Colossians 2:14

ἐξαλείψας τὸ … χειρόγραφον. The mention of forgiveness in Colossians 2:13 leads the apostle to the figure of a bond which is first described as cancelled, then as permanently removed, as it were, from being between us and God, and then as because settled and being in itself worthless nailed up in triumph.

ἐξαλείψας, “blotting out.” The word was applied to the process of obliterating writing on ordinary books or records. In the case of papyrus, the substance in most common use, this would consist of washing off, especially if it were to be done on a large scale (contrast exx. of χειρόγραφα on papyrus scored through and thus cancelled, referred to in Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 247), for the ink was made generally of soot and gum, and did not, as with our modern inks, sink into the texture of the paper (see Kenyon in Hastings, IV. 948, “Writing”). Chrysostom expressly takes it here of complete obliteration: ἐξήλειψεν, οὐκ ἐχάραξε μόνον (i.e. he did not only draw a line through it), ὥστε μὴ φαίνεσθαι. So of a name being blotted out of a register, Revelation 3:5 (cf. Exodus 32:32-33). Acts 3:19 is probably the same use of the figure as here. In the remaining two passages of the N.T. where the word occurs it is used of wiping away tears, Revelation 7:17; Revelation 21:4.

The translators of the LXX. use it often, generally to translate מחה “wipe out,” literally or metaphorically, but also שחת “destroy,” and טוח “plaster,” e.g. Leviticus 14:42.

τὸ καθʼ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον. χειρόγραφον in itself does not mean the Law, even as God’s holograph, but probably a bond written by a person pledging himself to make certain payments. Wetstein rightly compares Philemon 1:19, ἐγὼ Παῦλος ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί, ἐγὼ�, although this is not a formal example. Such a χειρόγραφον Gabael had given to Tobit, acknowledging that he held ten talents of his, and Tobit entrusted to his son Tobias in order that the latter might receive the money, Tob 4:1; Tob 4:20, with Tob 5:3; cf. Tob 9:2 (א), 5. P. Ewald indeed shows from the papyri that χ. does not always mean a bond. Yet this seems to be the meaning here. Compare Origen’s words immediately following.

What, however, is the reality underlying the figure? First, perhaps, as developed from the thought of χαρισάμενος, the debt of sin incurred by us and owing to God. So Origen, Hom. in Gen. XIII. § 4, referring to our passage, Istud quidem quod dicit chirographum, peccatorum nostrorum cautio fuit. Unusquisque etenim nostrum, in his, quae delinquit, efficitur debitor, et peccati sui literas scribit … Si vero delinquas, ipse tibi conscribis peccati chirographum.

But, secondly, in any case this passes over almost immediately into that which gives sin its δύναμις (1 Corinthians 15:56), the Law defined here by τοῖς δόγμασι; Quia reos Lex faciebat, quae subintraverat ut abundaret delictum, Aug. Ep. 149, § 26. The assent which the word “bond” presupposes on our part lies in the acceptance by our conscience of the Law not only quâ τοῖς δόγμασι but in itself (vide infra). For whether we be Jews or only Gentiles we have virtually accepted it, cf. Romans 1:32.

τοῖς δόγμασιν. A very difficult phrase. Assuming that it is to be taken with χειρόγραφον we have to decide upon the force of the dative and the meaning of the word.

I. The force of the dative. This may be (1) instrumental and closely connected with καθʼ ἡμῶν. It became a “bond” in force against us by τὰ δόγματα. So Winer, III. xxxi. 10, R. 1 (p. 275). But this is very harsh. (2) Descriptive of that in which the bond at least primarily consists. In this case the γράφειν appears to retain something of its original force. Lightfoot suggests that ἐν has dropped out; cf. Ephesians 2:15.

II. The meaning of τοῖς δόγμασι.

δόγμα occurs only three times in the N.T. besides our passage and Ephesians 2:15, viz. (1) Luke 2:1; Acts 17:7, in both of which places it = decree of Caesar; (2) Acts 16:4, where δόγματα = orders of the Apostles, etc. affecting ritual and morals.

Similarly in the LXX. it = (1) royal decree in Esther, Dan. (LXX. and Theod.), and 4 Mac. (ter), but (2) in 3Ma 1:3 and 4Ma 10:2 δόγματα seems to mean the ritual laws of the Jews.

In our passage the sense of royal decrees is in itself just tolerable if God be He who issues them, but the context does not suggest this. δόγματα seems to mean laws affecting practice, in contrast to both objective and subjective faith, so also Colossians 2:21 sq. Observe also that these laws are not necessarily limited to the direct commands of the Pentateuch. They at least include, and indeed probably have special reference to, the many items of traditional religious customs and laws, such as all religions possess, and Judaism in particular. In these lay the weight of the yoke (Acts 15:10) of Judaism; in these the adverse force of the “bond.” And yet the false teachers would have the Colossian Christians return to them. For a similar use of δόγματα cf. Suicer, p. 934, “Basilius M. de Spiritu sancto, cap. 27. tom. II. p. 212, doctrinae Christianae duas facit partes, τὰ κηρύγματα, praeconia, et τὰ δόγματα. Dogmata ea appellat, quae alii vocant τὰ�, ritus et ceremonias, quarum ratio non omnibus constat: dicitque, τὰ δόγματα haberi ex non scripta traditione, τὰ δὲ κηρύγματα, id est, doctrinam fidei, e scripturis Domini.” See also his further quotations. Cf. Westcott on Ephesians 2:15, “The addition of ἐν δόγμασιν defines the commandments as specific, rigid, and outward, fulfilled in external obedience.”

III. Three improbable constructions of τοῖς δόγμασιν may be mentioned:

(1) With ἐξαλείψας (a) instrumentally, blotting out the bond by means of the Christian δόγματα, so several of the Greek Fathers, e.g. Theophylact, τὸ χειρόγραφον ἐξήλειψεν ὁ χριστὸς τοῖς δόγμασι, τουτέστι, τῇ πίστει· οὐ γὰρ ἔργοις, ἀλλὰ τοῖς τῆς πίστεως δόγμασι λέλυται τοῦτο (in Suicer, p. 933). And so too Bengel, Haec sunt decreta gratiae; (b) blotting out the bond as regards its δόγματα.

(2) With the following relative clause (Erasmus, P. Ewald), “the handwriting, which, by its ordinances, was opposed to us,” a construction which lays extraordinary stress on τοῖς δόγμασι, and has no certain parallel in the N.T.

δ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν, “which was opposed to us.” ὑπεναντίος, Hebrews 10:27†. In the LXX. it often = enemy. Perhaps also here, when St Paul’s meaning is that the Law not only is against us quâ its ritual enactments, but also in itself, as a whole and as Law, is our enemy. It stands up to resist man, like Satan in Zechariah 3:1, τοῦ�.

καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν, “and He hath taken it.” A second stage in the annulling of the bond, He has permanently removed it, so that it no longer prevents intercourse between us and God.

Observe (1) the change from a participle to the finite verb. This is due partly to emphasis, and partly perhaps to the semi-conscious change, beginning, as it seems, here, from the First to the Second Person of the Trinity. For though it is true that ἀπεκδυσάμενος can receive a plausible meaning if the subject be still “God” (vide infra) both it and the reference to the cross much more readily suggest our Lord.

(2) The change from the aorist (D*G ἦρεν) to the perfect, thereby expressing the permanency of the removal.

ἐκ τοῦ μέσου. The exact phrase occurs here only in the N.T. Isaiah 57:2 affords a verbal parallel, ὁ δίκαιος … ἦρται ἐκ τοῦ μέσου, which apparently = has been taken away from his ordinary surroundings. Cf. also 1 Corinthians 5:2, and 2 Thessalonians 2:7. In our passage it apparently = from between us and God; cf. the parallel passage Ephesians 2:14, where μεσότοιχον is the temple balustrade between Jew and Gentiles taken figuratively.

προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ, “nailing it to the cross.” The figure is not that of cancelling a bond (for which there is no evidence, see Field, Otium Norv. III.) but of nailing it up in triumph. St Paul means, apparently, that Christ’s death on the Cross not only rendered the Law useless, but by its publicity showed that it was so.

προσηλόω occurs here only in the N.T. and only once in the LXX., 3Ma 4:9, in a purely literal sense. For ἦλος see John 20:25 bis†.

Observe St Paul’s characteristic repetition of αὐτό.