Test 15: The Cross's Effect on Law
What exactly was abolished at the cross? Did Christ's death terminate the entire Old Testament legal system — including the Ten Commandments — or did it terminate only specific elements while leaving others in force?
This question goes to the heart of the debate. Position A claims that the cross ended all Old Testament law, including the moral law and the Sabbath. Position B claims that the cross ended the ceremonial and sacrificial system while the moral law continues unchanged.
The evidence must determine which position accurately represents what Scripture teaches about the cross's effect on law.
⚖️ Preliminary Matter: The Critical Distinction
Before examining what was abolished, we must establish that Scripture itself distinguishes between different categories of law. This is not a theological invention but a distinction made explicit in the biblical text.
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Statutory Interpretation — Distinguishing Provisions:
Where a statute contains distinct provisions serving different purposes, each provision must be interpreted according to its own context and function.
US — Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (1983):
"Where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion."
Application: Scripture itself treats different laws differently — giving them different origins, different forms, different locations, and different durations. This is not interpretation imposed on the text; it is distinction drawn from the text.
| Characteristic | The Moral Law | The Ceremonial Law |
|---|---|---|
| Spoken by | God Himself (Deuteronomy 4:12-13) | God through Moses (Leviticus 1:1-2) |
| Written by | God's finger on stone (Exodus 31:18) | Moses in a book (Deuteronomy 31:24) |
| Placed | Inside the Ark (Deuteronomy 10:5) | Beside the Ark (Deuteronomy 31:26) |
| Content | Moral duties (Exodus 20:1-17) | Sacrifices, feasts, rituals |
| Function | Defines sin (Romans 7:7) | Provides temporary remedy pointing to Christ |
| Duration | "Stand fast for ever" (Psalm 111:7-8) | "Till the seed should come" (Galatians 3:19) |
Scope of This Examination
This examination will demonstrate that the cross terminated the ceremonial law while the moral law continues unchanged.
For the complete examination of this distinction, see Test 8: The Two Laws Distinction
The Two Positions Under Examination
Position A (All Law Abolished):
The cross terminated the entire Old Testament legal system. Christians are not "under law" in any sense. The Ten Commandments, including the Sabbath, were part of the old covenant that passed away. All references to law being "abolished," "nailed to the cross," or "done away" apply to the moral law as well as the ceremonial.
Position B (Ceremonial Law Abolished; Moral Law Continues):
The cross terminated the ceremonial and sacrificial system — the "shadow" that pointed forward to Christ. The moral law (Ten Commandments), which reflects God's eternal character, was not and could not be abolished. References to law being terminated refer specifically to the ceremonial system, not the Decalogue.
The evidence must determine which position Scripture supports.
Establishing the Burden of Proof
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462:
The burden of proof lies on the party making the positive assertion.
US — Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 301:
The party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption.
Application:
The moral law was established with extraordinary solemnity — spoken by God, written by God, placed in the Ark. Its perpetuity was declared: "All his commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever" (Psalm 111:7-8).
Determination on Burden of Proof
Position A asserts this law was abolished at the cross. The burden of proof falls on Position A to demonstrate abolition with clear evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of continuity and the explicit declarations of perpetuity.
Section 1.1: Colossians 2:14-17 — "Nailed to His Cross"
This passage is central to the debate. Position A argues it proves the law — including the Sabbath — was abolished at the cross.
This passage requires careful, phrase-by-phrase analysis.
Analysis A: "The Handwriting of Ordinances" — What Was Nailed?
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Technical Terms Rule:
Where a statute uses a technical term, it should be given its technical meaning unless context requires otherwise.
US — Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188 (1974):
Technical terms are presumed to have their technical meaning.
The Greek term: cheirographon (χειρόγραφον — pronounced "khy-ROG-rah-fon")
Technical meaning: This is a specific legal/commercial term meaning:
- A handwritten document
- Specifically, a certificate of debt — an IOU
- A written acknowledgment of what one owes
Lexical evidence:
| Source | Definition |
|---|---|
| BDAG | "a handwritten document, specifically a certificate of indebtedness, bond" |
| Thayer's | "a handwriting; what one has written by his own hand; a note of hand or writing in which one acknowledges that money has either been deposited with him or lent to him by another" |
| Liddell-Scott | "a document written by one's own hand; bond, note of hand" |
The significance: Paul does not say "the law" was nailed to the cross. He uses a specific technical term: cheirographon — the certificate of debt.
What was this certificate of debt? The record of our transgressions — the written account of what we owed due to our violations of the law. The law defined sin; we sinned; a debt accumulated. Christ paid that debt.
Analogy: When a debt is paid, the creditor marks the IOU as "paid" or "cancelled." The cancellation of the debt certificate does not abolish the law that created the debt — it satisfies the debt.
Finding
Cheirographon refers to the certificate of debt (our transgressions), not the moral law itself. The law that defined sin was not abolished; the debt created by our violation of that law was paid.
Analysis B: "Ordinances" — Which Regulations?
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232 — Noscitur a Sociis:
A word is known by the company it keeps.
US — Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561 (1995):
Words are interpreted in light of their surrounding context.
The Greek term: dogmasin (δόγμασιν — pronounced "DOG-mah-sin" — dative plural of dogma)
How does Paul use dogma elsewhere?
Context: Paul is discussing the barrier between Jew and Gentile — the ceremonial regulations that separated them (circumcision, dietary laws, ritual purity). These dogmata (ordinances/decrees) created a "middle wall of partition" (Ephesians 2:14).
| Category | Examples | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Circumcision | Genesis 17 | Distinguished Jew from Gentile |
| Dietary laws | Leviticus 11 | Separated Jewish eating practices |
| Ritual purity | Leviticus 12-15 | Created ceremonial separation |
| Feast requirements | Leviticus 23 | Required Jerusalem pilgrimage |
Note: The Ten Commandments did not create Jew/Gentile division. Murder, adultery, theft, and lying are wrong for all humanity. The moral law applies universally and creates no ethnic barrier.
Finding Under Noscitur a Sociis
The dogmasin (ordinances) are ceremonial regulations that created Jewish/Gentile separation, not the universal moral law.
Analysis C: "Meat, Drink, Holyday, New Moon, Sabbath Days"
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Letang v Cooper — Noscitur a Sociis:
A word is understood by the company it keeps.
| Term | Greek | Category | Old Testament Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meat | βρῶσις (brōsis) | Food offerings | Numbers 28-29 (meal offerings) |
| Drink | πόσις (posis) | Drink offerings | Numbers 28:7-10 (libations) |
| Holyday | ἑορτή (heortē) | Annual festivals | Leviticus 23 (Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles) |
| New moon | νεομηνία (neomēnia) | Monthly observance | Numbers 28:11-15 |
| Sabbath days | σάββατα (sabbata) | (See analysis below) | — |
The company "sabbath days" keeps: Every other item in this list is ceremonial. Under noscitur a sociis, "sabbath days" should be understood as the same category — ceremonial sabbaths.
Evidence for ceremonial sabbaths distinct from the weekly Sabbath:
The weekly Sabbath, by contrast: Was established at creation (Genesis 2:2-3), commemorates creation not redemption typology, is part of the moral law (4th Commandment), has no connection to the sacrificial system.
Finding Under Noscitur a Sociis
The "sabbath days" of Colossians 2:16 are ceremonial sabbaths — known by their ceremonial company. The weekly Sabbath of the fourth commandment is not in view.
Analysis D: "A Shadow of Things to Come"
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Purposive Interpretation:
The purpose and function of a provision determines its interpretation.
The Greek term: skia (σκιά — pronounced "SKEE-ah" — meaning "shadow")
What casts a shadow forward? Prophetic types — elements designed to foreshadow the coming Messiah:
| Shadow Element | Substance (Christ) |
|---|---|
| Passover lamb | "Christ our passover is sacrificed" (1 Corinthians 5:7) |
| Day of Atonement | Christ entered "the greater and more perfect tabernacle" (Hebrews 9:11-12) |
| Meat offerings | Christ's body broken (Matthew 26:26) |
| Drink offerings | Christ's blood poured out (Matthew 26:28) |
| Ceremonial sabbaths | Rest in Christ (Hebrews 4) |
Does the weekly Sabbath fit the "shadow" category? The weekly Sabbath does not point forward to Christ — it points backward to creation:
Finding
The "shadow" elements of Colossians 2:16-17 are ceremonial types pointing forward to Christ. The weekly Sabbath, based on creation and looking backward, is not a shadow in this sense.
Summary: Colossians 2:14-17
| Element | Meaning | Finding |
|---|---|---|
| Cheirographon | Certificate of debt | Our debt of sin was cancelled, not the moral law |
| Dogmasin | Ceremonial ordinances | Regulations creating Jew/Gentile division |
| Meat, drink, holyday, new moon | Ceremonial offerings and festivals | All ceremonial elements |
| Sabbath days (in this context) | Ceremonial sabbaths | Known by ceremonial company |
| Shadow | Prophetic types | Forward-pointing elements, not creation-based Sabbath |
Comprehensive Finding
Colossians 2:14-17 addresses the ceremonial system — debt certificates, ceremonial ordinances, offerings, festivals, and ceremonial sabbaths. It does not address or abolish the moral law or the weekly Sabbath.
Section 1.2: Ephesians 2:14-15 — "The Middle Wall of Partition"
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Heydon's Case (1584) — Mischief Rule:
Consider what problem ("mischief") the provision was designed to remedy.
The mischief identified: Paul explicitly identifies the problem: the partition between Jew and Gentile — "to make of twain [two] one."
What created this partition? In Herod's Temple, a physical barrier (the soreg) separated the Court of the Gentiles from the inner courts. Signs warned Gentiles that death awaited any who passed beyond.
| Dividing Element | Effect |
|---|---|
| Circumcision | Physical mark distinguishing Jews |
| Dietary laws | Prevented table fellowship |
| Ritual purity laws | Created "clean/unclean" separation |
| Temple regulations | Gentiles forbidden beyond certain courts |
Did the Ten Commandments create this partition? No. The moral law applies equally to all humanity: "Thou shalt not murder" — applies to Jew and Gentile. The moral law creates no ethnic division. It is universal.
Finding Under the Mischief Rule
The "law of commandments contained in ordinances" refers to ceremonial regulations creating Jewish/Gentile separation. The universal moral law is not in view.
Section 1.3: Hebrews 7:12 — "A Change of the Law"
Position A argues: This proves the law was changed/abolished at the cross.
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Contextual Interpretation — Pepper v Hart [1993]:
Language must be interpreted in its context.
US — King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015):
"A provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme."
The context: Hebrews 7 — The entire chapter addresses one subject: the priesthood.
| Verse | Subject |
|---|---|
| 7:1-3 | Melchisedec's priesthood |
| 7:4-10 | Melchisedec's superiority to Levitical priesthood |
| 7:11 | Imperfection of Levitical priesthood |
| 7:12 | Change of priesthood requires change of law |
| 7:13-14 | Christ from Judah, not Levi |
| 7:15-28 | Christ's superior priesthood |
What "law" is being changed? The law governing the priesthood — specifically, the law requiring priests to be from the tribe of Levi. The Decalogue says nothing about priesthood. The change in Hebrews 7:12 concerns sacerdotal law (laws governing the sacrificial priesthood), not moral law.
Finding Under Contextual Interpretation
The "change of law" in Hebrews 7:12 refers specifically to the law governing priesthood. The moral law is not addressed in this chapter.
Section 1.4: Hebrews 8:13 — "The First Covenant... Vanisheth Away"
Position A argues: The old covenant has vanished; therefore, the Ten Commandments (given at Sinai) are abolished.
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Distinguishing the Container from the Contents:
The expiration of a document does not necessarily terminate all provisions contained within it.
US — Contract Law Principle:
When a contract expires, obligations within it that were intended to survive continue in force.
Critical distinction: Covenant vs. Law
A covenant is an agreement, a relationship framework. A law is a standard, a rule, a principle of conduct.
But what happens to the moral law under the new covenant?
The new covenant does not abolish the moral law — it internalises it. Under the old covenant, the law was external — written on stone tablets. Under the new covenant, the law is internal — written on hearts.
Finding
The "vanishing away" of the first covenant refers to the covenant arrangement (sacrificial system, Levitical priesthood, tabernacle services), not the moral law, which is explicitly carried forward and written on the heart under the new covenant.
Section 1.5: Galatians 3:19, 24-25 — "Until the Seed Should Come"
Position A argues: The law was temporary, only until Christ came. Now it is abolished.
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Golden Rule — Grey v Pearson (1857):
Interpretations must be consistent with the document's overall meaning.
If "no longer under a schoolmaster" meant "the law is abolished," Paul would contradict himself:
| Galatians 3:24-25 (Position A reading) | Paul Elsewhere |
|---|---|
| "The law is abolished" | "Do we make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law" (Romans 3:31) |
| "The law no longer exists" | "The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good" (Romans 7:12) |
| "The law is terminated" | "I had not known sin, but by the law" (Romans 7:7) |
The correct understanding: We are no longer under the law's condemnation or under the law as a means of justification. The schoolmaster's function of driving us to Christ for justification is complete once we come to Christ. But the law still defines sin and is still "holy, just, and good."
Finding
Galatians 3 addresses the law's function in justification, not its existence. The law cannot justify; Christ justifies. But the law continues to define sin and guide conduct.
Section 1.6: Romans 7:1-6 — "Dead to the Law"
Position A argues: We are "dead to the law" — therefore the law is abolished for Christians.
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — R v Loxdale (1758) — In Pari Materia:
Different passages from the same author on the same subject must be construed together consistently.
Immediately after saying we are "dead to the law," Paul writes:
The harmonious interpretation: We are dead to the law's condemnation — not to the law's existence or standard.
Finding Under In Pari Materia
"Dead to the law" means dead to its condemnation, not dead to its existence. The law continues as holy, just, good, and spiritual — and its righteousness is fulfilled in believers through the Spirit.
Section 1.7: 2 Corinthians 3:7-11 — "The Ministration of Death... Done Away"
Position A argues: "The ministration of death, written and engraven in stones" is the Ten Commandments. They are "done away."
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Careful Reading — Distinguishing the Subject:
The grammatical subject of a sentence must be identified correctly.
Careful analysis: What is "done away"?
| Element | Description | Status |
|---|---|---|
| "The ministration (diakonia) of death" | The ministry/administration associated with death | Done away |
| "Written and engraven in stones" | The Ten Commandments | (Not the grammatical subject) |
The grammatical subject is "ministration" (diakonia — διακονία — meaning "service, ministry, administration"), not the commandments themselves.
Furthermore: Note what Paul says in this same letter:
Where is the law now written? On the heart — exactly as the new covenant promises (Jeremiah 31:33, Hebrews 8:10). The law is not abolished; it is relocated — from stone to heart.
Finding
The "ministration" (administrative system) is done away; the law itself continues, now written on the heart by the Spirit.
Section 2.1: The Ceremonial System — Explicitly Terminated
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Morgan Grenfell v Special Commissioner [2002] — Clear Statement Rule:
Significant changes require clear statement.
Scripture provides clear statements about what ended at the cross:
The Sacrificial System
The Levitical Priesthood
The Earthly Sanctuary Services
Finding
Scripture clearly identifies what ended: sacrifices, Levitical priesthood, tabernacle services, and ceremonial observances — all of which were "shadows" pointing forward to Christ.
Section 2.2: The Moral Law — Explicitly Continued
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Presumption Against Implied Repeal — Bennion:
"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... to regard each as effective."
Scripture explicitly affirms the continuance of the moral law after the cross:
Christ's Teaching (Before the Cross, About After)
Paul's Teaching (After the Cross)
James's Teaching (After the Cross)
John's Teaching (After the Cross)
Finding Under the Presumption Against Implied Repeal
The moral law is explicitly affirmed as continuing after the cross by multiple New Testament writers. There is no basis for claiming implied repeal when explicit affirmation exists.
Section 3.1: Why the Ceremonial Law HAD to End
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Purposive Interpretation:
When the purpose of a provision is fulfilled, the provision is naturally satisfied.
| Function | How Fulfilled in Christ |
|---|---|
| Provide sacrifices for sin | Christ is "the Lamb of God" (John 1:29) |
| Provide a priesthood | Christ is our "great high priest" (Hebrews 4:14) |
| Provide a sanctuary | Christ entered "into heaven itself" (Hebrews 9:24) |
| Point forward to the Messiah | "The body is of Christ" (Colossians 2:17) |
| Provide a temporary remedy | "Till the seed should come" (Galatians 3:19) |
When the reality arrives, the shadow is no longer needed. Continuing the ceremonial system after Christ would deny His sufficiency.
Finding
The ceremonial law ended because its purpose was fulfilled. Christ is the substance to which the shadows pointed.
Section 3.2: Why the Moral Law CANNOT End
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Luke v IRC [1963] — Presumption Against Absurdity:
Interpretations producing absurd results must be rejected.
US — Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, 458 U.S. 564:
"Interpretations of a statute which would produce absurd results are to be avoided."
The moral law reflects God's eternal character:
| Commandment | Reflects |
|---|---|
| No other gods | God's unique sovereignty |
| No idols | God's spirituality and transcendence |
| Not take name in vain | God's holiness |
| Remember the Sabbath | God as Creator |
| Honour parents | God's ordained authority |
| Not murder | God's valuation of life |
| Not commit adultery | God's design for marriage |
| Not steal | God's regard for property and honesty |
| Not bear false witness | God's truthfulness |
| Not covet | God's concern for the heart |
God's character does not change:
The absurd consequences of moral law abolition:
| If Abolished... | Consequence |
|---|---|
| No 1st Commandment | Worshipping other gods is not sin |
| 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 one believes these consequences. Even Position A adherents believe murder, adultery, and theft are wrong. Their practice contradicts their doctrine.
Finding Under the Presumption Against Absurdity
Abolishing the moral law produces absurd results that no one — including Position A — actually accepts. The interpretation must be rejected.
Section 4.1: The Conflation Fallacy
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Letang v Cooper — Noscitur a Sociis:
Words must be understood by their context; different things must not be conflated.
Logical Fallacy — Equivocation:
Using the same word with different meanings in the same argument produces invalid conclusions.
Position A's fundamental error: Position A treats "the law" as a single, undifferentiated entity. When any text says something about "the law," Position A applies this to all law — including the Ten Commandments.
But "the law" in Scripture refers to different things in different contexts:
| "The Law" in Context | Reference |
|---|---|
| The Pentateuch (first five books) | Luke 24:44 — "the law of Moses" |
| The entire Old Testament | John 10:34 — quotes Psalm 82:6 as "your law" |
| The moral law (Ten Commandments) | Romans 7:7 — "the law had said, Thou shalt not covet" |
| The ceremonial law | Hebrews 10:1 — "the law having a shadow" |
| The law of the priesthood | Hebrews 7:12 — "a change also of the law" |
| The law as a system of justification | Galatians 3:11 — "no man is justified by the law" |
Failing to distinguish these produces confusion. When Hebrews says the law of the priesthood is changed (7:12), this does not mean the moral law is changed. When Colossians says ceremonial shadows are fulfilled (2:16-17), this does not mean the creation-based Sabbath is abolished.
Finding
Position A commits the fallacy of equivocation — using "the law" univocally when Scripture uses it equivocally (with different meanings in different contexts).
Section 4.2: The Admission Against Interest
The Applicable Legal Principle
US — Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 804(b)(3):
A statement against interest is particularly reliable because people do not normally make damaging admissions unless true.
The Catholic Church's admission on the Sabbath:
The Catholic Church does not claim Scripture abolished the Sabbath. Instead, it claims Church authority changed the Sabbath to Sunday:
Cardinal James Gibbons, Faith of Our Fathers:
"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."
The Convert's Catechism:
"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."
The significance: The party that made the change admits: (1) Scripture does not authorise Sunday observance, (2) Scripture enforces Saturday (Sabbath) observance, (3) The change was made by Church authority, not by Christ.
If the cross had abolished the Sabbath, the Catholic Church would cite that. Instead, they claim Church authority — an implicit admission that Scripture does not support abolition.
Finding Under the Admission Against Interest Principle
The Catholic Church's own admissions establish that Scripture does not teach Sabbath abolition at the cross.
The Evidence Weighed
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Re H (Minors) [1996]:
The balance of probability standard — is it more likely than not?
| Issue | Position A's Evidence | Position B's Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Colossians 2:14-17 | Claims entire law nailed to cross | Cheirographon = debt certificate; context = ceremonial |
| Ephesians 2:15 | Claims moral law abolished | Context = Jew/Gentile barrier (ceremonial) |
| Hebrews 7:12 | Claims entire law changed | Context = law of priesthood specifically |
| Hebrews 8:13 | Claims entire covenant abolished | Law continues — written on heart (8:10) |
| Galatians 3:24-25 | Claims law abolished | Context = justification; Paul upholds law (5:14) |
| Romans 7:4-6 | Claims dead to law | Paul: law is holy, just, good (7:12) |
| 2 Corinthians 3:7-11 | Claims law done away | Ministration changed; law written on heart (3:3) |
Finding on Standard of Proof
Position B's contextual interpretation is more probable than Position A's decontextualised reading.
The Clear Statement Test
The Applicable Legal Principle
UK — Morgan Grenfell [2002] — Clear Statement Rule:
Fundamental changes require clear statement.
US — Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452:
"The requirement of clear statement assures that the legislature has in fact faced, and intended to bring into issue, the critical matters involved."
| For Ceremonial Law Ending | For Moral Law Ending |
|---|---|
| "It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins" (Heb 10:4) | None |
| "He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second" (Heb 10:9) | None |
| "The priesthood being changed" (Heb 7:12) | None |
| "Which are a shadow of things to come" (Col 2:17) | None |
Meanwhile, clear statements affirm the moral law's continuance: "We establish the law" (Romans 3:31), "The law is holy" (Romans 7:12), "Judged by the law" (James 2:12), "Sin is transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4).
Finding Under the Clear Statement Rule
Clear statements establish the ceremonial law's termination. Clear statements establish the moral law's continuance. No clear statement establishes the moral law's termination.
The Burden of Proof Revisited
Position A bore the burden of proving: (1) The cross abolished the moral law (Ten Commandments), (2) The Sabbath commandment specifically was terminated.
What has Position A produced? Texts about: the certificate of debt (not the moral law), the Jew/Gentile barrier (ceremonial regulations), the priesthood change (not the Decalogue), the covenant arrangement (not the law itself), justification (not the law's existence).
None of these texts clearly state the moral law was abolished.
Finding
Position A has not discharged its burden of proof. The presumption of continuity stands.
Conclusion and Verdict
Summary of Findings
| Text | What It Addresses | Finding |
|---|---|---|
| Colossians 2:14-17 | Debt certificate; ceremonial sabbaths | Ceremonial system ended; moral law not addressed |
| Ephesians 2:14-15 | Jew/Gentile barrier | Ceremonial dividing ordinances ended |
| Hebrews 7:12 | Law of priesthood | Levitical priesthood law changed |
| Hebrews 8:10, 13 | Covenant arrangement | Old arrangement ends; law written on heart |
| Galatians 3:19, 24-25 | Justification | Law cannot justify; law itself continues |
| Romans 7:1-6 | Condemnation | Dead to condemnation; law is holy |
| 2 Corinthians 3:7-11 | Ministration | Old administration ends; law relocated to heart |
The Verdict
The weight of evidence — examined contextually, under established legal principles — establishes:
- The ceremonial law was abolished at the cross. The sacrificial system, Levitical priesthood, tabernacle services, and ceremonial observances (including ceremonial sabbaths) were shadows that pointed to Christ. When Christ came, the shadows were fulfilled and ended.
- The moral law was not abolished at the cross. The Ten Commandments reflect God's eternal character. They are explicitly affirmed as continuing after the cross by Christ (Matthew 5:17-19), Paul (Romans 3:31; 7:12; 13:8-10), James (2:10-12), and John (1 John 3:4; 5:3).
- The weekly Sabbath, as part of the moral law and based on creation, continues. It is not a shadow pointing to Christ but a memorial pointing to creation. It is not in the same category as ceremonial sabbaths tied to the feast system.
Position A's error is one of conflation — treating "the law" as an undifferentiated whole and applying texts about the ceremonial law's end to the moral law. This error produces the absurd result that murder, adultery, and theft would no longer be sins — a result no one actually believes.
Key Texts Reference
| Topic | Text |
|---|---|
| Debt certificate nailed | Colossians 2:14 |
| Shadows fulfilled | Colossians 2:17; Hebrews 10:1 |
| Priesthood changed | Hebrews 7:12 |
| Law on heart | Hebrews 8:10; Jeremiah 31:33 |
| Law established | Romans 3:31 |
| Law holy | Romans 7:12 |
| Law defines sin | Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4 |
| Judged by law | James 2:12 |
| Love = keeping commandments | 1 John 5:3 |
Greek Terms Reference
| Greek | Transliteration | Pronunciation | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| χειρόγραφον | cheirographon | "khy-ROG-rah-fon" | handwritten certificate of debt |
| δόγμα | dogma | "DOG-mah" | decree, ordinance, regulation |
| σκιά | skia | "SKEE-ah" | shadow |
| διακονία | diakonia | "dee-ah-koh-NEE-ah" | ministry, service, administration |
| ἔθος | ethos | "ETH-os" | custom, practice |
| ἅγιος | hagios | "HAH-gee-os" | holy, sacred |
Legal Authorities Cited
United Kingdom
| Authority | Citation | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Woolmington v DPP | [1935] AC 462 | Burden of Proof |
| 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 |
| Pepper v Hart | [1993] AC 593 | Contextual Interpretation |
| Luke v IRC | [1963] AC 557 | Presumption Against Absurdity |
| Morgan Grenfell v Special Commissioner | [2002] UKHL 21 | Clear Statement Rule |
| Re H (Minors) | [1996] AC 563 | Standard of Proof |
| Bennion on Statutory Interpretation | — | Presumption Against Implied Repeal |
United States
| Authority | Citation | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 301 | — | Burden of Proof |
| Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 804(b)(3) | — | Statement Against Interest |
| Russello v. United States | 464 U.S. 16 (1983) | Distinguishing Provisions |
| Gustafson v. Alloyd Co. | 513 U.S. 561 (1995) | Noscitur a Sociis |
| King v. Burwell | 576 U.S. 473 (2015) | Contextual Interpretation |
| FDA v. Brown & Williamson | 529 U.S. 120 (2000) | Structural Interpretation |
| Morton v. Mancari | 417 U.S. 535 (1974) | Presumption Against Implied Repeal |
| Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors | 458 U.S. 564 (1982) | Presumption Against Absurdity |
| Gregory v. Ashcroft | 501 U.S. 452 (1991) | Clear Statement Rule |
| Corning Glass Works v. Brennan | 417 U.S. 188 (1974) | Technical Terms |
"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." — Romans 3:31