---
# System prepended metadata

title: 'Cheirographon: Examining 2,000 Years of Signatures and Contracts'

---

# Cheirographon: Examining 2,000 Years of Signatures and Contracts

> ## Excerpt
> Public Key Infrastructure (PKI), Hand Written Signatures and Smart Contracts: Looking at 2,000 years of signature tradition and law

---

## Historical Context of Signatures and Debt

Examining the bible, we can go to the ancient Greek words found in the bible and find in [Strong’s dictionary](https://biblehub.com/greek/5498.htm) a unique word called, “Cheirographon”. Cheirographon _then_ described a **note or bond written by hand thus obligating the writer to fulfill the debt that is written out**. In other words, it is analogous to an “IOU” signed by hand and obligating the signer to repay the debt.

> The phrase “handwriting of requirements” is translated from the Greek phrase cheirographon tois dogmasin. Cheirographon means anything written by hand, but can more specifically apply to a legal document, bond, or note of debt. — [Bible Tools on Antinomianism](https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/1750/Cheirographon.htm)

We explain this word because its important to understand how custom arises and persists. The act, or more specifically the international application of one's person to a signature, is the mechanism that typically guides legislators, representatives, and judicial systems in establishing what constitutes a legal signature.

Below we go through some case law and examine to what extent digital signatures are legal, and not legal. This is important because as a validator on the network, there are some instances in which one could be seen as “enabling” a transaction. For example, if we were transmitting money from Iran to Russia and operating within the United States that would be illegal. However, does that apply to someone who is transacting on the network while you just provide services to the network? Should a validator also be presumed to be “enabling” that transaction, even though they are simply providing a service to the network, much like how in proof of work chains a miner is not held for enabling money laundering or sanctions evasion?

## Intent and Digital Signatures

For example, in Parma Tile Mosaic & Marble Co., Inc. v. Estate of Short, the New York Court of Appeals held that an automatic fax machine heading  
printed on a document did not satisfy the statute of frauds signature requirement (_87 N.Y.2d 524 (N.Y. 1996)_). The court held that under the statute of frauds, a valid signature requires an intentional act to authenticate the writing.

New York has enacted the Electronic Signatures and Records Act (ESRA), which recognizes that an electronic signature has the same validity and  
effect as a handwritten signature (N.Y. State Tech. § 304).

The ESRA defines an electronic signature the same way the UETA defines it (N.Y. State Tech. § 302(3); see also Uniform Electronic Transactions Act  
Definition of Electronic Signature).

Similar to the UETA, the ESRA applies only to certain transactions. The ESRA generally does not apply to:

-   laws relating to wills, trusts, powers of attorney, or health care proxies; and
-   **negotiable instruments and other instruments of the title where possession of the instrument confers title, like bills of lading.**

So even in the United States, we see that not all States (looking at you Louisiana) practice the same standard of what is and is not acceptable. We will ignore the fact that not all digital signatures are “digital signatures”. The European Union makes a distinction between Electronic Signatures and Digital Signatures. Electronic signatures are different than digital signatures in the sense that digital signatures are considered “legally equivalent” to a handwritten signature.

We want to also note though however, that interstate commerce clause overrides the ESRA as it pertains to shipping documents, as Federal law states only the carrier needs to sign the document. This is a perfect example of customary law, in practice, a shipper always signs the bill of lading as well, even though it is not legally required to.

## Signatures and Enforceability

How legislators and courts have defined what constitutes a valid signature in compliance with the statute of frauds and addresses the contractual enforceability of digital signatures.

**The Uniform Commercial Code.**

Every state has adopted a version of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which contains a statute of frauds  
covering security agreements and the sale of goods, personal property, and securities.

**The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act.**

A majority of states have adopted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) and have given legal effect to electronic and digital signatures in certain transactions.

**Alternatives to the UETA.**

The minority of states that have not adopted the UETA have enacted other statutes that protect the enforceability of electronic or digital signatures.

**The Federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act.** This federal legislation protects the enforceability of electronic  
signatures used in transactions that are in or affect interstate or foreign commerce.

## What the Bible says about Cheirographon

> (From Forerunner Commentary)
> Colossians 2:14

In their struggle to find a New Testament scripture that supports their misconception that God's law is "done away," antinomians point to Colossians 2:14 to "prove" that Christ nailed the law of God to the cross. Proponents of such a teaching say that the "handwriting of requirements [ordinances, KJV]" refers to the law "that was against us." They further claim that Christ "took it out of the way" or abolished the law.

The phrase "handwriting of requirements" is translated from the Greek phrase cheirographon tois dogmasin. Cheirographon means anything written by hand, but can more specifically apply to a legal document, bond, or note of debt. Dogmasin refers to decrees, laws, or ordinances, and in this context means a body of beliefs or practices that have become the guidelines governing a person's conduct or way of life.

What Paul is saying is that, by His death, Christ has justified us—brought us into alignment with His Law—and wiped out the note of guilt or debt that we owed as a result of our sins. Before repentance, our lives had been governed by the standards and values of this present, evil world—the "decrees, laws and ordinances" of the society in which we lived. After repentance and acceptance of Christ, we embark on a new way of life and live by God's standards and values. Consequently, God wipes out the debt we acquired as a result of our sins and imputes righteousness to us.

Also notice that the phrase "handwriting of requirements" restates the phrase immediately before it. "Having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us" parallels "having forgiven you all trespasses." Thus, Paul could not be referring to the law itself but rather to the record of our transgression of that law—sin!

The last sentence in verse 14 reads: "And He has taken it out of the way..." In this sentence, the word "it" is a singular pronoun and refers back to the singular word "handwriting." "Requirements" could not be its antecedent because "requirements" is plural. So, some kind of handwriting—a note, a record, or a citation—was affixed to the cross.

Historically, only two objects were nailed to the stake of crucifixion: 1) the condemned person and 2) an inscription naming the crimes for which he was being punished. Thus, when Jesus was crucified, only His body and Pilate's inscription ("This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews"; see Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19) were nailed to the cross. Normally, the inscription would be more accusative, saying something like, "This is Jesus of Nazareth, who rebelled against Caesar." Pilate's complimentary inscription replaced the customary note or record of guilt—the "handwriting of requirements" that would have been found nailed to the crosses of the two malefactors crucified with Him.

Just before He died, when the Father forsook Him (Matthew 27:46), our sins were symbolically nailed to the cross in His body. "Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed" (I Peter 2:24). At the time of His crucifixion, Jesus Christ became sin for us. "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (II Corinthians 5:21). Our note of debt that we owed God as a result of our sins is what was "taken out of the way" and "nailed . . . to the cross."

Earl L. Henn (1934-1997)
*Was God's Law Nailed to the Cross?*
https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/1750/Cheirographon.htm

## Citations and References

Cooter, Robert D., and Ginsburg, Tom, Leximetrics: Why the Same Laws are Longer in Some Countries than Others (June 2003). U Illinois Law & Economics Research Paper No. LE03–012. Available at SSRN: [https://ssrn.com/abstract=456520](https://ssrn.com/abstract=456520) or [http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.456520](https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.456520)

Buchanan, John, and Chai, Dominic H. and Deakin, Simon F., Empirical Analysis of Legal Institutions and Institutional Change: Multiple-Methods Approaches and Their Application to Corporate Governance Research (February 1, 2014). European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI) — Law Working Paper №238/2014; University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper №12/2014. Available at SSRN: [https://ssrn.com/abstract=2394681](https://ssrn.com/abstract=2394681) or [http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2394681](https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2394681)

La Porta, Rafael, and Lopez de Silanes, Florencio and Shleifer, Andrei, The Economic Consequences of Legal Origins. Journal of Economic Literature, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: [https://ssrn.com/abstract=1028081](https://ssrn.com/abstract=1028081)

2013, “Some Reflections on the Ideal Dimension of Law and on the Legal Philosophy of John Finnis”, _American Journal of Jurisprudence_,

_Ibid_., p. 116.

Dworkin, Ronald. _Law’s Empire_. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986.

Hart, H.L.A. _The Concept of Law_. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.

