Ver. 14. This verse is parallel to Eph. i. 7. ἐν ᾧ: not by whom, but in whom; if we possess Christ, we possess in Him our deliverance.—éxopev: (present) we have as an abiding possession.—-atroAv- τρωσιν: “deliverance”. The word is generally interpreted as ransom by pay- ment of a price, for which Mark x. 45, δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν, may becompared. Butit is not certain that the word ever has this mean- ing. It is very rarein Greek writers (see reff.). The passage from Plutarch refers to pirates holding cities toransom. But obviously the word here does not mean that we procure release by paying a ransom. The word is often used simply
502
ySo I
z Only here in N.T.
1 So Ln., T., Tr., W.H. with §*BD*E*FGP 17,
of God, Θεοῦ τοῦ 7 ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, 16. ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ~ pags ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα 1 ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ” ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ "ὁρατὰ
ssibly by homceoteleuton. τα:
inserted before ev τοις ovpavors by Ws. (who thinks it indispensable before τα ορατα)
with KycADcKL.
2 So T., W.H., Ws. with Ν΄ Β. τα: inserted before επι της γης by [Ln.], [Ττ.]
with ΝΕΛΟΡΕΕΩΚΙΡ,
in the sense of “ deliverance,” the idea of ransom having disappeared. (So in Rom. viii. 23, Eph. iv. 30, Luke xxi. 28.) It is best therefore to translate “ deliver- ance" here, especially as this suits better the definition in the following words. The remission of sins is itself our deliverance, whereas it stands to the payment of the ransom as effect tocause. The elaborate discussion in Oltramare may be referred to for fuller details, with the criticism in Sanday and Headlam’s note on Rom. iii. 24; also Abbott on Eph. i. 7; Westcott on Heb., pp. 295, 296; Ritschl, Rechtf. und Versohn. ii., 222 sq. ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν. The similar definition of ἀπολ. in Eph. i. 7 tells against Light- foot’s view that it is added here against erroneous definitions by the false teachers, who very probably did not employ the term. The precise phrase does not occur elsewhere in Paul. τ. ap. depends simply on τ. ἀφ., not, as Hofmann thinks, on it and τ. ἀπολ., for the latter is not used with the object from which deliverance is effected.
Vv. 15-21. THIS SON IN WHOM WE HAVE OUR DELIVERANCE IS THE MANIFESTATION or Gop, THE LORD OF THE UNIVERSE,
.THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS IN HEAVEN AND EARTH, INCLUDING THE ANGELIC POWERS, AND HE IS THE GOAL FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN CREATED.’ AND AS HE 15 THE FIRST IN THE UNIVERSE, SO ALSO
«He 15 Heap OF THE CHURCH, WHO HAS PASSED TO HIS DOMINION FROM THE REALM OF THE DEAD, THAT HE MIGHT BECOME FIRST IN ALL THINGS. FOR THE FATHER WILLED THAT IN HIM ALL THE FULNESS OF DIVINE GRACE SHOULD DWELL, AND THUS THAT HE SHOULD RE- CONCILE το ΗΙΜ THROUGH HIS BLOOD ALL THINGS NOT ON EARTH ONLY BUT ALSO IN THE HEAVENS, IN WHICH RECON- CILIATION THE COLOSSIANS HAVE THEIR PART.—Ver. 15. With this verse the great Christological passage of the Epistle begins. Its aim is to refute the false doctrine, according to which angelic mediators usurped the place and func-
tions of the Son in nature and grace. He, and He alone, is the Creator, Redeemer and Sovereign of all beings in the uni- verse, including these angelic powers. The p e does not deal with the eternal relations of the Son to the Father, but with the Son’s relations to the universe and the Church. It is not of the pre-existent Son that Paul begins to speak, but of the Son who now pos- sesses the kingdom, and in whom we have our deliverance (ὅς refers back to τ. υἱοῦ ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τ. ἀπολύτρωσιν). The work of the Son in His ρτε-οχίκίοπε" state is referred to, that the true position of the exalted Christ may be rightly understood. As in other great theolo- gical passages in the Pauline Epistles, the “να element is introduced for the sake of the practical. But it would be absurd to infer from this that it had little importance for the Apostle himself. He assumes the pre-existence of the Son as common ground, and is thus apply- ing a fundamental Christian truth, which would form part of the elementary instruc- tion in his Churches, to a new form of false teaching.—8s ἐστιν. It is the exalted Christ of whom Τ᾿ τὰ] is speaking, as is suggested, though not necessarily implied by the present, but more forcibly by the previous relative clause. We could not feel confident in arguing back from the function of the exalted Son to be εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ to that of the pre-incar- nate Son, but what would bea plausible inference from this passage is asserted in Phil. ii. 5.--εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτον. As image of God the Son such likeness to God as fits Him to be the manifestation of God to us. God is invisible, which does not merely mean that He cannot be seen by our bodily eye, but that He is unknowable. In the exalted Christ the unknowable God be- comes known. We behold “with un- veiled face the glory of the Lord,” and so ‘‘are changed into the same image” (2 Cor. iii. 18), God has “shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge