x Luke xiii. 7, but=(24) Paul only; see Rom. iii. 2 al. a=Matt. xiii. 30, xxvii. 51 || Mark; Rev. xvi. 19; Jud. ix. 43. c James iii. 18 only; sec Matt. v. g.
295
Σ ἐν wLukeii.1; Acts xvi. 4, XVii. 7; Col. ii. 14 y Ver. τὸ reff.
b Ch. iv. 24 only; d Col. i. 20, 21 only.
᾿ καταρτισας DE. For εαντω, αυτω NABFP 3, 14, 17, εἴο., al.g; εαντω N*DEK LP, most mss., Ath.,, Chr., Thdrt., Dam., Thl., Όες,
2 κοινον FG.
Ver.15. τὴν ἔχθραν : to wit the enmity. Many (Luth., Calv., De Wette, etc.) take this to be a figure for the Mosaic Law. But the ἔχθρα is in antithesis to the εἰρήνη of ver. 14, and the specification of the Law comes in later. It is better, therefore, to take the ἔχθρα here in the abstract sense of hostile, separating feeling. But is it the enmity of Jew and Gentile to God (Chrys., Harl., etc.) or the enmity between Jew and Gentile? The statement of the μεσότοιχον as a mid- wall between τὰ ἀμφότερα decides for the latter. The argument in favour of this view is stronger still when the former view is connected with the idea that the ἔχθρα is the Mosaic Law. For the Mosaic Law could not be said to have been the cause of hostile feeling on the part of Gentiles to God.—év τῇ σαρκί αὐτοῦ: in His flesh. The term σάρξ is taken by some (Stier, etc.) in a sense wide enough to cover Christ’s incarnation and His entire incarnate life. But, apart from other difficulties, this is inconsistent with the definite mention of His blood and His cross. The term refers, therefore, to His death, and means His crucified flesh (cf. Col. i. 22). The great difficulty here, however, is the connection. Some attach the phrase immediately to τὴν ἔχθραν (Chrys., etc.), ‘‘the enmity which was in His flesh,” as if the idea were ‘‘the hatred in the human race generally” or ‘the national hatred,” the hatred in the Jewish people. But this would require τήν before ἐν σαρκί, and furnishes at best a forced meaning. Most commen- tators connect it with καταργήσας; sup- posing it to be put emphatically first. So it is taken, e.g., by Meyer, who makes ἐν σαρκί begin the new clause. The RV takes the same view, but brings the ἔχθραν under the regimen of the καταργήσας--- ‘having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law”’. There is much to say in support of this, especially in view of the Pauline statements in Rom. iii. 21, x. 14; Gal: 1|. 15: Col. Ἡ, τὰς etc! ‘Oni the other hand there is an awkwardness in bringing in the predication before the
verb, and the parallelism is broken (cf. Alf.). It is best, therefore, to attach the ἐν σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ to the λύσας (Calv., Riick., Alf., etc.). The form of the sen- tence is better kept in this way. The ap- propriateness of the use of λύσας is then seen; for the verb Avew (= subvert, dissolve), is equally applicable to the μεσότοιχον and to the ἔχθραν, the phrase λύειν ἔχθραν being common in ordinary Greek. On the other hand καταργεῖν is much less applicable to ἔχθραν. So the sense is—‘*who in His crucified flesh (i.e., by His death on the cross) broke down the middle-wall of the partition, to wit the enmity” (1.6., the hostile feeling between Jew and Gentile).—rov νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν καταργήσας: having abolished (or, inthat He abolished) the law of commandments (expressed) in ordinances. Further statement of the way in which Christ by His death on the cross removed the separation and the hostile feeling between Jew and Gentile, viz., by abrogating the dividing Law itself, The Law is now introduced, and the term ὁ νόμος is to be taken in its full sense, not the ceremonial law only, but the Mosaic Law as a whole, according to the stated use of the phrase. This Law is abolished in the sense of being rendered inoperative (aS καταργεῖν means), and it is defined as the Law τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν. What is the point of the definition? The article, which is in place with the ἐντολῶν, is omitted before the δόγμασιν, as the latter makes one idea with the former and further is under the regimen of a prep. (cf. Win.-Moult., ΡΡ. 139, 149, 151, 158). The Law is one of ‘*‘commandments-in-decrees’’, What is in view is its character as mandatory, and consisting in a multitude of prescrip- tions or statutes. It enjoined, and it expressed its injunctions in so many decrees, but it did not enable. The Law was made up of ἐντολαί and these ἐντολαί expressed themselves and opera- ted in the form of δόγματα, ordinances. The word δόγμα in the NT never means anything else than statute, decree, ordin-