Test 13: Christ's Relationship to the Moral Law
Did Christ come to abolish the Ten Commandments, or to uphold them? And what does it mean that He came to "fulfil" the law?
This question is not academic. It determines how we understand Christ's teaching, His death, and the entire framework of Christian obligation. Two mutually exclusive positions exist, and the evidence must determine which is true.
⚖️ Preliminary Matter: Establishing Which Law Is Under Examination
Before proceeding to the main evidence, a critical distinction must be established. Scripture speaks of two different laws given to Israel. Failure to distinguish them has caused significant confusion in this debate and has allowed parties to speak past one another.
The distinction is not a matter of theological interpretation. It is established by explicit scriptural testimony:
The evidence establishes two distinct laws with different origins, forms, locations, and purposes:
| Characteristic | The Moral Law (Ten Commandments) | The Ceremonial Law |
|---|---|---|
| Spoken by | God Himself directly (Deuteronomy 4:12-13) | God through Moses (Leviticus 1:1-2) |
| Written by | God's own finger on stone (Exodus 31:18) | Moses by hand in a book (Deuteronomy 31:9, 24) |
| Written on | Two tables of stone (Deuteronomy 5:22) | A scroll/book (Deuteronomy 31:24) |
| Placed | Inside the Ark (Deuteronomy 10:5) | Beside the Ark (Deuteronomy 31:26) |
| Designated | "The testimony" (Exodus 25:16, 21) | "The book of the law" (Deuteronomy 31:26) |
| Content | Moral duties to God and man (Exodus 20:1-17) | Sacrifices, feasts, rituals pointing to Christ |
| Function | Reveals and defines sin (Romans 7:7) | Provided temporary remedy foreshadowing Christ |
| Duration | "They stand fast for ever and ever" (Psalm 111:7-8) | "Till the seed should come" (Galatians 3:19) |
Scope of This Examination
This examination concerns the Moral Law — the Ten Commandments — not the ceremonial system.
For the complete scriptural examination of this distinction, see Test 8: The Two Laws Distinction
The Two Positions Under Examination
Position A (Moral Law Abolished):
Christ came to terminate the Ten Commandments along with all Old Testament law. The word "fulfil" means to complete something so that it is no longer needed — similar to fulfilling a contract, which terminates obligations. Christians are therefore free from the moral law, including the Sabbath commandment.
Position B (Moral Law Established):
Christ came to magnify, uphold, and perfectly demonstrate the Ten Commandments. The word "fulfil" means to fill full of meaning, to establish, to bring to complete expression. The moral law remains the unchanging standard for Christian living, now written on the heart by the Spirit under the new covenant.
These positions are mutually exclusive. Both cannot be true. The evidence must determine which position Scripture supports.
Establishing the Burden of Proof
Before examining the evidence, we must determine which party bears the burden of proving their case.
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK Common Law — Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit:
"The burden of proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies."
US Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 301 — Presumptions in Civil Cases:
"In a civil case, unless a federal statute or these rules provide otherwise, the party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption."
Application to the Present Question:
The moral law (Ten Commandments) existed and was acknowledged as binding before the events in question. This is not disputed by either party. The question is whether this law was subsequently abolished.
- Position A asserts a change — that something which existed (the binding moral law) ceased to exist (was abolished).
- Position B asserts continuity — that what existed before continues to exist.
Determination on Burden of Proof
Under established burden of proof principles, the party asserting change bears the burden of proving that change occurred.
Position A bears the burden of proof. It is not for Position B to prove the moral law was NOT abolished. It is for Position A to prove that it WAS abolished. In the absence of sufficient evidence establishing abolition, the presumption of continuity prevails — the moral law remains as it was.
This burden will be kept in view throughout our examination of the evidence.
Section 1.1: Examination of the Primary Evidence — Matthew 5:17-19
We turn first to the most critical piece of evidence in this matter — the direct testimony of Christ Himself regarding His purpose toward the moral law.
The Applicable Evidentiary Principle
UK Common Law — Best Evidence Rule, as affirmed in Garton v Hunter [1969] 2 QB 37, Lord Denning MR:
"The old rule that a party must produce the best evidence that the nature of the case will allow... is not dead."
US Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 1002 — Requirement of the Original:
"An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise."
Application: When determining Christ's position on the moral law, the best evidence is Christ's own direct statements on the subject — not inferences drawn from other passages or theological deductions from secondary sources. We begin, therefore, with Christ's direct testimony.
The Primary Text: Matthew 5:17-19
This testimony yields six distinct points of evidence. Each will be examined with the applicable legal principles applied.
Point of Evidence #1: The Pre-emptive Denial
Christ opens with "Think not" — in the original Greek, mē nomisēte (μὴ νομίσητε — pronounced "may noh-MIS-ay-teh" — meaning "do not suppose" or "do not presume").
This is the language of anticipation. Christ knew — before the accusation was formally made — that some would misconstrue His mission as the abolition of the moral law. He addresses the error before it takes root.
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — The Mischief Rule, as established in Heydon's Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a:
"Four things are to be discerned and considered: 1st. What was the common law before the making of the Act. 2nd. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide. 3rd. What remedy the Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the commonwealth. And 4th. The true reason of the remedy."
US — Purposivism, as articulated in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892):
"It is a familiar rule that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit nor within the intention of its makers."
Application: What "mischief" was Christ addressing? His opening words identify it: the mistaken assumption that He came to destroy the law. Christ's purpose in Matthew 5:17 is to remedy this misconception.
Under the Mischief Rule, the interpretation that "suppresses the mischief" must be preferred:
- Position B (fulfil = establish): Christ corrects the misconception by affirming He upholds the law. The mischief is suppressed.
- Position A (fulfil = abolish): Christ would be saying "Don't think I came to destroy the law — I came to abolish it instead." This does not suppress the mischief; it confirms it under different vocabulary.
Finding Under the Mischief Rule
Position B suppresses the mischief Christ was addressing. Position A fails to remedy the misconception.
Point of Evidence #2: The Explicit Negative
Christ states explicitly: "I am not come to destroy."
The Greek word rendered "destroy" is kataluō (καταλύω — pronounced "kat-ah-LOO-oh"). Its semantic range includes:
- To demolish — as one demolishes a building
- To dissolve — as one dissolves a contract or agreement
- To overthrow — as one overthrows a government
- To abolish — as one abolishes a law
Christ selected the strongest available term for abolition — and explicitly denied it applying to His mission.
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — The Literal Rule, as stated by Lord Esher MR in R v Judge of the City of London Court [1892] 1 QB 273:
"If the words of an act are clear, you must follow them, even though they lead to a manifest absurdity."
US — Plain Meaning Rule, as stated in Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917):
"It is elementary that the meaning of a statute must, in the first instance, be sought in the language in which the act is framed, and if that is plain... the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms."
Application: The words "I am not come to destroy" are plain and unambiguous. The negative particle "not" (Greek: ouk / οὐκ) admits no alternative reading. Under the Literal Rule, these plain words must be given their ordinary meaning.
Christ said He did NOT come to destroy (abolish) the law. Position A claims He came to abolish the law. The plain words directly contradict Position A.
Finding Under the Literal Rule
Position A cannot be reconciled with the plain meaning of Christ's explicit denial.
Point of Evidence #3: The Duration Clause
Christ establishes the temporal scope of the moral law's validity:
The moral law's duration is tied to the duration of the physical creation itself.
The Applicable Legal Principle
US — Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201(b) — Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts:
"The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned."
UK — Holland v Jones (1917) 23 CLR 149:
"Judicial notice is taken of matters which are so notorious or clearly established that evidence of their existence is unnecessary."
Application: Christ stated the condition for the law's passing: "Till heaven and earth pass." The question is whether this condition has been met.
Fact subject to judicial notice: Heaven and earth have not passed away.
This fact is:
- Generally known — no one disputes the continued existence of the physical universe
- Accurately determinable — the sun rose this morning; the stars appeared last night; the earth remains beneath our feet
Finding
Heaven and earth continue to exist. By Christ's own stated condition, the moral law has not passed away. Position A's claim that the law ended at the cross fails — Christ did not say "till I die on the cross" but "till heaven and earth pass."
Point of Evidence #4: The Precision Clause
Christ specifies the degree of the law's preservation:
Definitions:
- The "jot" (Greek: iōta / ἰῶτα) corresponds to the Hebrew letter yod (י) — the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet.
- The "tittle" (Greek: keraia / κεραία — pronounced "keh-RAI-ah") refers to the minute serif marks distinguishing similar Hebrew letters.
Christ affirms that not merely the commandments, not merely the words, but the very letters — indeed, the very strokes within letters — remain binding until heaven and earth pass.
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HL Cas 61, Lord Wensleydale (The Golden Rule):
"The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless that would lead to some absurdity, or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument."
US — United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235 (1989):
"The plain meaning of legislation should be conclusive, except in the rare cases in which the literal application of a statute will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intentions of its drafters."
Application: Position A asks us to believe that:
- Christ said not even the smallest letter-stroke would pass from the law, but
- Christ intended to abolish the entire law at the cross
This produces an absurdity: an absolute statement of preservation immediately followed by total abolition. Under the Golden Rule, interpretations producing absurdity must be rejected.
Finding Under the Golden Rule
Position A's interpretation produces an irreconcilable inconsistency — absolute preservation language used by someone allegedly intending total abolition. The interpretation must be rejected.
Point of Evidence #5: The Specific Referent — "These Commandments"
Christ speaks of "these commandments" — Greek: tōn entolōn toutōn (τῶν ἐντολῶν τούτων) — employing the demonstrative pronoun "these" (toutōn).
The demonstrative pronoun points to specific, identifiable commandments — commandments His audience knew and could immediately identify.
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232, Lord Diplock — Noscitur a Sociis:
"The words of a statute must be construed in their context."
US — Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561 (1995):
"A word is known by the company it keeps."
Application: What commandments would a first-century Jewish audience understand by "these commandments"?
The immediate context provides the answer. In Matthew 5:21-48, Christ proceeds to quote and expound:
- Verse 21: "Thou shalt not kill" — 6th Commandment
- Verse 27: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" — 7th Commandment
- Verse 33: Principles relating to the 3rd Commandment (God's name)
The "company" the phrase "these commandments" keeps is the moral law — the Ten Commandments. There is no reference to ceremonial offerings, feast days, or ritual regulations.
Finding Under Noscitur a Sociis
"These commandments" is known by its company — the moral law Christ immediately proceeds to expound. Position A's attempt to apply this passage to ceremonial law lacks contextual support.
Point of Evidence #6: The Consequence Clause
Christ concludes with a warning and a promise:
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — R v Exall (1866) 4 F & F 922, Pollock CB — On circumstantial evidence:
"It has been said that circumstantial evidence is to be considered as a chain, and each piece of evidence as a link in the chain, but that is not so... It is more like the case of a rope comprised of several cords. One strand of the cord might be insufficient to sustain the weight, but three stranded together may be quite of sufficient strength."
Application: This consequence clause adds another strand to the rope of evidence:
If Christ intended to abolish the moral law at the cross — approximately three years away — why would He:
- Issue a warning against breaking these commandments?
- Issue a warning against teaching others to break them?
- Promise greatness to those who keep and teach them?
- Threaten diminished standing to those who break and teach against them?
These warnings and promises are inexplicable if the commandments were destined for abolition within three years. One does not warn against breaking something about to become irrelevant.
Finding
The consequence clause adds significant weight to Position B. Position A cannot explain why Christ would issue warnings about laws He allegedly intended to abolish.
Summary of Evidence from Matthew 5:17-19
| Point | Evidence | Legal Principle Applied | Finding |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Pre-emptive denial ("Think not") | Mischief Rule — Heydon's Case | Position B suppresses the mischief |
| #2 | Explicit negative ("not come to destroy") | Literal Rule — Caminetti | Plain words contradict Position A |
| #3 | Duration clause ("till heaven and earth pass") | Judicial Notice — FRE Rule 201 | Heaven/earth exist; law continues |
| #4 | Precision clause ("jot and tittle") | Golden Rule — Grey v Pearson | Position A produces absurdity |
| #5 | Specific referent ("these commandments") | Noscitur a Sociis — Gustafson | Context points to moral law |
| #6 | Consequence clause (least/great in kingdom) | Circumstantial evidence — R v Exall | Warnings inexplicable under Position A |
Cumulative Finding
Six distinct points of evidence from a single passage, examined under established legal principles, unanimously support Position B.
Section 1.2: Examination of the Word "Fulfil" — plēroō (πληρόω)
Position A's entire framework often rests upon a particular interpretation of the word "fulfil." The argument runs: Christ came to "fulfil" the law, meaning to complete it so that it is no longer needed.
This interpretation must be tested against expert evidence.
The Applicable Evidentiary Principle
UK — Civil Evidence Act 1972, Section 3(1) — Expert Evidence:
"Where a person is called as a witness in any civil proceedings, his opinion on any relevant matter on which he is qualified to give expert evidence shall be admissible in evidence."
US — Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702 — Testimony by Expert Witnesses:
"A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact."
US — Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993):
Expert testimony must be based on sufficient facts or data, reliable principles and methods, and reliable application of those principles.
Application: The meaning of Greek words is a matter requiring expert testimony. The recognised experts in Greek lexicography have produced standard reference works documenting how Greek words were used across thousands of ancient texts.
The Expert Evidence: Greek Lexicons on plēroō (πληρόω)
The word: plēroō (πληρόω — pronounced "play-ROH-oh")
| Expert Source | Qualification | Definition Provided |
|---|---|---|
| Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon | Standard reference since 1886 | "to make full, to fill up, to fill to the full... to render full, i.e. to complete... to carry through to the end, accomplish, carry out" |
| BDAG (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich) | Premier academic lexicon | "to bring to a designed end, fulfill... to bring to completion that which was already begun" |
| Strong's Concordance (G4137) | Widely-used reference | "to make replete, i.e. (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish, satisfy, execute, finish, verify" |
| Liddell-Scott-Jones | Standard Classical Greek lexicon | "to make full, fill full... to fill up, complete" |
| Vine's Expository Dictionary | Trusted evangelical reference | "signifies to fill; to complete, carry out to the full" |
Critical Observation
Not one standard Greek lexicon — not a single authoritative source — defines plēroō as "to abolish," "to terminate," "to bring to an end so as to no longer exist," or "to render obsolete."
The word means to fill full, to make complete, to bring to full expression.
Finding under the expert evidence rules: The authenticated expert testimony (Greek lexicons compiled by qualified lexicographers) unanimously contradicts Position A's interpretation of "fulfil." Position A's claim lacks support from any recognised authority on Greek word meaning.
Corroborating Evidence: Matthew's Own Usage of plēroō
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — R v Loxdale (1758) 1 Burr 445, Lord Mansfield — In Pari Materia:
"Where there are different statutes in pari materia though made at different times, or even expired, and not referring to each other, they shall be taken and construed together, as one system, and as explanatory of each other."
US — Erlenbaugh v. United States, 409 U.S. 239 (1972):
"The rule of in pari materia... is a reflection of practical experience in the interpretation of statutes: a legislative body generally uses a particular word with a consistent meaning in a given context."
Application: How does Matthew himself use plēroō elsewhere in his Gospel? Under the principle of in pari materia, an author's consistent usage of a term illuminates its meaning.
| Reference | Text | What plēroō Means |
|---|---|---|
| Matthew 1:22 | "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet" | Accomplished, made real — prophecy did not cease to exist |
| Matthew 2:15 | "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet" | Made real, brought to expression — prophecy did not cease to exist |
| Matthew 2:17 | "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet" | Jeremiah's words found their meaning — Jeremiah was not abolished |
| Matthew 3:15 | "thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness" | To accomplish fully — righteousness was not terminated |
| Matthew 13:48 | "when it was full" (of a net) | Filled up, made complete — the net was not destroyed |
Finding Under In Pari Materia
Matthew consistently uses plēroō to mean "fill full," "bring to expression," "accomplish." He never uses it to mean "abolish" or "terminate." Position A's interpretation contradicts the author's own established usage.
The Contrast Word Evidence
Christ's statement contains an internal contrast:
Two Greek words are placed in direct opposition:
| Greek | Transliteration | Pronunciation | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| καταλύω | kataluō | "kat-ah-LOO-oh" | to destroy, demolish, dissolve, abolish |
| πληρόω | plēroō | "play-ROH-oh" | to fill, fulfil, make complete |
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HL Cas 61 (Golden Rule):
Interpretations producing absurdity must be rejected.
Application: Christ presents kataluō and plēroō as opposites — what He denies and what He affirms are contrasted.
If plēroō meant "abolish" (as Position A claims), the sentence would read:
"I came not to abolish, but to abolish."
This is self-contradictory nonsense. The only coherent reading is that plēroō means something different from and opposite to kataluō.
The opposite of demolishing is building up. The opposite of abolishing is establishing. The opposite of destroying is filling full.
Finding Under the Golden Rule
Position A's interpretation produces a logical absurdity. The interpretation must be rejected.
Christ's Immediate Application as Interpretive Evidence
What did Christ do immediately after declaring He came to "fulfil" the law?
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Contemporanea Expositio, Lord Coke:
"Contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissima in lege" — "Contemporaneous exposition is the best and strongest in law."
US — Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States, 585 U.S. ___ (2018):
When interpreting language, courts look to how terms were understood at the time they were used.
Application: Christ's own immediate application of His statement is the best evidence of what He meant by it.
Did Christ say "The 6th Commandment is abolished"? No — He deepened it, extending it from the act of murder to anger in the heart.
Did Christ say "The 7th Commandment is terminated"? No — He expanded it, extending it from the act of adultery to lust in the mind.
This is fulfilment in its truest sense: filling the law full of its intended meaning, revealing its complete spiritual depth.
Christ magnified the law. He made it larger, deeper, more comprehensive — not smaller, shallower, or non-existent.
Finding Under Contemporanea Expositio
Christ's own immediate application demonstrates that "fulfil" means to deepen and expand, not to abolish. Position A is contradicted by Christ's own exposition of His words.
Section 1.3: Additional Testimony from Christ
The Rich Young Ruler — Matthew 19:16-19
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Criminal Justice Act 2003, Section 120(2) — Prior Consistent Statements:
A previous statement by a witness is admissible as evidence of any matter stated.
US — Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 801(d)(1)(B):
"A declarant-witness's prior statement... is consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered... to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated it."
Application: Christ's testimony in Matthew 19 is consistent with His testimony in Matthew 5. In both instances, He upholds the moral law — the Ten Commandments — as binding and relevant to eternal life.
This consistency across multiple occasions strengthens the reliability of Christ's testimony. He maintained the same position throughout His ministry: the moral law is not abolished.
Finding Under the Prior Consistent Statements Principle
Christ's repeated affirmation of the moral law across His ministry demonstrates consistent testimony. There is no evidence He ever changed His position.
Christ's Future Expectation — Matthew 24:20
Context: Christ is prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred in AD 70 — approximately forty years after the cross.
The Applicable Legal Principle
US — Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 602 — Need for Personal Knowledge:
"A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter."
Application: Christ had personal knowledge of His own intentions and the future implications of His death. If He intended to abolish the Sabbath at the cross, He would know this.
Yet Christ instructed His disciples to pray about the Sabbath in connection with events forty years after the cross. He assumed the Sabbath would still be relevant to their lives and decisions.
Finding
Christ's own expectation was that the Sabbath (4th Commandment) would remain relevant decades after His death. This is incompatible with Position A's claim that the moral law was abolished at the cross.
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — R v Loxdale (1758) 1 Burr 445 — In Pari Materia:
Writings on the same subject should be construed together as one system.
Application: The apostolic writings, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, constitute testimony on the same subject as Christ's teaching. They must be examined to determine whether the apostles understood Christ as having abolished the moral law.
Section 2.1: The Testimony of Paul
Romans 3:31 — Faith Establishes the Moral Law
Greek analysis:
| English | Greek | Transliteration | Pronunciation | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| "Make void" | καταργέω | katargeō | "kat-ar-GEH-oh" | to render inoperative, abolish, nullify |
| "God forbid" | μὴ γένοιτο | mē genoito | "may GEN-oy-toh" | May it never be! Absolutely not! |
| "Establish" | ἵστημι | histēmi | "HIS-tay-mee" | to cause to stand, to uphold, to make firm |
Paul explicitly denies that faith abolishes (katargeō) the law. His denial uses mē genoito — the strongest form of negation in Greek.
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Criminal Procedure Act 1865, Section 3 — Cross-Examination on Prior Statements:
"A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing, or reduced into writing, relative to the subject-matter of the indictment or proceeding."
US — Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 613 — Witness's Prior Statement:
When examining a witness about a prior statement, the examiner may use it to test credibility.
Application: Position A often calls Paul as a witness for the abolition of the law, citing certain passages. But if Paul were cross-examined on his prior statements:
Q: Did you write "Do we make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law"?
A: (The text exists — Paul wrote it.)
Paul's own explicit statement contradicts the interpretation Position A places on his other writings. Either Paul contradicts himself (undermining credibility), or Position A has misinterpreted Paul.
Under the principle of charitable interpretation, we must attempt to harmonise Paul's statements. Position B achieves this harmony: the law cannot justify (Galatians 3), but faith establishes the law as the standard of righteousness (Romans 3:31).
Finding
Paul explicitly denies that faith makes void the law. Position A's use of Paul as a witness for abolition fails under cross-examination.
Romans 7:7-14 — The Moral Law Identified and Described
Paul identifies which law he is discussing by quoting the 10th Commandment. This is unambiguously the moral law — the Decalogue.
Paul's assessment of the moral law:
| Description | Greek | Pronunciation | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Holy | ἁγία | "HAH-gee-ah" | set apart, sacred |
| Just | δίκαια | "dee-KAI-ah" | righteous, equitable |
| Good | ἀγαθή | "ah-gah-THAY" | beneficial, morally excellent |
| Spiritual | πνευματικός | "pnyoo-mah-tee-KOS" | of the Spirit, divine in origin |
These are not descriptions of something temporary, flawed, or abolished. These are descriptions of something reflecting God's eternal character.
Paul writes in present tense: "the law is holy." Not "was holy before the cross." The law is — at the time of Paul's writing, decades after Calvary.
Finding
Paul, having identified the moral law by quoting the 10th Commandment, describes it as presently holy, just, good, and spiritual. This contradicts Position A's claim of abolition.
Romans 8:3-4 — The Law's Righteousness Fulfilled in Believers
The Applicable Legal Principle
Purposive Interpretation — Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892):
The purpose and intent behind language must be considered.
Application: What was God's purpose in sending Christ? Paul states it explicitly: "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us."
Not abolished. Not ended. Not made irrelevant. But fulfilled in believers — lived out through Spirit-empowered obedience.
This is the new covenant promise: the law written on the heart (Jeremiah 31:33, Hebrews 8:10).
Finding
Paul identifies God's purpose as the law's righteousness being fulfilled in believers. Position A's claim that God's purpose was to abolish the law is directly contradicted.
Section 2.2: The Testimony of James
James:
- Quotes the 7th and 6th Commandments — unambiguously the moral law
- Affirms the unity of the law — breaking one breaks all
- Identifies this law as "the law of liberty"
- States believers will be "judged by" this law
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Presumption Against Implied Repeal, Bennion on Statutory Interpretation:
"There is a presumption against implied repeal... If two statutes can be read together, they should be."
US — Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974):
"When two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective."
Application: Position A claims the moral law was abolished at the cross. James, writing after the cross, states believers will be "judged by" the law and quotes the 6th and 7th Commandments as authoritative.
Under the presumption against implied repeal, we must ask: Did James understand the law as repealed? His own words demonstrate he did not.
Finding
James's testimony that believers will be "judged by the law" is incompatible with Position A's claim of abolition. There is no evidence of implied repeal; there is explicit affirmation of continuity.
Section 2.3: The Testimony of John
1 John 3:4 — Sin Defined by the Law
Greek: ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία — literally "sin is lawlessness"
| Greek | Transliteration | Pronunciation | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| ἁμαρτία | hamartia | "hah-mar-TEE-ah" | sin, missing the mark |
| ἀνομία | anomia | "ah-no-MEE-ah" | lawlessness, violation of law |
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Luke v IRC [1963] AC 557, Lord Reid — Presumption Against Absurdity:
"To apply the words literally is to defeat the obvious intention of the legislation and to produce a wholly unreasonable result."
US — Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564 (1982):
"Interpretations of a statute which would produce absurd results are to be avoided."
Application: John defines sin as transgression of law. If the moral law were abolished, sin would have no definition — "where no law is, there is no transgression" (Romans 4:15).
Consider the absurd consequences if Position A is correct:
| If No Moral Law... | Then... |
|---|---|
| No 6th Commandment | Murder is not sin |
| No 7th Commandment | Adultery is not sin |
| No 8th Commandment | Theft is not sin |
| No 9th Commandment | Lying is not sin |
| No 1st/2nd Commandments | Idolatry is not sin |
No one — including Position A adherents — actually believes these conclusions. The fact that murder, adultery, and theft remain sins demonstrates that the moral law remains in force.
Finding Under the Presumption Against Absurdity
Position A leads to absurd results that no one accepts. The interpretation must be rejected.
1 John 5:2-3 — Love and Commandment-Keeping
John, writing decades after the cross:
- Connects love for God with keeping commandments
- Defines love of God as keeping His commandments
- States the commandments are "not grievous" (Greek: ou bareiai / οὐ βαρεῖαι — "not heavy, not burdensome")
Finding
John's testimony — love equals keeping God's commandments — is incompatible with Position A's claim that the commandments were abolished.
Section 2.4: Summary of Apostolic Testimony
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — R v Exall (1866) 4 F & F 922, Pollock CB:
"Circumstantial evidence is... more like the case of a rope comprised of several cords. One strand of the cord might be insufficient to sustain the weight, but three stranded together may be quite of sufficient strength."
| Witness | Testimony | Finding |
|---|---|---|
| Paul | "We establish the law" (Rom 3:31) | Contradicts abolition |
| Paul | Law is "holy, just, good, spiritual" (Rom 7:12,14) | Contradicts abolition |
| Paul | Law's righteousness "fulfilled in us" (Rom 8:4) | Contradicts abolition |
| James | "Judged by the law" (Jas 2:12) | Contradicts abolition |
| John | "Sin is transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4) | Contradicts abolition |
| John | "This is love... keep his commandments" (1 John 5:3) | Contradicts abolition |
Cumulative Finding on Apostolic Testimony
Six strands of apostolic testimony, woven together, form a rope of considerable strength. Not one apostle testifies that Christ abolished the moral law. Every apostolic statement supports its continuance.
Position A relies on several texts that allegedly support the abolition of the moral law. Each must be examined.
Objection 1: "Romans 10:4 says Christ is the END of the law"
Position A's argument: "End" means termination. Christ terminated the law.
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232 — Noscitur a Sociis:
A word is understood by the company it keeps.
US — Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561 (1995):
"A word is known by the company it keeps."
Examination:
The Greek word is telos (τέλος — pronounced "TEL-os"). This word has multiple meanings:
- Goal, aim, purpose — that toward which something is directed
- Completion, fulfilment — the state of being complete
- End, termination — the point at which something ceases
Context determines which meaning applies. Examine telos in its other New Testament uses:
| Reference | Text | Does telos mean "termination"? |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Timothy 1:5 | "The end (telos) of the commandment is charity" | No — charity is the goal of the commandment |
| James 5:11 | "Ye have seen the end (telos) of the Lord" | No — this is the outcome/purpose of God's dealings with Job |
| 1 Peter 1:9 | "Receiving the end (telos) of your faith, even the salvation of your souls" | No — salvation is the goal of faith |
Under noscitur a sociis, telos in Romans 10:4 should be understood consistently with its usage elsewhere. Christ is the goal/purpose of the law for righteousness — the law was always meant to lead us to Christ.
Furthermore: In Romans 13:8-10 — the same letter — Paul quotes five of the Ten Commandments as presently authoritative. If "end" meant "termination" in Romans 10:4, Paul contradicts himself within the same document.
Finding
Telos means "goal/purpose" in this context, as it does elsewhere. Paul is not contradicting himself. Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness; He is not the termination of the law's existence.
Objection 2: "Galatians 3:24-25 — No longer under a schoolmaster"
Position A's argument: The law was temporary, only until Christ came.
The Applicable Legal Principle
Contextual Interpretation — Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593:
Ambiguous language may be interpreted in light of its context and purpose.
Examination:
The context of Galatians 3 is justification — how one is made right with God. Paul argues that no one is justified by law-keeping. The law cannot save because all have broken it.
"No longer under a schoolmaster" addresses the law's condemning function, not its existence. A graduate is no longer "under" their tutor's authority for examination, but the tutor still exists and the lessons learned remain valid.
Furthermore: In Galatians 5:14, Paul writes:
Paul quotes Leviticus 19:18 — part of the law — and says love "fulfils" it. If the law were abolished, how could it be fulfilled?
Finding Under In Pari Materia
Paul's statements in Galatians must be harmonised. The law cannot justify (chapter 3), but it remains to be fulfilled through love (chapter 5). Position A's reading creates contradiction; Position B achieves harmony.
Objection 3: "Romans 6:14 — Not under law but under grace"
Position A's argument: Christians are not under the law; therefore, it doesn't apply.
Examination:
Read the immediate context — the very next verse:
Paul immediately and emphatically rejects the interpretation Position A proposes. If "not under law" meant "free to disregard the moral law," Paul would not respond with "God forbid" (mē genoito).
Application: "Under law" in Paul's usage means under the law's condemnation. The believer in Christ is not under condemnation (Romans 8:1). This is different from saying the law no longer exists or guides Christian conduct.
Analogy: A pardoned criminal is no longer "under" the penalty for his crime. The pardon removed the condemnation. But this does not mean:
- The law against his crime was abolished
- He is free to commit the crime again
- The crime is no longer wrong
Finding
Romans 6:14-15, read in context, contradicts Position A's interpretation. Paul explicitly rejects the "free to sin" conclusion that Position A's reading would require.
Objection 4: "Colossians 2:14-16 — Nailed to the cross"
Position A's argument: The law — including the Sabbath — was nailed to the cross.
Examination:
First: What was "nailed to the cross"?
The Greek is cheirographon (χειρόγραφον — pronounced "khy-ROG-rah-fon") — meaning a handwritten certificate of debt.
Technical Terms Rule
When a statute uses a technical term, it should be given its technical meaning.
Cheirographon is a technical term for a debt certificate — an IOU. Christ nailed our debt (the record of our transgressions) to the cross, not the moral law itself.
Second: What is the context of "meat, drink, holyday, new moon, sabbath days"?
| Term | Category | Old Testament Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Meat (offerings) | Ceremonial | Numbers 28-29 |
| Drink (offerings) | Ceremonial | Numbers 28:7-10 |
| Holyday (feast) | Ceremonial annual festivals | Leviticus 23 |
| New moon | Ceremonial monthly observance | Numbers 28:11-15 |
| Sabbath days | By association: ceremonial sabbaths | Leviticus 23:24, 32, 39 |
The "sabbath days" here are known by their ceremonial company — the annual sabbaths tied to the feast system (Day of Atonement, Feast of Tabernacles), not the weekly Sabbath of creation.
Third: Paul himself kept the weekly Sabbath:
The apostle who wrote Colossians habitually observed the weekly Sabbath. He would not condemn what he himself practiced.
Finding
Colossians 2:14-16 addresses the certificate of debt (our transgressions) and the ceremonial system (meat, drink, feasts, new moons, ceremonial sabbaths). It does not address the moral law or the weekly Sabbath.
Section 4.1: Admission Against Interest — The Catholic Church's Testimony
The Applicable Legal Principle
US — Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 804(b)(3) — Statement Against Interest:
"A statement that... a reasonable person in the declarant's position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it... had so great a tendency to... expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability."
UK — Civil Evidence Act 1995:
Statements against one's own interest carry significant weight because people do not ordinarily make damaging admissions unless they are true.
Application:
The Roman Catholic Church claims authority to have changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. This claim constitutes an admission against interest — it admits facts that undermine the biblical basis for Sunday observance.
Catholic Admissions:
The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine (1957), p. 50:
"Q. Which is the Sabbath day?
A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday."
Cardinal James Gibbons, Faith of Our Fathers (1876), p. 111:
"You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify."
The Catholic Mirror (September 1893):
"The Catholic Church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday... The Christian Sabbath is therefore to this day the acknowledged offspring of the Catholic Church."
Finding Under the Admission Against Interest Rule
The Catholic Church — the party that made the change — admits:
- Saturday is the biblical Sabbath
- The Bible contains no authorisation for Sunday observance
- The change was made by Church authority, not Scripture
These admissions carry significant evidentiary weight precisely because they are contrary to the Catholic Church's own interest in maintaining Sunday observance.
Section 4.2: Early Church Understanding
The Applicable Legal Principle
Contemporanea Expositio — Lord Coke:
"Contemporaneous exposition is the best and strongest in law."
US — Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States, 585 U.S. ___ (2018):
How language was understood at or near the time it was used is strong evidence of its meaning.
Application: How did the earliest Christians — those closest in time to Christ and the apostles — understand His teaching on the moral law?
The Didache (c. 50-120 AD):
"You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not covet."
The earliest Christian catechism directly incorporates the Ten Commandments as foundational Christian teaching.Irenaeus of Lyon (c. 130-202 AD), Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 16:
"The natural precepts of the law, by which man is justified... were not set aside by Christ, but greatly extended and fulfilled by Him."
Irenaeus — a student of Polycarp, who was a student of John — explicitly distinguishes the moral law from ceremonial regulations and states the moral law was not set aside but extended and fulfilled.Finding Under Contemporanea Expositio
The contemporaneous understanding supports Position B. Those nearest in time to Christ understood Him as upholding, not abolishing, the moral law.
Section 4.3: The Logic of Calvary
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Presumption Against Absurdity — Luke v IRC [1963]:
Interpretations producing unreasonable results should be rejected.
Application:
If God could simply abolish the moral law, why would Christ need to die?
The logic of the atonement demonstrates the law's permanence:
- The moral law's penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:23)
- All have sinned (Romans 3:23)
- The penalty must be paid — it cannot simply be waived
- Christ died in our place, bearing the penalty (Isaiah 53:5-6)
If the law could be abolished by divine decree, there would be no need for a substitute. God could simply declare the law void and pardon humanity without penalty.
But God did NOT abolish the law. Instead, He sent His Son to satisfy its demands. The penalty was paid, not waived. The law was honoured, not discarded.
The cross is the supreme demonstration that God's moral law is inviolable. Rather than alter His law, God gave His Son.
Finding Under the Presumption Against Absurdity
Position A renders Christ's death unnecessary. If the law could be abolished, why did He need to die? The cross proves the law's permanence.
The Standard of Proof
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Re H (Minors) [1996] AC 563, Lord Nicholls:
"The balance of probability standard means that a court is satisfied an event occurred if the court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the event was more likely than not."
UK — Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35, Baroness Hale:
"The inherent probabilities are simply something to be taken into account, where relevant, in deciding where the truth lies."
Application:
The claim that Christ abolished the Ten Commandments is extraordinary. It asserts that:
- A law spoken by God was terminated
- A law written by God's own finger was nullified
- A law declared "forever" was ended
- The moral foundation of all divine dealings was removed
Extraordinary claims require clear, cogent evidence. What has Position A produced?
| Position A's Evidence | Quality Assessment |
|---|---|
| Romans 10:4 ("end of law") | Telos means "goal" — ambiguous at best |
| Galatians 3:24-25 ("no longer under schoolmaster") | Addresses justification, not law's existence |
| Colossians 2:14-16 ("nailed to cross") | Addresses debt certificate and ceremonial law |
| Romans 6:14 ("not under law") | Context explicitly rejects "free to sin" reading |
None of Position A's evidence constitutes clear, unambiguous proof of abolition.
Meanwhile, Position B presents:
| Position B's Evidence | Quality Assessment |
|---|---|
| Matthew 5:17 — "I am not come to destroy" | Explicit denial from Christ Himself |
| Matthew 5:18 — "Till heaven and earth pass" | Explicit duration statement — condition unmet |
| Romans 3:31 — "We establish the law" | Explicit affirmation from Paul |
| Romans 7:12 — "The law is holy, just, good" | Explicit present-tense description |
| James 2:12 — "Judged by the law" | Explicit continuing authority |
| 1 John 3:4 — "Sin is transgression of law" | Explicit definition requiring law's existence |
| Greek lexicons | Expert testimony — "fulfil" ≠ "abolish" |
| Early church fathers | Contemporaneous understanding supports Position B |
| Catholic admissions | Admission against interest supports Sabbath |
Finding on Standard of Proof
Even on the civil standard (balance of probabilities), Position A fails. Position B's evidence is explicit, direct, and corroborated. Position A's evidence is ambiguous, contextually disputed, and contradicted by other statements from the same writers.
The Rule Against Speculation
The Applicable Legal Principle
US — Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 602 — Need for Personal Knowledge:
"A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter."
US — Daubert v. Merrell Dow, 509 U.S. 579 (1993):
Expert testimony must be based on sufficient facts or data, not speculation.
Application:
Position A's interpretation requires:
- Reading "fulfil" as "abolish" despite no lexical support
- Reading "I am not come to destroy" as compatible with destruction
- Reading "till heaven and earth pass" as meaning "till the cross"
- Ignoring Paul's explicit "we establish the law"
- Ignoring James's "judged by the law"
- Ignoring John's "sin is transgression of law"
This is not interpretation based on evidence. This is speculation contradicting evidence.
Finding Under the Rule Against Speculation
Position A's case rests substantially on speculation rather than evidence. Such testimony is entitled to little or no weight.
Clear Statement Rule
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — R (Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd) v Special Commissioner [2002] UKHL 21, Lord Hobhouse:
"Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words."
US — Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991):
"This plain statement rule is nothing more than an acknowledgment that... the requirement of clear statement assures that the legislature has in fact faced, and intended to bring into issue, the critical matters involved."
Application:
The abolition of the Ten Commandments would be among the most significant changes in divine-human relations in all of history. Such a monumental change would require clear, unambiguous statement.
Does any such clear statement exist?
No. There is no verse stating: "The Ten Commandments are abolished" or "Christians are not bound by the moral law."
Instead, we have the opposite:
- "I am not come to destroy" (explicit denial)
- "We establish the law" (explicit affirmation)
- "Judged by the law" (explicit continuing authority)
Finding Under the Clear Statement Rule
Abolishing the moral law would require clear statement. No such statement exists. The presumption favours continuity. Position A fails.
Conclusion and Verdict
Summary of Evidence and Findings
| Category | Evidence Examined | Legal Principle Applied | Finding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Christ's denial | "I am not come to destroy" | Literal Rule | Plain words contradict Position A |
| Duration clause | "Till heaven and earth pass" | Judicial Notice (FRE 201) | Condition unmet; law continues |
| Precision clause | "Jot and tittle" | Golden Rule | Position A produces absurdity |
| Word "fulfil" | Greek plēroō | Expert Evidence (FRE 702) | Lexicons contradict Position A |
| Matthew's usage | plēroō elsewhere | In Pari Materia | Consistent usage contradicts Position A |
| Contrast word | kataluō vs plēroō | Golden Rule | "Not abolish but abolish" is absurd |
| Christ's application | Matthew 5:21-48 | Contemporanea Expositio | Christ deepened, not abolished |
| Paul's testimony | Romans 3:31, 7:12, 8:4 | Cross-Examination | Paul contradicts Position A |
| James's testimony | James 2:12 | Presumption Against Repeal | No implied repeal found |
| John's testimony | 1 John 3:4, 5:3 | Presumption Against Absurdity | Position A leads to absurdity |
| Early church | Didache, Irenaeus | Contemporanea Expositio | Contemporaries support Position B |
| Catholic admission | Catechisms, Gibbons | Admission Against Interest | Supports seventh-day Sabbath |
| Logic of atonement | Why Christ died | Presumption Against Absurdity | Abolition renders cross unnecessary |
| Burden of proof | Who must prove change | Common Law / FRE 301 | Position A bears burden, fails to discharge |
| Clear statement | Is abolition stated? | Clear Statement Rule | No clear statement exists |
The Verdict
The weight of evidence — textual, linguistic, apostolic, historical, and logical — examined under established principles of UK and US law, is overwhelmingly in favour of Position B.
Position A has failed to discharge its burden of proof. It has produced no clear statement of abolition, no unambiguous evidence, and no interpretation that survives scrutiny under standard legal analysis.
Position B is established to the required standard. Christ came to magnify, establish, and fulfil the moral law — not to abolish it. The Ten Commandments remain the unchanging standard of righteousness, now written on the hearts of believers by the Holy Spirit under the new covenant (Hebrews 8:10).
Key Texts Reference
| Topic | Text |
|---|---|
| Christ's purpose | Matthew 5:17-19 |
| Faith establishes law | Romans 3:31 |
| Law's character | Romans 7:12, 14 |
| Law fulfilled in believers | Romans 8:4 |
| Judged by law | James 2:10-12 |
| Sin defined | 1 John 3:4 |
| Love = keeping commandments | 1 John 5:3 |
| Two laws distinguished | Deuteronomy 4:12-13; 31:24-26 |
| New covenant — law on heart | Hebrews 8:10 |
Greek Terms Reference
| Greek | Transliteration | Pronunciation | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| πληρόω | plēroō | "play-ROH-oh" | to fill, fulfil, make complete |
| καταλύω | kataluō | "kat-ah-LOO-oh" | to destroy, demolish, abolish |
| τέλος | telos | "TEL-os" | end, goal, purpose |
| ἐντολή | entolē | "en-toh-LAY" | commandment |
| χειρόγραφον | cheirographon | "khy-ROG-rah-fon" | certificate of debt |
| ἁμαρτία | hamartia | "hah-mar-TEE-ah" | sin |
| ἀνομία | anomia | "ah-no-MEE-ah" | lawlessness |
| ἵστημι | histēmi | "HIS-tay-mee" | to establish, uphold |
| μὴ γένοιτο | mē genoito | "may GEN-oy-toh" | God forbid! May it never be! |
Legal Authorities Cited
United Kingdom
| Authority | Citation | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| R v Judge of the City of London Court | [1892] 1 QB 273 | Literal Rule |
| Grey v Pearson | (1857) 6 HL Cas 61 | Golden Rule |
| Heydon's Case | (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a | Mischief Rule |
| Letang v Cooper | [1965] 1 QB 232 | Noscitur a Sociis |
| R v Loxdale | (1758) 1 Burr 445 | In Pari Materia |
| Garton v Hunter | [1969] 2 QB 37 | Best Evidence Rule |
| Luke v IRC | [1963] AC 557 | Presumption Against Absurdity |
| Holland v Jones | (1917) 23 CLR 149 | Judicial Notice |
| R v Exall | (1866) 4 F & F 922 | Circumstantial Evidence |
| Re H (Minors) | [1996] AC 563 | Standard of Proof |
| Re B (Children) | [2008] UKHL 35 | Standard of Proof |
| Morgan Grenfell v Special Commissioner | [2002] UKHL 21 | Clear Statement Rule |
| Pepper v Hart | [1993] AC 593 | Contextual Interpretation |
| Woolmington v DPP | [1935] AC 462 | Burden of Proof |
| Civil Evidence Act 1972 | Section 3 | Expert Evidence |
| Civil Evidence Act 1995 | Sections 1, 4, 8 | Documentary/Hearsay Evidence |
| Criminal Justice Act 2003 | Section 120 | Prior Consistent Statements |
| Criminal Procedure Act 1865 | Section 3 | Cross-Examination |
United States
| Authority | Citation | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Caminetti v. United States | 242 U.S. 470 (1917) | Plain Meaning Rule |
| United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises | 489 U.S. 235 (1989) | Golden Rule |
| Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States | 143 U.S. 457 (1892) | Purposivism / Mischief Rule |
| Gustafson v. Alloyd Co. | 513 U.S. 561 (1995) | Noscitur a Sociis |
| Erlenbaugh v. United States | 409 U.S. 239 (1972) | In Pari Materia |
| Morton v. Mancari | 417 U.S. 535 (1974) | Presumption Against Implied Repeal |
| Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States | 585 U.S. ___ (2018) | Contemporanea Expositio |
| Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors | 458 U.S. 564 (1982) | Presumption Against Absurdity |
| Gregory v. Ashcroft | 501 U.S. 452 (1991) | Clear Statement Rule |
| Daubert v. Merrell Dow | 509 U.S. 579 (1993) | Expert Evidence Standards |
| Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201 | — | Judicial Notice |
| Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 301 | — | Burden of Proof |
| Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 602 | — | Personal Knowledge |
| Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 613 | — | Prior Statements |
| Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702 | — | Expert Testimony |
| Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 801(d)(1)(B) | — | Prior Consistent Statements |
| Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 804(b)(3) | — | Statements Against Interest |
| Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 1002 | — | Best Evidence Rule |
"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." — Romans 3:31