The Pulpit Commentary — Colossians — Section 96

givenessonlyin thisnnd the Ephesian Epistle by modem interpreter~. In the New Te!!la- (oh. iii. 13; EJ?~· iv. 82: .~omp, Lu~e vii. ment (comp. Luke ii. 1 ; Acts xvi. 4; 42, 48; 2 Oor. u. 7, 10; :m. rn), pomts to Heb. xi. 23), ns in classice.l Greek, dogma is the oause or prinoi pie of forgivenesij in the o. decree, setting forth the will of some Divine grace (Eph. ii. 4, 5; Rom. iii. 2G; public authority (comp. note on lio-yµa7/(01, v. 17). In "having forgiven us" the writer ver. 20). The e.dded clause, "which was signilioantly p11Sses from the second to the opposed to us," affirms the active opposition, first person: so in Eph. ii.1-5 (comp. Rom. as "age.inst us" the eB11.,ntie.l hostility of the iii. 9, 80; 1 Tim. i. 15). The thought of decrees of God's law to onr sinful nature the new life bestowed on the Colossi ans with (Rom. iv. 15; Gal. iii. 10: comp. Rom. vii. himself in their individual forgiveness calls 13, 14). The emphasis with which St. Paul to his mind the great a.et of Divine mercy dwells on this point is characteristic of the from which it spro.ng (the connection cor- author of Romans nnd Gnlatians. 'Tn- responds, in reverse order, to the.t of eh. i. 20, v&.v710• occurs besides only in Heh. x. 27; 21; 2 Cor. v. 19, 20), o.nd he continues- the prefix o'nrb implies close e.nd persistent Ver.14.-He.ving blotted out the bond ( tho.t opposition (Lightfoot). And he he.th ta.ken was) against us with (or, written in) docrees, it out of the midst, having nailed it to tho whioh was opposed to us (Eph. ii. 14-16; cross (eh. i. 20-22; Eph. ii 18; 2 Cor. v. Rom. iii. 9-26; vii 7-14; 2 Cor. v. 19; 19; Rom. iii. 24-26; v. 1, 2; Gal. iii. 13; Gnl. iii. 10-22; 1 Cor. xv. 56; Acts xiii. Heh. i. 3; John i. 2!); 1 John iv. 10). A 88, 89). The ancients commonly used wax third time in these three verses (12-H) we tablets in writing, and the flat end of the note the transition from participle to co-ordi- pointed stylus dmwn over the writing nate finite verb; and here, in addition, the smeared it out (expunged) and so cancelled it aorist tense passes into the perfect (" hath ( comp. Acts iii. 19; Ps. Ii. 9 ; Illa. xliii. 25, to.ken"), marking the finality of the removal LXX). "God," not " Christ," is the sub- of the Law's condemningpower(Rom. viii. I; ject of this verb, which stands in immediate Acts :xiii. 39): comp. the opposite transition sequence to those ofvers. 12, 13 (comp. 2 Cor. in eh. i. 26, 27. The moral deliverance of v. 19). It is the receiver rather than the ver. 11 is traced up to this legal release, both offerer of satisfo.ction who cancels the debt : contained in our completeness in Christ in Eph. ii. 15 (comp. eh. i. 22) a different (ver. 10). The subject is still "God." verb is used. Xe,p&-ypa</>ov ("hand-written;" Cancelling the bond which he helil. against a word of later Greek, only here in the New us in his Law, God has for ever remoud the Testament) is used specie.Hy of an account barrier which stood between mankind and of debt, a bond signed by the debtor's hand himself (2 Cor. v. l!l). Christ's place in this (see Meyer o.nd Lightfoot). This bond (with work, already shown in eh. i. 18-23 (in its its decrees) can be nothing other than "the relation to himself), is vividly recallecl by law" (Eph. ii. 14-16; Acts xiii. 88, 89; the mention of the cross. And the abolition Rom, iii. 20; vii. 25; Gal. iii, 21, 22, etc.); of the Lo.w's condemnation is finally set not, however, the ritual law, nor even the forth by a yet bolder metaphor-" havinr, Mosaic Law as such (as Meyer contends), nailed it to the cross." The nails of the but law as law, the Divine rule of human cross in piercing Christ pierced the lega I life impressed even on Gentile hearts instrument which held ne debtors, nnil. (Rom. ii. 14, 15), to which man's conscience nullified it; see Ge.I. iii. 13 (comp. Ge.I. ii. gives its consent (Rom. vii. 16, 22), and yet 19, 20) ; Ilom. vii. 4-6. Ilpo,r,7;,..w.,.a• which becomes by his disobedience just a may suggest the further idea of nailing up list of cluuges age.inst him (so Nee.nder and the cnncelled document, by wny of publica- I,ightfoot ; see the latter on Gal. ii. 19). tion. At the cross o.11 mo.y read, " There Exod. xxiv. 8 and Deut. xxvii. 14-26, is now no condemnation" (compare tho indeed, illustrate this wider relation of " me.king e. show'' of ver. 15 ; also Hom. iii. Divine law to the human conscience gene- 25; Gal. iii. 1). (For vers.11-14, compare rally. Tois 11&-yµacm is dative of reference concluding remark on eh. i. 14.) either to ,ca;8' ;,µiiw (" age.inst us:" quo.lifying Ver. 15.-He.ving stripped off the princi- or exple.ne.tory-in respect of ita decrees) or pe.lities and the dominions ( eh. i. 16 ; ii. 1U; to the verbal ideo. conto.ined in X"P"Jl&pa</>ov Acts vii. 38, 53; Go.I. iii. 19; Heb. i. 5, 7, (" written in,'' or "with decrees"). The 14; ii. 2, 5 ; Deut. mill. 2; Pa. lxviii. 17). former explanation (that of Winer o.nd Elli- 'A1r<1<liv<Tclµ,vo• has been rendered, from the cott) is :preferable. The Greek Fathers time of the Lo.tin Vulgate," having spoiled" made it mstrumental dative to •!a;>..d,f,ar, (exspolians), a rendering which is '' not les3 understanding by these 5&-yµa.-a; the doctrines a violo.tion of St. Paul's usage (eh. iii. 9) (dogmas) of the gospel by which the charges than of gr11mmntice.l rulo" (Lightfoot; so of the Law against us are expunr,ed. But Alford, Ellicott, Wordsworth, Hofmann, this puts on 11&-yµa a later theological sense Revisers). It is precisely the sarue participle foreign to St. Paul, und univc1•:;t1lly rejcctc,1 thnt wo find in rh. iii. 9, an,l the writer h,H  !JO 'l'IIE EPISTLE TO 'l'HE COLOSSIANS. [cu. n. 1-23,