s) will” so that no one may substitute something for what God has really willed. “His will” is a complete idea and = what God has willed for our salvation. “The knowledge of his will” is modified by the phrase “in connection with all spiritual wisdom and understanding,” “all” and “spiritual” belong to both nouns.

We note the combination ἐπίγνωσις—σοφία—σύνεσις, the first dominating, the other two presenting its form. When it is connected with “wisdom” real knowledge of God’s will knows how to use and to apply this knowledge in life’s situations, for instance, when error confronts one. When it is connected with “understanding” (bringing this and that together) such knowledge will analyze and combine, will take one point after another of the error and will set against each point the part of truth regarding God’s will which refutes and exposes that error. Both will, of course, have to be “spiritual” wisdom and understanding.

We do not view Paul’s terms in an abstract light and say that his words would apply also to other congregations. They apply most exactly to the Colossian congregation; for that reason they may apply also to others, especially to such as are in similar situations, which enables us to apply the words to ourselves today. Paul is not writing appropriate things in general; he has a definite and specific purpose regarding definite people and is working in line with that purpose. He duly asks God to bestow the knowledge the Colossians need; God, however, uses his means when he answers such prayers, and one of his means is the apostle himself and this letter of the apostle. If you have bread, do not merely pray God to feed the hungry, pray and give them of your bread. So Paul, who has the real knowledge, prays for the Colossians, but prays and sends them the knowledge they need.

Colossians 1:10

10 That you may be filled with the knowledge, etc., so as to walk worthily of the Lord unto all pleasing, in every good work bearing fruit and growing by means of this knowledge of God; being made powerful in all power according to the might of his glory for all perseverance and longsuffering with joy; thanking the Father who made you fit for the (your) part of the lot of the saints in the light, etc.

This infinitive is not appositional to the ἵνα clause but, as R., W. P. states it, consecutive and states the result of having been filled with true knowledge: “so as to walk worthily,” etc. Right knowledge ever does bring forth the right result in conduct. Right conduct cannot be the product of wrong knowledge. But do many Christians not know better and yet do wrong? Is there no dead orthodoxy? On examination it will be found that such better knowledge and such orthodoxy are only superficial, not ἐπίγνωσις but lacking in vital parts. That is one point; the other is that in all of us the flesh prevents the perfect translation of knowledge into conduct.

Note that this is an aorist; hence it is not descriptive, “to be ever walking” but decisively final, “so as to walk” once for all and corresponds to the previous aorist, “to be filled” once for all. Paul regularly has a genitive with the adverb “worthily,” nor is there any reason that he should not also here so construe this adverb: “worthily of the Lord.” It is said that the genitive should be construed with the phrase: “unto all pleasing of the Lord” since he who is to be pleased ought to be named. But the expression is a unit: “worthily of the Lord unto all pleasing,” i.e., so that he is pleased by our worthy walk. In ἀξίως there lies the idea of weight: the moral and spiritual weight of our conduct should balance the scales when it is laid in one pan and the Lord is laid in the other pan of the scales. “All pleasing” = not merely pleasing the Lord only in part.

It is grammatical quibbling when the nominative participles which follow are called irregular because the subject of the infinitive is an accusative. The infinitive itself depends on πληρωθῆτε, the subject of which is the nominative “you,” and the nominative participles carry this subject forward in the most regular way: “you filled with the knowledge—you bearing fruit,” etc. Paul repeats these two participles from v. 6: “bearing fruit and growing,” save that the former is now active and not middle as it was in v. 6. The gospel bears fruit of itself, by its own inherent power (v. 6); not so we, for our fruit is borne in the power of this gospel. Just as in v. 9 both “all” and “spiritual” modify both nouns “wisdom and understanding,” so now “in every good work” and “by means of the knowledge of God” are to be construed with both participles “bearing fruit and growing.” Thus the whole expression is again a unit. We bear fruit and grow in every good work, and both bearing fruit and growing is accomplished by means of the knowledge of God. A fruit-bearing tree grows; one that does not grow ceases to bear and begins to die.

These participles expound what it means to walk worthily of the Lord unto all pleasing. What the aorist infinitive compresses into one these present participles unroll in its daily continuation. So they also expound what it means to be filled with the knowledge of God’s will and now tell us that by means of this knowledge of God (the genitive “of God” = “of God’s will”) we bear fruit and grow. We regard the dative as a dative of means: “by means of the (this) knowledge of God.” Ever and ever all our knowledge of God and of his will is not to be theoretical or abstract but fruitful, productive, molding conduct and life. That is why Paul uses ἐπίγνωσις which is not in the head alone but in the very heart. The dative of means seems better than the dativus commodi: “bearing fruit and growing for the knowledge of God.”

Colossians 1:11

11 The next participle shows how this knowledge is able to do what Paul has just said: “being made powerful in all power according to the might of his glory for all perseverance and longsuffering with joy.” By means of this knowledge God ever keeps filling us with dynamic power. Gospel knowledge is power. Ἐν is not instrumental, “with.” It does not state that God takes “all power,” gives that to us, and therewith makes us powerful. We are not endowed with omnipotence. “Being ever made powerful in all (or every) power” is exactly like “bearing fruit and growing in all (or every) good work,” in no power that we need for fruit-bearing and growing does God leave us deficient. If we ever prove deficient, it is never because he fails to supply us; it is always only because we do not let him “fill us with the knowledge of his will,” with this knowledge that is so effective a means for making us bear fruit and grow.

Look well to the empty spaces in your knowledge. The fruit that is lacking in your life is due to the spaces that are still without full knowledge and thus still without the power that should be in them. Here we have an analysis that goes to the bottom. So many think only of mere intellectual knowledge; even of that they try to acquire only a little because they think it to be enough. Think of this as heart knowledge, as spiritual power to do all things, yea, great things. Pray as Paul and Timothy pray for the Colossians so that you may not remain a sickly baby or child, a poor, weak, helpless creature but a man in Christ Jesus full of power.

God does not do this with half measures but “according to the might of his glory.” Κράτος is might that is put forth into action while ἰσχύς is strength whether it is put into action or not. God’s δόξα is the shining forth of any or of all his attributes. Here the context implies that we think of his love, grace, and mercy as these shine forth in “the Word of the truth of the gospel present with us” (v. 5). It is not his omnipotence that fills us with power but his Word and the knowledge of his blessed will in Christ Jesus. The might of God’s glory is as great as the glory of his attributes, a might that is so great as ever to supply us with spiritual power in every regard by means of the gospel if only we draw on this might and use the channel of the Word of the gospel (objective) and the knowledge (subjective) of his will.

Paul does not revert to good works as requiring this power from God (v. 10) but advances to the qualities in us from which such good works spring: God empowers us “for all perseverance and longsuffering with joy.” By ὑπομονή, “remaining under,” more than “patience” (our versions) is meant: “It does not mark merely the endurance, the sustinentiam (Vulgate), or even the patientiam (Clarom), but the perueverantiam, the brave patience with which the Christian contends against the various hindrances, persecutions, and temptations that befall him in his conflict with the inward and outward world” (Trench). Thus it always applies to things and not to persons; thus it is also never ascribed to God but only to us.

Μακροθυμία = “longsuffering,” holding out long against provocation to decisive action. It is used regarding both God and us and always refers to persons who provoke and should be dealt with. Chrysostom calls “perseverance” the queen of the virtues. “All” means every form of this perseverance and longsuffering as at any time or in any circumstance things or persons may distress us. Nor are we to make a long face about it, but all our perseverance and longsuffering are ever to be accompanied by (μετά) joy and not by a sickly smile behind which the weak heart longs only for relief, but by actual joy that reflects the power for which nothing is too hard, nothing is too long, this power that comes from the true knowledge of the gospel. All our good works are to be backed by these mighty virtues or qualities.

Colossians 1:12

12 Thus Paul advances to the last step: “thanking the Father, him who made us fit for the part of the lot of the saints in the light.” Because the participles occurring in v. 10, 11 are preceded by a modifier, some think that this is the case also here: “with joy giving thanks to the Father.” The point is only rhetorical; in either case the sense is exceptional. Yet in v. 10, 11 the prefixed modifiers must be construed with the participles; here “with joy” is not necessary to complete the thought of the participle. As one reads he would not halt before “with joy” but after this phrase. The readings vary; “the Father” has the best authority, we drop the additions. The fatherhood here referred to ought not to be restricted to the relation to us; for in the next clause we have “the Son of his love.”

“He who made us fit (sufficiented us) for the part (portion) of the lot of the saints in the light” is explained by what follows, which describes how the Father did this, namely by a mighty act of rescue, a glorious act of transfer into saving possession. So we need not here expound “made us fit.” “Us” is correct because the first person plural follows; “you” would be out of place at this point despite the texts that have it. Paul is including himself and Timothy with the Colossians.

We part company with those who refer the next phrase to heaven: made us fit “for the part of the lot of the saints in the light.” Κλῆρος means “lot.” When our versions and the dictionaries translate this Greek word “inheritance,” and the Germans combine μέρος and κλῆρος into Erbteil as though two articulated Greek nouns could have the force of a compound, this is due to the conception that Paul is referring to our heavenly inheritance, and some refer to v. 5 as proof, “the hope laid away for us.” Paul, however, speaks of “the lot of the saints” in this life. In this lot, Paul says, we have “the part (portion)” for which the Father has made us sufficient.

The debate about “in the light,” as to whether it modifies the participle “made sufficient” or “the saints” (our versions ignore the article “the light”), is settled by the fact that the whole expression is a unit: “the part of the lot of the saints in the light,” the part of the lot they have is entirely “in the light.” This very definite light is “the Word of the truth of the gospel present for you” (v. 5); its rays are “the knowledge, wisdom, and understanding” in v. 9 (“knowledge” again in v. 10). The opposite of “the light” is “the darkness” mentioned in v. 13. Both “the light” and “the darkness” are viewed as powers, the former as the means for making us bear fruit and grow, the latter as “the authority or power” from which the Father has rescued us.

If anything more is needed to show that Paul is speaking of the part of the lot we have been fitted for in this life, the series of participles used is sufficient: the lot of the saints is to bear fruit and to grow in every good work by means of the knowledge of God, to do this as being empowered in all power for perseverance and longsuffering with joy, and while doing this to thank the Father for this lot and for the part of it for which he has fitted us. The three participial statements with their modifiers are a whole, all take place in this life; there is no sudden turn so that the third which mentions thanksgiving looks up into heaven and our coming lot in the inheritance that is still awaiting the saints.

The saints here on earth have a blessed lot that is lighted up by “the light” of the gospel, its knowledge fills them with power to bear the fruit of good works. Paul prays for ever more of this blessed knowledge and this light for the Colossians (v. 9). These saints have the blessed lot of bearing fruit of all kinds, being empowered, as they are, for perseverance, etc. Among all these saints Paul, Timothy, and the Colossians have their place so that they, too, have been fitted for the special part the Father wants them to occupy in the lot of the great body of the saints. Paul has his portion as an apostle, Timothy as Paul’s assistant, Epaphras as founder and leader of the Colossians, each of the Colossians in his special place as one of the saints. The whole great lot of them and the part of it that falls to each person are “in the light,” illumined by the gospel.

Colossians 1:13

13 Here, as elsewhere, we see that ὅς is often demonstrative (see v. 15): he, the One who rescued us out of the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, in connection with whom we have the ransoming, the remission of the sins, etc.

What a blessed lot is ours! Any person who has part in this lot is blessed. But here we see how the Father fitted us for our portion of the lot of his saints in the light. He is the one, he who fitted us, “who rescued us,” etc. All of these terms connote power. Ῥύομαι, “to rescue,” requires a power that is greater than the power from which the rescue is effected. Already in connection with v. 11 we have said that this is the power of love, grace, and mercy. “Out of the authority” again involves power, ἐξουσία, the right and the power that goes with it; hence our versions translate: “out of the power,” and others render: “out of the power domain.”

“Of the darkness” plainly marks this darkness as a tyrant power. We need not say that “the darkness” is personified as we should scarcely say so much for “the light.” But this we must say, especially when we follow the meaning of “the darkness” through the New Testament: it is conceived as a definite power that is horrible and monstrous. It holds all men in its authority, and all are powerless to escape. Only the Father, only he could effect our rescue, and the aorist says that he did so. In the verb “to rescue” redemption and justification are combined. To rescue anyone out of the authority of the damnable darkness is the negative for placing him “in the light,” to have his lot there, the part of that lot for which God fits him.

This positive is, however, stated in a still grander and more blessed way: “and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of his love.” Matthew calls this “the kingdom of the heavens” and a few times uses the form that is found in the New Testament generally, “the kingdom of God.” Nine times it is called the kingdom of Christ, beginning with Luke 23:42 and John 18:36 and ending with Rev. 1:9. On this kingdom see either Matt. 3:2, or Mark 1:15, or Luke 1:33, or John 3:3. It is present wherever God (or Christ) rules with love and grace. The very word denotes power as does also the verb “transfer.” The idea that Paul understands the kingdom in the eschatological sense, and that this aorist “transferred” is proleptic, is untenable. For this kingdom goes back to Adam and is now present wherever the gospel power rules.

Only here does Paul use the expression “the Son of his love,” which the A. V. frankly regards as an attributive genitive, translates with a rather common adjective: “his dear Son,” and thereby rather loses its force. It is attributive like “his beloved Son” and yet stronger than that. Augustine regarded it as a genitive of origin, and Lightfoot and others agree with him: the Son begotten in eternity of God who is love. The idea of deity lies in the word “the Son” and not in the term “his (the Father’s) love.” This genitive refers to the work for which the Father sent his Son, at the beginning of which the Father himself called him “my beloved Son” (Matt. 3:17) and did likewise when Christ was in the midst of it (Luke 9:35). Paul borrows his expressions from these utterances.

Colossians 1:14

14 The thought is not yet complete; to the Father’s making us fit, rescuing, and transferring us there is now added what has been bestowed upon us sinners to make us fit for the kingdom of the Son: “in connection with whom (faith making this connection) we have the ransoming, the forgiveness of the sins” which once held us bound under the authority of the darkness. In Eph. 1:7 this same statement about what we have in Christ follows his great name, “the Beloved One.”

The word ἀπολύτρωσις denotes release by having a λύτρον, “ransom,” paid for us. For a full discussion, including the synonymous terms as well as the pagan ransoming of slaves, see Rom. 3:24. In Eph. 1:7 the ransoming price, the sacrificial blood, is at once mentioned; here “the blood of his cross” is mentioned in v. 20. “The ransoming” is a better English term than “the redemption” because the latter has grown pale. We must ever resist the efforts to reduce the word to the meaning “deliverance” so that the idea of the ransom, the sacrifice, and the substitution is eliminated (λύτρονἀντί, Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45).

The ransoming is intended for all men, but only believers “have it” with all its blessed effects. It is theirs personally by faith alone. Hence the apposition “the remission of the sins,” the essential effect of Christ’s ransoming for all believers. The Scriptures never identify the ransoming with the remission. When this is asserted on the strength of 2 Cor. 5:19–21, this passage is misinterpreted; see the author on this passage. God remits the sins of those only who repent and believe, the sins of all others are “retained” (John 20:23), on them the wrath of God abides, they are already condemned (John 3:18, 36).

Did Caiaphas, Annas, Pilate have the remission of their sins? Remission = justification by faith and is that act of God by which, the moment faith is kindled in a poor sinner’s heart, God in heaven pronounces that sinner free from guilt and declares him righteous for the sake of Christ’s merits.

Ἄφεσις = “remission,” sending the sins away so far that they will never be found. How far that is Ps. 103:12; Micah 7:19; Isa. 43:25; 44:22 state. Our English “forgiveness” must always be understood in this sense. All the sweetness that lies in the word “grace” lies likewise in the word aphesis. “Sins” = “trespasses” in Eph. 1:7, everything wherein we have missed the mark set for us in the law by God. The sins cannot be separated from their guilt. The sending away of the sins sends away also all their guilt. In the final judgment (Matt. 25:34) not a single sin is mentioned in connection with a single believer; but look at those who did not believe—all their sins are there.

The ἵνα clause with its additions (v. 9–14) states the substance of Paul’s prayer for the Colossians. He prayed thus since he first heard of their faith and he continues to pray thus even now when he has heard of their danger from Judaizers. It is perfectly true that Paul might pray in the same way for all his other congregations. This truth is often pointed to by those who wish to indicate that Paul’s prayer is only of a general nature and without reference to the present dangerous situation in Colosse. What is true about this view is only the fact that the prayer contains no outspoken references to the dangers. What, however, is also true is the fact that the mention of this prayer is introductory to Paul’s warning in this letter.

This prayer and similar ones for other congregations include times of peace as well as times of danger. It is one and the same “Word of the truth of the gospel present for us” (v. 5), one and the same knowledge, wisdom, and understanding, one and the same spiritual power thus conveyed to us that build us up in peace and give us the victory in war. The Ephesians were at peace. Note that after praying for knowledge for them Paul speaks of being built up (2:20), of continuous upbuilding (4:20), the whole organization of the Una Sancta being arranged accordingly (4:7–16). Yet even in this picture of unity, peace, family oneness in one body Paul touches also upon false doctrine and deception (4:14), against which the same knowledge is to protect us. So also in the case of the Colossians, who after a peaceful development are now at war, no new means are to constitute the defense but only the old means that built them up in peace.

These must now be used for war. That is the connection underlying all that Paul writes in these preparatory paragraphs.

Read in this light, the things Paul touches on in his prayer were undoubtedly understood aright by the Colossians as applying to their defense against the Judaizers. They must know fully the will of God in order to remain unshaken (v. 9), they must use this knowledge against their foes in all spiritual wisdom and understanding (v. 9). Their one aim must be to please the Lord in every way and not to be swerved aside to please the Judaizers (v. 10). They will please the Lord when they keep on bearing fruit and growing in every good work (avoiding every false work) in the true knowledge of God (v. 11); when they let God fill them with power to persevere in joy as they stand solidly in this power (v. 11) and ever thank him for their lot in the light of the gospel and never think of exchanging it for the darkness of the Judaistic error (v. 12). Did God not rescue them from the darkness and transfer them into his Son’s kingdom (v. 12) where they have the ransoming and the remission (v. 13)? Shall these errorists ever induce them to turn from the Son and his kingdom, from all that they have in him? These are the implications of this prayer, which are all the stronger psychologically because they are only implications.

Paul and Timothy Recount for the Colossians the Glories of Christ and of His Position together with the Tremendous Effects of His Work

Colossians 1:15

15 In the section v. 3–14 the “we” is prominent; v. 15–20 are entirely about Christ who has already been called “the Son of the Father’s love,” the King of the kingdom (v. 13). He and what we believers have in connection with him are thus introduced because of what is now to be said about his person, his position, and his work. These things are not new to the Colossians. In concise form they restate for the Colossians the mighty facts about the Son of the Father’s love because these facts destroy root and branch the error with which the Judaizers were operating in Colosse. We are glad to state that this is generally recognized. Here is the great ἐπίγνωσις (v. 9, 10) that is full of power when it is used in wisdom and understanding (v. 10, 11) and will overcome all this foolish error.

He who is the image of God, the invisible One, the first-born of all creation, because in connection with him were created all the things (that exist) in the heavens and on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or lordships or rulerships or authorities—all of them have been created through him and for him, and he is before all things (whatsoever), and all the things (that exist) have their permanence in connection with him.

This is the first unit of the great Christological section, the other is found in v. 18–20. The first deals with Christ’s supreme position above the whole universe of creatures (Creator, Preserver); the second deals with him who is this in the universe as the head of the church. The parallel passages are Eph. 1:20–23 and Heb. 1:3, which should be compared.

Those who would begin a new sentence with v. 15 are undoubtedly correct: v. 15–20 form an objective unit about Christ and are thus distinct from the subjective “we” section that precedes and the subjective “you” section that follows. Those who differ and point to the relative ὅς are also right even as the subject of this section, the “who” of whom all this is said, is “the Son of the Father’s love” of v. 13. We should combine both the independence and the dependence of these verses. The relative “who” is relative. Paul wants no complete break; at the same time the relative is of the greatest importance because of the mighty statements which it introduces. While it makes no break in the thought it has demonstrative force: “He, HE who,” etc. See similar demonstrative relative pronouns in Rom. 2:29; 3:8; 3:30; elsewhere.

The antecedent is “the Son of his love.” We may as well right here answer the question that arises. Some of the things predicated of Christ reach back to a time before the incarnation, others follow the incarnation. The Scriptures freely name Christ according to his person, according to one or the other or both natures, and, no matter how he is named, predicate of him divine or human or both divine and human things. This is due to the personal union of the two natures, a union that involves the communication of the divine attributes to the human nature. The person is ever the eternal Son of God. Our poor intellect vainly seeks to conceive what the Scriptures state in this simple way. It will ever be beyond human conception even as in the whole universe no other being that has two such natures in one person exists.

The same is true with regard to time and dates in time regarding God and the God-man. The Creator of time is not bound by differences of time; our minds are chained to succession and limitation of time and cannot even conceive of the relation of the timeless God to events occurring in time. Before a thing occurs it is non-existent to us, then it occurs, and we date it and look back upon it as past. God and Christ are above anything like this. The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, Rev. 13:8, not ideally merely but in fact. It is useless for us to try to conceive this.

All the saints stood before God ere the creation of the world as we shall see them after time shall be no more, not merely as a mental picture in God’s mind but in a reality that was as factual as that of the last day. Second Peter 3:8 gives us a mere inkling. It is thus with regard to “the Son of his love.” All the soteriology implied in the genitive existed in eternity as truly as when on a certain day God spoke Matt. 3:17 and on a later day Luke 9:35.

The same is true with regard to the acts of Christ. We cling to dates: the first six days of creation, the incarnation 4, 000 years later, the resurrection and the enthronement thirty-three years after that. Accordingly our wisdom divides: these acts are placed before the incarnation, those after; these are ascribed to the Son ἄσαρκος, those to the Son ἔνσαρκος. Try as we will, our minds cannot rise above this divided conception. Even the miracle of the personal union of the natures with its communication of attributes is unable to lift cur minds high enough so that we can conceive how in actuality and not merely verbally or ideally the human nature of Christ took part in the creation of the world.

We stumble at the dates. Then we start to reason and rationalize; we are like a child that is flapping his arms and imagining that he is flying. We may land in the morass of denial and skepticism, at best in a learned, puerile theology. We need to read only a little philosophy to see how the greatest reasoners become confused when they try to conceive what time and space are. These are strong warnings for us lest we, too, go beyond our little shallow mental depth, not only in our natural thinking, but especially in our thinking regarding the God-man. The Scriptures present the facts, these are inconceivable but still eternal facts. Accept them, bow down and worship, leave a little to the light of glory, rejoice in Christ, God and man in one!

We translate: “the image of God, the first-born,” although these nouns have no articles. It will not do to say with R., W. P. that these are predicates and for this reason lack the articles, for predicates have the article when, as here, they are identical and interchangeable with the subjects (R. 767). The articles could, indeed, have been used. But they are often omitted when the noun names a person or an object, the duplicate of which does not exist (R. 794). This seems to apply here. “The image of God, the invisible One,” expresses the relation to God, yet this relation as pertaining to men; the God-man is this image for our sakes.

The second appellation is thus also appositional: “the first-born of all creation.” The Son of his love is not two distinct and different things but, being the one, he is thereby also the other. As the first-born he is as such related to God and thus not only to men but stands in a certain supreme relation even to all creation.

Εἰκών, “image,” is Abbild, which always implies a Vorbild, always implies derivation, hence is far more than ὁμοίωμα, “likeness,” in which only resemblance and not derivation is implied (Trench, Synonyms). What derivation “image” implies is expressed already by the antecedent of ὅς, namely “the Son of his (the Father’s) love.” It is the derivation of eternal sonship in relation to the Father. The same thought lies in the synonym “the first-born.” The eternal Son born of the Father is “the image” of the Father, “the effulgence of his glory and the impress of his substance (ὑπόστασις),” Heb. 1:3. Man was created (not born) in God’s image. Man thus had the image, was in it, but was not the image. The difference is vast.

This, we think, answers the question as to whether the word “image” contains the idea of visibility, as some think it does. In man the image consisted in concreated holiness and righteousness which are not visible but are intended to appear in the character and the life of man. It would seem that a similar idea is expressed when the Son is described as “the image” of the Father. This visibility is here expressed by the genitive: “the image of God, the invisible One.” It is not in accord with grammatical usage to say that the adjective that is added by a second article has no emphasis. It is used to add emphasis: the article makes an apposition and even a climax of the adjective (R. 776). The invisible God becomes visible to men in “the Son of his love” as “the image of the invisible God.”

We have Christ’s own word: “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” John 14:9. Again John’s testimony (1:14): “We beheld his glory, glory as … of the Father” (see the author on this passage). Isaiah saw what John saw, what Philip saw (John 12:41) when he wrote Isaiah 53. This is not a visibility of the image that is comprehended by mere physical sight (John 12:40; 2 Cor. 4:4) but one for the eyes of faith (2 Cor. 4:6).

The point of all this is the fact that these designations of Christ are soteriological and that, as such, they pertain to Christ’s human nature and his saving work that was wrought by means of this nature. We have seen this in the designation “the Son of his love.” We see it in the same way in “the image of God, the invisible One.” This does not refer merely to the deity of the Son. The three persons are one in essence in their eternal existence. “Image” applies to none of them; in the oneness of their deity and their essence all are alike invisible. The Son “of his love” was such in his human nature by which he wrought out our salvation (Matt. 4:17; Luke 9:35; Eph. 1:6); this Son of his love as such was “the image of God, the invisible,” in his human nature. So Isaiah 53 saw him (John 12:41), Abraham likewise (John 8:56–58). But here again, as we have attempted to explain above, we must not tie our minds to time. The incarnation occurred on a certain date in time; but Rev. 13:8 lifts everything above time just as does every other passage which places the soteriology into eternity.

These terms should, then, not be dated from the sessio at God’s right hand, nor ought one to say that they do not apply to “the historic Christ,” “historic” being a modern term for what is more adequately expressed by the state of humiliation. Christ is the image of the invisible God not only during this state but timelessly so that our powers of conception are hopelessly left behind when we think of how this can possibly pertain to his human nature. No human mind can even conceive eternity (timelessness); our mind ceases to function where infinity of any kind begins. It is good to know this so that, when men confront us with statements like this one about the historic Christ and the glorified Christ, we may quietly lay them aside.’ For John (1:14), for Isaiah, for Abraham, for Adam, yea for the Father in all eternity the God-man was “the Son of his love,” “the image of God, the invisible One,” and thus also “the first-born of all creation.”

There is no need to insist on the translation “every creature” (A. V.) in preference to “all creation” (R. V.) since in the case of abstract nouns the difference between “all” and “every” (πᾶς and πᾶςὁ) vanishes (R. 772). The ancient and the modern Arian contention that Christ is here called a “creature” although the chief one created by God is nullified by the very words Paul uses. He does not write πρωτόκτιστος, “the first-created,” but πρωτότοκος, “the first-born.” Beside him Paul places πᾶσακτίσις, “all creation.” This is not a comparison between creatures, the creature Christ and all other creatures. Still less does “first” refer to time and to a date. “First-born” denotes rank. Nor does “all creation” = the new spiritual creation so that Christ’s pre-eminence over believers is expressed as it is in Rom. 8:29.

Philo philosophizes about the Logos as a cosmic principle, which was not even a person, to say nothing of a person incarnate, see C.-K. 1076. “The first-born” is used here as it is in Exod. 4:22: Ps. 89:27, late Jewish writers apply the word to even God himself (Ewald). As the significance of the terms themselves shows, the genitive cannot be partitive; it is the genitive of comparison (here a superlative comparison, R., W. P.): “the first-born as compared with all creation” (outranking all creatures); or, if one prefers, the genitive of relation, which expresses the same thought: “the first-born in relation to all creation,” outranking all creatures in every relation. The God-man in both of his natures towers above the whole creature world.

We are to see him as “the image of God, the invisible One,” for our salvation and thus “the first-born of all creation.” As the one he is necessarily the other. His relation to God necessarily involves his relation to the creation. It is asked why Paul uses the term “first-born.” The answer that the Colossian Judaizers used it and perhaps used also “the image,” etc., is not satisfactory, whether it is supposed that they employed these terms in the later Gnostic sense which makes Christ an intermediate being, or indeed acknowledged his full deity and yet lowered his saving work.

We lack any indication that Paul is quoting either term from the lips of these Judaizers. We also do not know that these Judaizers had in any way become acquainted with Alexandrine speculation, which acquaintance would appear in these designations of Christ. No Alexandrine speculation dealt with Jesus Christ at this early date. It is doubtful whether Christianity had as yet been planted in Alexandria; it could at least not as yet have issued in such speculation and philosophical theory, to say nothing about such speculation having reached a distant little town like Colosse. These are Paul’s own terms, both of them are pure and untainted by any speculation that had arisen anywhere.

Both get their light from “the Son of his love.” This Son is the image of his Father, who possesses all his majesty, but in visibility. This Son is thus “the first-born” who infinitely outranks all creation. “Born”—not created. Paul’s term “first-born” touches hands with John’s μονογενής, “the Only-begotten.” Both of these are as metaphysical as the term “the Son.” Both apply to the error of the Colossian Judaizers. This error is not Gnostic as we shall see. Paul is rot pitting the true meaning of these terms against a false, inferior meaning that was put into then by the Judaizers.

These are also not strange, new terms which the Colossians had as yet not heard. They are used as though Paul’s readers will at once assent to them as stating exactly what the Son, the God-man, is. They thus are the admitted major premise to which Paul adds the minor and then draws his deduction, one that destroys the entire inferior view the Judaizers had of the extent and the power of Christ’s work. So much for the present. It is as though Paul says: “You and we most certainly believe and confess that the God-man Christ Jesus is the Son of the Father’s love, namely the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.” The Colossians will answer, “Indeed, we so believe and confess.”

Colossians 1:16

16 With ὅτι Paul adds the evidential reason for these designations of Christ, the reason that was fully known to his readers: “because in connection with him all the things (that exist, τὰπάντα) were created.” Ἐν is not instrumental: “by him were created” (A. V.). It is an untenable idea to say that “in him” means that Christ was the architype who in himself contained the ectype, “all things,” either in the sense that he furnished the pattern for them or that the eternal ideas existed in him (Philo’s Logos). Here and scores of times ἐν means: “in connection with.” What connection is referred to is left unsaid and is to be inferred from the context. In v. 17 we have διά: “through him all the things have been created.” Add John 1:2, “without him” nothing came into existence. The opera ad extra sunt indivisa aut communa and are thus ascribed to any one of the three persons although creation is ascribed to the first per eminentiam.

Thus “in connection with him” does not exclude the Father or the Spirit. The aorist “were created” is historical and takes us back to Genesis 1.

The real problem for our mental powers is how this predication can possibly refer to the God-man. The usual assumptions are based on conceptions of time and operate with “ideal” pre-existence: all exists only in the mind of God. This is about the best one can do as long as one thinks that time binds God. If we drop this restriction and let the communication of the divine attributes bestow on the human nature also the acts of deity we may more nearly approach the facts regarding the God-man in his connection with the creation of all that exists although even then we shall never for a moment pretend to visualize or really to comprehend them. Apart from its connection with the God-man this creating, calling into existence from nothing, is so incomprehensible to our finite mentality that skeptics like Spencer make this incomprehensibility the ground for unqualified denial although they thereby gain nothing, for they run into the other incomprehensibility, a non-created world. Blind as we are to comprehend the first step, creation itself, we are not surprised at finding ourselves blind to comprehend the second, the connection of Christ’s humanity with creation.

The emphasis is on the phrase “in connection with him.” This does not, of course, suggest the contrast: “with him alone and not with another,” but means that this astounding act is connected with him, this creation of all things. This would be a platitude if creation were predicated only of deity, only of the Son in his deity. Then, too, all these titles, “the Son of his love, the image, etc., the first-born,” etc., would end in pointlessness.

This becomes even more obvious when we note the specifications: “all the things in the heavens,” etc. That is the universe unlimited, but this universe with its supermundane parts most impressively indicated. To say that the act of their creation places the deity, no matter which person is thought of, above them is saying nothing valuable or pertinent; that; this act (rather already this act) establishes the supremacy of the God-man also in his human nature above all that is in the universe, in particular above all spirit beings, that is the fact that is so pertinent for the Colossians. It is a fact that was long known to them but is now one to be used by them for ignoring all the Judaistic notions which it helps to defeat. Paul draws on it for this reason.

The listing of “all the things” as being those “in the heavens and on the earth,” etc., is very pointed. First, it expresses absolute universality: “in the heavens and on the earth, the seen and the unseen.” But here there is already the second idea that those in the heavens, or those unseen whether in the heavens or on the earth, may control at least some of the things on the earth, some of the seen things, so that the wise Christians, as the Judaizers claim, need to employ measures outside of the gospel to protect themselves. This is folly when we look at “the Son of the Father’s love,” etc., at the eminence of both of his natures, the human being not less supreme over “all creation” as is evidenced by the act of creation itself. The spirit world is therefore mentioned in detail, in appositional specifications of “the unseen things”: “whether thrones or lordships or rulerships or authorities.” The Judaistic speculative philosophy had much to say about these and showed how they operated with earthly elements, and how the gospel was not enough to keep Christians safe.

The four terms are arranged in neither a descending nor an ascending scale. The four terms do not designate four classes or ranks; neither do those listed in Eph. 1:21 and elsewhere. The idea that “thrones and lordships” = good angels, “rulerships and authorities” evil angels, is likewise untenable. The distinction between good and evil is not as yet made. The absoluteness of the God-man’s supremacy is here expressed in all its absoluteness; what this involves follows presently. All these unseen beings have thrones, lordships, rulerships, authority, none are without the one or the other.

Each has a higher or a lower throne and the corresponding lordship, rulership, and authority. Divide horizontally to obtain the ranks and not perpendicularly. Whether these spirits have been assigned their positions or have usurped them is still left unsaid, Paul has not as yet reached that point. We note only that the four terms are close synonyms (hence, perhaps, “powers” is not used here.)

Paul repeats and thus emphasizes, yet with additions: “all of the things (all of them) through him and for him have been created.” There is no exception. They have their origin by creation, by nothing higher; they are to be classified with “all creation” (v. 15), are in the same class with the visible things such as stones and sticks. But now the perfect tense states that they remain as having been created, they never get beyond that state. Paul now also writes “through him” (the God-man), but R. 582, 820 should warn us not to put too little into διά which often names the agent with the passive. In Rom. 11:36 both διά and εἰς are used with reference to God as they are here used with reference to the God-man; only ἐκ is not used with reference to the latter.

This does not justify subordination, it ascribes the origin of all things to the first person only per eminentiam just as redemption is ascribed to the second and sanctification to the third. “For him” is to be construed with the perfect tense and = for him to control, for him to achieve his ends in them. As διά reaches back to the first origin, εἰς reaches forward to the ultimate goal. Both origin and goal and all that lies between as regards all created beings are connected with the God-man, with him as being infinitely supreme.

Colossians 1:17

17 Two additional statements complete the immense thought so far expressed: “and he is before all things whatever (no article), and all the things that exist (once more the article) have their permanence in connection with him,” in connection with whom they were created in the first place. Creation and preservation naturally go together. The latter is highly pertinent here. No created being in the universe is independent of Christ. All are “through him and for him” so that “he is before them,” and all of them have their continuous existence only “in connection with him.” Note the succession of the pronouns: δἰαὐτοῦ—εἰςαὐτόν—αὐτόν—ἐναὐτῷ—all having equal emphasis and all of them carrying forward the emphatic ἐναὐτῷ that occurs at the beginning of v. 16.

The interpretation that πρό is temporal but refers only to the deity of Christ is not correct. When I ask myself what point Paul makes in saying that the deity of Christ exists (some even accent ἔστι, “exists”) prior to all created things I confess that I have no answer. This statement does not touch upon the Gnostic or even the Arian heresy, both of which are of a later date. The epistle nowhere indicates that in Colosse the Judaizers denied the eternal deity of Christ. If they had denied this they would not have been so dangerous to the Colossians; Paul would also have written otherwise in the body of his epistle.

Others let πρό denote rank: Christ is “ahead” of all things whatsoever. But the pre-eminence of Christ with regard to both of his natures has been most effectively stated in v. 15; this little πρό would be only a faint restatement of Christ’s rank. Moreover, the use of πρό to indicate rank is doubtful. When one looks at the examples offered in the dictionaries and the commentators, all of them prove to be examples that refer only to time or to place: James 5:12 and 1 Pet. 4:8, “above all things” = first of all in time or in place.

The statement is a double one: “he is before all things in time, and in connection with him all of them have their permanent existence.” He must most certainly be before them if their continuous existence is to depend on him. But this dependence is not divided so that up to the time of the incarnation (some say up to the glorification—Kenoticists) the deity of the Son ἄσαρκος preserved all things, and since that date both the deity and the humanity of the Son ἔνσαρκος do so. Paul cancels this division: “he is before all things” in both natures. Eternity is communicated to the human nature just as all the other divine attributes are. Inconceivable? Most assuredly!

Even “eternity” itself, like every other essential divine attribute, is inconceivable. What lies in the statement: “in connection with him were created all the things that exist,” namely that Christ in both of his natures is connected with the creation of all things, is now said outright when the preservation of all things is added: “he is before all things whatsoever,” and so they all have permanence in connection with him. The perfect συνέστηκε is always used in the sense of the present.

Colossians 1:18

18 We regard v. 15–17 as a unit: Christ in relation to all things, “all things” not only being repeated four times but even inventoried at length. So v. 18–20 are an additional unit: this Christ of v. 15–17 in his relation to the church. These same two units are combined in Eph. 1:10, 11 and 21–23; but in Colossians both the creation and the preservation are mentioned and thus the eternity that was communicated to Christ’s human nature.

The verbal formulation is another matter. By beginning v. 17 and 18 in the same way: καὶαὐτόςἐστι, the end of the first unit of thought is amalgamated with the beginning of the second thought unit. Neither is complete without the other; together they are the full, complete unit. Creation and preservation are connected with the God-man, not for their own sake, but because of his relation to the church. The saving work of the God-man affects all creation. As its saving effects reached back timelessly to Adam, so its effects in the world extend to all things from their creation onward and throughout their preservation, timelessly, for creation and preservation are wholly ἐναὐτῷ, “in connection with him.” The full immensity of it all is here unfolded. Scores of other passages and also many statements of Jesus must be read in the light of this thought.

The immediate purpose Paul has in view in presenting this complex of facts is the annihilation of the Judaistic error in Colosse, which placed grave limitations on the saving work of Christ. No attack was made upon his person although, when it is carried to its logical extreme, the error would eventually extend that far; his work was reduced so as to leave unconquered or only partially conquered many earthly, material elements and the spirits that were supposed to control them, and the Judaizers offered means and methods by which Christians might make themselves safe against these still dangerous powers.

This Judaistic scheme of safety was really silly, and Paul treats it with a sort of lofty disdain. This whole Judaistic fiction collapses before the realities that the God-man, our Savior, as the Son of the Father’s love (v. 13), is his visible image, the first-born of all creation (v. 15), that in him and through him were created all things (see the list, v. 16) which are also preserved in existence in him, that he, this great God-man, is the head of the church, that his work extends not to a few Christians alone in an incomplete way, but to the whole universe in a complete way that exceeds all comprehension. Seeing this, the Colossians, like Paul, will disdain the puerile notions of the Judaizers.

And he is the head of the body, the church,—he who is the beginning, the first-born of the dead, so that in all respects he got to be pre-eminent.

“The head” is soteriological; the God-man is not the head of all the things that exist. On this point see Eph. 1:10 and the explanation of ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι, and also v. 22. The God-man is in living, spiritual relation only to the church, his body. Eph. 1:22, 23; 4:15, 16; 5:23 unfold this relation of headship. Rule and control are usually mentioned, but Eph. 4:15, 16 adds more: all the spiritual life and the power of the church are drawn from Christ, the head. But αὐτός includes all that was said of the Son of the Father’s love in v. 15–17 and even what is said of his kingdom in v. 14. Here, as in Ephesians, “the church” = the entire Una Sancta from Adam to the last believer at the Parousia.

Ὅς is parallel to the ὅς that occurs in v. 15 and just as demonstrative: “he, he who is,” etc. R., W. P., calls it causal: “because he is,” which we may accept since emphatic relatives often have causal force. The two predicates lack the article for the same reason that the two occurring in v. 15 are anarthrous and are appositional as were those used in v. 15. The God-man is “the beginning”; this repeats the thought that he is “before all things whatsoever,” but does so in a more impressive way. Compare Rev. 1:8: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending,” and v. 11, “the first and the last.” “The beginning” cannot be dated at the resurrection of Christ but goes back to creation: “the beginning of the creation of God” (Rev. 3:14). This first predicate states that he who is the head of the church is the one who has been described in v. 15–17, all of which must be kept in mind when we consider what is now stated. Ἀρχή is, of course, not ἀπαρχή, “first fruits.”

The appositional predicate “the first-bom from the dead,” repeats “the first-born” used in v. 15 and is used in the same sense of supreme rank, but now rank not in comparison with “all creation” but as regards the resurrection of the dead. Yet more is implied here than in Acts 26:23 where Christ is the first to arise, or in 1 Cor. 15:20, 23 that he is the first fruits. As “the first-born of the dead” he who is “the beginning” itself stands in absolute pre-eminence and supremacy over death and all the powers of death. In v. 15–17 he is presented as “the first-born” in his absolute supremacy as regards all creature life and existence, its. very creation and its preservation; now he is presented as “the first-born” in the same supremacy as regards death and its destructive powers. The idea is not that suggested by “first fruits,” that many shall follow in a blessed resurrection (these being the great harvest), that many shall be “later-born” by virtue of this “First-born one.” No; as in v. 15, so here, “the first-born” is absolute for life and existence, created and preserved, irrespective of what or who the creature is and so for death and destruction, irrespective of who is involved.

We submit that the ἵνα clause is not final but consecutive. The debate about whether it states God’s purpose or Christ’s is beside the mark. Paul is stating result: “so that he got to be in all respects preeminent.” The emphasis is on ἐνπᾶσιναὐτός. The preeminence mentioned in v. 15, etc., is a pre-eminence in one respect or say in two (as far as creation and preservation are concerned), this added pre-eminence makes him pre-eminent in all respects, ἐνπᾶσιν, the phrase being just as adverbial (neuter) as it is in Eph. 1:23. If it is made masculine it would have to be: “among all the dead,” which would be incongruous. He who is absolutely supreme in all respects, “he” (αὐτός) is the head of the church, is in this spiritual relation and connection with her. Note that the second αὐτός repeats the first.

The supposition that Christ’s soul entered “the realm of the dead,” sheol, hades, an intermediate place between heaven and hell, and remained there for three days is advocated in some books and deserves the condemnation which Paul here metes out to the Colossian Judaizers. The soul of Christ was in heaven in his Father’s hands and returned to his dead body in the tomb, and thus Christ arose. Γένηται is the ingressive aorist “got to be,” the present participle is its complementary predicate. The human nature is so plainly involved that no one even draws attention to it; yet “he” who is the subject in this passage is also the subject in v. 14–18, and we at least refuse to alter this subject—the God-man.

Colossians 1:19

19 Ὅτι states the evidential reason by which we know that the God-man is what v. 18 states he is; it corresponds to ὅτι occurring in v. 16, which is to be understood in the same sense. Because in him it well-pleased all the fulness to dwell (permanently, aorist) and through him to reconcile back all the things for him by (once for all, again aorist) making peace through the blood of his cross, through him, whether the things on the earth or the things in the heavens.

The view that, because Christ is the subject in v. 18, he must be the subject also in this verse is negatived already by the emphatically placed phrase ἐναὐτῷ (repeated from v. 16, 17), which shows that a different subject follows. We need say no more. Our versions assume that the unexpressed subject is the Father; a number of commentators agree. We see no substantial difference between this idea and regarding “all the fulness” as the subject (R. V. margin) since the latter means “all the fulness” of God. Compare 2:9. It is not necessary that “all the fulness” have a specifying genitive because this fulness itself is personified by what is predicated of it in the verb plus its infinitives and participle.

“All the fulness” pleased to dwell in Christ, not only a part of it, not only most of it. No domain is left in which the absolute supremacy of Christ and of his work is not fully effective. The Judaizers imagined such a domain into which Christ and his work did not fully reach and had invented a system by which Christians, as they claimed, could protect themselves from ill effects that came from this domain.

We need not specify what “all” this fulness includes, for it is equal to all that the absolute pre-eminence of “the first-born” in v. 15 and 18 embraces; it is all that places the God-man in both natures above the being and the life of the whole creation and above every power of death and of destruction. Yet when Paul writes “to dwell” in him, as he does in 2:9, this indwelling refers especially to the human nature. This indwelling is the preliminary part of the statement.

Colossians 1:20

20 The main thought lies in the next infinitive: by thus dwelling in the God-man it pleased this absolute fulness to show itself as such by completely and fully reconciling all the things that exist (τὰπάντα as before) “through him—for him.” Dwelling “in him,” this fulness wrought “through him” and “for him” just as it did in the act of creation (v. 16, 17), where we have the same three phrases. The extent is also the same, it includes “all the things” that exist and makes the supremacy absolute. “Through him” is repeated, and we once more have the all-comprehensive specifications: “whether the things on the earth or the things in the heavens,” the terms being stated in the reverse order, cf. v. 16.

“To reconcile back all the things to him” is further explained by the participle of means: “by making peace through the blood of his cross.” The infinitive and the participle are effective aorists and also historical: once for all, permanently. “The blood” = the sacrificial blood, it is more specific than “the death” and points more clearly to sacrifice. “Of his cross” notes the curse involved in the God-man’s death (Gal. 3:13; Phil. 2:8).

All would be perfectly clear and simple if Paul had not written “all the things—whether those on the earth or those in the heavens,” especially the latter. We have no difficulty in understanding the effect of Christ’s redemption on the world in view of Rom. 8:19, etc., and Rev. 21:1, etc. The difficulty lies in a reference to the good angels in heaven and a statement such as that found in Heb. 2:16.

A great variety of interpretations is offered, among the most unlikely being an angelology which is built up on the basis of Jewish material and is then attributed to Paul, which claims that the good angels were faulty and thus themselves needed a reconciliation and the making of peace. As an exponent of this opinion see Peake (Expositor’s Greek New Testament), especially his introduction. It is enough to say that the Scriptures know of no moral fault in the good angels. R., W. P., follows Abbott and calls Paul’s statement “hypothetical,” “not categorical,” which disregards the aorists and also leaves us in a haze.

The difficulty clears when we note that not all the objects of the God-man’s reconciling act are affected alike by that act, but that each class is affected according to its nature, its condition, and its relation. We should also remember that “all creation” is a unit, is never viewed otherwise by the Scriptures, and always includes the whole angel world. “All creation” was disrupted: sin arose in heaven and entered men and the physical universe. The Son of God came to the rescue. But how? He became “the first-born of all creation” (v. 15, 16). But not by assuming the created nature of angels (Heb. 2:16).

That means much for the angels with whom sin began. These evil angels are excluded from the rescue, are to be swept out of “the kingdom of the Son of God’s love” (v. 13). The first-born of all creation became such by assuming our human nature. His work of rescue was accomplished “through the blood of his cross.”

Now the effects. The evil angels were eliminated eo ipso. The blood of the cross has the same effect for all men who follow these angels and despise this blood; it rescues only the believers (v. 13). This rescue includes the physical creature world. How this is to be understood is shown in Rom. 8:19, etc. This creature world was “subject to vanity not willingly,” it never willed sin.

It shall be affected accordingly, i.e., according to its nature and its relation to us: a glorious liberation shall turn it into a new earth (Rom. 8:20), one that is joined to heaven (Rev. 21:1, etc.). Thus as “the blood of the cross” has its effects by eo ipso excluding the evil angels and then also all unbelieving men, as it establishes the eternal kingdom of the Son of God’s love, it has its effects also on the good angels and on all “the things in the heaven,” not, indeed, as though they needed a change in themselves (ἀποκαταλλάσσειν), a “being made other” (ἄλλος) in themselves, but as requiring a change and a new relation to the restored universe. Once there was war (note, for instance, Rev. 12:7) that involved all the good angels; by his cross “the first-born from the dead” has created peace, and this peace shall soon be absolute when the whole universe, heaven and earth united in one (Rev. 21:1, etc.), shall be one kingdom of eternal peace.

The cross affects “all creation.” Each part of it is not affected in the identical way but according to the nature, the condition, and the relation of each part to the whole. We distinguish four grand parts. The cross affects each of them, but each of them differently: evil angels—good angels—man, believing or unbelieving—the physical universe. When we say “the blood of his cross,” this means the act of reconciliation, the act of establishing peace. No less than “all creation” is involved in the act of “the first-born of all creation.”

The double compound is stronger than καταλλάσσω. C.-K. 133 refers ἀπό to the situation to be left, and κατά to the new direction, “to reconcile back” to a former condition. It may also be possible that the single compound = to produce a condition that is not existing, the double to produce a condition that is no longer existing. C.-K. adds that it seems that Paul himself formed the double compound, which is found nowhere before his time, formed it in order to express most exactly the thought he had in mind.

The root idea lies in ἄλλος, “other,” placing into a relation or a situation that is very much “other” than the existing one. The prepositions only add to this and intensify: completely other or: “away from” the old and “toward” the new. Thus the objects, “all the things that exist,” may be diverse in themselves, the act changes their relation according to what their present relation in this πάντα may be. Moreover, εἰςαὐτόν is vital in its emphasis: “for him,” for this great first-born of all creation, in whom all the fulness dwelt, effected the stupendous change of all that is on earth and in heaven. He is the King. The change was made by his establishing peace. We see the full, eternal results in his everlasting kingdom of peace.

Paul and Timothy Remind the Colossians of What Christ Has Done for Them through the Ministry Committed to Paul

Colossians 1:21

21 No Judaistic error that would limit the work of the God-man or its effect on the world of nature can find lodgement where the God-man and the mighty-effects of his blood and his cross are known (v. 15–20). From objective statement Paul turns to subjective experience, to the effects experienced by his readers.

And you on your part, at one time being alienated and enemies in your mind in your wicked works, yet now he reconciled back in connection with the body of his flesh through his death to present you holy and blemishless and unreproved before himself—if, indeed, you remain in the faith, grounded and seated and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, that preached in all creation under the heaven, of which I myself, Paul, got to be a minister.

The text that has the aorist active in v. 22 is so well assured that the variants must be disregarded. Westcott and Hort print their text with a parenthesis in v. 22, which makes the construction of the verse very difficult. They do this because of δέ, which, however, in no way indicates a parenthesis. A new sentence (in fact, a paragraph) begins with v. 21, καί connects the reconciliation of the Colossians with that of all things.

The Colossians are to think of their terrible situation “at one time” so that they may fully realize the vast extent and the power of the reconciliation which reached to the eternal hope in heaven. Nothing is left that might be added to the God-man’s work. Robertson regards ὄνταςἀπηλλοτριωμένους as one of the two periphrastic participles found in the New Testament, but he does not state how he construes ἐχθρούς. Ὄντας is the ordinary participle, and the perfect passive participle plus the noun “enemies” are its predicate. The perfect participle describes the alienation that set in and then continued, and its passive voice implies that an evil power caused this alienation. From whom or from what the Colossians had been alienated need not be said; in Eph. 2:11 it is stated because of the different connection.

Thus turned away, they were “enemies” (the word is always to be understood in the active sense), and there is no need of stating whose enemies they became. The dative τῇδιανοίᾳ may be locative or indicate relation: “in” or “in regard to the mind,” Gesinnung. They were at one time enemies with the whole moral bent of their mind and thus in connection with the deeds, and the second article emphasizes these deeds as being actively and viciously “wicked.” Theirs was a desperate and an apparently hopeless case.

Colossians 1:22

22 “Yet now” (see Eph. 2:13) you who were in this situation “he reconciled back,” and this he did “in connection with the body of his flesh through the death” to which he submitted this body of his. Δέ is our ordinary “yet” and marks a contrast. The verb is the same as that used in v. 20, an effective aorist, and here indicates a making “other” so as to include the personal, inward otherness of contrition and of faith (2 Cor. 5:20 has the ordinary compound). “The body of his flesh,” like Heb. 5:7, “in the days of his flesh,” has no relation with an incipient Docetic Gnosticism or with an inability of bodiless and fleshless angel beings; the added genitive helps to emphasize the physical nature of the body which suffered the (well-known) death; note “the blood of his cross” (v. 20). The great first-born of all creation (v. 15), the first-born from the dead (v. 18), is the God-man and accomplished the otherness in the Colossians by his bloody physical death. The all-sufficiency of his act is the point.

That is why the infinitive of purpose is added: “to present you holy and blemishless and unreproved before him” (compare Eph. 5:27), i.e., made thus by the reconciling effect of his death. “Holy” = separate unto God and Christ, the opposite of being in a state of alienation; “blemishless” = without spot or wrinkle in yourselves; “unreproved” (“unreprovable”) = so that no one can accuse you in any way. This is put in so strong a way because the Judaizers claimed that such a state could be attained only when their scheme of purification and keeping pure is followed in addition to faith in Christ. Errorists always like to add at least something to faith in Christ’s death, often even the main saving thing. “Before him” is added emphatically at the end: he, he alone is the Judge on all three points, let no one listen to any other judges.

We have no trouble as to the subject of the sentence and feel no jar in passing from v. 20 to the next verses. He who has this body of flesh is no evidently the subject that we scarcely need to say so. “All the fulness” that pleased to dwell in him for his mighty work (v. 20) is only what makes him what he is, and so this fulness does what he does, and the change of subject from v. 20 to v. 21, 22 is as natural as it can be.

Colossians 1:23

23 Yet Paul does not fail to add the cautious condition: “—if, indeed (εἴγε),” etc. The Colossians were troubled by errorists. Would they resist them? Would they really? Would they abide by the great gospel facts regarding the person, work, and extent of work of the God-man? Paul voices no doubt regarding them. This “if” contemplates reality, the reality that they will remain what they have been made. Yet the “if” bids them examine and watch themselves. We should always have it in mind and especially when error is in the air. We may here answer the question as to whether the presentation which the God-man will make is the one now before his judicial eye or the one at the end of time. This “if” points to the latter just as does “the hope of the gospel.” Matt. 24:13; Rev. 2:10.

Ἐπιμένω is construed with the dative: “if you remain on the faith,” with which also the three modifiers agree: “having been grounded and founded” on the faith—“seated” solidly on it—“not moved away,” etc. But that makes “the faith” objective. We cannot accept the view that “faith” is always subjective (fides qua, creditur); in many contexts it is fides quae creditur. Paul has here presented objectively this faith on which our subjective confidence rests (v. 15–20). On this the Colossians were founded as a foundation is laid on solid rock. They must remain so, solidly “seated” (this word is found in 1 Cor. 15:58) and “never moved.” This last is a present participle to express a condition that continues from now on; the perfect participle is to express a condition that dates from the past and now continues. These two tenses finely match their meanings.

To be sure, “not moved away” implies not leaving the faith on which the Colossians rest. But this faith involves the great gospel hope, the goal of our lives. Hence Paul states it with this significant addition: “not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard.” “The hope” is objective (see v. 5), “of the gospel” identifies it by means of a possessive genitive: belonging to the gospel, revealed by no other means. The gospel which the Colossians had heard Epaphras had taught them (v. 7, 8); “which you heard” once more approves his faithful work. What a loss: to have heard the true gospel, to have seen this great hope that the first-born will present us in glory as all-perfect before himself (v. 22) and then to let some errorists with foolish notions move us away from it all!

In the same pointed way as in v. 6 Paul adds the world-wide reach of the gospel. There he says that “in the whole world” it bears fruit and grows; here that it is “the one preached in all creation under the heaven.” This is not hyperbole as some say; compare “all nations” (Matt. 28:19), “all the world, to every creature” (Mark 16:15), “unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). It seems that Paul is using the language of Jesus. The point of his doing so is double. This Judaistic doctrine is an insignificant local heresy which Paul scorns as such, which the Colossians should scorn in the same way.

On the other hand, the world-wide gospel of the first-born of all creation—“all creation” is repeated from v. 15—is not only already planted far and wide under heaven, this work has been especially assigned to Paul as the apostle of the Gentiles: “of which I myself (ἐγώ emphatic), Paul, got to be a minister,” dispensing this gospel for the benefit of all men everywhere. This is the transition to what follows (v. 24 to 2:5). Will the Colossians let a few local errorists separate them from this immense gospel? Paul’s object is to connect the Colossians with himself in this gospel. Epaphras was only the voice of Paul in Colosse, Paul’s own agent in the gospel work entrusted to him by the first-born of all creation. When it is seen aright, all of this must hold the Colossians firmer than ever on their faith-foundation, looking up to their eternal hope.

Colossians 1:24

24 One may make a separate paragraph of v. 24–29, for Paul now for the first time in this epistle begins to speak directly of himself: “I, Paul, became a minister of the gospel.” At present I am rejoicing in the sufferings for your benefit and am filling up in my turn what is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for the benefit of his body which is the church, of which I got to be on my part a minister according to the administration of God, the one given to me for you, to fulfill the Word of God, etc.

From what Paul got to be when he was made an apostle and “a minister” he turns to what he is “now” doing as a prisoner on behalf of the gospel and the church, especially of its Gentile portion. He is rejoicing “in the sufferings” which he is bearing “for your benefit,” “on your behalf.” A certain amount of suffering falls to the lot of the church because of its connection with Christ. A large part of it has to be borne by the leaders of the church, among whom God has placed Paul as the foremost. Thus he gets to bear the heaviest load of these sufferings. The Colossians are a part of the church; hence Paul says he is bearing these sufferings “for your benefit.”

He rejoices to do so. It is a high privilege, a great honor, to have been placed in the position which brings these sufferings on his head instead of on the church generally. Grief and lament are far from Paul’s heart; the more suffering comes to him because of his office, the more he rejoices. Is he not a διάκονος, all of whose work and suffering are intended for the benefit of others? The more suffering comes to him, the more is taken from others.

The second statement, which is ampler, elucidates.These Sufferings are τὰὑστερήματατῶνθλίψεωντοῦΧριστοῦ, “the leftover parts of the afflictions of Christ.” This does not mean that they are a part of the vicarious sufferings of Christ by which the world’s sins are purged away, parts left over to be borne by the church. “It has been finished!” is true. Atonement and expiation are complete. That is why Paul cails what is yet left over literally “what comes behind,” “the afflictions of Christ,” and names them according to what they are for us, “afflictions.”

All of these leftovers result from the hatred of the world toward the great substitute and expiator who died on the cross “for our advantage” and for all who cling to him by faith and follow him. On the road to Damascus Jesus said to the persecuting Saul, “Why persecutest thou me?” As the good that we do the brethren is really done to him (Matt. 25:41), so all the evil that is done to us is really done also to him. There is no thought of further expiation in what we suffer for Christ’s sake, but in a very real sense our sufferings are blows that are struck at Christ. Paul conceives these leftovers as bitter waters that are gradually being poured into a huge vessel until it is completely filled when at last the final day arrives. So he says: “I am filling up in my turn” my allotment of these leftover afflictions of Christ.

The verb Paul uses is rare. There is a question about the force of ἀντί in the compound. Is it only “in turn” (R. 574) or is it “in place of”: in Stellvertretung ausfuellen (B.-P. 114)? The latter seems to say too much. In a way what Paul suffered ὑπέρ the church, for its benefit, might be considered as having been suffered also ἀντί, in its stead; for the lightning of persecution generally strikes the leaders of the church and thus spares the rank and file. Yet the verb can scarcely be stressed to mean that much.

Paul is engaged in taking his turn in filling up the measure of the sufferings of Christ. Other diakonoi will have to have their turn; the great vessel will not be full until the last day arrives. Some interpretations convey a wrong meaning by regarding τὰὑστερήματα as “deficiencies,” these tribulations of Christ have no “deficiency” of any kind.

Paul is not saying that something was lacking in what Christ had suffered, something that he could not suffer among the Jews, that only Paul in his position as apostle of the Gentiles could suffer. Christ suffered at the hands of both Jews and Gentiles, for Pilate had him scourged and mocked by his Gentile soldiers and then nailed him to the cross. Still less does Paul say that what he is now suffering is filling up what his own previous suffering still lacked. C.-K. 928.

Colossians 1:25

25 All that any Christian suffers is in a way for the benefit of the church, especially for that part of it with which he is personally connected; Paul’s office connected him with the entire Gentile church in the closest possible way. In v. 23, as already in v. 7, 8, we have noted his connection with the Colossians through Epaphras. He, therefore, repeats the statement made in v. 23 to the effect that he got to be a diakonos of the church. The great spiritual “body,” which is the church, receives great benefit through the suffering endured in the physical “flesh” of this its diakonos who got to be this “according to the administration of God, the one (especially) given to me.”

The measure or norm (κατά) to be applied to any διάκονος, to see what he is, is “the administration” committed to him by God. In v. 7 Epaphras is called a diakonos, but the administration committed to him was the leadership of only the one congregation at Colosse. Compare with that Paul’s office, the tremendous “administration” entrusted to him. We at once see how the sufferings of this great apostolic diakonos were indeed “on behalf and for the great benefit of” the whole church, its vast Gentile section, and thus also of “you” (v. 24), the Colossians who had been converted through Paul’s helper Epaphras.

Unfortunately, the R. V., here and in Eph. 1:10; 3:2, 9, translates this word “dispensation”; the A V. does likewise except in Eph. 3:9 where it follows a variant reading. All that we have said in connection with the passages in Ephesians belongs also here, note especially our discussion of Eph. 3:2. Οἰκονομία is not passive: “the dispensation” arranged by God, Einrichtung (C-K. 785); it is active: “the administration,” the divine apostolic office given to Paul, the office in its actual administration or operation in Paul’s hands. The genitive is qualitative and not subjective. Paul always says that it was “given” to him and at times calls it “the grace” to mark it as an utterly undeserved gift to him who had at one time persecuted the church of God. Here he says “given to me for you” (Colossians); for they had been brought to Christ through Paul’s apostolic office.

In 1 Cor. 4:1 he calls himself and his assistants οἰκονόμοι of the mysteries of God; but here he refers to his superior office which had been given to him by the Lord in an immediate way (Acts 9:15), the apostleship in the narrow sense. To get the force of this word recall the fact that great lords appointed this and that slave as a steward (οἰκονόμος) over some great estate, gave them such an Οἰκονομία. So Paul, the Lord’s slave (Rom. 1:1), received his “stewardship” from his heavenly Master. Combine the two terms: Paul is a diakonos for the church and so serves men, and he does this because he is an oikonomos of God, appointed by him.

Both terms might refer to a minor position or to the highest position of all. Paul’s is the latter. This he states in the infinitive clause which is in apposition with “the administration” given to him and which tells what Paul was to carry out by this administration: “to fulfill the Word of God.” Some regard this as an infinitive of purpose: “given to me in order to fulfill”—which is less effective. In Rom. 15:19 we have the same expression: “I have fulfilled the gospel of Christ.” The A. V. margin offers: “fully preach,” which will do for conveying the general sense. “The Word of God” is something to be transmitted and thus to fulfill it is to give it what it wants, what it is for, namely to transmit it to those for whom it is intended. Note the aorist: effective, complete fulfillment. In Rom. 15:19 Paul states to what extent he had so fulfilled the gospel: in a vast circle he had carried it from Jerusalem to Illyricum.

Colossians 1:26

26 We have already seen that his office is that of an apostle in the full sense of the word; but we are to see that his was the greatest apostleship of all (1 Cor. 15:10), the special one to the Gentiles: to fulfill the Word of God, the mystery that has been hidden from the eons and from the generations, but now it was made public to his saints, to whom God willed to make known what (is) the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of this glory; etc.

The commentary is the parallel passage Eph. 3:9–11. “Mystery” = something that one cannot get to know of himself, something that is intended to be revealed. Here the mystery is “one that has remained hidden from the eons and the generations” until now. Paul is saying only how long this mystery has been kept hidden. The Greek counts from the far point forward, hence here has ἀπό, “from the eons on” “from the generations on,” the count starting from the first one and moving forward. Eph. 3:10 shows that even the angels did not know this mystery. Here, however, “the eons” denote only the ages of time, and nothing is said about angels. The doubling: “and from the generations on” is done for the sake of impressiveness: so many generations of men during all these eons.

That is why Paul does not continue with another participle. The greatness of the thought is more adequately stated by a finite verb: “but now it was made public to his saints.” This is neither irregular nor an anacoluthon but a simple, effective turn of phrase which is followed by the reader without the least effort. The Greek marks only the past fact (aorist); the English prefers the perfect to indicate a recent act: “has been made public,” i.e., has been advertised far and wide “to his saints” (see 1:1), to all of them whether they are of Jewish or of Gentile origin.

Colossians 1:27

27 Paul has thus far still left unsaid in what respect “the Word of God” remained a hidden mystery for so long a time and why it was only recently published for the saints; this is finally stated: “to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of this glory.” The fact that God had kept the mystery dark for so long a time is implied. It is he who finally willed its fullest publication to the saints, but his will was not that they were still to keep it only to themselves but, as the following shows, that they were to proclaim it so that men everywhere might share in its blessedness.

Read together: to make known (effective aorist) “the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles”: this mystery contains all the riches of all the glory for all who really know it, they are to receive this richness and this glory. The main point lies in the phrase “among the Gentiles.” All the riches of the glory contained in this mystery are not any longer to be confined to one nation but are so vast as to be told “among the Gentiles,” even the pagan nations in all the world. “This mystery,” the Word of God now fully uncovered by God, is full of glory, and this is vast in richness. The main concept is “glory”: “what the riches of the glory.” It is seen in all the saints; this glory is so rich because it appears “among the Gentiles,” these, too—so many of them, in fact—were converted into saints.

There is no need to think of Messianic glory or of God’s own glory. Paul himself defines: “which is Christ in you, the hope of this glory” (article of previous reference). The texts that have ὅς Instead of ὅ only attract the relative to the gender of the predicate and thus do not change the relative in fact. This relative is naturally neuter, but not because it refers to only one neuter noun, its antecedent is the whole expression: “the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles,” this is “Christ in you,” and Christ in you is “the hope of this glory” (the main concept “glory” of the antecedent is repeated). This letter is intended for the Colossians who were former Gentiles. The whole blessed mystery is concreted in them.

Paul individualizes in the most telling way: “Christ in you,” right in you Gentiles as in a large number of others. And what “Christ in you” means is no less than this in all its completeness: “the hope of this glory,” the sure and certain hope that is backed by Christ that this glory of which the revealed mystery speaks will be yours in due time.

At one time Judaism was solid in the opinion that no Gentile could possibly be saved except by becoming a Jew. It was so inconceivable that Gentiles were to be saved without being incorporated into Judaism that it required a special revelation, almost a compulsion, to bring Peter to the level of the real truth (see Acts 10:1–11:18). It was not easy for the revelation of the mystery to penetrate, namely that “Christ in you,” in any man’s heart, meant “the hope of the (eternal) glory.” At least this thought persisted, namely the Judaistic idea that something Jewish would have to be added, that it could not be otherwise. This precipitated the Jerusalem conference (Acts 15).

Even after that the notion persisted, and Judaizers appeared in Galatia who demanded the addition of circumcision, etc.; other Judaizers who made similar demands appeared in Corinth. Now, at this late date, the peculiar Judaizers appear in Colosse with the notion that their system for making earthly elements innocuous for Christians would have to be added to Christ. Against them all and especially against this new kind Paul sets the great first-born of all creation in the absolute completeness of his saving work (v. 15, etc.) and now the Word of God with its mystery that is entirely revealed: Christ in you, this is the hope of the glory, this alone.

The Old Testament Word revealed it all to the Jews; the prophets uttered it again and again. But the Jews refused to see it. The old covenant made them the chosen nation to prepare for Christ. They perverted God’s plan so as to make it mean that they were the only nation, so that incorporation into their nation alone insured glory. They mocked Jesus when they said that he might go to the Gentiles (John 7:35). Jews were outraged everywhere when Gentiles were admitted into the kingdom by faith in Christ alone. This clash with the Judaizers in Colosse seems to have been the last that occurred during Paul’s apostleship.

Colossians 1:28

28 Paul returns to his office with the two closing relative clauses. “Christ in you,” in whom God made known “what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles,” of this Christ and “the hope of this glory” Paul says: whom we on our part are proclaiming, exhorting every man and teaching every man in all wisdom in order that we may present every man complete in Christ, for which I even am toiling, straining according to the working of him which is working in me in power.

“Christ in you” is the contents of this mystery, he is “the riches,” etc., “the hope of the glory.” The relative is thus emphatic and demonstrative: “him we on our part are proclaiming,” him as here described. There is salvation and hope of glory in none other (Acts 4:12). Paul now rightly uses not the singular “I on my part” (ἐγώ) as he did in v. 23 (“I, Paul”) and in v. 25 but ἡμεῖς, “we on our part.” For Paul operates with a group of assistants. Timothy is joining him in this letter, and Epaphras was Paul’s agent in establishing the Colossian congregation. With such assistants Paul operated “the administration,” the work of the apostleship God had given him to fulfill the Word of God (v. 25). Paul multiplied himself through his assistants, multiplied the proclaiming and thus reached thousands whom he could not have reached single-handedly. This emphatic “we” endorses all Paul’s assistants; at the same time this “we” places Paul and his assistant in opposition to any and to all Judaizers who do nothing but invade churches that are already established and spread their errors there.

“We are proclaiming, exhorting every man and teaching every man in all wisdom” describes the manner in which Paul carries out his office as a true apostle. Thus he fulfills the Word of God, the publication of the mystery, the substance of which is Christ. Paul and his assistants do what God wants, go out in public, go out to “every man” to bring Christ, the hope of glory, to “every man,” thus to fulfill the Word of God. This is a picture that is quite different from that of the Judaizers who did not dream of going out with a public proclamation to “every man,” whose work it was to bore into congregations and to undermine their faith in Christ, the hope of the glory.

Καταγγέλλειν is like κηρύσσειν and refers to a public proclamation. The two participles are modal: “exhorting every man” = urging every person to forsake his idolatry and his wicked ways and to turn to Christ; “teaching every man” = informing and instructing every person in the saving truth about Christ. “In all wisdom” is added (compare v. 9) because this work requires much wisdom in order to reach now this man, now that man with his wrong religious ideas and habits so as to win him for Christ, the one true hope of the glory.

The one purpose of this public work is “that we may present every man τέλειος in Christ,” as having reached the τέλος or goal “in connection with Christ.” In him alone it is reached. The predicate adjective does not mean moral perfection, the “total sanctification” of perfectionists, but the completeness of faith, when a man fully reaches the goal in Christ. To present every man as such does not here refer to the Parousia but to the present time: each and every believer is to stand forth so that all may see him as one who is spiritually complete and mature (Eph. 4:13, etc., no more babes swayed helplessly by every wind of doctrine, etc.). What a blessed work! How different from that of the Colossian Judaizers! This work had been wrought in the Colossians. Was it now to be ruined and nullified?

Colossians 1:29

29 Reverting to himself as the apostolic leader in this work, Paul adds: “for which (the work just described, in which his assistants help him) I am even toiling, straining (like an athlete) according to the working of him which keeps working in me with power.” Καί is the ascensive “even”; even with arduous toil, “agonizing” like an athletic contestant, Paul seeks to fulfill the Word of God (v. 25). God’s working or energy is working and energizing in his person (ἐνἐμοί, R. 587) in power. The accomplishment of this apostolic “administration” (v. 25) requires no less; he who gave Paul the task enables him to toil and strain for it in accord with (κατά) the energy which he himself (God) supplies, which ever energizes and works in Paul’s person with power. Paul is only God’s instrument; he toils and strains, but not with power of his own, the power comes from God. The results are great, but all are due to this communicated power (1 Cor. 15:10). In every way this publication of the blessed mystery is God’s work, the glory of it is his alone.

Let us say that this concludes the preparatory section of Paul’s letter although we shall not quarrel with those who extend it to 2:5 or even to 2:7. We make the division at this place because 2:1, etc., turn to direct personal address and begin the warning (2:4).

R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition..

C.-K Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.