in great detail ; in no case have we a right to admit into the po-
lemical outline of the first chapter points which receive no confirma-
tion in the more exact delineation of the second. The false teach-
ers mistook the true Divinity of Christ, and placed JEons on a level
with him as objects of veneration ; this it is which Paul combats by
describing Christ as the Son of God, and as him through whom also
all angels and powers have received their existence. In ver. 18, I
should without hesitation see an opposition to docetic errors, if the
passage occurred in the pastoral epistles, for the heretics there de-
scribed seem no doubt to have followed a docetic bias, but in the
Epistle to the Colossians we find nothing of the kind ; on the con-
trary, the low view of Christ held by the false teachers combated in
this epistle seems to point rather to a materialist tendency than to
a spiritualist-docetic one. However, see particulars on this point at
ver. 22, where the supposition that the Colossian false doctrines too
had a docetic tendency has a certain plausibility. (That construc-
tion of this verse which regards -nav rb n^TJp^na as the subject of
evdoKTjae, " it pleased the whole fulness of the Godhead to reside in
him," cannot possibly be approved. 'O Qe6$ is rather to be consid-
ered as the subject of ev(56:7/ae, as the incarnation of the Son is re-
garded as the ordinance of the Divine decree of grace and mercy.
In the selection of the word KaToinfiaai here and at ii. 9 a reference
to the Shechinah is not improbable. [See at John i. 14 on that
point.] Jesus walked on earth as an abiding Shechinah ; he that
saw him saw the Father.)

Ver. 20. As a further tendency of the Divine purpose of grace
in Christ's incarnation, is named the reconciliation through Christ
to himself, so that he is both means and end (ver. 16). What
establishes the reconciliation (there is no real difference between
elprjvo-Koielv and d-noKara^doaeiv) is more strictly defined as the blood
of Christ, and indeed as the blood of his cross, i. e., as the blood
shed in the death of the Saviour on the cross, and for the sake of
emphasis the 8C avrov is once more repeated. That the totality of
the creation to be reconciled is here meant, is made more clear by
the fact that the ra -ndvra is explained by sire rd Inl T// yjj^ elre
ra iv Toig ovpavolt; (ver. 16). The difficulties of this passage have
been already spoken of in the explanation of the parallel one, Eph.
i. 10. The more general term dvaicEQakaiuaaoOai, used there, cannot



COLOSSIANS I. 21, 22. 187

be employed, as Ba'hr insists it can, to explain the more special
dnoKa-ahMgai here, but vice versa the latter illustrates (the former.
But the absolute result here ascribed to the atonement of Christ
must, as we proved at Eph. i. 10, be understood of its tendency. That
resistance is made to the comprehensive Divine design of grace by a
part of the creatures, is a point which is here not regarded by the
apostle. As to the rest, ra rravra cannot be interpreted here other-
wise than in what preceded (ver. 16, seq.), viz., of the absolute total-
ity of the creation, not merely of conscious beings ;. for the recon-
ciling power of Christ, beginning with fallen men as the first objects
of its operation, influences properly also the universe to its restora-
tion and perfection. (See at Kom. viii. 17, seq.) As to the rest,
from what follows (vers. 27-29), the reference to the Gentiles espe-
cially seems to have been present to Paul's mind in this representa-
tion of the universality of Christ's reconciling power ; these too,
Paul means to say, are not to be imagined as shut out from salva-
tion in Christ, as the Judaistic false teachers probably maintained
they were.

Ver. 21 . After finishing the portraiture of Christ, in opposition
to the inferior representation of him by the false teachers, Paul ad-
dresses himself again to his readers, and remarks that they them-
selves have experienced the reconciling efficiency of Christ now (in
the state of their conversion), whereas they once were estranged from
God. In the parallel passage, Eph. ii. 1, 11, 12, the same opposi-
tion between rrorg and vwi is found, and a similar description of
the unconverted state. In comparison with Col. ii. 13, and the ten-
dency of the false teachers, who insisted on Judaism as the necessary
form of the religious life for the Gentiles also, it is extremely prob-
able that Paul, in this description of the state before conversion, had
principally in his eye the born Gentiles among the Colossians, who
probably composed the great majority of the church there. But,
while at Eph. ii. 12 the Gentiles are described as alienated from the
commonwealth of Israel, here " alienated" in combination with " ene-
mies" can only be referred to God. The ry diavoia refers, judging
from its connexion, to both expressions, in order to characterize the
alienation from and enmity against God, not as a mere outward one,
but as an inward spiritual one, in like manner as at Eph. iv. 18 the
Gentiles are described as iaKorca^svoi ry diavoia, dnrj^oTpi^evoi TTJ^
0% rov 6eo, darkened in their understanding, etc. The addition
iv TO?? epryoig rolg Trovrjpolf, i. e., in the wicked works well known to
ah 1 , expresses further and finally wherein the estrangement from and
enmity against God manifests itself and is made known, as in the
fruits of the disposition.

Ver. 22. Paul here names "the death of Christ"* as what

* See, as to the unusual expression in Paul " to be reconciled through the death," in-



188 COLOSSIANS I. 22.

effects reconciliation, as just before (ver. 20) " the blood ;" but fa TU>
oa>fia-t TTJC oapKof avrov is added. The combination awjua rfjg aap/jd^
body of flesh, is not found in the New Testament except here and
at ii. 11. It seems somewhat superfluous, for it is matter of course
that the ati/ia is of odp%. The formula can only be explained either
by polemical considerations, or by the purpose of contrasting the
(Twjua, as the physical one, with a spiritual aoJ/za, i. e. } the church (ver.
24). For the former interpretation the later interpreters, Bohmer,
Steiger, and Biihr, decide. They conclude, from the strict asceticism
of the Colossian false teachers, that they necessarily look on matter
as the seat of evil, and must, therefore, have taught Doceticism ;
that Paul wished to combat the latter, and therefore asserts the
true corporeity of Jesus and his real death. But that conclusion is
by no means necessary, especially in that early age, in which errors
had not as yet developed themselves in all their consequences. The
Epistle to the Colossians contains not the slightest certain trace of
docetic doctrines in the heretics of that place, such as the pastoral
epistles undoubtedly betray. As the Jewish ascetics in Rome were
free (Rom. xiv. 1, seq.) from docetic doctrines (for otherwise Paul
would have refuted those errors, and not represented those ascetics
as merely weak brethren), the same may be supposed of the Colos-
sion false teachers also. Had they favoured such heresies, Paul
could not have failed to direct an open attack against them. The
allusion here is so cursory that we cannot possibly recognize in it a
serious assault against so dangerous an error. We decide, therefore,
for the other explanation, viz., that the subordinate limiting term, rfj?
oapicof;, distinguishes the atifia from the church as the spiritual ofH^a.
Had Paul written merely vvvl 6e dTroKar^AAa^ev KV rw aw^art did
rov davdrov, the words might be naturally interpreted : " but now
he has reconciled you through his death to unity in the church." To
prevent this Paul added ri^ oapKog, which designates the body as
the physical body of Christ upon which death passed. Another an-
tithesis found here by interpreters between aw^a TTJ$ trap/cog and do^f,
is to be rejected, because nothing in the context leads to the distin-
guishing the natural and the glorified body. In Col. ii. 11 otifw,
TJfr aapKos refers not to Christ but to man. Here, therefore, the
term requires a special consideration, as odpt; there denotes not
merely the physical but also the sinful. However, Col. ii. 11 shews
that the phrase oufia TT/$- oapic6$ has no polemical character. The
last words of ver. 22, rrapaorjifjat vfids dyiovt; KOI dfJM[i.ov<; KOI avtryxA^-
TOV$- Karevumov avrov, to present you holy, etc., express the result of
the reconciling work of Christ, which relates to the assimilating of
believers to the Lord. (See on Eph. v. 25-27.) Here this result is

stead of through the blood, of Christ, the remarks on Rom. iii. 25 (Vol. III., p. 547).
It stands here only because diu rov aiparof came just before in ver. 20.



COLOSSIANS I. 23. 189

transferred to the time of the judgment, at which the faithful will
appear before Christ, i. e. } before his judgment-seat. (See on Kom.
xiv. 10.)

Ver. 23. As the condition of attaining this goal (e<ye, " if, that
is, as I meanwhile may suppose," different from etTrep, see at 2 Cor.
v. 3 ; Eph. iii. 2, iv. 21) Paul names the continuing grounded in
faith and in hope, for it is only through the believing state of mind
that man receives into himself the powers of the invisible world,
which generate the new, spotless man, the Christ in us. The terms
Tsdene^ufiKvot not edpaloi are to be explained by the figure of the
temple, of the KaroiKrjrrjpiov rov Qsov (Eph. ii. 22), in which every
individual forms (1 Pet ii. 5) a living stone, which is inserted firmly
into the whole building through faith (see ii. 7). No doubt Paul,
in using the i-rn^Kveiv and vrj fieraKivEiodai, was thinking principally
of the false teachers and their misleading, although personal moral
unfaithfulness can also subvert the foundation of faith. The hope
of the gospel is again to be taken objectively, as in ver. 5, so that
the participation in the kingdom of God, which the gospel promises,
must be understood by it. It is joined with fir) fieraKivovnevoi as an
abbreviated form for dnb rov evayye/iiov KOI dnb rrjs ikmdoc; avrov.
The apostle then extols anew (see ver. 6) the universality of the
gospel, and designates himself as its (divinely ordained) minister (ver.
25); both, we may suppose, in opposition to the heretics, who declared
the Jews a privileged nation, and threw suspicions probably on
Paul's apostolical authority, although they did not openly combat
him, for otherwise more definite explanations on that point would
be found in the epistle. (The aorist rov cqpvg^tm$ is, as already
observed at ver. 6, to be explained by prophetic vision ; Paul saw
the universal tendency of Christianity already realized in the spirit.
The rcaaa nriaig has here its restriction in the addition i\ VTTO rov ovpa-
vov, therefore the earthly creation (itriai^ imyeiog) is the one meant.
It is understood at once that by this, primarily, men, and indeed
all, Jews as well as Gentiles, are intended [ver. 27, seq.] Still the
choice of the expression is probably to be explained by the fact that
Paul, as Kom. viii. 17, seq., shews, conceived nature also, along with
mankind, as the object of the work of Christ. The iv before ndotj
icrioei is also in favour of this interpretation ; for to designate the
entire creation directly as the object of redemption, would require
the dative alone.)



190 COLOSSIANS I. 24.

2. WARNING AGAINST FALSE PREACHERS.
(i. 24^ii. 23.)



The following obscure and difficult passage may be designated
as a real crux interpretum, especially the Protestant ones. Before
we enter upon the difficulties themselves, however, we have to point
out what justifies us in making a fresh paragraph begin here. Were
the reading 8^ vvv, which D.E.F.G. defend, correct, undoubtedly
ver. 24 would connect itself intimately with ver. 23. But the later
critics generally have justly rejected of, as it probably owes its origin
only to the endeavour to connect ver. 24 more closely with ver. 23,
to which it seemed to the copyists to belong, especially on account
of ver. 25. But it is a mere illusion that ver. 25 is a continuation
of ver. 23. On the contrary, Paul in ver. 24, with the vvv xaipG),
K. r. A., begins a totally fresh idea, which, however, he does not carry
out and complete till ii. 1, seq. ; in vers. 25-29 he allows himself,
according to his custom, to be led away from it, in order to pursue
the idea (so important to him on account of the Judaizing heretics
in Colossse) that he is called, in the dispensation of God, to preach
the gospel to all without exception, to the Gentiles no less than to
the Jews. The fresh idea, however, is that the apostle's sufferings
and conflicts are a means of perfection to the church of Christ, and
consequently to each individual also in her ; therefore their (the
Colossians*) steady perseverance in the life of faith essentially de-
pends on them, and their increase is brought about by them, as is
further detailed at ii. 22, seq. But, according to this, vvv cannot
be a mere particle of transition, as Biihr still makes it, but a defini-
tion of time. Its emphatic position at the commencment (as at 2 Cor.
vii. 9, where it is also to be taken as a particle of time), while as a mere
particle of transition it usually stands after, at once refutes that sup-
position. (Comp. Matth. xxvii. 42, 43 ; Mark xv. 32 ; John ii. 8 ;
Acts vii. 34 ; James iv. 13, v. 1 ; 1 John ii. 8.) But how does vvv
obtain here its complete signification of time ? By reference back
to the preceding rov evayye^iov rov K^pv^Qivro^. Paul, in the con-
sciousness of being near the end of his labours, contemplates the
church as firmly established in the world, and from that contempla-
tion breaks out into the words, " now I rejoice in my sufferings for
you. for these too serve to the perfection of the church ;" working
and suffering, Paul means to say, I am a minister and a promoter
of the church ; I am thought worthy to take a part in the sufferings
of Christ for truth and righteousness. (See Matth. v. 11, 12.) Lficke
(^Gottingen Christinas Programm of the year 1833) endeavours to



COLOSSIANS I. 24. 191

combine "both meanings, that of succession and that of time. He
says, p. 6, verissimum hoc est, particulam vvv, ut solet etiam Lati-
norum nunc, aliquid habere consecutionis, et quidem ita, ut Paulus
diced, se, quum de Icetissimis laborum suorum etiam apud Colos-
senses fructibus audiveret, ob id ipsum gaudere de calamitatibus ex
ilia re sibi ortis. At the end of the same treatise on this passage
this scholar thus assigns (p. 15) the connexion with what precedes :
quce cum ita sint (i. 3-23), tantum abest ut me pceniteat, inquit apos-
tolus, ut gaudeam de malis, quce vestrd causa pertulerim. Liicke
seems, therefore, certainly also to recognize the beginning of some-
thing new with ver. 24, even if he does ascribe to the vvv a connect-
ing signification. So likewise Goschen and Lachmann, who make
a break at ver. 23 in their editions. The fiov after rcaQ^amv is cer-
tainly a gloss, but a correct one, for " sufferings" (7ra6%mi) are =
" afflictions in my flesh" (dhtyetg KV r^ oapni /AOV). According to this
interpretation of the particular words, neither can, in what follows,
the VTTKP v[j,<3v of course be understood as " for your sakes," nor even
" in your stead," but " for your benefit." (See Eph. iii. 1, 13.) But
the idea, " I rejoice in my sufferings for you," which Paul expresses
often enough, would not have put the interpreters into perplexity,
as it readily admits, of being taken in a modifying form, e. g., what,
as the extreme, presents itself first through the benefit which the
example of a resigned sufferer affords, did- not the words which
follow give it apparently a meaning which may justly make one
hesitate. However, taken literally, the words there following suit
neither the Koman Catholic nor any other notion of the reconciling
and redeeming force of human sufferings, e. g., that of Gichtel.
For in all of them the suffering of the God- Man is certainly rep-
resented as in itself sufficient for redemption, and as the source
through which alone the suffering of men can become a redeeming
one also ;* but here the suffering of Christ himself seems to be rep-
resented as insufficient, so that Paul's suffering must first make it
complete. Thus the incompleteness of Christ's sufferings, and the
ability of Paul to fill up that deficiency, through his sufferings in
the flesh for the church of Christ, seem to be asserted in this diffi-
cult passage ; assertions equally dark and repugnant to Scripture
doctrine elsewhere. We readily conceive how the Roman Catholic
Church eagerly seized on the passage, in order by its means to prop
up plausibly their doctrine of the merits of the saints, and of the
treasure of good works. But the phrase vaTeprjfj,ara r&v Oktyeuv TOV

* Thus the Roman Catholic Church refers the atoning sufferings of Christ especially
to original sin, and the reconciling power of the sufferings of the faithful and of the
saints to the actual sin of themselves and of others. But the redeeming power of human
suffering is derived, along with faith and holiness themselves, from Christ's work as the
final cause.



192 COLOSSI ANS I. 24.

Xpiarov, referred to Christ's person, contradicted, as we have just
remarked, the Roman Catholic theory also of the sufficiency of
Christ's sufferings. On the other hand, understood of the church,
the words would certainly, taken hy themselves, admit of an inter-
pretation favourable to these Roman Catholic doctrines ; but the
apostolical doctrine, taken as a whole, contradicts so completely
the idea of any redeeming and reconciling work of other men along
with and beside the G-od-Man, that the interpreter is obliged to
seek for the words another explanation. After setting aside several
totally untenable interpretations of this passage, as that of Bolten
(who translates : " now you cause me joy in my sufferings, and for
the afflictions which I myself endure I have a recompense in his
body, that is, in the church"), or that of Heinrichs* (" Jesus' suffer-
ings had become known in Judea only; thus rd varepi]nara rv
0An/>ean> rov Xpiorov is the circumstance that they had not come to the
knowledge of the Gentiles also, which Paul therefore supplies by his
suffering") the following, in which the decision turns on the expres-
sions dvravaTTkrjpovv and Okirpeig rov Xpiarov, are to be more accurately
considered. We must regard the latter as the leading idea for the
whole passage ; for the nature of the varepiifiara and of the filling
them up depends altogether on its import ; we therefore begin with
the consideration of this. The genitive rov Xptarov can be taken
subjectively or objectively. In the latter relation the interpretation
propter Christum can alone be tolerated ; for that of earlier theo-
logians, as Calovius, Sebastian Schmidt, Carpzovius, and others,
"sufferings which Christ sends," or even "which are similar to
Christ's sufferings," are to be rejected as arbitrary, f But the inter-
pretation " sufferings for Christ's sake" is grammatically possible
and defended by many interpreters, especially last by Bohmer also
with an appeal to 2 Cor. i. 5 ; Philem. 13 ; Heb. xi. 26 ; among
which passages, however, Philem. ver. 13 can alone be acknowl-
edged as a satisfactory proof. Liicke has essentially the same view,
though he takes the genitive somewhat differently, viz., as genitivus
auctoris, so that the dktyeig rov Xpiarov are sufferings quce Paulo
apostolo, Christo auctore et avspice Christo, perferendce erant (1. c.
p. 13, seq.) In Philem. vers. 1, 13, Eph. iii. 1, Gal. vi. 17, Liicke
finds likewise this genitive of the author. This acceptation of the

* Who gives at the end of his Commentary on this epistle a particular excursus on
the passage Col. i. 24.

f This holds, therefore, also of Schleiermacher's interpretation of this passage in the
sermons upon this epistle, edited by Zabel. (Berlin, 1835, vol. 2, p. 259.) He thinks
Paul calls his sufferings Christ's sufferings, because they were similar to them in the
point that Paul was persecuted by the Jews even as Christ was. " And," says Schleier-
macher, " Paul did suffer for the church, inasmuch as he by his activity among the
Gentiles first established the kingdom of God properly." I doubt whether this interpre
tation of the great theologian will be found satisfactory.



COLOSSIANS I. 24. 193

words must also, like Bohmer's, be called grammatically possible.
But we cannot decide whether one of these possible interpretations
is applicable here, till we have considered also the other side, the
explanation of the genitive rov Xpiorov as genitivus subjecti. Now
as taken subjectively, it refers most naturally to the sufferings of Jesus
on earth, to his agony in Gethsemane and his death on Golgotha.
That this explanation is possible, the collation of 2 Cor. i. 5 shews
(see the remarks on it in the Comm.), although to me it is pro-
bable that, with this idea the apostle would have written OMipeis
'Iqaov or 'Irjcov Xpcarov. But apart from this, the sentiment that
something was wanting in the sufferings of Christ, which were
vicarious and reconciling for the whole human race, and that Paul
by his sufferings supplies that deficiency, is so completely repug-
nant to the whole Scripture doctrine, and especially to Paul's sys-
tem, that its adoption would place the author in the grossest
contradiction with himself. For the fancy that Paul points here to
certain outward forms of suffering which Jesus did not undergo and
he himself supplied, e. </., imprisonment, needs only to be known in
order to refute itself. To Xpiorov can be understood subjectively of
the mystical Christ alone, i. e. 3 Christ as filling the church with his
life and being. This interpretation has been received by Luther,
Melancthon, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, J. D. Michaelis, besides several
Greek and Latin Fathers (Augustine, Chrysostom, and others), and
in the latest times by Steiger and Bahr, and we also decide in fa-
vour of it. For, if the interpretations " sufferings on account of
Christ," or "sufferings imposed by Christ," are grammatically pos-
sible, still they recommend themselves the less that elsewhere too,
according to the representation of the Scriptures, Christ is set forth
as suffering in believers (according to the term of the dogmatists
, in opposition to the suffering of Christ in his corporeity,
} and the emphatic way in which Paul here expresses
himself as to his sufferings, makes us expect more than the bald idea
of an outward suffering for the sake of Christ and of labour in his
gospel, in which idea the indwelling of Christ, which Paul always
puts in the foreground, is entirely ignored. Such passages are Acts
ix. 4, 5 (where the persecutions of believers are represented as a per-
secution of Christ himself) ; 2 Cor. i. 5 (on which, however, compare
the Comm.); Phil. iii. 10 (where the power of his [Christ's] resur-
rection and the fellowship of his sufferings is not to be understood
of an outward uniformity, but of an inward essential community
through the indwelling of Christ, as also Horn. vi. 5, 8, 17 ; 2 Tim.
ii. 10-12 ; 1 Pet. iv. 13); Heb. xi. 26 (where 6 oveidiofibg rov Xpiarov
cannot be merely " reproach propter Christum," but the reproach
which Moses, as the real type of Christ, through his spirit working
in him, bore) ; Kev. i. 9, where John calls himself OVJKOIVUVCH; iv ry
VOL. V. 13



194 COLOSSIANS I. 24.



tt/> KOI {3amXeia KOI vnonorq 'Irjoov Xpiorov, which expresses more
than a mere outward similarity and communion. From this refer-
ence of the afflictions of Christ to the Christ in us, it follows natu-
rally how their varepTJpara are to be taken. (See 1 Thess. iii. 10 ;
Phil. ii. 30.) The church of Christ, which had suffered much from
the very beginning, is to endure more suffering still by God's dis-
pensation : a certain measure of suffering is allotted her, which must
be filled up ; Paul supplies that deficiency on his part by his suffer-
ings in the flesh. 'Ei> rq aapKt, in the flesh, embraces not merely
proper bodily suffering, but also the sufferings of the soul, in short,
all those conflicts which (ii. 1, seq.) the apostle had to withstand, in
consequence of the sin in the world, and which the Christ in him
bore jointly as his sufferings.

Next in order is the term avravan^povv, which we are now pre-
pared to interpret. This double compound is not found again in the
New Testament ; it also occurs but rarely in classical language,
though by no means entirely wanting. (See Wetstein ad h. 1.)
We must certainly adhere to the principle of maintaining so far as