310 philip l. tite
Letter Closing
after the paraenesis, laodiceans concludes with a fitting Pauline letter
closing for the rhetorical situation of the letter. like the ancient letter
prescript, the epistolary closing typically is glossed over in scholarship.44
Jeffrey Weima has done an excellent job in correcting this view, arguing
that letter closings serve as both the “good bye” of the epistolary encoun-
ter and reinforce earlier parts of the letter. he also describes five common
elements in Paul’s letter closings. three of these elements are explicitly
present in the epistolary closing (greetings, grace benediction, and horta-
tory section), a fourth shifted to the end of the paraenesis (peace benedic-
tion), and the fifth is absent (autograph).45
the grace benediction appears in v. 19 (gratia domini Jesu cum spiritu
vestro). as with other Pauline grace benedictions, Ps.-Paul assumes a shared
worldview by means of this grace wish. unlike other Pauline grace wishes,
the assumption underlying laodiceans is that the recipients already have
this grace due to their steadfastness. this assumption is suggested by the
shift of the peace benediction to the closing of the paraenesis, where in
v. 16 we read: “and what you have heard and received, hold fast in your
heart, and peace will be with you” (Et quae audistis et acceptistis, in corde
retinete, et erit vobis pax).
the “grace and peace” inclusio so common in the Pauline letter is
effected in laodiceans with parallels of “in your heart” (in corde) = “with
your spirit” (cum spiritu vestro) and “peace” (pax) = “grace” (gratia).
the delimitation of the grace benediction to only Jesus Christ could be
explained by means of such a parallel, specifically with the phrase “with
your spirit” (cum spiritu vestro), which aligns the recipients with the “mind
44 Jeffrey a. d. Weima, “sincerely, Paul: the significance of the Pauline letter Closings,”
in Porter and adams (eds.), Paul and the Ancient Letter Form, 307–45, see especially his
comments on 307.
45 these insights are developed in both Weima’s essay, “sincerely, Paul,” and in his
book length treatment, Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings
(Jsntsup 101; sheffield: Jsot, 1994). earlier treatments of the letter closing that recog-
nize the function of the closing in parallel with the letter opening, are found in heikki
koskenniemi, Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. (sou-
malaisen tiedeakatemian toimituksia; annales academiae scientiarum fennicae 102.2;
helsinki: akateeminen kirjakauppa, 1956), 155, and the discussion of Pauline letter clos-
ings in White, “epistolary literature,” 1744–51. on the formulae used in epistolary closings,
see exler, Form, 69–71, who drew a distinction between three types of letters in regard to
the farewell formula utilized. familiar letters tended to end with ἔρρωσο or its modifica-
tion; business letters tended to end with εὐτύχει; and official letters tended to lack such
a formula.