Eph 2:15 reads:
Having abolished in
his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances
(δογματα); for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace.
This text is paralleled by Col 2:14:
Blotting out the
handwriting (χειρογραφον) of ordinances (δογματα) that was against us, which
was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.
Commenting on how Eph 2:15 helps us understand
the meaning of “handwriting” (χειρογραφον) as being that of the Law of Moses, Allan
R. Bevere noted:
[If] the ‘ascetic
regulations’ of the Colossian philosophy are ethnically Jewish practices, as I
and others maintain, then Ephesians 2:15 is indeed helpful in this matter. The
writer of Ephesians does not use the term χειρογραφον, but it is the only
other Pauline letter that employs δογματα as found in Colossians 2:14. In
Ephesians, Christ’s death nullifies the Law together with its commandments and
regulations. In Colossians, the χειρογραφον (the Law) with its regulations is erased
as it is nailed to the cross of Christ. In Ephesians, the cross abolishes the
Mosaic Law as a dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile; and while
the language of division between Jew and Gentile is not explicit in Colossians,
the χειρογραφον as a barrier that stands in the way is obvious – it is ‘against us’ (το καθ ημων) and ‘hostile to us’
(ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν). The imagery conveyed in both letters is so similar that it is not
unreasonable to suggest that both refer to the same thing.
It would be even more
significant if there were a common connection and a similar situation shared by
the two letters. Ben Witherington argues at length for Pauline authorship of
both Colossians and Ephesians based on, among other things, the Asiatic
rhetorical style of both letters (Witherington, Colossians, 2). At the
same time, there are rhetorical differences based on the different rhetorical
situations occasioning each letter. Ephesians, unlike Colossians, reflects
epideictic rhetoric, making it less an epistle and more of a homily characteristic
of a document that is not addressed to one specific audience with a particular
crisis. Instead Ephesians may be a circular in nature, mindful of a clear but
larger geographical area where similar concerns of a wider community are
generally at stake (Witherington, Colossians, 7 [cf. 215-17]). What is the
significance of this for our concerns over the identification of the χειρογραφον?
First, while a minority
of scholars question the arguments in favor of Colossian priority, most see an
obvious connection between the two letters and Ephesians’ dependence on Colossians.
As Margaret MacDonald observes, ‘Of all the letters in the Pauline corpus, no
two works are so closely linked . . . Indeed, it seems that the author of Ephesians
was very familiar with Colossians, drawing upon the epistle’s language, style,
and concepts. In fact, more than one third of the words found in Colossians are
also in Ephesians. For this reason alone it makes sense to study these two
epistles together’ (MacDonald, Colossians, 4). Both epistles address household
concerns as well as marriage. Ephesians, drawing upon Colossians expands on
these concerns, addressing them to a more general audience. IT seems also to be
the case that Ephesians does the same with the Law of Moses, expanding on it in
language that reflects general concerns rather than the specific issues related
to Colossians and the Law. If there is ambiguity of language at certain places
in Colossians in reference to the Law, it is likely because of the specific
nature of the problem the Colossians are having in relation to the Law. Much
between writer and readers is assumed. If Ephesians is a circular letter, then
less is assumed and terminology becomes more explicit in order for the letter
to make sense to the readers of the various church communities. One of this
denies the differences between the two letters. Nevertheless, the likelihood
that Ephesians draws on Colossians also suggests a similarity of concerns, including
the Law of Moses.
Second, if
Witherington’s argument for Pauline authorship of Colossians and Ephesians based
upon its rhetoric (among other things) is strong, then one can envisage a situation
in which Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians were written in an interconnected
way. Dunn suggests that Paul’s personal concern for Onesimus may have prompted
him to give direct attention to the letter he would write to Philemon while
leaving the composition of Colossians to Timothy (Col. 1:1) (Dunn, Colossians,
40). It is conceivable as well that, given the situation in Colossae in which
the target of the letter is the synagogue, Paul would have believed it
important to write a more general composition reminding the Christians in Asia
Minor of the inheritance that Jews and Gentiles share on account of the work of
Christ. The significance of covenant problems related to the status of
Gentiles, as views so prevalently in the New Testament, may have motivated Paul
to commission a homily. It would not be inconceivable that Paul and Timothy drew
on what was already written in Colossians, and expanded on it to create the
letter now known to us as Ephesians. If Ephesians is the letter referred to in
Colossians as ‘the letter from Laodicea’ (4;16), it may be that Laodicea was
the document’s first stop, and Ephesus was the letter’s last place of public
reading. This may explain why we know the letter today as ‘Ephesians.’ Given
the clear relationship between Colossians and Ephesians, the Ephesian interest
in the Law of Moses, if anything, moves us in the direction of affirming once
again the case that the target of the letter to the Colossians is fundamentally
Jewish. (Allan R. Bevere, “The Cheirograph in Colossians 2:14 and the
Ephesian Connection,” in B.J. Oropeza, C.K. Robertson and Douglas C. Mohrmann,
Jesus and Paul: Global Perspectives in Honor of James D.G. Dunn. A Festschrift
for his 70th Birthday [Library of New Testament Studies 414; London:
T&T Clark, 2009, 2019], 199-206, here, pp. 204-6)
