Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 2:14 - 2:14
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Col_2:14. The participle, which is by no means parallel and synchronous with χαρισάμενος in Col_2:13, or one and the same with it (Hofmann), is to be resolved as: after that He had blotted out, etc. For it is the historical divine reconciling act of the death of Christ that is meant, with which χαρισάμενος κ . τ . λ . cannot coincide, since that work of reconciliation had first to be accomplished before the χαρίζεσθαι κ . τ . λ . could take place through its appropriation to believers.
ἐξαλείφειν ] is to be left quite in its proper signification, as in Act_3:19, Rev_3:5; Rev_7:17; Rev_21:4, and frequently in LXX. and Apocrypha, since the discourse has reference to something written, the invalidating of which is represented in the sensuous form of blotting out, even more forcibly than by διαγράφειν (to score out; see Ruhnken, ad Tim. p. 81). Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 386 C, p. 501 B: ἐξαλείφοιεν … πάλιν ἐγγράφοιεν , Ep. 7, p. 342 C: τὸ ζωγραφούμενόν τε καὶ ἐξαλειφόμενον , Dem. 468. 1 in reference to a law: εἰ χρὴ τοῦτον ἐξαλεῖψαι , Xen. Hell. ii. 3. 51; Lucian, Imag. 26; Eur. Iph. A. 1486. Comp. Valckenaer, ad Act. iii. 19.
τὸ καθʼ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον ] the handwriting existing against us. What is thus characterized is not the burden of debt lying upon man, which is, as it were, his debt-schedule (Bleek), but the Mosaic law. A χειρόγραφον , namely, is an obligatory document of debt (Tob_5:3; Tob_9:5; Polyb. 30:8. 4; Dion. Hal. v. 8; and the passages in Wetstein; also the passages quoted from the Rabbins in Schoettgen), for which the older Greek writers use συγγραφή or γραμματεῖον , Dem. 882. 7, 956. 2; see also Hermann, Privatalterth. § 49, 12. And the law is the χειρόγραφον confronting us, in so far as men are bound to fulfil it perfectly, in order to avoid the threatened penal curse; and consequently because no one renders this fulfilment, it, like a bill of debt, proves them debtors (the creditor is God). We are not to carry the figure further, in which case we should come to the halting point in the comparison, that the man who is bound has not himself written the χειρόγραφον .[106] Hofmann maintains that this element also, namely, man’s having written it with his own hand, is retained in the conception of the figurative χειρόγραφον . But the apostle himself precludes this view by his having written, not: ΤῸ ἩΜῶΝ ΧΕΙΡΌΓΡ . (which would mean: the document of debt drawn by us), but: τὸ καθʼ ἡμῶν χειρόγρ .; which purposely chosen expression does not affirm that we have ourselves written the document, but it does affirm that it authenticates us as arrested for debt, and is consequently against us. The words τοῖς δόγμασιν appended (see below) also preclude the conception of the debt-record being written by man’s own hand. Moreover, the law is to be understood as an integral whole, and the various limitations of it, either to the ceremonial law (Calvin, Beza, Schoettgen, and others), or to the moral law (Calovius), are altogether in opposition to the connection (see above, πάντα τὰ παραπτ .), and un-Pauline. The explanation referring it to the conscience (Luther, Zwingli, Melanchthon, and others) is also at variance both with the word and with the context.[107] The conscience is the medium for the knowledge of the law as the handwriting which testifies against us; without the activity of the conscience, this relation, in which the law stands to us, would remain unknown. Exception has been taken to its being explained of the Mosaic law on account of the use of ἡμῶν , seeing that this law existed only for the Jews. But without due ground; for it is in fact also the schedule of debt against the Gentiles, in so far, namely, as the latter have the knowledge of the δικαίωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ (Rom_1:32), have in fact ΤῸ ἚΡΓΟΝ ΤΟῦ ΝΌΜΟΥ ΓΡΑΠΤῸΝ ἘΝ ΤΑῖς ΚΑΡΔΊΑΙς ΑὐΤῶΝ (Rom_2:15), and, consequently, fall likewise under the condemning sentence of the law, though not directly (Rom_3:19; Rom_2:12), but indirectly, because they, having incurred through their own fault a darkening of their minds (Rom_1:20-23), transgress the “ ΚΟΙΝῸΝ ἉΠΆΝΤΩΝ ἈΝΘΡΏΠΩΝ ΝΌΜΟΝ ” (Dem. 639. 22). The earnest and graphic description of the abrogation of the condemning law in Col_2:14 is dictated by an apologetic motive, in opposition to the Judaism of the false teachers; hence it is the more inappropriate to understand with Cornelius a Lapide and others the covenant of God with Adam in Gen_2:16, as was already proposed by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact (comp. Iren. Haer. v. 17. 3, and Tertullian).
τοῖς δόγμασιν ] Respecting ΔΌΓΜΑ , command, especially of legal decrees, see on Eph_2:15; Wetstein on Luk_2:1; the dative is closely connected with χειρόγραφον , and is instrumental: what is written with the commands (therein given), so that the δόγματα , which form the constituent elements of the law, are regarded as that wherewith it is written. Thus the tenor of the contents of what is written is indicated by the dative of the instrument (ablativus modi), just as the external constituent elements of writing, e.g. γράμμασι in Gal_6:11, and ΤΎΠΟΙς in Plat. Ep. 7, p. 343 A, are expressed by the same dative. Observe the verbal nature of χειρόγραφον , and that the dative is joined to it, as to ΤῸ ΓΕΓΡΑΜΜΈΝΟΝ (comp. Plat. l.c.: τὰ γεγραμμένα τύποις ). This direct combination of a verbal substantive with a dative of the instrument is such an unquestionable and current phenomenon in classical Greek (see Matthiae, II. p. 890; Heindorf, ad Plat. Cratyl. p. 131; and especially Kühner, II. 1, p. 374), that the connection in question cannot in the least degree appear as harsh (Winer, Buttmann), or even as unnatural (Hofmann); nor should it have been regarded as something “welded on” by the interpolator (Holtzmann, p. 74), who had desired thereby to give to χειρόγρ . its reference to the law. The explanation given by many writers (Calvin, Beza, Vitringa, Wolf, Michaelis, Heinrichs, and others, comp. Luther), which hits nearly the true sense: the ΧΕΙΡΌΓΡΑΦΟΝ , consisting in the ΔΌΓΜΑΣΙ , is to be corrected grammatically in accordance with what we have said above. It is in complete variance with the arrangement of the words to join ΤΟῖς ΔΌΓΜ . to ΤῸ ΚΑΘʼ ἩΜῶΝ by supplying an ὌΝ (Calovius).[108] Bähr, Huther, and Dalmer (comp. de Wette) regard it as a more precise definition of the entire τὸ καθʼ ἡμ . χειρόγρ ., so that Paul explains what he means by the χειρόγρ ., and, at the same time, how it comes to be a debt-document testifying against us. So also Winer, p. 206 [E. T. 275]. This, however, would have been expressed by τὸ τοῖς δόγμασι καθʼ ἡμῶν χειρόγρ ., or in some other way corresponding grammatically with the sense assumed. Ewald joins τοῖς δόγμ . as appropriating dative (see Bernhardy, p. 88 f.) to χειρόγρ .: our bond of obligation to the statutes.[109] But if χειρόγρ . were our bond of obligation (subjectively), the expression τὸ καθʼ ἡμῶν χειρ . would be inappropriate, and Paul would have said merely τὸ ἡμῶν χειρ . τ . δόγμ . It is incorrect as to sense, though not linguistically erroneous, to connect τοῖς δόγμ . with ἐξαλείψας , in which case it is explained to mean (as by Harless on Eph_2:15) that the abrogation of the law had taken place either as regards its statutes (Steiger); or by the evangelical doctrines of faith (the Greek expositors, Estius, Grotius, Hammond, Bengel, and others); or nova praecepta stabiliendo (Fritzsche, Diss. in 2 Cor. II. p. 168 f.). In opposition to these views, see Eph_2:15. Erasmus, Storr, Flatt, Olshausen, Schenkel, Bleek, and Hofmann have attached it to the following relative clause,[110] in opposition to the simple order of the words, without any certain precedent in the N. T. (with regard to Act_1:2, Rom_16:27, see on those passages), and thereby giving an emphasis to the τοῖς δόγμ . which is not warranted (for the law as such contains, in fact, nothing else than δόγματα ).
Ὃ ἮΝ ὙΠΕΝΑΝΤΊΟΝ ἩΜῖΝ ] an emphatic repetition—bringing into more marked prominence the hostile relation—of the thought already expressed by ΚΑΘʼ ἩΜῶΝ , with the view of counteracting the legalistic efforts of the false teachers. Bengel’s distinction, that there is here expressed ipsa pugna, and by καθʼ ἡμῶν , status belli, is arbitrary and artificial. It means simply: which was against us, not: secretly against us, as Beza and others, including Böhmer, interpret the word, which Paul uses only in this place, but which is generally employed in Greek writers, in the Apocrypha and LXX., and in the N. T. again in Heb_10:27. The relative attaches itself to the entire τὸ καθʼ ἡμ . χειρόγρ . τοῖς δόγμ .
καὶ αὐτο ἦρκεν κ . τ . λ .] Observe not only the emphatic change of structure (see on Col_1:6) which passes from the participle, not from the relative (Hofmann), over to the further act connected with the former in the finite tense, but also (comp. on Col_1:16) the perfect (Thuc. viii. 100; Dem. 786. 4): and itself (the bill of debt) he has taken out of the way, whereby the abrogation now stands completed. A graphically illustrative representation: the bill of debt was blotted out, and it has itself been carried away and is no longer in its place; ἦρκεν αὐτὸ ἐκ τοῦ μέσου μὴ ἀφεὶς ἐπὶ χώρας , Oecumenius. ΑὐΤΌ denotes the handwriting itself, materialiter, in contrast to the just mentioned blotting out of its contents. For He has nailed it, etc.; see the sequel. Hofmann imports the idea: it in this (hostile) quality; as if, namely, it ran καὶ τοιοῦτο ὄν (Xen. Anab. vi. 5.13; Phm_1:9).
The ἐκ τοῦ μέσου is our: “out of the way,” said of obstructions which are removed. Comp. Plat. Eryx. p. 401 E; Xen. Anab. i. 5. 14; de praefect. 3. 10, and the passages in Kypke, II. p. 323. The opposite: ἐν μέσῳ εἶναι , to be in the way, Dem. 682. 1; Aesch. Suppl. 735; Dorv. ad Charit. vii.3, p. 601. Thus the law stood in the way of reconciliation to God, of the χαρίζεσθαι κ . τ . λ . in Col_2:13.
ΠΡΟΣΗΛΏΣΑς Κ . Τ . Λ .] ΠΡΟΣΗΛΟῦΝ only found here in the N. T.; see, however, Plat. Phaed. p. 83 D (with πρός ); Lucian, Prom. 2, Dial. D. I. ( τῷ Καυκάσῳ προσηλωμένος ); Galen. IV. p. 45, 9: Τῷ ΣΤΑΥΡῷ , 3Ma_4:9. Since the law which condemned man lost its punitive force through the death of Christ on the cross, inasmuch as Christ through this death suffered the curse of the law for men (Gal_3:13), and became the end of the law (Rom_10:4), at the same time that Christ was nailed as ἱλαστήριον to the cross, the law was nailed to it also, and thus it ceased to be ἘΝ ΜΈΣῼ . Observe, moreover, the logical relation of the aorist participle to the perfect ἦρκεν . The latter is the state of the matter, which has emerged and exists after God has nailed, etc. The κ . αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ μέσου takes place since that nailing. In the strong expression προσηλώσας , purposely chosen and placed foremost, there is involved an antinomistic triumph, which makes the disarming of the law very palpably apparent. Chrysostom has aptly observed on the whole passage: οὐδαμοῦ οὕτως μεγαλοφώνως ἐφθέγξατο . Ὁρᾷς σπουδὴν τοῦ ἀφανισθῆναι τὸ χειρόγραφον ὅσην ἐποιήσατο ; οἷον πάντες ἦμεν ὑφʼ ἁμαρτίαν κ . κόλασιν · αὐτὸς κολασθεὶς ἔλυσε καὶ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ τὴν κόλασιν . Nevertheless, ΠΡΟΣΗΛΏΣΑς neither figuratively depicts the tearing in pieces of the χειρόγρ . (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact), nor is there any allusion to an alleged custom of publicly placarding antiquated laws (Grotius). According to Hofmann (comp. also his Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 370 f.), a public placarding with a view to observance is meant; the requirement of Israelitish legal obligation has become changed into the requirement of faith in the Crucified One which may be read on the cross, and this transformation is also the pardon of transgressions of the law. This is a fanciful pushing further of the apostolic figure, the point of which is merely the blotting out and taking away of the law, as the debt-document hostile to us, by the death of the cross. The entire representation which is presented in this sensuous concrete form, and which is not to be expanded into the fanciful figure of transformation which we have just referred to, is intended, in fact, to illustrate merely the forgiveness of sins introduced by χαρισάμενος κ . τ . λ . in Col_2:13, and nothing more. Comp. 1Pe_2:24. It is to be observed, at the same time, that the ἘΞΑΛΕΊΦΕΙΝ and the ΑἼΡΕΙΝ ἘΚ Τ . ΜΈΣΟΥ do not represent two acts substantially different, but the same thing, the perfect accomplishment of which is explained by way of climax with particularising vividness.
[106] The relation of obligation and indebtedness in which man stands to the law (comp. Gal_3:10) is quite sufficient to justify the conception of the latter as the χειρόγραφον , without seeking this specially in the promise of the people, Exo_24:3 (Chrysostom, (Oecumenius, Theophylact, and others; also Hofmann); which the reader could not guess without some more precise indication. Indeed, that promise of the people in Exo_24:3 has by no means the mark of being self-written, but contains only the self-obligation, and would not, therefore, any more than the amen in Deuteronomy 27 (which Castalio suggests), suffice for the idea of the χειρόγραφον , if the latter had to contain the debtor’s own handwriting. In accordance with the apostle’s words ( τὸ καθʼ ἡμῶν χειρόγρ ., see above), and with the type of his doctrine regarding the impossibility of legal righteousness, his readers could think only of the γράμμα of the law itself as that which proves man a debtor; comp. Rom_2:27; Rom_2:29; Rom_7:6; 2Co_3:6. Wieseler, on Gal. p. 258 (appealing to Luk_16:5 ff.), Bleek, and Holtzmann, p. 64, also erroneously press the point that the χειρόγρ . must necessarily be written or signed by the debtor himself.
[107] Luther’s gloss: “Nothing is so hard against us as our own conscience, whereby we are convinced as by our own handwriting, when the law reveals to us our sin.” Melanchthon: “sententia in mente et corde tanquam scripta lege et agnitione lapsus,” in connection with which he regards the conscience as “syllogismus practicus ex lege ductus.”
[108] So also Wieseler in Rosenmüller’s Rep. II. p. 135 ff.: τὸ χειρόγρ . τὸ τοῖς δόγμ . καθʼ ἡμῶν ὄν .
[109] Comp. Wieseler on Gal. p. 258: “with reference to the statutes.” He takes Paul’s meaning to be, “our testimony with our own hand, that we have transgressed the statutes of the law of Moses.”
[110] So also Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. Work, III. 1, p. 110. He considers as the χειρόγραφον not the Mosaic law itself, but the bill of debt which the broken law has drawn up against us. The very parallel in Eph_2:15 is decisive against this view.