- Discussion:
-A blogger named Catholic Nick wrote an article titled What is the "certificate of debt" that Jesus canceled for us?, where the author parallels Colossians 2 with Ephesians 2 and says:
"Given the above, it is pretty obvious that "canceling the certificate of debt with its legal demands" means essentially the same thing as "abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances". That is, the Mosaic Law was canceled, abolished, fulfilled, etc, (all terms the NT uses) through Christ's death on the Cross. This is an undeniable theme throughout the NT (e.g. Acts 13:38-39)."
First of all, it is not enough to say, “Look at those two passages. They are parallel. Therefore, they are saying the same thing”. Ephesians 2 contains an element that the Colossians passage does not have, and that is, Paul is working to unite Jews and Gentiles. That is the whole point of Ephesians 2:5. That portion of it is also missing from the Colossians passage. Here is a helpful note on Colossians 2:14 from the Reformation Study Bible:
"2:14 canceling the record of debt. The law is compared to a certificate of indebtedness written in the debtor’s own hand. Jesus was born “under the law,” subject to its demands and curses (Gal. 4:4). On the cross, He was “made . . . to be sin” (2 Cor. 5:21) and endured the law’s curse against unrighteousness (Gal. 3:13). In the execution of the death sentence on Jesus when He was nailed to the cross, Paul sees the cancellation of the death warrant that stood against transgressors of the law. Paul also sees here the fulfillment of their obligation to keep perfectly the law’s demands in order to enter into life. The believer is no longer subject to the threat of the law’s condemnation."
The author fails to understand Colossians 2:14 in its immediate context, which is most certainly speaking about our debt of sin. The excerpt from the study Bible quoted above is relevant here. The Roman Catholic apologist being critiqued is correct in saying that the Jews and Gentiles were separated. But he is denying what Scripture teaches in terms of our justification in this passage and others.
The author is correct when he says that the phrase (i.e. "certificate of debt with its legal demands") can be understood as "blotting out the handwriting". However, again, especially with phrases that are not used frequently, we must translate the phrase in the context, which is clearly speaking about our justification before the Lord in terms of our sin. With almost all Greek and Hebrews words, there is a semantic range which is appropriate. While the word"cheirographon" can mean handwriting, it can also mean "certificate of indebtedness". So, with that in mind, that word is translated such from the context. Responsible translators of the Bible do not merely apply that meaning to that word to fit their theology. The author says the following:
"I would say appealing to Colossians 2 is terrible for Protestants for a few reasons. My favorite reason is that the reference to "being dead in trespasses but made alive" (Col 2:13; Eph 2:5) is speaking of inward transformation. This passage is clearly talking about Justification, which Protestants say is purely legal in nature and by Imputation, yet Paul says it is about being made spiritually alive."
Contrary to the claims of the author, justification being legal in nature (i.e. the process of Christ taking our place and our debt) does not exclude regeneration of the heart. The concept of inward renewal is not incompatible with legal justification. The two are not mutually exclusive. That is a completely false argument made on behalf of the Catholic apologist.
"Given the above, it is pretty obvious that "canceling the certificate of debt with its legal demands" means essentially the same thing as "abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances". That is, the Mosaic Law was canceled, abolished, fulfilled, etc, (all terms the NT uses) through Christ's death on the Cross. This is an undeniable theme throughout the NT (e.g. Acts 13:38-39)."
First of all, it is not enough to say, “Look at those two passages. They are parallel. Therefore, they are saying the same thing”. Ephesians 2 contains an element that the Colossians passage does not have, and that is, Paul is working to unite Jews and Gentiles. That is the whole point of Ephesians 2:5. That portion of it is also missing from the Colossians passage. Here is a helpful note on Colossians 2:14 from the Reformation Study Bible:
"2:14 canceling the record of debt. The law is compared to a certificate of indebtedness written in the debtor’s own hand. Jesus was born “under the law,” subject to its demands and curses (Gal. 4:4). On the cross, He was “made . . . to be sin” (2 Cor. 5:21) and endured the law’s curse against unrighteousness (Gal. 3:13). In the execution of the death sentence on Jesus when He was nailed to the cross, Paul sees the cancellation of the death warrant that stood against transgressors of the law. Paul also sees here the fulfillment of their obligation to keep perfectly the law’s demands in order to enter into life. The believer is no longer subject to the threat of the law’s condemnation."
The author fails to understand Colossians 2:14 in its immediate context, which is most certainly speaking about our debt of sin. The excerpt from the study Bible quoted above is relevant here. The Roman Catholic apologist being critiqued is correct in saying that the Jews and Gentiles were separated. But he is denying what Scripture teaches in terms of our justification in this passage and others.
The author is correct when he says that the phrase (i.e. "certificate of debt with its legal demands") can be understood as "blotting out the handwriting". However, again, especially with phrases that are not used frequently, we must translate the phrase in the context, which is clearly speaking about our justification before the Lord in terms of our sin. With almost all Greek and Hebrews words, there is a semantic range which is appropriate. While the word"cheirographon" can mean handwriting, it can also mean "certificate of indebtedness". So, with that in mind, that word is translated such from the context. Responsible translators of the Bible do not merely apply that meaning to that word to fit their theology. The author says the following:
"I would say appealing to Colossians 2 is terrible for Protestants for a few reasons. My favorite reason is that the reference to "being dead in trespasses but made alive" (Col 2:13; Eph 2:5) is speaking of inward transformation. This passage is clearly talking about Justification, which Protestants say is purely legal in nature and by Imputation, yet Paul says it is about being made spiritually alive."
Contrary to the claims of the author, justification being legal in nature (i.e. the process of Christ taking our place and our debt) does not exclude regeneration of the heart. The concept of inward renewal is not incompatible with legal justification. The two are not mutually exclusive. That is a completely false argument made on behalf of the Catholic apologist.
