Thursday, December 17, 2020

Allan R. Bevere on the "handwriting" (χειρογραφον) in Colossians 2:14 being the Law of Moses in light of Ephesians 2:15

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)

 

I have added the above to my article:


Does Galatians 2:20 and Colossians 2:14 support Forensic Justification? (cf. Does Ephesians 2:15 Pose a Problem to LDS Soteriology?)