Colossians 1:13

δς κ.τ.λ. = ὁ πατήρ, Colossians 1:12. “Appositional relative sentence (Win. § lx. 7), introducing a contrasted amplification of the preceding clause, and preparing for a transition to the doctrine of the Person, the glory, and the redeeming love of Christ, Colossians 1:14-20” (Ell.).

ἐρύσατο … ἐκ. When believers pray to be delivered from the attacks of the Evil One they say ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ, but when, as here, stress is laid on the persons delivered having been actually within the grasp of the enemy, ἐκ is naturally used. So Luke 1:74; 2 Timothy 3:11; 2 Timothy 4:17. For a full discussion of the use of ἐκ and ἀπό with verbs expressing deliverance, both in the LXX. and in the N.T., see Chase, The Lord’s Prayer, 1891, pp. 71–86. Theophylact remarks that in itself the verb implies our having been in servitude, οὐκ εἶπε δὲ ἐξέβαλεν, ἀλλʼ ἐρρύσατο, δεικνὺς ὅτι ὡς αἰχμάλωτοι ἐταλαιπωρούμεθα.

ἡμᾶς. When it is a matter of enumerating God’s mercies to sinners St Paul readily falls back into using the first person, cf. Colossians 2:13; Colossians 3:4.

τῆς ἐξουσίας. (1) In the LXX. ἐξουσία occasionally concrete, “dominion,” “domain”; 2 Kings 20:13, οὐκ ἦν λόγος ὅν οὐκ ἔδειξεν αὐτοῖς Ἐζεκίας ἐν τῷ αἴκῳ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν πάσῃ τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ: Psalms 113(114):2, ἐγενήθη ἡ Ἰουδαία ἁγίασμα αὐτοῦ, Ἰσραὴλ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ: perhaps also Daniel 3:3 (LXX. and Theod.). So too apparently Luke 23:7 (hardly Colossians 4:6).

It would be a suitable meaning here, especially by way of contrast to the ordinary interpretation of βασιλεία, if there were more examples of such a use in the N.T. But there, with the above exception, it is, as it seems, either abstract or at most personified (Colossians 1:16; Colossians 2:10; Colossians 2:15). Personification (as though it = “Prince of darkness”) is most improbable here. We therefore understand it as “authority,” the active ruling principle which finds its source in darkness. Compare Acts 26:18.

(2) Possibly ἐξουσία in itself here means lawless, arbitrary, power in contrast to a well-ordered sovereignty. See Lightfoot, and cf. perhaps Sir 9:13; Sir 25:25; Sir 30:23 (= Sir 33:20).

τοῦ σκότους. Not personified, but regarded as a state of existence in which, and so under which, unbelievers live, 1 Thessalonians 5:4-5; cf. Romans 2:19. In Luke 22:53, αὕτη ἐστὶν ὑμῶν ἡ ὥρα καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ σκότους we have a verbal parallel, primarily, as it seems, referring to the darkness of night, which, by making our Lord’s arrest easy, gave the Jews power to carry it out, yet also hinting at their love for “darkness” (John 3:19), and the spiritual forces over it (Ephesians 6:12). For the moral contrast of darkness to light see note on ἐν τῷ φωτί, Colossians 1:12.

καὶ μετέστησεν, “and transferred us.” So Josephus, Antt. IX. 11. 1; cf. Tiglath-Pileser’s conquest of the northern parts of Israel, τούς οἰκήτορας αἰχυαλωτίσας μετέστησεν εἰς τὴν αὑτοῦ βασιλείαν. There is no exact parallel in the LXX. or the N.T. The nearest is 1 Corinthians 13:2, πίστιν ὤστε ὄρη μεθιστάνειν, compare Isaiah 54:10, but it is classical, e.g. Thuc. IV. 57.

εἰς τήν βασιλείαν, cf. Colossians 4:11. Generally understood as “kingdom,” “realm” (Revelation 1:6; Revelation 5:10). But since Dalman (The Words of Jesus, 1902, pp. 91 sqq., 134 sqq.) has shown that ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (Matt.), or ἡ βασ. τ. θεοῦ (Mark and Luke), properly means the “sovereignty” of God, i.e. His rule, not His realm, it seems probable that we must so interpret ἡ βασιλεία here. Observe the contrast to ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκότους—“out of the power,” “into the sovereignty.” Many other passages in the N.T. in which βασιλεία occurs lend themselves to this interpretation (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:24; Ephesians 5:5).

τοῦ υἱοῦ. Here at last the idea of “the Father” (Colossians 1:12) is elaborated. There is probably a tacit contrast to angels (Colossians 2:18), such as we find explicitly brought out in Hebrews 1:2.

Observe, by the way, how curiously local as regards number are the references to Christ as the Son. In the Gospels, Rom., Gal., Heb., 1 John they occur often; in each of the other books only once or twice. Our passage and Ephesians 4:13 are the only places where Christ is so called in the Third Group of St Paul’s Epistles.

τῆς�. (1) An attractive theory, originated, as it seems, by St Augustine, and followed by Lightfoot, understands ἀγάπης as the genitive of origin, arguing that as love is the essence of God the phrase here refers to the Eternal Generation of the Son. It thus serves, it is said, to introduce the following passage, particularly the phrases ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ� (Colossians 1:15), and ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι (Colossians 1:19). The phrase thus approaches the word μονογενής.

St Augustine’s words are “Quod autem dictum est, Filii charitatis suae, nihil aliud intelligatur, quam Filii sui dilecti, quam Filii postremo substantiae suae. Charitas quippe Patris quae in natura ejus est ineffabiliter simplici, nihil est aliud quam ejus ipsa natura atque substantia.… Ac per hoc Filius charitatis ejus nullus est alius, quam qui de substantiâ ejus est genitus” (De Trin. XV. 19 § 37).

But interesting though this interpretation undoubtedly is it is extremely precarious, in view of the fact that St John’s words ὁ θεὸς� (1 John 4:8) probably describe not the essence of God (if we may so speak) but rather the sum of His attributes. Besides, St Paul himself does not so use ἀγάπη of God. Also, there appears to be no parallel expression in the N.T. ascribing the origin of the Eternal Son to the Godhead in any other term than “of the Father” or “of God.”

(2) P. Ewald strangely understands it as a kind of genitivus autoris in the sense that He is the Son whom God’s love to us gave us. But there seems to be no parallel for such a phrase.
(3) Hence it is easier to understand the genitive as possessive—the Son who is the object of His love, the Son who belongs to the love of God as its eternal personal object. “The phrase fixes our attention on the relation of the Son to this unique attribute of the Father” (Beet).
Observe that St Paul chooses the Semitic mode of expression rather than the Greek (ἀγαπητός or ἠγαπημένος, Ephesians 1:6), because the former is more vivid and concentrates the thought more strongly on love, thus suggesting more clearly the relation of love in which even those who are in Christ’s kingdom stand towards the Father (cf. Ephesians 2:4-5; Romans 5:8). Genesis 35:18, υἱὸς ὀδύνης μου, is often adduced as a similar use of the genitive. But there it is probably objective as regards υἱός, “the son that has brought me sorrow.”