528
Il.
0 Only Ret? προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ, 15. ? ἀπεκδυσάμενος τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ
and iii. 9
in class. Ε
or Bib. . κ.
6 q Only here and Matt. i. 19 in class. or Bib. Gk.
p Only here τὰς ἐξουσίας * ἐδειγμάτισεν }
19ο Ln., Τ., Tr., W.H., R.V. with all authorities except B.
Ws. with B.
to have had τὸ ἐν δόγ. Ellicott says this construction ‘‘seems distinctly un- grammatical”. Others (including Mey., Lightf., Sod., Haupt, Abb.) connect closely with χειρόγ., in such a way that the dative is governed by γεγραμμένον implied in χειρόγ. This is questionable in point of grammar. iner says: “Meyer’s explanation, that which was written with the commandments (the dative being used as in the phrase written with letters), is the more harsh, as χειρόγραφον has so completely estab- lished itself in usage as an independent word that it is hardly capable of govern- ing (like γεγραμμένον) such a dative as this". (Winer-Moulton, p. 275; τ΄. also Ellicott ad loc.) It seems best then (with De W., Ell., ΚΙ., Ol.) to tran- slate “τῆς handwriting which was against us by its ordinances”’. For this we should have expected τ. καθ᾽ hp. τ. δόγ. χειρόγ. or T. τοῖς δόγ. καθ᾽ Hp. χειρόγ.; but this seems to be the best way of taking the text as it stands, and perhaps the position of τ. δόγ. is for emphasis. The Greek commentators, followed by Bengel, ex- en the passage to mean having lotted out the Law by the doctrines of the Gospel. But δόγ. is a most un- Pauline, because legalist, expression for the Gospel, and by itself could not mean Christian doctrines. Nor is the sense it gives Pauline, for it was not by the teach- ing of the Gospel, but by the death of Christ, that the Law was done away. Erasmus’ view (followed by Hofm.) that τ. δόγ. should be connected with what follows is very improbable.—6 ἦν ὑπεναν- τίον ἡμῖν : stronger than καθ᾽ ἡμῶν, asserting not merely that the bond had a claim against us, but that it was hostile to us, the suggestion being that we could not meet its claim. No idea of secret hostility is present.—xal αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσον. “And it He hath taken out of the midst.” The change from aorist to perfect is significant, as expressing the abiding character of the abolition. Lightfoot thinks that a change of subject takes place here, from G to Christ. His reason is that Christ must be the
ἐν παρρησίᾳ "θριαμβεύσας αὐτοὺς ἐν
r Only here and 2 Cor. ii. 14 in class. or Bib. Gk.
και εδειγματισεν:
subject of ἀπεκδ., since “no gram- matical meaning can be assigned to ἀπεκδυσάμενος, by which it could be understood of God the Father”. Since, however, no change of subject is hinted at in the passage, and would involve great difficulty, it is more reasonable to conclude that an interpretation which requires Christ to be the subject of ἀπεκδ. is self-condemned.—mrpooyAdoas αὐτὸ τῷ στανρῷ: “ having nailed it to the cross”’. When Christ was crucified, God nailed the Law to His cross. Thus it, like the flesh, was abrogated, sharing His death. The bond therefore no longer exists for us. To explain the words b reference to a custom of driving a nail through documents to cancel them, is not only to call in a questionable fact (see Field, Notes on Transl. of the N.T., p. 196), but to dilute in the most tasteless way one of Paul's most striking and sug- gestive phrases. Quite on a level with it is Field's own suggestion as to ‘this seemingly superfluous addition” (!) that the reference is to the custom of hangin up spoils of war in temples. Zahn (Einl. in das N.T., i., 335) draws a distinction between what was written on the bond and was blotted out by God, and the bond itself which was nailed to the cross and taken out of the way. We thus have two thoughts expressed: the removal of guilt incurred by transgression of the Law, and the abolition of the Law itself. It is questionable if this distinction is justified. The object is the same, αὐτὸ simply repeats χειρόγραφον.