This blog will take a look at two words in Colossians 2:14. They are translated from the Greek word CHEIROGRAPHON into the English CERTIFICATE OF DEBT, and from the Greek word DOGMA into the English word DECREE. The reason I’m examining these words is because they are not well understood by Christians. That means they don’t really understand what Paul is saying in that verse. So, I want to ‘clear the air’ on these words. Also, I may go on a little rant about Christian ignorance in the process, but hopefully not.
Let’s get started by looking at the text:
13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him. (Colossians 2)
The first thing we want to look at is the Greek text to see what it says:
Before we look at some of the Greek grammar, let’s see what TDNT has to say about the word CHEIROGRAPHON (in relevant part, [my comments in square brackets]):
1. A document, esp. a note of indebtness [sic], is written in one’s own hand [attested] as a proof of obligation: Ditt. Syll, II, 742, 50 f. (c. 85 B.C.).
[This is about Ephesus, a major commerce center and route of the known civilized world.]
In the LXX the word occurs only in Tob. 5:3, 9:5.
[Mid 3rd-2nd century BC – This shows the procedure used in ‘Jewish society’, yet adapted to someone holding someone else’s money].2. In the one instance of the word ‘cheirographon’ in the NT it has the sense of ‘promissory note’ [a modern term]: Col. 2:14. The reference is to God’s pronouncement that the note which testifies against us is cancelled. The phrase is obviously based on a thought which is common in Judaism…He [God] imposes the penalty (fn1)…Col 2:14 adopts the metaphor and works it into the context, which deals with the new life of those who have been buried and raised again with Christ…The point of the metaphor of the note of indebtedness is rather to underline the preceding statement…God has forgiven sins. He has cancelled the note of indebtedness by taking it and fixing it to the cross of Christ.
fn1: Ab. [Pirque Avot], 3, 16 (R. Aquiba): further examples in Str.-B., III, 628″ [scroll down to #16 – r Akiba lived during Paul’s time, 50 AD-135 AD.]
In the above you can see various references to this FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT as far back as the 4th century BC with one reference actually occurring during the Apostle Paul’s time by a fellow Jew. Therefore we can rest assured that the cheirographon is a real thing in real life and existed during the Apostle Paul’s time. Also note that Paul uses cheirographon (and dogma) as a METAPHOR in his explanation of forgiveness of sins. That is critical to understanding what Paul is saying as well as what he is NOT saying.
What exactly is this certificate of debt, and why would Paul use it as a metaphor for our sin problem with our Creator? And how does the decree play into all this? In order to answer those questions we first need to understand a little about how those financial instruments functioned. So let me briefly explain it to you.
The certificate of debt back then is equivalent to today’s promissory note. Although it was used in both Jewish and Gentile societies, it operated differently in each of those worlds. We’re going to discuss the DEBT aspect of this promissory note.
Everyone knows what a BOND is, so for the sake of this discussion, I’m going to call this promissory note a ‘bond’. Typically when someone needed money and didn’t have it, they took out a loan. Upon doing so, they had to put up collateral for that loan. Usually, they put up their land, house and possessions but this collateral also included the individual’s own physical body.
When someone signed one of these bonds, they knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the terms and conditions of the bond, and also waived all rights to challenge the bond if they somehow defaulted. So, if a debtor defaulted on his bond, he had no recourse against the creditor. In other words, the creditor had full rights to take his ‘body, lands and goods’ to satisfy the debt (whatever was necessary). And he did it using the full force of government.
Effectively, the debtor was STUCK when he signed one of these bonds. And when he was unable to pay off the debt, the creditor secured an order from a judge that was then passed on to law enforcement personnel to collect on that debt. That means the police (or whatever you want to call them) showed up at the debtor’s door and took whatever they needed to satisfy the creditor’s bond. If the debtor had nothing or if he was ‘holding out’, the creditor could take the debtor and put him in a private prison until he ‘changed his mind’. Pretty compelling strategy!
My opinion on why Paul used this ‘bond’ as a metaphor is because it adequately represents the inexorable predicament we are all in with respect to God concerning our sins and the impending punishment for them. In other words, we’re metaphorically debtors to God with no hope of paying off our debt (guilt from sin), and law enforcement is on the way to collect on it (Judgment Day). And when they arrive, we may lose everything, including our own soul (eternal punishment in the lake of fire). So, we’re stuck and we have no hope.
This is a very serious problem, and there’s only one solution: WIPE OUT THE DEBT. But who has the money or power to wipe out this debt? One possibility would be a rich man who wants to show us compassion and help us out of our mess. Another is a politically powerful man who can ‘make a deal’ on our behalf with the creditor. Still another is someone accompanied by armed forces that can destroy our creditor. Or perhaps the creditor might forgive us of our debt for no reason other than he just feels like it. But no matter how it’s done or who does it, we would be beholden to the one who released us from our debt.
So, Paul uses this metaphor to emphasize the seriousness of our guilt with God. He says as much in the preceding verse… “When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh.” And he also states the solution that GOD provided in the following verses… “He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions.” He even explains in metaphorical terms how God did this, “having canceled out the certificate of debt.” In other words, God CANCELLED that proverbial debt instrument so the debt no longer attached to us.
Now, it’s important to know why and how that kind of debt got cancelled in the Jewish world. If the debtor paid it off, then the judge tore it up and the 3rd party who held onto it no longer had evidence of a complete certificate of debt as evidence of it. The debtor received one half of that torn up cheirograph and the creditor got the other half. How do I know this? Because I learned it from reading Rabinowitz’s Jewish Law as well as other relevant explanations.
According to Paul, God cancelled that certificate of debt. But how did He do it? Paul tells us in metaphorical terms… “He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.” But what does that mean? I believe it’s a metaphorical way of saying that God considers our guilt (which is inextricably bound to us) as having died on the cross along with Jesus (‘nailed to the cross’ is a reference to Jesus’ death on the cross). Common sense (and the law) dictates that a dead man can’t be charged with fines or be punished, and certainly can’t be forced to pay off his debts. So when we ‘died with Christ’, we effectively became severed from whatever was in this world that condemned us by our sins and put us at enmity with God (e.g., Romans 5:10).
That means God bases His forgiveness on Jesus Christ’s death on the cross. Which means it was Jesus who PAID OFF OUR DEBT to God, in metaphorical terms. In other words, it’s like a rich man paid off our debt (guilt from sin) and freed us (forgiveness) from any obligation towards our creditor (God). So, Jesus purchased our release from debt. Or you could say Jesus provided the remedy that enabled God to forgive us of our guilt towards Him.
Paul explains further what happens when that cheirograph is torn up… “He had disarmed the rulers and authorities.” That means the dogma/decrees no longer have any validity or force of law. Thus, the authorities can no longer pursue us for any debt we may have owed in the past because it’s no longer ON THE BOOKS (of record).
Paul further says that “He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.” I’m not sure what that means. But if I were to guess, I would say it’s a reference to when the 2nd Temple government and Rome crucified Jesus, and then God resurrected him. All of that was carried out IN PUBLIC. Therefore, it was a “public display”. It is common knowledge that in order for things to become official, they must be performed IN PUBLIC and PUT ON RECORD. And that’s precisely what God did when he ‘nailed the certificate of debt to the cross’. That is, when Jesus died on the cross and left the grave and ascended into Heaven (God’s presence). All of that took place, not in secret, but in public.
One quick word about the Greek grammar in verse 14. The verb ‘cancelled’ has as its object, the certificate of debt. The way I know this is that the ‘certificate of debt’ is in the Greek accusative case. The word decrees is in the dative case. There is some dispute surrounding the word decrees. The controversy is the typical Evangelical assignment of the Mosaic law and all its obligations to the word decrees. They ‘game’ the Greek grammar to make their point. Typical sophistry for those ignorant of the grammar. In order to resolve this controversy, I let the historical meaning of the words resolve the grammatical dispute. I consider my method equivalent to taking the text at face value. My method works the text from the known to the unknown, instead of using the unknown to SPECULATE a meaning that fits my ideology, like the Evangelical sophists do. So, I consider the dative form of decrees as referring to the noun (certificate of debt) instead of the verb (cancelled). A confirmation of that assessment is the proximity of the word decrees to certificate of debt. It immediately follows. That would be considered a grammatical clue. So, the dative would then be either instrumental of manner or locative of sphere, and not instrumental of the action. So, the decrees would be connected to the certificate of debt, not to the word cancelled (as the sophists would have it).
Moreover, if the dative was instrumental of the action then the word decree would read something like this… “having canceled by decrees the certificate of debt against us”. Does that even sound right? So instead, I consider the word decrees as referring back to the noun. In other words, referring to the results or continuation of the process that the certificate of debt began, which is, as we’ve said, the writ of execution (a modern phrase) that the court issues to the police (another modern phrase). That’s because the decrees have to do with the debt instrument and the force of law that collects it by authoritative decree (arising out of the debt instrument). It is the decrees against us that give the police the authority to collect. It is the certificate of debt that brings these decrees into existence.
Note that this is all metaphorical speech based on the subject of a Jewish debt instrument and how it works. So, I equate the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us as a metaphor for OUR SIN AND GUILT THAT RESULT IN PENALTY from God.
Two questions now arise in my mind that beg to be asked:
1. If the Galatians were all Gentiles, then how would Paul expect them to know and understand Jewish debt law?
2. Where do Evangelicals get the idea that the certificate of debt is the Mosaic law?
I’m only going to answer question 2 because answering question 1 will lengthen this blog too much. But after you absorb what I share in this blog, you can think about it yourself and arrive at your own conclusions after doing a little research.
In TDNT under the entries DOGMA (decree) and STAUROS (cross), we find a lot of discussion based on Ephesians 2:15. At first I thought that verse was a parallel to Colossians 2:14. But after further reflection I consider it to be an entirely different subject. Here’s what Ephesians 2:14-17 says:
14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.
Note the bold phrase (in English)… “the Law of commandments contained in ordinances.” Also note the phrase, “the barrier of the dividing wall.” The first phrase is where Evangelicals get their idea that God has done away with the Mosaic law. They consider that whole phrase to be equivalent to the Mosaic law and all the obligations that law places on the people who are supposed to obey it.
In any case, let’s look at the grammar. First note that the translators decided to interpret that the thing that was abolished was the ENMITY, not the Mosaic law. The enmity is the separation that occurs between Jew and Gentile due to the strict rules that Jewish law imposes on how Jews interact with Gentiles, such as when doing business buying and selling food products. So, according to the translators, the thing that was abolished was the SEPARATION FACTOR between Jews and Gentiles. Does that sound like the Mosaic law to you?
Even if the Mosaic law was involved, notice how and where. The text says “the law of commandments in ordinances“. I am wondering if that could be a Hebraism found in Jewish literature. If it is, then whatever it means is probably what it meant to Paul when he coined it. So that would explain it. But since I don’t yet have that information, I can’t say for certain.
What I CAN say is that the law typically means the WRITTEN law that you find in the OT. I also know that ‘commandments’ typically means the 10 Commandments or all of the commandments that God issued in the OT. I also know that the Greek word translated ‘ordinances’ means public decrees issued by an authority. So when you get right down to it, the phrase is probably a reference to the MAN-MADE LAWS that 2nd Temple public officials created to regulate Jew-Gentile relations (based on the Mosaic Law/God’s commandments).
Let’s face it, there were no laws and commandments between Jews and Gentiles in the WRITTEN (Mosaic) law. There were commandments against becoming compromised and adopting Gentile law, which could prevent, circumvent and otherwise nullify obedience to God’s law. But there were no commands specifically detailing that regulation in the OT Mosaic law. So, I have to ask the question, ‘Are man-made Jewish laws the same as the Mosaic law?’ If so, then God ABOLISHED the Mosaic law. But if not, then God did NOT abolish the Mosaic law. And if He didn’t, then what did He abolish? Answer: The man-made laws.
But if God abolished the man-made laws, then how doesn’t that abolish the Mosaic law? Let me answer that question with this question… ‘Can’t God simultaneously abolish certain man-made laws (not all of them), yet keep His original laws found in the OT?’ An easy way to explain this is to view man-made laws as applications of God’s law. We all know that laws made 100 years ago about horse and carriages are obsolete today. So why are they still ‘on the books’ when they have no value to us today? Why not cull through all the laws and abolish the obsolete laws? I believe that’s what is going on here. God is abolishing the OBSOLETE laws because they do not work in His new system.
That brings us to another very important point that most Christians and Bible scholars never discuss. It is known as NULLIFYING or ABOLISHING laws. The way I understand how the law works is this: Once a law is enacted, it stands in full force and effect until some authority rescinds it or otherwise overrides it. There are various ways to accomplish this, such as legislative oversight and hearings, a court decision that over-rules a law, a foreign authority conquering that nation and imposing new laws, to name a few. So, right here in this Ephesians 2 text we have an expressed statement by the Apostle Paul of God abolishing or nullifying a set of man-made laws that 2nd Temple Israeli government officials had enacted to segregate themselves from the rest of the world’s population. But since God wanted everyone in the world to get along together, He abolished those man-made laws because they interfered with His objectives. And He did it through Jesus’ execution, as stated in the text. Let’s be clear on one thing: ONLY those Jews and Gentiles who are “IN CHRIST” are UNITED like this. This is another subject about obeying God’s law while living in an unbelieving world (where Jews and Gentiles dominate the landscape, so to speak). But it’s not for this blog.
In the preceding verse you see the phrase “barrier of the dividing wall” and the verb “broke down”. The Greek word for “broke down” is normally translated LOOSED. Think about where we’ve seen Jesus use that term. Remember when he told his disciples that he gave them the power to bind and loose in heaven and on earth? Check it out in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18. I think that’s what Paul means here. He means that God ‘loosed’, or rather, released Jews from the legal partition that existed between them and the Gentiles. This is metaphorical language again, just like in Colossians 2. Only this time it’s metaphorical of a BARRIER, kind of like the Great Wall of China or the Iron Curtain. See how we have a similar political thing today? It’s all about public officials and bureaucrats erecting protection for their people so they don’t get CONTAMINATED by foreign influences.
Now, when we compare the “barrier of the dividing wall” with the “law of commandments contained in ordinances”, we see a parallel expression. The first expression is telling us the RESULT, whereas the second expression is telling us the CAUSE of that result. The result is tightly controlled relations between Jew and Gentile while the cause of that control is the man-made rules. It’s possible that those rules (or “decrees”) were issued by a court based on practical experiences that arose during the course of daily life. And then those court decisions became official decrees by the authorities who controlled the rules and regulations in society.
So, regardless of how you exegete the text, it’s obvious that the main issue here is the exact same thing that we see Paul addressing in the second half of the book of Acts. Essentially the 2nd Temple government authorities refusing to accept the fact that Gentiles could have access to God apart from becoming 2nd Temple citizens.
In other words, the 2nd Temple government authorities’ LEGAL BARRIER between Jews and Gentiles required Gentiles who believed in Jesus to become 2nd Temple citizens in order to interact with Jews. And when one becomes a citizen of a nation, one is obligated to obey all the laws of that nation, including the tax laws. But when Gentiles didn’t become citizens of Israel and obey all the laws, then the government officials regarded those Gentiles as perpetually unclean and out of bounds for Jews.
From what I’ve read, 2nd Temple law strictly regulated relations between Jews and Gentiles. Hence “the barrier of the dividing wall.” And believe me when I tell you, the Israeli government regulated every possible aspect of everybody’s lives, especially their business affairs! Is it any different in America today?!
Essentially, Paul was telling the Ephesian churches that Jesus REMOVED the legal barrier that existed between Jews and Gentiles so they could become UNITED. And God did it through Jesus’ death on the cross, which provided forgiveness to everyone (who believes), not just Jews or just Gentiles. That is the point Paul is making in this Ephesians 2 text. Notice that it is completely different from the point he made in the Colossians 2 text (forgiveness of sins). To summarize, the Galatians text is about FORGIVENESS of sins whereas the Ephesians text is about UNITY between Jew and Gentile. Big difference between the two passages!
So when I read TDNT’s entry on DOGMA (ORDINANCE/DECREE) and saw how they used Ephesians 2 to justify nullifying the Mosaic law by applying their antinomian ideology to the Colossians 2 text, I had to laugh and ignore what they had to say. The sad thing about that is, it was not only a waste of time to read, but it also did not contain any valuable factual and evidentiary proof of what they were alleging. So it was not only shoddy exegesis, it was pure propaganda!
Unfortunately, I’ve seen this all too often in the churches I’ve attended. It’s a favorite, unspoken thing for religious ministers and their parishioners to READ INTO THE BIBLICAL TEXT their own religious ideas. That’s a hermeneutical fallacy called EISAGESIS. It is also a violation of the INSPIRATION of the Bible, which God warns against in both the OT & NT:
You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:2)
18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. (Revelation 22)
The Bible contains other such warnings, but those alone are sufficient. One has to wonder why ‘the experts’ (Christians especially), have taken it upon themselves to corrupt the meaning of the Bible by inserting their own beliefs? Could it be they are following in the footsteps of the Jewish Rabbis that created the ‘oral law’ to accompany (take precedence over) God’s written law?
So I simply decided to disregard that TDNT entry. To make matters worse, the entry under STAUROS (CROSS) had almost the exact same religious propaganda. I considered that commentary to also be a waste of time and paper. I paid a lot of money for those volumes and unfortunately I encounter this kind of propaganda too often throughout its pages. What a rip-off!
Now let me tell you how Evangelicals interpret Colossians 2:14. They suggest that God nailed the Mosaic law to the cross and therefore He ‘did away with it’ so Christians don’t have to obey it. My first question then is, did anyone see the Mosaic law anywhere in the Colossians verses above? If not, then where in the world do Evangelicals see it? I’ve asked some of them but they really don’t have an answer! They just re-assert their antinomian mantra and tell me I’m wrong. How can that pass for a valid argument?
Evangelicals say the same thing about the meaning of Ephesians 2:15. They say that the “law of commandments in decrees” IS the Mosaic law, and God abolished them by ‘nailing them to the cross’. Thus God ‘did away with the Mosaic law’ so Christians don’t have to obey it. But as we have seen, the Greek text doesn’t say that the law was abolished. Instead, it says that the ENMITY was abolished which was created by MAN-MADE DECREES. We also saw that the enmity and decrees are parallel realities, the former being the result and the latter being the cause. In that light, how is this difficult to understand? And how can anyone confuse the Mosaic law with man-made rules and regulations? How in the world do Evangelicals get ‘LAW OF MOSES’ from ‘ENMITY between Jew and Gentile’? Beats me! But when you are ‘hell bent’ on shoving your religious opinion down everyone’s throat, you just…well, in the words of Paul Simon:
A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. (The Boxer)
I guess Paul Simon was on to something!
Needless to say, I REJECT the notion that Colossians 2 and Ephesians 2 provide any proof that God ABOLISHED THE MOSAIC LAW by Jesus’ dying on the cross. In fact, the New Testament has two passages stating the exact opposite. One is from Evangelicals’ illustrious leader the Apostle Paul:
Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. (Romans 3:31)
The second is from God’s beloved Son:
17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5)
The meaning of the first Scripture is obvious. But the second passage, well, I’d have to ask, ‘has heaven and earth passed away yet?’ If not, then Jesus seems to be saying “then neither has the Mosaic law.” Right? Now note Jesus’ next words:
19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5)
I take that as a warning. Don’t you? If so, then I guess Jesus is stressing the importance of the Mosaic law. Why else would he say such things about it? Let me know your ideas if you think I’m off track. But please, no Evangelical theology!
Although there are more primary source references I could provide from ancient sources taken from Strack-Billerbeck’s commentaries, I’ll close this blog because of its present length. Suffice to say that Colossians 2 and Ephesians 2 don’t say that God has abolished the Mosaic Law. Instead, they tell us that God rescued us through Jesus’ death from a very bad predicament. And He also brought unity to both Jew and Gentile by that same death using the same method. I realize I didn’t cover it in Ephesians 2, but you can see it very easily by reading the above passage and comparing it with the Colossians 2 passage. God solved these problems by FORGIVING EVERYONE OF THEIR SINS AND PUTTING US ALL ON EQUAL FOOTING WITH HIM.
That’s it. Hope you got something out of this little treatise on the Jewish certificate of debt and its associated writ of execution. See you in the next blog!
(A big thanks goes out to my good friend Jim for editing this blog for grammar and content!)
Reality Bible 